HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-30 ORDINANCE 8 OF 164 March 7, 1984
The following changes are noted for the March 1984 revised EIR
for the Highway 32 public road approaches compared with the
October 1983 draft MR.
Page k, Paragraph 3
Page 10, Paragraph 2 and 5
Page 13, Last Paragraph
Page 14, Mitigations 1, 3� 4
Page 15, top
Wage 21, Paragraphs '2-4
Page 22, Paragraphs 1-4
Page 23, bottom
Page 24
Page 26, Paragraph 3
Page 27
Page 28, Last Paragraph
Page 290 Paragraph 4
Page 30, Paragraphs 2, 7
Page 31, Paragraph 3 Mitigations 1-6
Page 38, X, item 2
Page 40, Paragraphs 2, 3; Mitigations 1-3
Page 41, 41.a
Page 42 Item 1.1 1.3
Page 45, SCH Numbers, Poothll Strategy for California
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
i.
SUMMARY
1
Ii.
INTRODUCTION
3
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
IV.
STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
5
V.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT'S TECHNICAL,
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS,
5
VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
6
VII.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
13
VIII.
EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
36
IX.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMLNTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN BE
MITIGATED IF T118 PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED
31
X,
SIGNIIPICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS �iAICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
38
XI.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
58
XII.
SHORT-TERM VS. LONG-TERM RESOURCE IMPACTS
38
XIII.
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS'
39
XIVo
CUMULATIVE IMPARTS
40,
XV.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
41
XVI.
REFERENCES
45
XVII.
APPENDICES
46
A. Initial: Eavi.ronmental 'Study
B. iotannical Survey Report
C. Archaeolopical Survey Repovt
D. Rude County Land Use CategotiL.8 and 3o►yds
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS - (Continued)
E. CALTRANS Correspondence and Schematics
F. Traffic Analysis Computations
C. Referenced Cumulative Impacts Studies
H. Report of the Cohasset/Forest Ranch Planning Arca
Committee
x. Levels of Service Definitions
J. Correspondence Received on DEIIt
K. Summary of Comments Received on DEIR and Responses
A
;GIST OF FIGURES
Fi ure
page
1
Location Map
2
2
Project Site
5a
3
Land Use Categories and Zones
98
4
Cumulative Traffic Impacts/SR 32 Toward
41a
Chico (peak Hourly Volume)
5►
OriginalStudyAreasA:pprovedbyCaltrans
Appendix E
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
1981, Traffic Volumes
l0a
2
Composite Emission Factors
18
3
Mobile Source EmisslOns for 1982
19
4
Mobile Source Emissions for 1995
19
5
Distribution of Project Traffic
27
6
Cumulative Traffic Volumes by Area/Project
on 41
Route 32 Corridor
r
0
0
This report addresdca potential impacts to the State Highway
32 corridor and an estimated 1,5+3 acres of land (Project Study
Area) that may occur if the "state and County approve doled public
road approaches to Highway 32. The proposed project 10 located
approximately 10 miles notheast of Chico.
Those impacts found not significant include: subsidence,
volcanism and soil hazards i.n tlxe highway corridor and Study
Area, and rockslides in the highway corridor; flooding and
pollution of surface water from urban runoff in the highway
corridor; degradation of air quality in the highway corridor,
Study Area and county; an increase in traffic hazards and
congestion in the highway corridor; noise intrusion in the Study
Area; provision of utilities in the highway corridor And Study
Area; excessive energy consumption on or off the project site;
disturbance of archaeological resources in the highway corridor.
The following potential adverse impacts, which would
primarily occur in the study Area, could be reduced to a level.
of insignificance if mitdgatign measures are implemented:
exposure to seismic hazards, removal of native vegetation,
removal or destruction of rare/endangered plants, soil erosion.
rockfalls slid landslides, exposure to flood hazards, reduction of
water quality in Litte Chico Creek, noise intrusion on lands
adjacent to Highway 32, overcrowding in Chico area schools,
disturbance of cultural resources, deterioration of unimproved
roads, storm drainage, induced alt -ration of planned land uses
and Highway 32 improvement costs.
Significant environmental iupac. s which cannot be avoided if
the project is implemented are confined to natural fire hazards
to residents and property, (although partially mi.tigable, impact.
remains serious), and an increase in demand for police
protection. Significant cumulative traffic impacts are likely to
occur in the future whether or not this project is approved,.
Project alternatives described in the report include No
Project, Reduced overall Density, Increased Overall "Density and
Elim.anati`on of One Road Connection (combined with one of .'he
other alternat3.ves);4
Although this Elia. is not intended as a Master Silt for all
future development in the Study Area, the document may suffice
for some projects, aizd require only supplemental information and
analysis for rather developments
FIGURE I ,REGIONAL LOCATION
f.�
II . INTRODUCTION
Urban and suburban growth often produce environmental
changes, which to some extent, can be anticipated and analyzed
before they occur. The California Environmental Quality Act
(Crss
QA) of 1970 established the Environmental Impact Deport
(EIR) procedures for such analysis -
s. environmentalThrough conse quettceseof
mandated by this legislation,
land use decisions by g The ,imental resultsaof this analysis arencies can be ks refined
the decision is made. ublic hearings and are made
through comments, responses end p the clfi�cision as
available to persons potentially affected by
well as to the decision -makers themselvesr
This document is structured as a "focyised" Eliz, written as a
It part of the above-described prue�, s nnrvt�r,ast�of reviews
the potential
diby
traffic impacts on State Ri.g y
existing residential developiaent and c;, ntinued coitver5ion of
undeveloped foothill land into rulB al homesi4es, Although :Impacts
to a broader "Study Area". en. ompatrri :ig over 1,500 acres are also
analyzed, no specific indigadlial project has been singled out
within the Study Area; all potallti.., projects within this area
are treated as a generic base.
Highway 32 east of Chico is a "declared freeway" with con-
endix E,
trolled access from adjacent properties (refer to App
letter from Caltrans to butte County ptiblic Corks Director, dated
Ocrober �6, 1979), As early as 1978 Caltrans expressed concern
r- olio owing continued development on
with Butte County s p Y of allincreasing the traffic load on
properties served by laighway 2:
Caltrans for limited use as primo
te
access roads approved by
drives, (changing them to de facto public road connections).
Caltrans advised preparation of a environmental. documetlt" that
would address stated concerns (see Appendix 'C, Letter from
Caltrans to Butte County ?ublic CJo1k8 Department, dated December'
28, 1978)i
Rt, Trombatore again emphasized that the
More recently,
Pub
County must treat these roads aE R asi �' art of the application
highway, and must prepare an p
process for approval- (Refer to Appendix 'BVI for the original
the Study Area alio for correspondence from Calt>`ans and
mop of this Matter.)
other patties addressing
The current pro jdct Which proposes to approve fwith rom two to
in this
three road connections at chit meatsurs, as32 wellasya.laernati`ves
report: Appropriate mi g
to the proposed roadaOate
t
ursuein� submitteds are s
ble
order to duce Or eliminate
caursd n to p state approval for publics of actin
adverse impacts and obtain necessary
road approaches to highway 32.
The California. Department of Transportation and
Butte County Planning Department have expressed cowAve nl; about
private road connections to Highway 32 in this vicilll,ty, related
to the following issues:
Disturbance of archaeological and historical sites
Destruction of rate plants
An increase in traffic hazards on Highway 12
Growth inducement
Soil erosion
impairment of scenic viewsheds
Short-term: benefits vs. adverse effects on publicly
adopted long-term environmental. ,goals
Air quality
Cumulative impacts
See Appendix 'Wl for the Initial 'Study prepared by the County
Planning Department for this EER.
III. pRonCT DHSCILIPTIOe
The protect consists of three proposed public road,
connections to State Highway" 32 that would - :vide access to
several residential parcels in a sparsely populated area
northeast of Chico. (See Tigure 2). The roads would join. Highway
32 on the, easterly side of the highway only. The three roads are
now classified by the county as private uni.mptoved roads.
Altatina Drive and Ten Mile House road provide access to interior
residential d..vel,opment within the stud,, area, while the
intervening accesshastana t)rive) primarily serves frontage
the hi
property along highway. The area directly impacted by the
construction of three road connections amount's to less than one
acre at the site of each connection, depending upon the extent of
improvements required, Each access would be designed and
constructed to meet the codes and road improvement standard:;
administered by the California Department of Transportation (self
Appendix "E").
*Refer to Chapter VII, "Highway Corridor - Traffic liatards,"
for a full. description of Highway 52 in the vicinity of the
project 61te
4
0
IV. STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Butte County proposes to apply for three public road
approaches that would connect: Altatina Drive, La Cnstana Drive
and Ten Mile House Road to State highway 32. 'these road
connections would provide access to existing and future
residential development in a foothill area east of Highway 32.
In order to accomplish these objectives, property owners will
cede a linear strip of right-of-way to the County, approximately
one foot in width, parallel and adjacent to the state highway,
forming a 'nexus between each private road and. Highway 32. No
other roads curretitly exist in this area that would provide
reasonable access to the state highway from residential proper-
ties located within the larger project boundaries~ (see Figure
2) .
V. GENnn DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT'S TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project would require road widening --grading,
paving, construction of traffic barriers,separators and marking--
as well as drainage improvements to areas extending 500 feet
north and south of each road connection, and from 100 to 200 feet
east of the centerline of the existing highway. Refer to Appen-
dix ,E" for a description of standard design specifications
required by Caltrans for public road connections_
Pending final review by Caltrans, project traffic after full
buildout would not appear to warrant the construction of left
turn pockets, or extensive acceleration and deceleration lanes
for any of the three road connections. However, other standard
highway improvements normally required for public road approaches
must be accomplisher] before project approval is granted by
Caltrans. Costs for these improvements may range as high as
$40,000 to $50,000, depending ,ton the type of improvements
required: 'Typical site considerations would include slope
gradient, subsurface structural, characteristics, embankment
construction, grading, amount of fill required and Lbe magnitude
of drainage improvements required, (Refer to Appendix E
for a schematic representation of typical road approach
improvements required by Caltranso)
Direct
a result of project of
impacts
lto the environment that will occur as
p implementation include vegetation, removal.,
modif cation of topography, alteration of drainage 'Iattterns, an
increase in Storm runoff and a potential increase in traffic
generation.
5
�n
,/'> i r �' ; •. f.• , ti.i l � > !: ! ,: h rrYl\ •� ' ,t `: •Y / rr, r t 1.; • Y `' t J.:f• • , i j 1 ,l +>
E.'• 'ail\�' 1 .,'•!,i`
i tt ,3>, `1♦4\Y.:t r '.,! • 4) ` r.. � ',' 't,•�yt c r, ^,�'1+• % n a ,
"� _..►^'� t I i ,' � A !, � ,� !, �t �!. ,Y �w 2;.ii +.i , tl: i lr 1111 � 1' V + / /! r� „' / i.> .1`..y.. ,rwa• s..»...:. y�� _.�, _ p..> L r rl +.>
;r'ef • _� • — '\ . t Y'i;i -Y l/rr , •,! i !' ''1C �'j lN' `'�y Id +r ' 1��. �.� "'� "_""T .� <a\ s"".°' ,1' 1r,1 f�'!+'
t
> 1,' •► I E f r � ' / + '/ , l + �. `i \ \ � < ' t , :I I ll � '1 11 tt, '�+ r;r
j� :l +a i.;,;� ! '` \ % : �� Y � 1 I% • � Aa�� %%,+ 9 'i�,, ,II r � I !�i !+ �\� tia;.�•c +'`t���`': ..•� .:_,J a�•�. ,d
J�(1..\\ i �-\�i' ,�,,�'��t\fti}> >,��`•y .i 1, 72)bX ,! / !'r
4 1 +'✓'i i�' �1!j`` aj I� t, 1r,. �^' ',.\ ji�'t '� tILl rl 1 i`:t^/1 ;• ). JJ �. /'" i� \,`•' y 't.J1
! r •I e / 8/:><r tll +r' •+ .•'/. % :I �1 �` ,� :\, t1 \i';; \�ilj1
a �Tt �. �: a. yFay.s\., 3'�!!! `t 1� J +>�''?.•' j>�� r r' l sss�i Jf i`
l
S JJ
fi '' S� ->�"rrr `�f'•�. 1'. � � ��19 rrl rl � � I � e+'I I' % d
•' j .r�.1 ! ��` :r�• i1, �. 1 t(l�� / /N�. ! 1�{..�. r5 -ir \• 'lRa [�'�<.y1/i1I11 1"s<°F. I,I /• 'f> ..Ici. `'i Y I::Ti,,,,�,,,.,,,*.,:_ � _`-.'.}•7— W>•' 't".•
f . / � \ i I >� !,`, ! r :� � \ v,> � °i, ., ,., 1. � « J � r• �>•
I �.J ! •�r, e J ` l� t. j r�� l G3 j l{ ;i>rl� � ''"' f� «—�r� }`'�r. J/ ter'•',/ % /Ili '' (+ 1�/ « a QJ p � ": �.',;.' S . �; j �k r
• ' y? �' 1. : w," j'Y i�1 .:1':� ��;'�' '�.l ��` �r , K.t9 i�1`1 �. •. ���-'J ) I., f y �,4i,,, ,j �+�a, + !/ � •�..••'^'% � . / � J ir,) (''�:r �' / i>t!.. iJ
�: ? OL\- �. �+,....,� r>�.Y/'',�+'j ;r �L • L'i�r .� �� r�l 'i:"+x :, �/ / ! .1 t d 1. ,t_ 111 , , _ 1 . 1 , � 1r tf,,• `J. .,� Y J q, 't.
