HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-39 REZONE A-SR TO PA-C 3 OF 5•
LI - -M 4 33
Subject prorasrty is tar3;iru ,11 level Arid �lantea
iaa d al aril areas. The" have y d wr tli 110-50 yea r
tiwncrs far a y en nodly nn(41ected by t t� K)revi4atas
Irprc�xr rretely the . d3t tail years. Tta�i iar)il l r
sa,idy vino lbdri arid Cher wildl fr F,irr the usur: c Uxcell3nt,
QlRctQd Ornhards suet` ijo i t�ve, Cftir_i t � r * inlic3biti nt, of ne-
The e t3uirl - f aar,-,361„ nr,d fj rmjtgj r�rlllirrl 1.
l strUCture its a dz l;a,r r,'p Itt�t� Old f..
torn be
n y The most �.�initii;attf. rr. Mural or hrm,c�r r;s,aalatJt ctwt�fft o
�rir'a�'F"�' r
y s r sL 1. . , hi iqp unef f� 3 airiti full l �n
to tP e � »F:I f';i on "riC3'r�r'ty � I•i;3fterit iii; the entrance
free %at tl�rr il"c3 ., r.il-a iivorluv. Thi tree i• ; xiril t ly `%
Unf0l t. irately, , 'tJO ye ra rale and "l nterd fare �aFlttE ra31
,`��.ciw�ll �}�rrt;�e;� rrohn e`iidirell,
of CLtti r" °;'s � t trs U"
C„ tAr�=l�filrit 1 all '3Fl`,im;in� m I'{istd« Irl$tGy�d
a tray srarte in t`.e r t11.24 we e3�'I,i willing to pay
a i ntI :ill U110w the tree tnsra,,rV nn rn�t will htake iO "again, if the
nr rarially 'cava a 'lark: nr ° r3 t nn �, p wht)t wault�
"ar 37�kntli
I LEV. . 3,4
Cr' t; e i 39fi S de of this rliCt�)r t,
an anarave*J subdivi.sjon of y lies rl` ghlarw -°ark Estates,
built a vi i rom my 1nV+:�� �,eka!�` � Iota. Hig�ilanb fL rk was never
CEMCIJaat:r for , .O inns k think it Probably will be a
ai•iir.p 5nOm due to its �rer'ant plea:° land use d.
nat t t:irlwj Z:aC.nua�iaall+�
Lra !- est r:a 1 bl t ? fatiil On Ohs lei n
si a ar H ., wt�"It lies
of 1 r,r ± �� �e u�aly� ,`�_n a1 aaxa lots. �i�i neighborhood C�hIcC1
On SiF,� ,y'"+ i'�16 rtt}�i f ie:31`tr W31t� and jinn -. r SS
� fi'.iyiyy�'n't]. c31
ini'onnatio l Mali ttecl 7, 'l- 15�s2 f 1�i 1.i ttit
PROPOSED HO-tEOWNERS AaSOCIATION
The privAt,, drive, drainutle FjAjstF-1(ns, sidewalks, ,Amnot,
entry and all front Yards Will be landsCa-led allb r ialila, Itr1r11t IIV Lf"!
Holneowners Asuomiation. Encah hilmeownur will bull a LILA101119 Sita '11111
n eq0tiLite his nuri --onstructian Inan to build one of our models with
us be-nq V -'a build,.-rs. Their U -,Ick yards Will be oomj)IiAl,IV N"cad
Ca Se
witn seven foot tell Fropo stake fqncus u,d they `43ylotids Pe th'L
roar yartj:j jillwever t`-q,,V wish,
Thore will be covenants, c,undltionsj and restrlGtMnu against
anything that Would be detrimental to On duality OfIi at
Swallow Ta -11 HoMes,
0IRLLII""Ir',I,IARY REPORT Oi�j Pi',OVIOIU`,'Ij' FOR
, ')'T - � SAL Ar1r)
L - , SPn
jR;AT�:A:I'Ej sFi.-kia
P,; ,�3 L I G , TIL:
Storir bra'i-M3lre-
DuE3 t-, I*re -'-haoed natur-I 13f this pro junt, WO WOLIIIJ liko to
':Urfac- drain ti -in fir'It 630 f8ut ( Phasea I OnLI 11 ). Frorl that
�,Irl-djlt'rirrlUnJ dr,,,i!naqe t.00uld bo ji'vitalled In
point on, I j,'jeld untill.