•
r
�.✓
»- w o r S i !� � >• I r� lr (J �. ir' Y ! i N�` r ! }� r' , If.' a f % J
f ` 1
I'� a >!�l" •';.'yj, /'' ,.++.J+d'll. r:,• ''t ',t'��'r%I.:,? 1 J)lrl) /!i M.� :1 i3 I '`)" ! :j f
:iw..._
/.i+� I !.'• ..�.-.
�'.>.i. t' —� ,.. +Ya ' (.) 'r ,.%•-.,_.. '• ?.. ' w-+•,:"r",� ��,1 rx/877.. 1 ' r� � ./' + �!• ,•w>��!t
-.- � ""I" - Y .� I I 7 'Y. 4 tt); f II�T;,i , � / J+,c • `, \ , `' �,-r > iia\, •i I ( ''', ( /^7•w + J% .� 1 f � f`> t., / /f )f e:' j/. ,J "r'
1r 1. .I 'i.l.�! 1 r''r'• /! 31 if S,y�. '"�/ �/ f. h, �'.. 1 t. .;.":>.. tl11. j` /+ I rS,'•�.. i.Yl �, '.: �I >r✓/�.�". �! .... w� � fY!'>i'
r is a r J •+t��rJl. �'tl �+� \�\+) Y r/ a '+.� ,tl �'t -!YI l� ! •»+ /."���/,}f'`' X11,' ! i �' ,`
t70 !i , '�J.� l/•''� I� '~` �'�'a f>.. t •" �' 1 i� rt >r'. / �! / ��1F.
j
I x' f (.•Y ;" r{'a,: �\x � \ ti� +7 \r�' �ti:, 1 ( �'/r ,,��+ �. Y , q;�
�IF
1 \. ` y1 ll/ w+�/r'1%I'+w r, >r '
+i CJ ''�I �'i �, !'�i ", a.av:la'*1 ..: '"''i� It r a :� > ,! i �,lY: �l i ` :r� i 'rI j 1 ,t'!s'• ! 11., '� It
' t 1 i 1 r l �, . fir., 4} -d #3 }1 • 4J. i`k !l Oaa\ I i !` i i l ,i . t�'' /Yj:
:r ito
IN i!1!
I '4,r / l+, f t / r 1, \ •J \ / f 3 '.Y. P" i �' I y f
.` •�./` .� 1�� l 11 \ / ` . •.I j� % .: + a r r t3lr ��.1 �' � • /' � 4 ! ��+r. i � ./d. r•
ttN Y ,a' ! . > \ � r /; .c / , , J t . » 3 �! i.\ � `> i „� j 3 , `v• ,y ,(��, ,+',•f Z ,g
+ ,
i J
r:..YYM 1 iE• •,/. + f i , i re, +1 , i'rr1 !'I����.� il�`..• iI'f,/�'! 4 i.. i.
\.fit l t ! !' r r Y `' _: a_ yam• „;+ .rt
' � i . '> �'Hn r ((�, �%�. / �" :^ I � ' .:a` ._ti.�'.�. �r •'•-- , ... i-� !•+' �\.� `C1''� :, ° ! : � f � l !.y d\
l aaYJ • I :a. .... � L ... ..>.,... �. '7r ;,�, T /� .�,C JY / 1 ; ; l � ' ,�i I j/ is !
..q t� . , • 1 ,: z Y !t r ' ' f' #. �,.<�,�4 •'�� �'•i \�l `
�,u+ �i ; yr ,il,5j .1�`•Yt. (` ` 1 ;�t STUDY AREA #z 31 )°.w �:, ,i.%�•.+"t/f ate-;,
+> +.. I ! « t: i l 1��•'r"ii/, ,� T � ! / ff• � ! j i 1k , � jl � � d� � /J Y/ � � Jti 1, i � r
r
' ,, ' + . �+ I F is I ,Y��/!: II C "1 "�7 I Y ' I f �'r • I'tLu ) E ' . \ ' i°r >I r ` .
> It
Y J �. .� ..fie; p , r, Y ( Yr+'' A� ,S':. •t � ..' `•oor
''t� a l �a''� + >r• �t' �:_
r
t , I >r ,'dy Y , "!J /r''Y /y! '11 //••�/,p . S 1�j t 1•! t, /YI /� I���i ( ' I'' d ) y>� -, 'I �
I; .•ai W>ra r
_ a �' +1/,r' �yy11 .tw .r., 'r' , Y,� rly',:ryS 3 •r i Iv.,�rybj:./ i.rY. Ott. i« .rY.>. )�.>: e,�:� ,:r f 3r.�' �>�,,� "r, �,a `T '32.�•r'l'
\,/ • /I• f•,=..�„1� "yI... it ";l �Yo j' I I�b /M Y'�'' 11 'ei' .?. f. .Y_......w. /.`w�+'.y111ll11 �,-..�JY t,,t>.'� . _ ffd. �' +r:+
J''� 1 �•Y ! ,f >,./> �'Il;l � Iv,. 1 i ;a /rt t">',l c1.3Y' *,�,.J> ljl C,t I i, lil. 1r
�'^ ,_,r1' r �t i K r+ ��.� IrSt(!L ` Y , r*" . r' /' p' bt 1 -, 'r.II"� • ` r
ssS >• r
1 i / -e �� •r 't / . � �!!93 Jt Y r'r t r Y • I�.
, ' `�y P 3 ��<� ii. ` �` e"♦' ` pi I ` ai r • • j' ,"t,+ ,rb /' tJY , + » i a,r•• . r r t+. ht •; ',.
" ' �y�'"�
Yom,./ �. f. � ,� ••>? ' a',,. 1; l 1 •\ S:.>;,." d ` Yt,,��3 �: • '> ...
�r�s 4� a>;>, • '\, w ,' %i y�1•�/' `Y� 4 3 I � I � t 'It�l 11 t'"> . / � �!' '' " ` ''
/ >� 3 / Y n 3 uty. 1 _� ,' !% >I ! t t,�`S,``• \\ I ..�✓ / 3.,pv, . % (� 3 I I "\ ! r' TGUR , �� l - ��a• `'.
\'. t• �<e�ti/(il •� i�, I '1t/7.16 a /•/. . r
t
�.y ``% j �. "► i+ ,\Y, H '` � � 0�•/ I I ,f t, i VkojECT ROADS t�
l�
``"1 #1 Ten Mild �OlU5@ c �
..
.� _r'�.- �',�:.. s. ', t._ /�>,'t1, I�� 4a �..• #2 Lid CasLana Dic�ve�
Y a >.
>
r
Iv
`'• � � #3 I Atatiha Dtive
Feu 1 + 3 F r� '`� •�
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL SENTING
A. LOCATION
The general project site, identifier in ,Figure 2 as Study
Area #2, is located approximately 10 10,1es northeast of State
Highway 99 and east of State Highway 32 in the Forest Ranch area.
The ,proposed public road approaches, Ten Mile House. Road, La
Castana Drive and Aitatina 'Drive, connect to Highway 32 an esti-
mated 9.0, 95 and 1.0;0 miles northeast of highway 99,
respectively. The project boundaries occupy portions of $sctions
25, 30, 31, 35 and 36, Township 23 North, flange 2 East on a
U.S.G'.S. topographic map, and encompasses approximately 1.,543
acres.
B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The topography in the project study area is characterized
by gentle to steep rolling terrain. Slopes range From less than
10% on ridge tops to 60% or more toward Little Chico Creek.
Elevations range from 1,000 feet to 118QO feet A.S.L.
Volcanic mudflows and associated volcanic sands and
conglomerates, identified as the Tuscan Pormatton, and younger
basaltic volcanic rock unet clay most of the project site. The
sedimentary Chico Formation and ancient crystalline rocks of the
Sierra Nevada. underlay the Tuscan Formation.
The Tuscan formation averages 700 feet in thickness over the
site. The less permeable mudflows bre layered alternately with
the more permeable sandstones and c:otigl.ohlerates, with the mud"
flows predominatA ng th.e
g upper part of the formation. Since
Water travels its the more permeable layers, trees and shrubs
occur in bands along the canyon walls corresponding to the sand
and conglomerate layers of the Tuscan Formation.
The sur:faaO is characterized as rough, '`"liken and stony
land. Soils belong to the Toilles-Pcnt-t cssociation (Soil
Conservation Service Class VII). Surface soil averages 1 i cs
feet in depth, and is composed of loam and clay loamy. Subsoil
averages from 1 to 5 fer t in depth, and consists of clay, clay
loam interspersed with large numbers of rock fragments.
The Sutte County Safety Element rates the Toomes-Pentz soils
as having "lows' expansive potential) "moderate" to `high" erosion
hazard and a moderate landslide risk in the Little Chico Creek
canyon area where slopes exceed 40%. Dthinage for these soils is
classified as low to moderate.
The California Division of clines and Geology places sill. of
Butte County in a "low" earthquake severity gone, Several fault
graces, all of unknown activity are located within 10 miles, of
the project site.. garthquake intensities Would likely range from
a
vi to Vil:l: on the Modified Mercalli Scale. Intensity VTxI may
cause moderate damage to poorly built structures, structures
built to standard seismic safety codes would suffer little or no
damage from lateral. forces.
C. 'HYDROLOGY
The only surface water on the site is formed by Little Chico
Creek, a permanent stream which flows southerly through the
eastern portion of the project site, approximately one mile east
of Highway 32 (see Figure 2). Natural drainage channelo which
carry winter and spring storm runoff are found throughout the
project area.
The volcanic layers of the Tuscan Formation have a variable
water content, since permeable and impermeable materials with
varying clay content, grain size and pore size, are inter -
layered, Groundwater is found at depths ranging from 80 to 800
feet below the well -head. The quality of the water from the
'.'usean Formation is generally excellent. This formation north
and east of Chico serves as a groundwater recharge for wells in
the Chico rjrea.
D. CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
A modified Mediterranean type of climate characterizes
weather patterns in the project area, resulting in hot dry
summers and cool we, winters. Temperatures ranging from average
lows of 30-35 defrees F to summer highs averaging 90+ degrees F
are common in tl lower foothills. precipitation averages 40-50
inches annually, though the recent 1982-83 winter has produced in
excess of 70 inches.
Variations in the site's canyon and ridge top terrain would
be expected to modify local wind speeds and directions,
precipitation and temperature levels. Midge tops would
experience. different microclimate conditions from the valley and
canyon bottoms due to differing degrees of exposure to wind,
solar heating, moisture retention, and related t actors
The existing air quality at the proposed road connections
and project study area is generally good. The site is located in
the Sacramento Valley Air Basin which has been designated as a
nonyartainment area by the M and California Air Resources
Boatel, occasionally exceeding maximum levels for ozone and carbon
monoxide (00).
The site general.lY lies above the elevation (600 to 1,000
feet) where cot,,"bustion-generated pol.lUtAfits are seasonally
trapped by the valley's temperature inversion. `This condition is
commonly present from September through . anuary, confining all
7
0
C
0
LM
valley --generated emissions to the valley floor. Summer months
periodically bring greater air stability and similar pollution.
confinement in tate valley.
The nearest air quality monitoring station is located in
Chico. Records from the station show a steady decrease in levels
Of CO, an overall decrease with short-term fluctuations of ozone
and particulates and a decrease in steady levels of hydrocarbons.
Motor vehicles are the maJor source of emisct [ on of CO,
hydrocarbons and precursors to ozone, while o en t1 g
ricultural
burning is another significant source of these pollutants.