phaSmo i 'Jould drain int a tomporarV Chico
Phase V Iuj rvuChod. At this o0lnt thO Out -f'3 Into �'
1, reek would !,V installed. ;jL,, arc, jjropL�unq along tClo lirio
to�ai;r1 est in -,ruvol This woLild allow low
'i'lintatj 01, (.1. When thQ firut
f I
Otortr; of til' L,!I'.rjL!jr Lon illitla".I "Uvi of Storm W"Iters
Will 01,L_1jnjsj�- ., ; I n �,
t3 Iij,.i 4L,3 r V 0 1 LP cl, s p
nut
Ole.,-3tj water Flow inV) Grcack*
Eari sl (in an indlvldm�,Al sLijjtIc tviik [and leach
re:3.1-dome will be n F, (lLjurit-) Health,
.s �,,h t3v LjIltbr,
accurdint'. to L, -,a quidul frj�
Twformat'Lon, submitted, 1.1,15-82 by at)PlicMt
ke
83.39
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
']'his l ,oposal is a PA -C (Planned Area -Cluster) Ro one project to
create a 123 unit residential development. Siiig t .Y r.am.i ly detached
h0L,s:i.1ig will account for 91 units and single :fam-'ly attached housing
w -,t 1.1 comprise the remaining 32 units. The proposed (1cvolopment is
7 oc ,ited on 20.74 acres in the western fringe of t ho Chico Urban Area.
The project fronts on West Sacramento Avenue,900 .foot + west of Oak
-,awn Avenue, west Chico. The proposed. density of the dcvelopmcnt is
5.93 dwelling units per acre. Present plans are to develop the project
in 7 phases as shown on the plot plan.
Tlie site currently is in agricultural orchard use (almond with some
walnut trees), as are some of the surrounding properties. Residences
are dispersed along Bidwell Avcwae to the east and west, adjacent to
the project site, Urtit f3 of the Big Chico Creek Estates Subr1'vision
borders the property on the west. Rural residences occur along West
Sacramento Avenue to the north-northwest. Multiple family residential
complexes, urban -density single family residences, and commercial uses
exist east of the site, '; to � mile away in the Highway 32 corridor
area. This West Sacramento Avenue area is experiencing an urban
residential growth trend- that has already been established-. Several
subdivision development projects on nearby properties have received
approval from the County in recent years:
PROJECT SIZE DATE Or APPROVAL
1. Walnut Woods Subdivision, 73 lots on July 11., 1978
northwest of this project 30 acres
across 11'. Sacramento Ave
2. Leisurewood Estates, 40 lots on September 7, 1978
north. of Walnut Woods 14 acres
3, Highland Patvk Subdivision, 42 lots on July 17, 1978
600 feet east of this 15 acres
site.
4, Big Chico Creek i:states, 170 lots on January 22, 1980
gest and north of this 75 acres
project,
Development of these projects has not been fully accomplished, Progress
has been made in constructing residences and related improvements on
three of the four subdivisions mentioned ([lighland Dark Subdivision
approval has expired) The cumulative development 'Of all four approved
projects will establish a total: or 406 residential lots on 140 acres
in this 'local area. The }lig Chico Creek Estates Subdivision (170 Lots)
represents 420 of the total development. This project, represents 310
AppendiX F - page 8 0f 9
83-30
DISCUSSION Ole ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Continued)
Of the total: development and includes thr. land prev:i.oiisl. ? i.
;Cor the McDowell. Subdi-vis*-on of 27 l,o*s.
Chico Urban Area and is designated by elle Butt Cctc t General p,
Chico ,
.band Use Element, 1'ox lacy densit • Tho s s:i, to lies rvi Lh i. I7 thaw
Chico General Plan (tivlii.ch does density
resic ential use. } r_ c Zeral. 1 .l,.r,tl,
coi•poratecl area 1To��e�rea , t1�e
designates this arca 1'orLlagriCulturalnt�selis Current
zoning is A -SR (Agricultural-SLlburball 1zesidentialJ
.An environmental impact report
the Previous area subdivision projects. Please o rPe to
(EIRJ has been preiir.�red !'al• each of
documents fol a discussion of the envaa;onment l .ri}"orina,ti
011 to the area. Man .} � these I;TR
y o:f the inc}iviclual Impacts that l�.e Potential from
ilnplementati.oil of each su1)d iViS ion
Tcnt�t.crro
Sub An Brion nmental i.lnpactoreportj isarecluarecl �n these
Act b division pursuant to} tor this
rmc� c 1 Rs ' hCalifornia P -
atisc o f the potential :f.'or ad:ditianal advers�aVimpacts talQuality ��
increase in magnitude of impacts, and Ilio cumulative effe
development in the area, Ill
ETR is sLiitavle for Is o CSth tiie Big cts of Estates Section 7.506$ of the CEQA E �hi'co Cre�lc Estates
Sections 15067 and Q CuidelinesJ aloe ,• Project (as per
15067.5 of the Ch g 1�xth a supplement (Per
QA Guidelines).
The potential impacts include.
7 • Drama e. Increased storm water drainage into 131 Cl`
Will be generated by residential development or the Rico Creek
result of development of imperirious sur;facin
for reduced, water qualityand as a
}Vater Resources, Reclamation Board g` 'Blit potential exists
in thafi stream, The Stage Department o f
drainage channel and is a responsaUle1A encs
wigged The storm drain for Bi CH
glua, Ivi.th' subsecluent�5ermi
designed to drain this pra�aort also, Permit
Big Chaco Creek Estates Unit #3 'tivas
mends that the flood-carryin The Reclamation Board recom
:further. g ca.pacxty of Big Chico Creek be studied:
2. Sera e Dis osa7.: The ;123 unfits will utalize
leachfield ,
ystems :for selvage disposal. individual septic-
350 feet from the Bag Chico Creek chanel: Contamination aclose as
surface tvator body from residential effluents; as '1 as from
residential e the use of posticides; ferti.�7.zers, and at�aei, Gl1e of this
used in the home may m
resource, including doptj potential, Data, about the , , chemicals
of flow of €,� oundiaater
groundwatoi°s potpn�l�vater table, cl,l.r�oct nn and rate
re the Bi C 1 � 7'lie fc�l'onta.n j ii
a11c vtPjit:ial foi cont•�tnzriatioi is included,
received rom�tileCEnviron��etcs EIe
pro5ect� "5oxi depths and e �, memo has been.
percolation pepartnient regard'
subdivision are excellent, a,ng this
p`�.l>copoposc.dalot szcs1e vicinity of the
considerably substandard with respect ,,o the Strbdi.v. Ou h, an
though, are
selvage disposal area regUireme:nt: �'
trio project toance
uat developers rr7y either redesa,gn
pxava:ele lots tti= adentiate sa ze l'or tite propose tides igd-
ual lots or provide adequate common aroa Lor commun7.t
sa✓stems, Should. the devolopor rev, 'the PAC to Provide se�vago di.sposa.l area y sewage disposal
our revic vz i► Permit i�pplicrttion inky be required t�m1110h complete
Meier also to danuar 7 0 :
y 1.983 letter ;from Tom Reid
Appendix >! - page 3a of 9
s
0 83-3`9
I)1SCUSSTON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
3. Reduction of a.�ricultu� productive land. The proj ect $ i t,(.,
currently is in agricultural use
trees; :formerly a prune orchard T11�almond orch��rd. With some ►vri;l.rtt►'L
a hi hl Vina fine sandy loam so:i 1 i..5
y productive prime agricultural soil. (Class 1 - Soil Con$ 011v►
tion Service Classification) . Residential use of the site will roipov(,
20.74 acres of cropland .from agricultural use. The
predominantly within tale Chico Urban Area. Property lies
4. Reduction Of orchard and wildlife habitat. Residential develop
ment on 1 6 acre +parcels will result in removal. ofr10st Orchard
trees and. reduction Of wildlife populations that current pit i.l :ze
the orchard :for habitat.