Agricultural tilling is the main source of suspended l:) as
pnrticuaates
that exceed standards during summer months. No rtlr goa
problems in the valley or foothills , related spew I"ir qua to
traffic on Highway 32, have been reported. Air quai,ity at the
site is expected to be markedly betLar than that rdcorded at the
Chico monitoring station due to better air circulation and a
larger volume of air available'or mixin ;
s has been
demonstrated by the relatively lower recordingsfrormi
:tthe Paradise
ozone monitoring station at about 1:,600 .feet elevation.
E. HABITA,T AND WILDLIFE
The habitat throughout the project
chaparral,area is basically
interspersed with some elements of foothill woodlandand occasional bands of riparian habitat located along the banks
Of ephemeral streams and Little Chico Creek.
Predominant plant species representing the chaparral habitat
include: live oak, digger pine,manzanita, coffee berry,
California Day, pitcher sage) buckbrush
. of he ) poison oak,.. silk -tassel
bush, climbing vinesdstraw and chaparral honeysuckle..
Open patches of grass and fdrb vegetation occasionally occur
in areas where soils etre very shallow; high moisture content in
the soil may create a verria,t,r,habitat. Common species in this
habit are sandwort, ttooi at s plantain, popcorn .flower, monkey
flower, goldfields) heronbill and several grass species of fescue
and brotne.
It Disturhad soils near 'the site road cottnentions support a
weedy" type: of vegetation that include Spanish broom, verba
santa, vetch, curly dock, foXtail barley and other weedy grasses
and seedlings belonging to the chaparral habitat,
Two rare and endangered species may occur in this area: thet
Red Bluff Rush (.iuncus ].eiospermus) and Butte County _Checker
Mallow lSidalcea robu8ta). Other species considered Count rare but not
endangered f-ound in this habitat and location include Astragalus
kq-u eroulus,) Calycadeniq o ositifol a, M mulus giauces— tens,
pot gonum ------ lliae and Plagiobotltrys sc ;s. _
, ....��-
Habitat on titre protect Bite provide ,food and cover for a
number of animal species, including resident and migratory deer,
skunk, rabbit, fox bat opossum, squirrel, mice and other
rodents. A portion of the site is within the Gast Tehama Deer
Herd winter rangy according to wildlife maps used by tilt, Butte.
County Planning Department. Many species of birds inhabit the
site, including quail, red tail, hawks, meadowlarks, thruohes,
sparrow, jay`3, woodpeckers and mourning doves. No rare or
endangered animal species are known to inhabit or depend on the
project site.
F. LAND USE, GENERAL PLAN AND,zoNI;NG
The project site, including the entire study area, encompas-
ses approximately 1,543 acres of mostly open land. "Land use in
the immediate v3einty of the proposed road connections (radius
of 1/4 mile from each connection) primarily consists of open
acreage, with fewer than 10 residences sparsely located
throughout this area along the Highway 32 corridor. Another 7 to
8 residences occupy the remaining parcels in the study area.
Large reception towers owned by State Television Cable, Inc., are
located approximately 1,000 feet east of the main highway in the
far northwest portion of the site.
An estimated IsI45 acres of the project site are designated
Grazing and Open Ladd (00L) in the County General Land Use Plan,
requiring a minimum of 40 acres per parcel. Approximately
acres are zoned A-2, with the remaining 880 acrezoned TM -40.
398 acres of the project study area are designated Agricultural
requires a minimum of one acre per
parcel; all of tial A this acreage is currently zoned A-2.
Approximately 45 parcels are now present on the
proj
site; 15 parcels designated COI, range from 40 to 160 acresect in
size, with the predominant size ranging from 80 to 1.20 acres. An
estimated 30 parcels are classified A -R, and range in size from 4
to 42 acres; the predominant
acres. (See Figure 3). parcel size ranges from 10 to 30
Two known parcel maps of land classified A -R, 42+ acres and
33 + acres in size, ate currently being processed by the county;
these projects would result in a net gain of .four parcels.
Although several, hundred acres of Land designated. GOL have
been placed in agricultural preserves under Williamson Act
contracts, owners of more than 75% of this 1611d have submitted,
non --renewal; contracts.
Surrounding lands primarily exist as open rugged terrain
With limited access although several, developments have been
proposed for the general foothill area north and east of Chico; ,
for further discussion of this topic refer to ttte section on
Cumulative Impacts.
__ 9
b•�f •Y. s .. a .'. e. ,f ins a ' Y i .e.' ,Tr-+_' Y �• r` g
1 +1
•4 . °'eal° "c� 1 , ,,�3'St rvJi'`- - tor�t(
Ic
76f. 74
`' � `r � a. O,? A6
f
i
A' 44 .. 4.rJ «7 i� �4 Y� � t�� +7p'� '` � ✓ !
_ I i_ Pi �l.. t.' • y,f it
rIGURE 3I�r� f i1Y�^i •i 1 tiJ �} J�`: St + .'f r
LAND USE CATEOORIESAND ZONES 149
i' �I 9,ir.:.rr,.,, rt • "0
"o,
r I
'
Y � r "'1!r ,.�.i{rt. {kik;, li•t: �s4° � .. I ,.
i. is 7' " �li L.��t i��t[�•t ,�'Ij'�,j Si .lit f•e�` � is � '' -' 'i°••,,,,ai
v 7 Y L •f1�[ .. � n 1
I�f\!
F t r+y Citi 40A
i.
-u
•� h .,M�' a. ! i r. � FSI. i t�iil �"` . I t
r
•�.`f�f�f .{.it �. ' aia._I Y 1� �tr ' �Y' T�I��.YSL.
`
1
, f 1
1
"
� � y, t.1 lj ♦ �ry� d° w1L e�N �.�
�� -5 it r� ,., ',�1 - •.Ili°.s,. �1 t.{. t. , ..,1 r _.. ..-.. .. ...
G. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
State 'Highway 32 is the primary transportation corridor that
provides access between Chico and northeastern foothill
communities. The two-lane highway is maintained in, excellent
condition, permitting vehicles to travel at highway speed (45+
in.p.h) for most of the distance between Chico and Foi,,,eot Ranch.
Transportation planners typically considar traffic
conditions to be satisfactory on roads with levels of service
(LOS) "B" or "C' (See Appendix I for definitions of :Levels of
service.) According to recent correspondence from Caltrans, the
Highway between Chico and Forest Ranch has a peak hoitr capacity
of 1,555 vehicle trips --the upper limit of LOS "E." `i.r peak hour
trips account for approximately 14% of ADT, the dAily capacity
would amount to 11,107 ADT. Estimated peak hour capne-!,ties for
LOS "B" and LOS "C" range from 466.6 to 870.9 veJ1Jt!,le trips
(2,91.6-5,443 ADT), respectively, assuming peak hour traffic
represents 16% of ADT. (See Appendix F for traffic analysis
computations.) 1981 traffic volumes recorded by CALTRANS show
2,200 AM in the vicinity of the proposed road eonnections, 3,050
ADT for the peal: month and 360 trips during the peak hour. Heavy
trucks account for 61-7J (Caltrans 1980 average) of the ADT. The
grade of the highway in -the, project area averages 2%-47..
The three private road encroachments unto the Highway in the
project area are currently from 15 to 25 feet gide. Altatina
Drive and Ten Mile House Road -provide access to ,several hundred
acres of land east of Highway 32, while La Castarw Drive
primarily serves frontage property along the hi.ghwayo (See
Figure 2 for circulation pattern-)
The section of highway between Chico and Forest, Manch is a
declared "freeway" with controlled access. Planners in the
Caltrans District 3 office have expressed cc•neexn about the
potential proliferation of now public access connections to the
highway that wnuldimpair traffic safety, and/or mala costs for
channelizati6t: at access points prohibitive. While traffic
generation from existing residences in the pro;jert study area,
utilizes very Little of the, highway's capacity 0.1 residences
generate an estimated 105 trips per day); future development in
the project area combined with traffic from otht.r developments
served by Highway 82 may pose a less trivial impact.
(Note: for further details regarding Caltrans' concerns for
Highway 32 between Chico and Vorest Rantlhi refer to
correspondence .from that agency included in Appelldi% E' of this
document.)
H. 10� i,S g
._ The primary source of noise in the area IS generated by
traffic along Highway 32i, The 1981 volume of ADT passing the
project site was 2,200 vehicles. ADT for the peak month was
F
11
0
D
Table 1
Rte 32, But Co 1981 TR,1FFIC pol U41F
Rte
33, Ker Co
Miles Peak AD
Post DescriptionHour Nour t'k Ma Annual
Pea Description Mite.
Peak
ADT
10:14' C]ricn, End Westbound
'11aur
Pk, Ma
Mnual
Couplet Approximately half
Mile W of Fir Street
8.00 Creek Road .» .,q„,,,,,..« ...
10.74 CO UP LET— End_.. Begin Two way Travel
9.04 Oak View Carderu,
IA0
19,700
19,000
10.74 Chico, Approximately IlaV
!file East of Fir Street
Santa Ane RA
«
q, «»« „ » ._ » » » .»
1A00
19,200
18,60U
5.00 4,150 3,000
10.65 Woodland goad
11.01 Chico, Forest Avenue
IA0
17,600
16,m0
2M 4;150 3,000
11.20 pjai,
West jct. Rte.150 •,,»w...,..»........»...a»»„,.,.,.q,..,»»..�......::
120
16300
16,200
11.47 Chko, El Monte Avenue , » _ » ,
(Brent in Route)
360 5,850 &
11.$1 OK Fast ]ct. Ate, J'A Route
• 1 1531 1109 Spdrgr, Humbolt RoadContinues
Via Mideopa 1lfghwAy
�,.. .,.-.-.--- .. L
1000
1!,500
11,000
mux Forest Rwxh, 360 3,050 go
119x1 E1 lloblar Road800
8,500
Robert F Lee Drive ....»..».:.»».....:»...»_.,..»
..::.:.........w«_..
-1, Milepost Egwuon
610
6,100
so!
4m 1;100 I,S00
12Ed Falrvrew Avenue „
5'400
4,600
R3693 1.omo »- ».4,., « »-- .. w w ..«
Z
5A00
4.400
140 1,200 820
Lw Padres�
National Forest Boundary _
„
3,Q>b
3
37,75 Bdue•Telumu County Line » ». , » q .»» .
3,2 1
3,000
DISTRICT 2
15.44 FlatAa Road North ..,„.q,,,.,,,_,_
910
i=
2,100
0.00 IguttcTehamzcounty Line , ...._.»»..»_
130
1,400
1¢0
140 140 8 0
I MM Dw Creek Udg
17.63 Wheeler Spnnga
100
600
700
w » . » .»
130 1,100 750
100
800
700
RUM I& Hte. 3ti,100
Morgan Springs, South,„. 150 1;100 730
30225espe Gorge
62o
600
100
620
600
R01ITE 31 11000 101 In Ventura to Route 5 Nont
6'20
Trocy
4850 Ozena Road (to Lockwood)
100
6 0
DISTRICT 7
Ventura County
STSI 9cntura•Sanu BArbua
go
620
county we
0.00 Vol tura,
Zt. Ete.101, Ventura
Olmict' 6
remy, Begin Freeway
«"",•••"•”"°'.•,••.•••"••»'""••••••••w•
0.00 Veatutsianta tilrban
4„336 4a,70o 43,800
County Linc
157 Stanley Avenue lnterclsange »_
&.ie Saul& Barbara County
i-0,00 San Latin Obispo County
4o
f
600
94050 21,ti00 40,800
jet 9te:166 West
2M Shell Rosd Interchange q.:.q::««»,»,».,.»:,«..»...«»,«.»:,,�,qr..,«..
�� Idr7epost
C!quatkal••,.«..,a.,,...«»»..,._w.«..,....»�,,.:«:.:.q,.:::,
11900 40,100 19,400
94.49 Canada urea (IrX+d lnterclunge
Luis OlrupolCern County
Line
nese
s,axr i,ro
1,9511 2000 19,900
DISTRICT D
44 Cessna Vtsii Road Ihtorch4nge ,:«,... «
ow San Lt7pa•
uis Ob` 1'te rr: County
1.9011 f4, 19,900
1�uC
'MM End freeway, Continue on Ventura Avcnur
1~o 41000 IA0
76.06 Mepost Egoition
*&m
1i S3 Marict Polio Stnte4
J& Ate. IM PA.4' .
3;400 3,100 \
3)050, Heavy trucks 4iccount for an estimated 6%-1,,/, Of the
traffic volume. The 'road gradient in the vicinity total
site ranges of the Project
from three to fj,,z�- Pl,�rcent, requiring heavy trucks
traveling downhill to deOelerate� thleteby increasing noise levels.