5, Land use alteration and urban rowth° The site lies within, the
low density rest enttal designv-tion of the COL111t;y Ceneraj_ Plan
and entirely outside the City of Chico ! s Proposed, urban expansion
area, The site also lies outside the City's Sphere of influence
(primary, secondary and ultimate)
This development (i.n conjunction with other already
ions) will increase the residential population densi}rpandet�seuoE�tlle
local area. The
properlies entirely t outside the City Of Chico's
Proposed urbaai expansion area. Continued urban development pressures
may be exerted on other lands in the area (including agricultural
lands furt.heY, west) by this project.
0: Traffic and traffic -related m acts
quart (noise, reduction in air
etc. T1e 123 resi enta,al parcels will generate
substa ally increased vehicular use of 'Nest 5arrametato Avenue and
the other area streets. The increase from this i.rtdi.vidual development
A estimated to be 860+ ADT. Cumulatively, the increase from the
total, development Proposed posed .for the area to date is estimated to be
approximately 4500 ADT, which is about a 1.80 0 increase over the pre
'Pious traffic load. of 1500 1600 11)T on 1Vest Sacramento Avenue. Access
to the development is planned :from Ilrest sac. acram Avenue vee one
street into tl°e site, Tile property fronts on Bidwell Avenue and access
from the south is Possible of that street though not desired bar the
Butte County Public works Doi artnient. Howetrer the
the developmont plan 1v;ith the intention of pro reilti:ngptrarfic licant impCsd
Oil Bidwell Avenue :C�°om this subdivision. iii �liv4l 1 /��rentto is a naY'roiv
winding rural road yid j accnt to Big Cltico Creek,, w1h , c11 is bordered by
riparian vegetation a.nd large oak trees, any a�lditiorlal tra:f:fic on
Oiclwell Avenue may have acive°rse effects on that a°on. `]'llereo•e,
all traffic is proposed to be channeled onto 11test Sacramento Avenue,
which provides direct access to highway 32 and tyicnce into Chicon
The Public 1Volxlrs bepat•ttiient ii;ts plates to �vielen artdimprtive Sacramento
Avenue, between Cletivood A.v�enue and Highway 32 Witlli.n the next 2 years:
Traffic circulation problems wa.thin the develop and in the sur-
rounding area rind. congestion ment °aat certain intersections (particularly
at the West Sacramento Avenue 3.access locations) may result from the
tos*dentia�: use eonsi.dering t11e number of lots being created, A
Appendix F - page 8b of 9
i
0 33-3J
DISCUSSION Or ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continue()
trafic study should address any potential circu:l F► l i,on pxobl.e1its and
�f
possible alternatives.
lest Sacramento Avenue and the other roads in the ri rca are rolativelY
:narrow rural streets With no Avithinl improvements
lz tomnto der lc� �tr f fi�ctloacls .
sidewalks, or shoulders) and hi g
Urban -residentials use Of the site ncreasedill m �a f�,fi}cer''Ild tileonc e 1 for
'
urban roads with
further improvement along the entire length Of 110SI: Sacramento
Avenue from Glenwood Avenue to I;lighw'ay 32
7, Increased �uUli.c services clemancls�ac`iclentntil flr5roatl pm}.`x`'crv}ces
Ic
Additional development all incre s
ap.d for utility extcnsions in a Cliaol Distrlictaindicatch the subdivior the Chico sion
Area. The Chico Unified
wi11 have a serious impact an their ability to "Stc)t1se" studcts ents, and
when combined, with students generated by
tarysSclhcho band Chico Junior
in the area, would place
I-li.gh School beyond their capacities. If- building 1 l p cats ons
p � liitiga=
�orinxt a
;fox residences in the project are made subject to any school m
tion fees established prior to the :filing of buildingper.nlit applica-
tion
tions, or if a Colttmuni.ty Pacilities District as ac�tsformevouldobeto the
issuing of permits, thea some mitigations of imp but no
achieved. Comments receivee11from �osedl, Extension are yo�f�Cali California
mitigation measures have be 1 1.