The Butte County Noise tlement identifies qighizay 32 as a
"high-speed" roadway. The average day/night noise levels (Ld,
ate rated as follows:
70 dB within 100 feet of the roadway;
65 dB between 100 and. 200 feet of the roadway;
60 dB or less boyond 200 feet of the roadway,,
Adopted policy Within the Noise glement states that ambient
background, noise levels should not exceed 60 " in Order to
Prevent interference with normal Jndoor activities.
Th0 tee houses currently exist within 10to 200 feet Of the
edge of the highway.
PUBLIC
...- SERVICE9
Schoolf
The Site is within the Chico Unified School Districti Chi!_
dren in the Project area Would attend Pari<Vjkjw r,,jementary
Chico
Junior High School and Chico Senior HLgh School. school,
routes of the i u niOr and senior high. schools pas The bus
Hiiyhw 8 the site along
2 AY 32 and would serve thiz project vicinity.
Police Protection
Law enforcement and police protection PtOJedt area by the Bu On- is Provided to the
Present) there is no reg tta ular County Sheriff's 1)ePs[rtmdnt. At
Patrol assigned to the area,, the
Sheriff's Patrol, cars on the East B,,It in Chico respond
'Vicinity Calls from their - it)cation at the time to sit.e
tme).-genty teSPOtba time to the project j;ite would - ot, the call,
Inintitos dependingavetagi!, 10,
on the location of the Patrol vehicle.
Ffre Protection
The site and immediate vicinity is
County Safety El classifi
ed by the Butte
ement as a High natutal fire ha-.tard area, the
site is surrounded by areas Of High tO txtrema natu
hazards. The Butte County pirt tal 'fire
California nepattme-11t Department, staffed by the
fir I staLrsonhel) serves the
Project area from Chic Of Vore8try (omp) pe
k1th
volunteer service is also available from Forest Ranch statLon No.
24 and Butte County Volunteer Fire Company No. 24. Vie cDF
station in Forest Ranch also provides additional fire protection
in the summer months.
Response time for the first engine from the Forest Ranch
stations would range from 10-15 minutes. Response time for back-
up engines from Chico would also range from 10 to 15 minutes.
J. UTILITIES
Gas and Electricity. No natural gas lines serve the project
area at present. Pacific Gas and electric Company (VG&E) d -es,
however, maintain power lines up Highway 32, which currently
serve existing parcels in the project area.
Telephone. Pacific Telephone Company provides telephone
service along Highway 32 and to residences within the project's
boundaries.
Water Supply. Water is typically provided by on-site wells
for each parcel in the project area. Water availability is
extremely variable at th_c location; depths for adequate flows
vary from 80 to 800 feet below the surface. There are no plans
for a community water system In the area.
Sewage Disposal. Sewage disposal is accomplished in the
project area by individual septic tanks and leachfields. Soil
conditions vary greately within the project area; development of
tow parcels must meet standards set by Butte County Environmental
Health Department.
K, CULTURAL RESOURCES
significant archaeologiLsal and historical sites may exist in
the project area that would be served by the public road
connections. However, no recorded historical or archaeological
sites of any significance have been recorded at the locations of
the proposed road connections. (Although wagon wheel ruts may
have existed at one, time in the vicinity of the present. road
connections, Highway 32 and connecting private roads have removed
or covered these tracks.)
Future projects within the project study area will generally
require archaeological -surveys as part of the initial
environmental review by the county Platining Oeparttnent. Areas
along tittle Chico Creek should be considered potentially more
sensitive than properties at higher elevations.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS 1HIGHWAY 32 CORRIDOR
Potential environmental impacts from: project development are
separated into two general categories: Impacts that directly
affect the Highway 32 corridor ("Highway Corridor") and "Study
Area" impacts that affect the general project site, or off-site
areas.
As previously mentioned, the County would be expected to
perform initial environmental studies on future la►lc1 divisions
and subdivisions; Mitigated Negative Declaratioft6 ,rind EIRs are
generally :required by the County for those pro jectg requiring
discretionary government action that may result in uiginificant.
adverse impacts to the environment.
A. GEOLOGY AND SOIL IMPACTS
Otologic hazards
The following potential geologic hazards, hv° e been
classified as non--existant, or if present, insignificant in
threat, by the Butte County Safety Element and related FIks
(Fourteen Mile House Rezone and Bidwell heights Land project)
completed in the area; subsidence, volcanism and expansive soil.
Landslides and Rockfalls,
Highway Corridor. Since natural or cut banks are not
present at the proposed road Connections to Highway 32,
:Landslides and rockfalls are not considered a hazard.
Study Area! Poorly designed and constructed private roads
in the project area pose landslide and rockfall hazardu to
property, persons and vehicles. Required compliance with County
standards for private road construction as a condition of
subdivision or parcel map approval would adequately mitigate this
Potential hazard:
Mitigation:_done proposed.
Erosion.
The erosion hazard of Toomes-Pentz soil, is rated "High" by
the 'Butte County Safety Element, based upon soil structure and
moderate to steep slopes in the aproject area. Although
broadra e of Precipitation has been
recorded for the area during the
Past lb years, rainfall would normally average 40 inches
annually, During peak periods of rainfall, or successive years
When rainfall exceeds the historical average by several i.nohess
the potential for soil erosion would, of course, be greatest.
15
Highway Corridor: Potential impacts from erosion at the
sites proposed for public road connections include
destabilization of roadbeds and shoulders, siltation of drainage
channels and removal of topsoil on adjoining land.
Erosion hazards to Highway 32 and associated corridor
improvements would be satisfactorily mitigated by design stand-
ards required by Caltrans for all modifications to state roads,
highways and right-of-way land. Similarly, erosion impacts to
private property immediately adjacent to the status right--of-way
would be mitigated by Caltrans design standards.
Study Area. Most erosion would occur during construction --
grading for roads, especially side -hill cuts, would contribute to
both wind and water erosion. Erosion may also occur in sloping
areas cleared of vegetation and not replanted after project
completion. Increased storm runoff may erode the banks of
existing or new drainage channels, unless design standards
Adequately address site-specific conditions. Compliance with
County standards for construction of private roads to serve new
parcels, and conformance to the County grading ordinance will
partially mitigate this hazard.
Mitigation:
1. Private subdivision roads should/will be built to furl.
County standards and be privately maintained as such
throughout their maintenance cycler A lower standard
may be considered reasonable for roads which will only
serve as lot access and will never be suitable to
become County roads;
3, The County should/will require grading permits for
erosion mitigation and control on all, now developments
and road encroachments to prevent soil loss during and
after road development activities;
G. Adopt and enforce a grading ordinance for all new roads;
5. Perform all vegetation removal, excavation and grading
activities during the dry months of the year;
6. Revegetate exposed slopes prior to onset of the rainy
season;
7. Establish perimeter site berms .for each building site
during construction to inhibit erosion and to reduce the
potential for silts to be carried into stream channels;
U. All parcel or subdivision maps shall incorporate
specified drainage improvements recommended by the ntutte
County bepar'tment of Public Works before approval. is
granted;
9. The Countyshould assume maintenance responsibility only
for roads which meet full County improvement standards.
(See also, the Etp2rt of the Cohasset/Forest Ranch rlacini.ng
Area Committee [Oct'vber, 1983] for additionhl suggested
mitigation measures.)
Earthquake Activity and Fault Displacement.
A primary effect of an earthquake is ground shaking --the
horizontal and vertical vibration of the ground that can result
in damage to buildings, pipes, storage tanks, etc. secondary
effects include liquefaction, lurching, slumping acid rockfall.
The severity of the ground shaking depends malnly upon the
distance to the ep.cente-C of thy' earthquake, the strength of the
corthquake, and nature of soil and rock at the affected site.
The Calif n-nia Division of Mines ,and Geology places all of
Butte County in a "Lowy' earthquake severity zone. The site lies
within the northern extension of the Foothills Fault system,
which is generally consiae:.ed capable of producing a magnitude
6.5 earthquake on 6.e Richter It is reasonable to expect
an earthquake registerinC, 6.5, with �r.Q epicenter located 20
miles from the site, to impact the protect
Maximum probable intensities from earthquakes raligL f'rnm VI
to Vlll on the Modified Metcalli Scale, which indicates impacts
to structures associated with earthquakes having an intensity VY
or greater. An intensity Vill would result in moderate damage to
unreinforced masonry structures and slight damage to reinforced
well-built structures.
No evidence of recent fault displacement has been recorded
in this vicinity of the county. However, lineaments visible on
air p6tos of laftd proposed for development as Bidwell Heights,
three miles southeast of the project site, are probable faults-!
The date of their last activity is not known.
Highway.Corr3.dort_ Compliance with design standards required
by Caltrans for construction of all public road approaches to
state highways would adequately mitigate seismic hazards.
study Area,. Compliance with seismic safety standardo in
local, and state building codes would adequately mitigate hazards
to structures built within the site area.
Mitigation! Note proposed.
15
0
0
'IMPACTS
RYDROLOGY _
Surface Drainage Flooding
�wa Corridor, An increase in storm runoff is expected
jj
H � nts. Compliance with design
upon completion of roadway improveme
Caltrans for installation of drainage
standards required by Cal
grading, energy dissipators and revegetatiOn of
facilites, f runoff and potential for
slopes, will minimize the rate 0'a of in In impervious
Due to the small percentag of highway area
flooding. comparison to the existing amount expected
surface area in cOm, the increase in storm runoff is ex
within the project area5
to be insigniritant-
I Little Chico Creek is the only permanent stream
Std Area. to potential flash flooding from
in the proj ct vicinity subject rajnagc�, channels and occasionally
surface storm runoff. Several d runoff to the streams
steep sloping land would contribute
Development of more than 90 new homesites and the eventual
unimproved road to serve those
sites
construwillction increase of severastorml Milesoff unOf within the project site and
r
adjacent propettiess The amount of runoff wouldbe accom.oclated
drainage channels and drainage
by Little Chico Creek, tributary County
Public
improvements constructed to the standards of the
Works Department. maps and subdivision maps shall
Mi ci anon.
All parcel recommended by the
ied drainage improvements royal is granted.
incot5orate specif Department before aPPrO
Butte County public Works
water quality. water bcdi(Bs in the
Corridor: There are no surface that would
.pd
immediate vicinity of the propor road connections
improvements at the Access
receive Storm runoff from road
locations*
nt in proximity to Little Chico
Stud kreLa-. Site develOPMe a
Z;w� nage channels discharging into the Creek m Y
natural drainage of $editnenttit-lon and toxicity
Creok or B
contribute to unacceptable level
in the Creek from storm runoff,
1. Consult t1"101ifo
rnia Department of Vi6h and OaMd
1 -Mtftts that would contribute
before initiating si 101:ovo
storm runoff atly into Little Chico Creek;
unfUterad res recommended by the state
2. TIVIP10-ment M011811 protect Little Chico
De,attlllent of Vish and name designed e
to
Creek before Undertaking 6nY site '"t6vemnt
16
3. All parcel and subdivision maps shall incorporate
specified drainage improvements recommended by the Butte County
Department of Public Works before approval is
drainage improvements include installation of culverts, Pipes and
energy dissipators, bank stabilization, excavated and cleared
drainage channels, contoured road shoulders, and to a lesser
extent, bridge construction.
C. AIR QUALITX ,IMPACTS
The primary source of emissions from project developme.11t
would be vehicular traffic generated by residential buildout..
Stationary emissions would be negligible. Table 2 displays the
composite emission factors for a mix of vehicle classes --
estimated for 1982 and 1995 in grams per mile --for carbon
monoxide (CO), F nitrogen oxides (NOx) and total hydrocarbons
(THC). Assumptions incorporated into the following analysis
include:
Total buildout. 107 dwelling units
Average trip length (ATL) per n/U. 13 miles
Average number of traps (ADT) per D U
Average trip speed (ATS)= 46 m.p.h.� per day= 10
(Based on 15% of ATL in
project area at 20 m.p.h; 15% of ATL in urban area at 30 m.p.h.,
and 70% of ATL on highway at 55 m.p.h.)
Vehicle mix: light duty passenger= 71.79%
light duty truck= 1.6.5.2%
medium duty truck= 1.72%
heavy du,y gasoline trucks 3.31%
heavy duty diesel, truck- 5.73%
motorcycles= 0.937.
Ambient temperature= 75 degrees 1'
Operational mix; cold start= 21%
hot stnrt= 27%
hot stable- 52%
(Note: No estimated parameter is included fora variable
efficiency mix .for all vehicles,
assumed. $ ' New Vehicle efficiency is
Operational mix are basedltnldats in. Su ambient tem 2temTeorature and
------ P. , published by the stat p-- �_8n,-----°c—educe
And basis for Dstimatin On Road Motor Vehicle Umissions June
181 8-220 e Air Resources Board.)
Based on the above figures, the total amount of miles
traveled (vMT) per D/D per day equals 130: The
grand
miles traveled (ADVmT) for the entire protect At full buildout
(107 D/Us) in 1995 equals 13;910. In 1982 the ADVMT for 15 D/Us
is calculated to equal: 1,950.
•
:1
11
TABLE 2
COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
(Grams Per Mile)
1982*
CO NOX THC
17.15 3.83 1.44
1995
9.06 2.08 0.86
*California Atr Resources Board, Supplement: 2 To Procedure
and Basis for Estimating On -Road Motor 'Vehicle Emissions June
1981, p. E-220.
Tables 3 and 4 depict the amount of emissions generated
countywide and by project traffic, in tons per day, for 1982 and
1995. Emissions from project traffic is shown as a percent of
the total county emissions. In 1982 when project ADVMT equals
1,950, and in 1995 when that ADVMT has increased to 13,910, the
percent of total countywide emissions attributed to project
traffic amounts to less than 112 of 1.0 percent.
For both the ZA. wa Corridor and Study Area, the low amount
of ADT generated by thepr_�roject, in combination with local
mitigating geo-climatic features, would continue to limit
potential impacts on local air quality to insignificant levels.
Factors including the location of the project site in the upper
foothills:) prevailing winds and presence of steep canyons
below the pt'oject area (promoting large volumes of air mixing
over the study area), as well as sparse resid Atial development,
reduce potential adverse impacts to insignificant levels.
Overall, the project contribution to all mobile emissions in
Butte County totals less than 1/2 of 1.0 percent.
(Note: although winter conditions may exacerbate adverse
climatic factors affecting vehicle emissions '(i.e., ambient air
temperature 450 to 550, and cold starts approaching nearly 60%,
of the operational mi�)
p , prevailing winds) above-described
topographical features and low ADT minimize the effects of cold
weather conditions on vehicle emissions in this area of the.
foothills.)
�iiti ation: None proposed.
TABS 3
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
FOR 1982
(Tons per Day)
Project
County* % of
Count
CO
.037
103.3
.036
NO
.008
1.5.6
.051
THC
.003
15.2
.020
*County
averages from 1979 Base Year Inventory, Butte :ourty
Air
pollution
Control District
TABLE 4
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
FOR 1995
L
(Tons per Day)
l
project
County** / of County.
CO
.14
56
.25
NO
.03
22
.1,4
THC
.01
8.1
.1.2
**Estim6tes from The Chico Area 'Land Use Bich, An Amendment
To
The 'Butte
County Ceneral Plans 1982.,
19
D. HABITAT AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS
Hi hwa _ Corridor: The amount of vegetation, disturbed or
removed within the improvement areas of the three ro celed road
survey
connections would total less than two acres*
of areas that would be impacted by road improvements was
conducted in April, 1983. No new populations of rare and
endangered plant species were discovered. Less than 10
p12& obothrys se', tus individuals were identified near the.
southeast corner of the 1,a Castana and Highway 32 junction; since
this plant is not, endangered and occurs in local abundance, no
Significant impact is expected.
Habitat within 100 yards of the proposed road connections
east of Highway 32 would be directly impacted by disturbance or
removal of vegetation, noise and a probable increase in traffic.
The gmount of habitat affected, as a percentage of available
habitat in this ridge area, is considered negligible,
Study Areal_ Several potential rare plants may exist within
the boundaries the larger project site. Plants of special
concern include the rare and endangered Red Bluff gush (Juncus
lei.os.permuuss) and Butte County Check Mallow {Sidalcea row )
rare but not endangered plants that may occur on the project site
Unum bidwelliae and, Plagiobathr�ys sc Mimu-
1us de Astr.____--- as lus, Gal cadenia o ositifolia,xip�W
include
glaucescensy Pot go
The 1,500 acres of project area also serves as a habitat for
a great variety of wildlife in
the foothills, including resident
l of substantial amounts of vegetation
and migratory deer. Remova
and an increase in h.Vman and domestic anis al populations may
adversely affect indigenous wildlife, unless, carried out pursuant
to a regional conservation plan, (See Apperidi "B'' for full text
of botannical report.)
Nit ion:. All parcel- and subdivision maps shall require
that initial environmental studies be performed on project sites
as part of the conditions of approval, Mitigated Negative
Declarationg and Allis should be considered as a means of -reducing
threats to endang+�red and%or rare plant species and wildlife.
Development that occurs should. be in confOtli;ance with a regional
Wildlife
copse
rvation plan and Conservation Element in the County
General Plat'* Limited open spaces should be planned to assure
preservation of deer migration routes.
go S. I�1ND 1158 IMLACTu
Hig.hwa Corridor: Less than two acres of open, though
partially improved Land, will. be fuxtt{er graded and covered with
p y s
impervious sutfaco-64 The improvements would alter a fractional
amount of the total acreage in this area. The impact is Minimal,
•
Study AE2.2.!. The assurance of legal access to IlLghway 32
will most probably encourage continued development of land in the
project area. The proposed road connections, however, are not
expected to significantly alter planned land uses in the project
area, since the anticipated ultimate use already occurs to a
lesser density.
The provision of suitable locations for all necessary
community land uses --including housing --in a variety of settings
to suit various income levels is an expressed goal of the Land
Use Element of the Butte County General Plan. On pa�
�;a 33, the
Plan states that Butte County should "provide a diversity of
housing sites varying in size, density and location." The
i,ndirect effect of the proposed project offers that diversity by
allowing prospective homebuyets the option of purchanihg a home
in a rural foothills setting. According to a County
Department assessment based on the 1982 "Inventory of Rural
Residential Parcels- Butte County by Planning Area "f oothill-
mountain planning areas contained enough existing rural parcels
of 40 acres or less in size to accommodate a population increase
of 224 percent over its 1980 population." (Draft Trani2R.Ktatio.
Element, p. 50)
The appropriate location for such housing is qualified by
other policies within the Plan, which point out constraints and
limita+_ions to be used in guiding community growth, so that the
ultimate development pattern maximizes community benefits and
minimizes adverse environmental changes. It the Study Areao
important constraints to development include limited `water
8upplyj difficult access) steep slopes, unstable soils, high
natural fire hazard, limited areas for 8eptic/leacHield systems
and abundant wildlife habitat. The Draft Traitsportation Element
further notes that road systems should be developed that
"minimize the burder, of expanding the existing circulation
network beyond existing foothill -mountain communities and
foothill transportation cortidotsill
Caltrans has commented on the apparent inconsistency of
foothill growth with the goals outlined in the State's Urban
Strategy, toting that the "strategy aims to promote infilling and
intensity of land use within existing urban areas while
discouraging uncontrolled growth onto undeveloped lands. 'rhy,
project site is an undeveloped, non-contiguous area, it t
Specifically) the document An Urban Stt91e3y for California,
states that "When uvban devola�Pent is 'necessary outside existing
urban and suburban, areas) use land that is immediately adjacent."
it further notes that "costs stemming from lack of sewage
treatment, domestic water and solid waste facilities occur when
the project site is noncontiguour, to existing municipal
*See Appendix t, correspondence from Caltrans to "butte
county Platniq Ditectori dated May 22, 1980.
A subsequent document prepared by the state, ()r..rice of
Planning and Research (OPR), A Foothill Development Strategy,
more directly assesses the problems and fetjaibfffl
,j_E_y of
development in foothill areas of California. This study reviews
6-civeral issues concerning development in rolling to mountainous
terrain outside urban spher*s of influence. jhe document notes
the difficulty of extending adeq,uote putrJic services at a
reasonable cost to areas sparsely popul4t:od; that improper
development often has adverse eftects oil watershed mid water
supplies; and that cumulative impacts., may adversely affect
circulation and the capability of agencies to provide needed
public services. The study also observes that local government
may find it difficult to regulate and Plan for areas
traditionally populated by Individuals %rho seek an independent
and laissez—faire way of living.
Recommendations in the steady include monitoring the creation
of new lots, enforcing model grading and habitat preservation
ordinances and discouraging the extension of public services to
foothills by publicizing the prohibitive costs of constructing
and maintaining new facilities) and sustaining effective delivery
of public services.
Although OPR distributed draft copies of the Foothills
Strategy in 1980 and 1981, the state has not yet set a firm date
for adoption and publication of the document,
The City of Chico has expressed reservations about
development of foothill land outside its urban sphere that would
have cumulative adverse impacts in the Chico urban area. The
increase of traffic on State Righway 99 in the vicinity of the
interchange with SR 32 and adjoining streets is of particular
concern to the City Planning Department (see Appendix Xj
correspondence from the City of Chj,co).
Stated policies in the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space
Conservation and Safety Zlements of the County General plan
ad.ddress foothill development. The following ate adopted
planning goals,,
Land Use Elemett
Agricultural land should be preserved outside urban areas.
Residential densities should be correlated to soilo slopnt
sewage disposal; water availability, proximity to public
fadilities, traffic -carrying capacities and natural site
character%stics. (p.34)
Commercial facilities should be grouped into integrated
centers, and placed in close, proximity to residential
development: (p-.35)
Y
A circulation system should be
existing and provided which will support
proposed Patterns and densities of land use. (p.37)
Require adequate drainage improvements for new development.
(p.37)
Encourage expansion of private utility systems consistent
With County plans and policies. (p. 38)
Locate new fire stations with
accessibility, future development and naturals fire 1 azars�n to
(p 39)
Regulate development to facilitate survival of deer herds
and to prevent destruction of riparian areas. (P. l
Consider fire hazards in land use and zona
ng d
guide development to areas with adequateecisions, and
services. (p. 43) protection
The conditional zoning and developtient criteria
then apply to Che entire project are the following:
which would
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
2• Evidence of adequate water supply and sepage disposal
capability.
3• Availability of adequate fire
protection facilities.
4. Adequately maintained approved
sufficient road access with
capacity to served the area.
5. Reasonable accessibility'to commercial services an
schools. (p. 4g) d
Draft _Trans ortationletnent
A primary concern cif the Draft Transportation E
pertains to fairly differentiating Yement
responsibilitybetween public and private
contributing to hebetween
ncei
ng and maintaining
states of existing roads. roads, or
that "beyond the main County road network County
the Element
residents ultimately must be responsible for building
access roads, and for maintaining them. New accetheir own
Probably have to be paid ss roads will
for by landowners and those building new
homes. (5.2,1)
Although the document encourages
it also st essesr
ovision 6
access for all land uses, that adopf ed adeounte
staaidards be applied to all subdivision 'and
divisions, including for private roads:. Parcel ]and
and standard will help to ensure that Roads of adequate design
present and future access
needs are mets help to reduce overall road maintenance cycles and
r
costs, and hclp to reduce environmental damage from poorly graded
and surfaced roads." (5.21)
In the section Assessment: of Projected Traffic Growth
Planning Area, future traffic conditions are discussed for the
Forest Ranch=Cohasset Planning Area:
A nearly tripled population could be
accomodated by current arterial and collector
road capacity if growth was distributed near
existing rural communities in the planning
area..
it should be noted that State Route 32 is
designated as a controlled access highway by
Caltrans in order to provide safe and
efficient high speed travel through thin
planning area to interior northeast
California...
:'pecial circulation problems created by
significant development and population
increases away from the planning area's
existing cotumuniti�s and circulation network
will require further study and comprehensive
specific plans should be developed. For
example, extensive development on Doe Mill
Ridge would present such a problem and a
comprehensive areawide specific plan for
circulation...and circulation financing is
needed before any significant development
proposls ate allowed in such areas. (6.32)
The Transportation Element outlines goals and objectives for
providing adequate circulation in future years. They include,
® encourage efficient land utilization by accommodating
growth in areas presently serviceable in a manner -which
is cost effective, safe and consistent with
environmental constraints• provide an integrated system
of roads and highways that serve all: land use needs.
(7.21)
Obtain the greatest benefits with a minimum use of
limited Ei.nancial resources by providiag an adequate
road system that is within the County's ability to
finance and maintain. Rncourage development in areas
that can be served by public roads in a manner that does
not become an economic burden Lo the County. (7.22)
6 Minimize adverse impacts of transportation in the
County by planning for transportation modeB and
strategies that :reduce threats to the environment
(7.25)
24
V
m Provide for a road system that meets the needs of
existing and anticipated movements of people and goods
by providing for adequately designed road and
street patterns to serve present and future traffic
volumes. (7.24)
® Support safety standards established by emergency
And protective service agencies.. (7.25)
Conservation Element
(Drainage and waste) facilities precisely located in
advance of anticipated construction, many projects can be timed
into a single development thereby reducing the incidence of .later
disruption to existing facilities and consequent tebailding.
($.3)
Open Space
Studies should be conducted to determine the urban
development capabilities of the foothill and mountain area. (3.C)
The County should allow urban development only in areas
physically suited to such use. (3.D)
No urban development should be permitted on highly erodible
land. (5.9)
The County should regulate residential development .in the
foothills to facilitate the survival and migration of deer herds.
The Department of Fish and Game recommends 20 to 40 acre,, or
larger, parcels in migration corridors. (b.B)
Sa£ety. ,%ardent ---Fire Protection
Circulation considerations- In case of a major emergency or
disaster, evacuation routes and major transportation systems must
be located, designed and maintained for mobility and safety. (A,
2, b)
Ensure that road access for new development is adequate for
fire protection purposes. (Policy 7,)
Planning and design codsi.derations; Makeprotection from
fire hazards a consideration in all planning, regulatory and
capital improvement programs with special concern ,for areas of
"high'' and "extreme" :Eire hazard: (Policy 1)
Use fuelbreaks along the edge of developing areae in '"high"
And "extreme" fire hazard areas. (policy 3)
Determine the level of water supplies necessary for new
development for fire protection purposes. (Policy 6)
25
0
11
Regulate useof certain building
materials in aras of highat
than average fire hazard. (Policy 10)
important constraints to development withl.rr project
terrain shalln'w soils,
boundaries Include. Rugged steep
plan alba zoning.
limited water supplies' of mic ".mum public aer,vices and
restrictions, the availability
high cost of providing those services to rurt►l. areas.
A recent report prepared under the auspices of 13AIt,te County
addresses important safety and transportation 'I.listes for
development in the foothills sACommittee deast of Ohico4 A E l r va af the
Cohasset/Forest Ranch Planning rea --
and introduces policies
of access, safety and fiscal concerns,
and implementation measures to minimize impacts on t►iose. areas
from future development. Although several: of these isasues have
been discussed in this EIR, the reader should refer to Appendix H
for a full textual account of the Cohasset/Forest stanch Report.
Summar
The foregoing analysis presupposes a minimum of two road.
. Closure of all
approaches to highway 82 in the project area
road connections would curtail or halt all development due to the
Study
remote distance of alternative access l°roads outside the
Ovide
area, and presence of rugged unimproved
circulation within the project area. Present residents must, of
course, use the three existing road connections in their current
spatial arrangement to 'reach their homes.
Approximately 649 aures of land are now in Land Conservation
Agreements (LGA) with Butte county as provided for under the
Will Act. Owners representing 484 aeres have.submit,ted
reements it, 1991.
non -renewal applications that would terminate Ag
thland holds only marginal agricultural
Since much of e project
value, removal of parcels From LCAs is not 3.
considered a serious
loss of important agricultural�
�Awould notminimum of two
significantly
public road approaches to Highway 32
affect the current disposition of acreage in LCAgs or non -renewal
applications.
4thile all of the acreage designated Athe constraints Wof
up to a minimum of orte acre pet b/h,
allowing to h limited water supplies and poor
shallow soil- rugged. topog p �"> aired arcels to
internal circulation have almost' invariably req P.
have a minimum of five 'acres
'
Although an estimated 265 acres of
Grazing and Open Land (Got) is coned A-21the COL land use
classification to -quires a minimum of 40 acres pet parcel..
Assuring legal access to highway 32 may encourage owners of
land now classified Cot to apply for a general plan me ment torid
rezone to allow greater residential densities.
Thetrend of dividing land into 5-10 acre parcels within the Arlt
areas still likely continue
M3.tgation:
I -A, Zone ail land
Residential land use classification one of the t
.Within the present Agricultural -
AR -5, TM -5, or Fzt-5 llowi n
Conditional , subject to findings of conrormit A-5,
Zoning and Development Criteria Y with the
use classification. These zoni listed .For this land
include: n and development criteria
a. Compatibility with neighboring agriculturtIl act ,
b• Evidence of ade �� activities
c. Av q ale water and sewage disposal capacity;
ailability of adequate ,tire protection facilities,
d• Adequately maintained a
sufficient capacityto approved road access with
servii.e the ,area;
eo Reasonable accessibility
schools. to commercial services and
OR
1`R• Amend the General Plan classification f
Foothill Area Residential FAR
FR -5 ), and zone this scream A,R to
or TM -5. These zones are identified as "Consistent,,g `� 5
the FAR land use designation under
Conditional tonin I and are not required to meet
g and. development criteria.
2• For land now designated GOL and
40• Remaining acreage currently zoned A�2, rezone to TM.
40 Y classified GOL 's now zoned TM-
-F. TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Historical and current traffic studies indicate the;t each
residence in the project area would be expected to generate fsom'
7-10 trips per day. For this analysis, the greater, or "worst
mployed. Actual project ADT may be somewtiar
case" figure iii e
long (10-13 miles) distance to major
lower due to the 'relatively
service centers in the Chico urban area,, poor project roads and
proximity of Forest Ranch.
The estimated 15 dwelling units now on the ground would.
generate 150 ADT. At full buildout in 1995) 107 residences would
would generate 1,010 ADT. The exp eete distributarea radsionsY►ownof 9 5
traffic volumes over existing p d
Table 5.
Table 5
DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TRAFFIC
IN 1935
of
Road ADT Project ADT
Ten Mile House Road
370 35
1,a Castana Drive
80 7
Altatina Drive
520 49
Croom Point Road* 100
9
Total. 1;070 100
shwa corridor Capacity and service Level.: State
_� --11 -
'has an overa
Highway 32 between Chico and the project area 570:9 vehicles hour capacity of 46M vehicles for 'LOS "B"'
hour for 1,051101% These hourly capacities represent 2,916 ADT
and 5,443 ADT retpectively, assuming peak hour traffic volumes,
of ADT• Gal t
account for 16/. rar►a has estimated that the upper
capacity lilr1its for 5R 32 between Chico and > orest n ah apprit oach
1 555 vehicles per hour during peak hours- Based, on ort a p
f'dt-LD..V of 14%, daily traffic volumes would reach 111107 ADT.
This amount of traffic would be considered unacceptables
declining to LOS "R" conditl ons.
public road only Pot the !/44
t Note: Crown Point SR 3�, lies one mile north of the
1.12 4- mile portion near
projWtt site boundaries.)
�g
13
1981 traffic volumes on Highway 32 for this section were recorded
as follows: Northeast Chico urban area (El Monte Avenue), 2,000
ADT; immediate vicinity of the project site (Humbolt Road),
ADT; Forest Ranch area (Robert E. Lee Drive), 1,500 ADT.
Caltrans has projected traffic volumes in the year 2000 for
Highway 32 along this section at the following locations: El
Monte Avenue, 4,000 ADT; Forest Ranch area, 4,100 ADT; and north
of For Ranch, 2,900 ADT. These estimates are primarily based
upon Chico -generated traffic increases, with minimal growth
expected along the Highway 32 corridor between Chico and. Forest
Ranch. These ADT estimates are greater than the ADT projected
in the Chico Urban Area Transportation Study (CATS), published in
1982,, which shows 3000 ADT on Highwway 32 just east of Chico by
the year 2000.
Due to limited sight distance, rolling terrain and numerous
curves, an estimated level of service (LOS) "B" may be achieved
or the sections of highway billow Forest Ranch. According to the
Hi hwa Ca acct Manual. (1965), a "B" LOS for highway conditions
between Chico and Forest Ranch, would assume an operating speed
of 50 m.p.h., passing sight distance limited to 900 :feet and
upper highway speed restricted to 60 m.p.h. The "Br' LOS allows a
stable flow of traffic, faith drivers able to maintain an.
operating speed of 50 m.p.h. and perform most passing maneuvers
as desired.
Using the formulas presented in the Ali hwa _ Ca_ acit Ma_ nnual,.
the actual service volume for LOS "B" has bu
tn calculated 916Ato
equl 466.6 vehicles per hour during p
(both directions), based on the assumption that peak hour equals
167 of ADT. (Refer to Appendix "F" for formulas and
calculations.)
The traffic volumes estimated by the CAT Study and Caltrans
on SR 32 between Chico and F(,Debt RanchI, range from 3,000-4,000
ADT for the year 2000. This ADT would place traffic conditions
between LOS B" (2,91.6 ADT) and LOS "C" (5,443 ADT), assuming
peals hour equals 16% of ADT. However, even greater development
along the Highway 32 corridor, including the present protect; may
dramatically increase ADT beyond the projections posited by
Caltrans and CATS. The Butte County planning Departments eg.
52 in the
estimates a potential increase of traffic volumr�oect� ene aces
project area to X3,108 ADT6 if the proposed p g
1.x070 ADT this would amount to 27%36% of the estimates
1u070 ted'by Cal trans and CATS, and 13% of the County planning.
Depattraent estimate.
increased traffic volumes on Highway 32 generated by the
proposed project are not considered si.gnificant3 since this
i0olume would not; alone, reduce highway service conditions into a
lower LOS categor; ;
or utilize a large amount of the design
capacity of the highway.
•
Study Area. Capacity and Service Volume; The CATS study
shows 52,200 ADT on Highway 32 at the easternboundary of the
Chico urban area after full buildout within the urban area. The
project ADT, at full buildout, would amount to 2.0 percent of the
projected areawide ADT. This is not considered a significant
impact.
Hi hw;a Corridor - Traffic Hazards: The generation of 1,070
ADT will add at least this number of turning movements ---ingress
and egress --on Highway 32. Since the highway is also
occasionally traveled by bicyclists, particularly during the warm
months, the need will increase for thein to exercise reasonable
caution to insure their own safety. (The Draft Transportation
Element has recommended that Caltrans consider the construction
of Class II bicycle facilities on Route 32 between Chico and.
Forest Ranch which would partially mitigate the hazards from
biuyclists and motorists sharing this roadway.)
Sight distance along Highway 32 is good to excellent at the
proposed road connections, averaging 400- feet in both directions
at each approach. Passing opportunities at LOS "B" will prevail
over most of the route between Chico and Forest Ranch. Each
highway lane is 12 feet wide, though the width of the road
shoulder may vary from 5+ feet to 3 feet near canyon rims.
The highway in the vicinity of Ten Mile Flousa Road has
2%--4% grades ascending in both directions from the road
connection. A curb borders the road shoulder along the west side
of the highway. Shoulder width ranges from 3-4 .feet along this
section. A broad curve begins approximately 500 feet south of
the road connection.
The highway is generally level in the vicinity of tea Castana
Drive, though a slight ascending grade exists north of the road
connection. A cut bank is located along the east side of the
highway, approximately 200 feet north of the juncture. The width
of the shoulder averages 3-5 feet, and is bordered by a curb.
The highway ascends a steep grade (4 6%) north of Altatina.
Drive, and a lesser grade south of the road connection.
A cut bank exists on the east side of the highway approximately,
1:,000 feet Borth of the juncture: The road shoulder averages 3-5
feet to dut'b.
The above conditions would assimilate project traffic
without oignified tly decreasing traffic safety over most of the
route between Chico and F'o'rest Ranch,
StOX Area_ a I'ro ect toads:. Altati,na. Drive and Ten Mild
House Road are projected to absorb most of the traffic from full
buildout in the project area, with estimates of 520 ADT and M
ADT, tespectivelyj in 199 The tvo roads would account for 84%
of all. project ADT. Current county standards require that
30
0
private roads have a right-of-way 60 feet wide, a minimum road
width of 2.0 feet, and the surface covered at Least once with a
layer of gravel.
Current traffic volume for the two goads is estimated at
126 ADT; by 1995 this figure will have grown to 899 ADT, an
increase of over 600%. The high erosion hazard to soils in the
project area, combined with heavy rainfall and an vast increase
in ADT by 1995, pose a serious hazard to road stability and.
erosion of adjacent banks extending below the road. Eroding
road shoulders may decrease the carrying capacity of storm
drainage cLannels, or completely obstruct them, and potentially
increase water quality hazards to Little Chico Creek.
Potential erosion, safety and circulation problems- along
with recommended mitigations—discussed earlier in this chapter
under subsections, Land Use Element and Transportation
Element (Section L,Land Use Impacts) suggest that current county
standards for construction of private roads ---particularly for
drainage and safety improvements—must be substantially upgraded.
Mitigations
1. Construct project area roads to county standards, unless
xo,ads exclusively serve as driveways to interior lots;
2. Require that funds be deposited with the county for
improvement of public toad approaches to Oaltrans standards as a
condition of ;Ipproval for all proposed land divisions and
subdivisions 8e ved by those roads,
3i Form an assessment district to maintain all project area.
roads to County standards,
4. All road systems, both public and private, should
provide for adequate emergency access for evacuation of area
residents and access for emergency vehicles;
d assess the
5. Land devr'lt f fic accidents tions nd estimateshoultile impacts on
potential impact ori
law enforcement',
6. the county sja�11.1 assume respotnsibility for maintaining
only those roads buiY t colltL f standards.
(NOT8% the eft.ot, of cumulative ADT on highway 32 and the
Chico urban area .ar p ent.)
ssed in Chapter XzV of this dockim
G. NoLS,E IMPACTS
The, Butte County Luise Element primarily addresses auibiei►t
noise levels that interfere with coftmori outdoor 'living
activities, or Adtyivities donducted in enclosed spates. The
Element states that a maximum community noise level of Ldd - 60
0
0
dB is required "to provide a suitable noise environment inside
buildings ... This standard may not be low enough to permit
unhindered speech communication outdoors. Speech communication
is severely hindered when background noise levels rise to 50-55
dBA."
Highway Corridor: Highway 32 is identified as s "highspeed"
roadway, wherenor :i.se levels greater than 60 dB would be expected
within 200 feet of the highway. Since existing residences are
now located beyond 200 feet from the highway" traffic noise
levels for most periods throughout the day and night should be
acceptable.
Study; Area: No significant impact is expected.
Mitigation: Require Future subdivision and parcel maps to
identify an excessive traffic noise zone extending 200 feet from
and parallel to the pavement edge of SRR 32 Construct noise
barriees,require setbacks ands nsulate residences to reduce noise,
to help avoid residential/traffic corridor conflicts.
H. PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACTS
Schools
'Highway Corridor: A very slight increase in ADT would be
expected from bus service and other vehicles transporting
students to and from Chico area schools. This is not considered
a significant impact.
Sturdy_ Area: Students within the project area would attend
schools in t_h Chjco Unified School. District. According to the
school district, the following reserve capacities were calculated
for the 1981-82 school year: Parkview Elementary School= 130;
Chico Junior High School= 300; Chico Senior Nigh Schoola 400 -500 -
school officials estimate that
the student population
within the 'District averages .43 students per household. Full
project buildout (107 dwalling units) would be expedted to
generate 46 new students. Parkview Elementary School. and Chico
Junior high School. would each receive approximately 25% (12) of
these students, while an estimated 22 'students would attend Chico
Senior High School.
The impact of these new students would, reduce the e e� t
reserve capacity at PatkV iew Elementary School by 9Y; tit Chico
Junior High School by 4%1 and at Chico Senior High School by 4*-
6%. These impacts are not considered significant.
Ptojected reserve capacities for schools in the Chico
Unified School. System for 1995, when project bui.ldou;- is
scheduled for completion, is indeterminate. If schools setvi�tiV
the project Area were at capacity, then the generation of any ne'w
students may be considered significant,
32
Miti:gationc
1. Arrange for transfer of project sttdents to sahools that
have reserve capacity;:
2. Add temporary classrooms to schools at capacJ,.ty
3. Formulate a development impact fee for all subdivisions
(creation of 5 or more new parcels) to defray additional
expenses to the district.
police protection
Higk�tgay Corridor; Note.
. Stud Area: The construction of 92 more residences in the
project area (1S now exist) mould slightly increase the demand
for services from the Butte County Sheriff's Department. The
area is not regularly patrolled) and response time to the
project site averages 10-20 minur.es, depending upon the Location
of patrol. vehicles. No plans currently exist for increasing law
enforcement in the Forest Ranch are,A. Many residents, decision -
makers and Sheriff's Department administrators consider the above
response times inadequate.
. ig i tio,nt none proposed
Fire protection
>htaa Corridor: None.
Stud Area: Development of the proposed pro jeet will
increase the d rnd for services from the Butte County Fire
D`pattmentjCalifor`nia Department of Forestry. harrow unimproved
roads constructed over difficult terrain will increase response
times to future resi.denceS located in the more remote areas ,of
the project site. Response time may exceed 20 minutes for the
ficrt engine for several locations in the eastern ;portions of the
project area. The fire department considers a 'response t1me
beyond �0 minutes inadequate for effective fire suppressibir.
Mitigation:,
suture development in the area should impleMent all
.edommetnded stanctards 'by the BGV/CDl• for road and bridge
design, donstruction materialsr site preparation and
maintanandej atld installation of individual and/or community
five plotedtion fa.;il.ities Vor fire prevention and structural
safety, the fixe department includes the following
req�litements/red 0ium.;tdationswhich could become condi.tiOns
applied to home builders at time of construction -
1, k Otte -half inch spatk arresting mesh screen be installod
on thimneys for fireplaces and wbod.btamitig stoves;
2. Roofing and siding materials should be constructed of
fire resistant materials;
3. Clear all flammable vegetation for 30 fhet ar'oUnd all
structures, unless erosion hazards are created; otherwise mow
grass and remove all dead fuel. on the graund from within 30 feet
of any structure;
4. Construct .fuel breaks between homesites according to
fixe department specifications.
Utilities
Hi�hwwa_ Corridor: No significant impact expected.
Study Area: The following impacts are expected to occur
only in the project area as a result of expansion of utility
services and facilitiesrequiredfor future project residences:
Natural Gas and Electricity. Power lines may need to be
extended to d,if-ferent arras within the project mite. Pacific Gas
& Electric (PG&E) has not identified any special problems with
Providing service to the project area. Natural gas is not
avai;abl.e to this area.
Mitigation: Noire prnposed.
Water., Domestic water is supplied by individual wells
on each parcel. Since the t;utte County Environmental health.
Department requires proof of water for approval.. of a parcel or
subdivision map, this adequately mitigates indeterminate water
av4ilability.
rlitigatl.oh- None proposed.
5e�rtage Disposnl.. Sewage disposal. for the project will be
dccomplished by individual septic tanks and leachfields. The
Butte county Environmental Health Depat°tment regulates the
installAtIbn of these systems. Project site conditions must meet
Envirotnmen:tal Health Department- standards for approval of parcel
and mlbdiVision maps. This County agency adeq:uately mitigater4
potential sewage disposal, impacts.
reit Dior None proposed R
T2Aephone: pacific Telephone Company provi,deg telephone
service along Highway 32 and would serve the p,eoject area. Ttt�
�A
Company has expressed no specialproblems with serving residences
in this area of the county.
mitigation: None proposed.
I. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Highway. Corridor': No significant impact expected.
Study Area: After full buildout, project trAffic will
generate 1,070 trip ends per day, assuming an average of 10 trips
per dwelling unit per day. Based upon an average trip length of
13 miles, total logged mileage from project traffic would amount
to 13;910 miles per dayo if the mix of project vehicles averages
25 m.p.g., project traffic would consume 556 gallons of fuel per
day, or 202,940 gallons of gasoline and diesel per year. This
consumption would likely be less than 1.0 percent of the total
vehicular fuel consumption of county residents in 1995, and is
not considered significant.
The typical residence in Butte County 'consumes an average of
15,065 kilowatt-hours annually. At full buildout project
residences would use app�oximatel}t 1.6 million kilowatt—hours per.
year. This consumption would amount to a very small portion of
total residential useage throughout the county in. 1995, and is
not considered significant.
Mitigationi Mitigation measures would include extra
building insulation and use of solar energy for heating.
Individual subdi.visi.oa project designs should conform to passive
solar access criteria specified in Section 66475.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act:'
d. CULTt)RAL RESOURCES
lii hwa Corrido-`, k professional archaeologist conducted a
survey in the vicinity of the proposed road approaches and along
ilighway 32 for several yards in both directions from existing
road ocgti.Ons- No evidence of prehistoric or early historic
activities were discovered. The report states that 'ono
pre historic remains were expected due to Lhe lack of surface water
within these areas." k1thoug,h the Old itumboldt Road passed
through this area of the dountyi no evidence of existence was
observed. wagon ruts from this historic road exist north and
south of the project area, but have likely been destroyed by the
present highway on the project Mite. No significant impact is
expected from project implementation. (See Appendix "C" for full
text of archaeological reP t.)
Mitigation-. None proposed,
0
0
0
Study Area, Significant prehistoric or early historic sites
potentially exist elsewhere on the project site, particularly
along the banks of Little Chico Creek. Sites may also Pxist on
proximate bluffs or major drainage channels.
Mitigation: The County should require the completion of
archaeological surveys in sensitive areas proposed for land
division before any improvements are initiated,, and as a
condition of approval for parcel and subdivision maps.
Mitigated Negative Declarations and EIRs should of course, be
required where '
q potential, impacts appear significant.
VIIId EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIITCANT
The following project effects upon the physical and urban
environments have been evaluated as insignificant. This means
that adverse impacts would be of such low intensity or magnitude
that substantial mitigation would not be required to reduce them
to an acceptable level; however, in certain areas some mitigation
measures have been recommended simply to assure minimal impacts—
in view of potential adverse cumulative impacts.
Effects Found Not. Significant
Subsidence, volcanism and expansive soil hazards in
the highway corridor and Study Area.
itockslides and landfalls in the highway corridor.
2. Elydi
flooding and pollution of surface water ::from urban
runoff in the highway corridor.
34 Air Quaff
lty-
Degradation of air quality in the highway corridor and
Study Aren and county.
4. Traffic
An increase in traffic hazards and congestion In the
highway corridor.
36
5. Noise
Noise intrusion in the Study Area.
6. Public Services
a)
Provision of utilities in the highway corridor and
Study Area.
b) Increase in demand for police protection -
7 F:ner Conte sumpton
Excessive energy conbumption on or off the project
site.
F3. Cultural Resources
Disturbance of archaeological resources'. No
present the
of historic or idce
pre -historic resources
highway corridor.
IX. SIGNIFICANT ENV ltONAENTAL EFIrECTS W11ICR CAN
BF NITIGATEA IF THE pRopOSAL IS YMPLEMNTED
The followingarea
adverse impacts would be reduced in severity
by mitigation measures associated with each'i the impactsChapter Would
VII), but could not be entirely epact
liminated; rimarl in. the
still occur, though at an insignificant level, p Y
Study Area;
1 Exposure to seismic hazards.
2. Removal of 11ati.ve vegetation.
3 Removal or destruction of rase and/or endangered plants.
44 Soil erosion from toad and homesit'e development.
5. Rt.rkfall.s and landslides in areas with steep, slopes.
b. Sxposuxe to flood Hazards a
l
o
ng
Little Chico Creek.
7. Reduction of 'water quality in 'Little Chico Creek.
g. Noise intrusion on land adjacent to Highway 32•
g. Overcrowding of Chico area 5choo).s•
10. Disturbance of aul.tural resource's+
9
0
0
�;terioration of unimproved roads. in Study Area.
11. D ` a in the Study Area.,
1.2. Storm drainag
13.
Inducement to altFV planned land uses.
BNVJLRO > l' —ACTS WRTC11 '""NOT BE
X. S%GNIFlCANT TUB pROJECT -is 1pIMENTED
AVOIDED IF
Potentially sign's, ficant,
adverse impacts are p may still remain
The. followingadversemitigation,.
and
though amenable to partial
primarily occur in the Study
Adverse and significant'
Tt1ey
Area, erty.
1, Natural fire hazard to residents and pro p mole,
r,lthough partially mitig
ants. C' nificant. See Sec • 7GV )
2. Cumulative `Lmp remain sig
impacts Will likely
'4 RS7BLE ENVIROWC- +ITAt FACTS
XI. SIGN]YIICANT I BE r g�c MED
SUonD THE PRO'pOSED PROJECT
ld
ro s t of the
irreversible Ghcnges in the environmenwi'tht h,'
ommi "'ents of resources
Of acumulative conversion
irretrievable r lace as a resultwent
project would tape p residential develop
of natural op
en space to low --density between
further distuac�ion of this trpnsfoLmance
thtioughout the foothills in thus area of But Cou mh cta�.
Chico and Forest Ranch. ter on Cumulative I
of land �,ses is found in the chap
SgORT--TZRK VS • T,i;14O.TERM
P33SOUitCE 1�I+CTS
Xtx� ro cct site
state; large portio►10 of the p �'
xn
its undevelopedand this value will,
b nd ;watershed, After
the cols 1ti e.
has value �s reduces ysabitatversion totermreslvr�ue as al a location.
be partial..y the site will take. on long -
on, the am:eniti es of country living on
construtti offering
for the urban homes3 tea 5 of Chico:
periphery
owl of planr,exa
The p
reservation of Agricultural aa6t Atedtgo aroas west o
protect the fertile and
Chico'$ urban pnre5dentss likelong b eas east of Ch; co Have ,peen
and commun:kty the ar
productive agricultural l ands f
considered for developrt►ent if acx�stantial amounts of Wl.l.dll.fe a�.�l
Watershed can be pxeserVed.
The project is located primarily in chaparral, a vegetation,
community which is well represented Butte County. A review of
the vegetation map prepared for the 1979 update of the Land Use
Element of Butte County General Plan indicates approximately
64,000 acres of chaparral are present in the Butte County
foothill-., Approximately half of this area --that portion lying
north and west of the Town of Paradise --is protected by the 40
ac,N;� minimum parcel size specified in the Open and Grazing Land
Ute category. The remainder is designated almost entirely
Agricultural. -Residential, leavicig it exposed small -parcel
development. Those chaparral areas lying within the Central,
Butte Study Area (for which a zoning study is underway) and those
areas near Oroville and to the southeast should be reviewed so
the valuable chaparral habitat can be suitably protected.
The proposed highway connections are within areas designated
for Agrid ultural~Residential use (1.40 acres per dwelling unit),
accounting for approximately 265 acres of the project site; thelatter adjoins a large expanse of protected chapar.161 (`1,145
acres) which is designated Grazing and Open Land (minimum 40
acres per parcel). Loss of 265 acres of wildlife habitat would
represent about o.4% of the estimated 64,000 acres of Chaparral
in the foothills of Butte County.
Watershed values on the project site, although reduced by
development, will be preserved to a great extent by natural
topographical constraints and project mitigation measures
(including implementation of recommended mitigations for General
Plan ]end use categories and zoning).
Certain short-term commitments of resources will occur
during the construction phase, when fuels, labor and building
materials will be put to beneficial use. in the longer term,
energy for horue heating and transportation trips between Chico
and the project site will be used on an ongoing basis. Scenic
qualities of the site will also thane --from natural chaparral to
a mixed chaparral and residential setting.
XIII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS'
Approval of this project could rr,t Ut in growth in several.
ways, The tax base of the County would increase by the amount of
the assessed valuation of the project, with corresponing amounts
of taxes becoming collectible.
Future land divisions may be er,_uutaged by approval of this
project, although each project wouldhave to be evaluated
itidependeatly6 Substantial topographic consttaints exist
throughout the area, and much of the hind is currentl! designated
Grating and Open Land In the County General. Plan. Access is also
seriously limited in �.ese canyon areas of the county4
5.9
f
E3
9 XIV. CUNNI ATIvB nVACTS
Traffic Impacts
Many of the site -related impacts would be reduced below a
significant advere' ty level by project design, topographical
constraints, Calttw:.ts' requirements and proposed mitigation
measures. The present project would add another 1.07 residences
to other Projects planned in the area.
The destinations of projeci. residents will disperse project -
generated traffic throughout the Chico urban area. Since project
traffic (1,,070 ADT) will amount to a;pproxi.mately 6%--11% of the
total traffic volume (16,700-10,100 ADT) on SR 32 between Bruce
Road and SR 99 by the year 2000, an increase in traffic hazards
to other motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians should be minimal.
Traffic analysis of this section of S'R 32 by the Butte
county planning Department suggests that potential cumulative
increases in traffic volumes may be greater, totaling 8,108 ADT
(see Table 6). Thts magnitude of traffic volume would represent
an increase of 189%-270% above the maximum ADT (4,300 ADT
estimated by Caltrans and 3,000 ADT in the Chico Area
Transportation Study), further decrease the level of service on
Highway 32, increase traffic hazards and require additional
highway and traffic control improvements at considerable cost to
the city of Chico and property owners served by Highway 32.
(V.efer to Appendix 11G11 for applicable text of potential
cumulative impacts.)
The above estimates represent a "worst case's scenario;
actual buildout may result in far fewer residences. Furthermore,
high (10) trip generation factor was used for this ElR.
Depending on the socio-economic: profile of project residents,
growth of Forest Ranch, development of mass transit and costs of
fuel, trip ends associated with each residence may be closer to
seven.
A discussion of additional r-elmulat ve impacts may be found
In Appendix "G", which is referenced herein as 'hart of the
Cumulative Impacts Section,
�.tigation,
1. Butte County should encourage the formation of
assessment districts for road maintenance, drainage and
fair dare contributions toward off-site Sit 32 and Chico
,area road improvements,,
40
2. Promulgate County policies that equitably distribute
the costs of new road systems to benefiting property
owners and users;
3. Requtr�e land development applications to assess the
Potential cumulative impacts on. traffic accidents and
estimate the impacts on law enforcement.
TABLE 6
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLUMES
BY AREA/PROJECT ON
ROUTE 32
CORRIDOe
Cumulative
peak
Hour
Towards
Dwelling
Trips
Chico
at
Area/Project
Units
Generated
12% of ADT/ADT'
Forest Ranch (existing)
--
--
264
/ 2,200
Forest Ranch (additional.).
100(1)
700
348
/ 2,900
14 Mile House
21
147
366
/ 3,047
Parr -Terrill
12
84
376
/ 3,131
DEIR Project
107
749
466
/ 3;880
other potential hits
(Not included in
Totals)
Isom -Hall
110(2)
770
558
/ 4,650
Bidwell Heights
385
2695
881
/ 7,345
Canyon Park
109
763
973
/ 8,108
( Butte County Planning Department
estimates,
Pebrary,
1984)
XRT. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT'
Pour alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated,
with their attendant benefits and costs. These are presented
below;
1:4 Aid Prb ject Alternative
Not building the project would leave the propetty in is
pvesent state, and have the following effects!
4.1
0
v
FIGURE 4
_ dUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ALONG!
TV.
STATE ROUTE' 32 CORRIDOR
K
TOWARDS CHIC4;
PEAKHOURLY VOLUME 22 �-a�R ;
- r�}„✓..i� 3`F Fdi' s.. -' ai f"Ks� .f 'fk;,s' Sf �-.• o'
MOUNTf (NOUS TER
RAiN' 's `_+ r3n',
LEVEL OF SERviCE *. ,Myr _., '3a sy;i``4
tw v'�3 ? us. .sa os ) 3a 5 k1r Y Cali ..Y
I O _. "'698.5
rUP
MOUNTAINOUS
TERRAIN
ROLLING'
TERRAIN t; 12 a
(3 66)
FARR- st
TERRILL .. '
ROLLING TERRAIN +
LEVEL OF SERVICE EIR �~
8--4669
0-^'870 9 A
v r
(466)
to -
do
ISOM-HALL!
' oras s�:.os .a.` w ® 2 ��� r�,y' # • ��t.
t 881 � :s-.r rx.►fi;+,xye�s { —'
AREA OF CAPACITY
"=fit-'af' w_,f >t,+` '•`;{ 1 �..
�;s �, � t�¢� -� , ®, •
PROBLEMS RESULTING'
FROM CUMULATIVE.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
2050 ADT
2200 ADT - 1981/1982 ADT
ROLLING TERRAIN
' ��'"�'� ...o —> (500)-- CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC
LEVEL TERRAIN f VOLUME (SEE TABLE - )
(PEAK HOUR)
K sc"�' '' 1- PROJECT AREA GNDY
AG.,-RESIDENTIAL LAND
''.
LEVEL �EnRrd�:
USE DESIGNATION
LEVEL OF SERVICE
-706,6
C--It65.8 -
SCALE 1N ►AILES
0
v:
41a
Benefits
(This alternative assumes a moratorium on further PArcel and
subdivision map approvals.)
1. None of the unavoidable or irreversible impaeto on the
environment listed in Chapters X and XI would occur.
Project contribution to cumulative traffic impnCtIl would
be reduced slightly.
costs
1. The project objective would not be met.
2. The resources already committed including roads, wells,
fire equipment and other improvements would receive less
use than planned by the applicant.
3. 'Land values would be reduced because of a loss of
development potential.
2 Reduced Overall Density
Substatitially reduced d,�uo ty, either with or without
clustering, would have the fo1J+,�x w,,; effects:
Benefits
1. Project increment of cumulative adverse impacts in such
areas as air quality, visual aesthetics, traffic,
public services and utilitiea would be less.
2 Adverse impacts to the physical and biotic environment
would be reduced if *minimum lot size were increased to
20 acres (in the A -R portions of the Study Area) to,
afford a comparable degree of environmental 'protection.
Costs
1. The developers cast per unit 'would increase if the same
level of amenities and mitigation measures *for serviccas
and other impacts (fire protection, road maintenance,
erosion control, etc.) arse included.
2. if prices oi, homes were kept to a teasonable leV9el,
services and mitigations ouch ao those described above.
in item (1) may not lie provided; resulting in
unfulfilled needs for these services and inct'eas,ed
demand on se+vice agencies.
f
42
3. Increased Overall Density
If project densities were substantially i.ncetiaed, the
follotwing effects would occur.'his scenario
reclassification o.0 lands now in Grazing Postulates
FA-R,, permitting ng and Open Land to A-R, or
g parcels with a minimum size of= five acres.
Benefits
l« Dollar costs per dwelling unit would be Lower,
Potentially providing low to moderate, income housing.
2• Dollar costs per dwelling unit fo
mitigation measures would be lower« r implementing
Costs
1. All cumulative physical impacts .from
including offsite impacts on project completion,
Sig nificantly.larger. services, mould be
2. site impacts to bia
resoesOurces logical, visual and physical
would in;rease and be more difficult to
mitigate$ includi,►g eXposure to
ha .ards. fine and erosion
4. Elim nation of One Road Connection
Since the vast majority of
AltaUsed na Drive and Ten Mile Mouse Ro d,Parcels third connectiowould be served by
used as 11a Castana Drives could Possibly now
Residents 1101`19 La e eliminad.
Gastana Drive would ohaveba cess; to Highwat e32
by using an unimproved frontage road (not
yet built) that would
connect with Ten Mile House Road to the south. This option would
be combined with either Alternative 2 of 3,
It would bedocument. pl'iate to note a condition discussed
earlier n tha imullto Cas"tana Drive will likely serve no
more than a o acts of 10 residences after full project buildout.
This autcom�i acts as an incorporated m3itigation
measure to
impacts on Highway 52.
Benefits
1. A redlaction in traffic, hazards from
Highway 321 m turning movements on
2: Costs for constructing road
to "' hway 32 eliminated at this conndCtion rovenlents
0
Costs
1. Costs for constructing a frontage road, approximately
1/2 mile in length, may be prohibitively high.
2. Residents ;•could still be responsible for contributions
to ward improvement costs for the Ten Mile House road
approach.
RVI. AGENCIES' ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
Agencies
Butte County Gover,.eent
Butte County Planning Department
Butte County Fire Department/California Department; Of
Butte County Public Works Department Forestry
Butte County Air Pollution Control District
Butte County Environmental Health Department
Pacific Telephone
Pacific Gas & Electric Company
California Department o£,Transportation
California Department of Fish and Game
Chico Unified School Distri-
ct
Documents
EIR for 1.`4 rle House (1982) , SCt4#82083104
EIR for Bim ] Hdights Land
Development (7 9$2)
EIR for Chico Area band [►se Plan
—W ) (1982 S , H#81102>02
C[i#80092314
Federal Hi hulay Manua]. (1965)
Butte County General Plan Elements
Chico 1!—r'—an
Area Transportation S`tud-Y_ (1982)
An Urban SLtra��for California (1978)
tte P 0r t he Cohasset/ orest liBann n Area
____
�' Committee
A
ctn er 1983) Foothill I��vo�ment fol California
(1981 draft)
Per.,cn
S �.
Jim Jokerst, Botaftical Consr,tltant
JJm n'Ianning3'Archaeo169ical CanSultant
0
XVII. APPENDICES
,A, Initial Environmental, Study
B. Botanical Survey Report
C: Aarchaeological Survey Report
D. Butte County 'Land Use Categories and Zones
E. Caltrans Correspondence and Schematics
F. Traffic Analysis Computations
G. Referenced Cumulative Impacts Studies
H. Report of the Zasset%Forest Ranch Fl,-.nnin{� Area Committee
I. Definitions of 'Levels of Service
J. Corxespondence Received
■ I.