,Pater Service Company water 'Lines in conjunction lvitl the Big Chico
-Estates Subdivision project is required :for water service. Tliirtecn
;fire hydrants are TO,gUired by the Butte County Fire nepartment.
Air ort. ]sand to the west of the
S. Flight -path of the Ranchero J„ �
pro j ect site lies unclerstaUl �sihe
d Ili ;lit pattern o this
light aircraft airport. Residentialuse Of the project site should
considering the
not be incompatible with the airport land use,
distance from. the site to the a'�r.f:bld
The 123
r natUrc,
9. Increased use o will tilt m telyebe levelopeclson t ofproject site
reS ICT noes t iat Utilize cons
as a result o f thi land clivi.sion urall�als�ssnclal c�o f�liuild building materalshlc
amounts of electricity and nett 1, s
including non-renewable petxole��,Menlerate-odu�consts Qtlelr, b] e us eAaf��rehicul�a °
this number o!' rosidences tvh l �
fuels.
10. Archaeological i'esourccs� "l'he property has the potential to
J Survey esce the wto the pro�camI tit
yield SU sti ace aichaeolo Lc Alesoof due estorly 11ortion of
b�
of the Site to 13i.g Cli'co Creek.
the property was conducted in
niten 19581 and i.nechance rrcotunOnded,
The easterly portion a the s
ReFei'encc; Initial study for Big Chiico reeetCStLogates��T7gtl at�a21=�1
Subdivision, ATS 43-29
Initial study for McDowell 'Tentative Subdi.vi:sic',n
AF .13-29-15, log #f 81. 08-22-03
AppendiX P 4- Hage 8e O' T 9
IV DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the bead Agency)
On the basis of this initial. evaluation:
0 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significan
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION t
s rEce.mmended.
I find that although the proposed
project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a sI nificant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
IS aCOMM MED .
I find the proposed project MY have a significant
effect on the environment:, and an ENk"TRONMENTAL iMpACT
REPORT is required.*
Date January 7, 1983
(S,I gnatUre).
David R. 1[i.rorimt8
Associate 'Planner
Por:
Reviewed by
vs ephen`A. Streeter
Senior Planner
''T'he Big Chico Gi•eelc Estates
43-20-19 co C # t -1%t; AP 42-15-34 ; 37, 45.27-01 e 12
75-12-21 01/SGIC70Q80708, i.s su:.table for
consideration of this p o`ject (per Section 150G5 of: the G QA
Guidelines) a1on tvitli
a supplcrnent (per. Sect, 15067 and 15067.5
Of the CEQA Guidelines),
Appendix p - page g of , r
9
t
JAY HALBERT PA -C REZONE
83-39
ALT'IaRNATIVIJS TO TILE PROJECT
Conventional Subdivision: This alternative would require lots
th. it could support an individual septic system and meet the lot
design criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinanco. Minimum parcel size would be 65 foot wi:do and probably
approximately I-, acrd in area. Street widths would be 40 ,probably
from curb ;face to curb face, instead of the proposed ZQ lout to
34 feet. Resulting d(ansities would to 4 DU/Af or 'loss rr
approximately 83 �ani�.s at the most. A private road subdivision
in the -urban area will y ol,d the same densiti.os, C.f` the project
could be connected to a sanitary sewer system, 1.01 sizes could
be as small as 6500 square :feet, resulting i.n �IcnS:Llties Of approxi
mately 5 DU/AC or 104 units
Split Duplex Subdivision: if such a project used. individual
septic systems, the resulting densities would be the same tis a
han
conventional subdivision using septic systems, or no more sewer
about 4 DU/AC. T� the project was connected to a sanitary
system, then lots could be as small as 4000 square .feet resulting
in approximately7 'DU/AC or 145 units Maximult"
Y 111. tlA Common Recreation Area/Open Space
3. Clustered Dwelia.ng Lnits i or CPA -C), A development of this nature utilir xrg a commonly
and maintained septic system yield the maximum densit
could y
allowed by the General Plan designation of 6 DU/AC and provaole
common 'facilities such as a swimming pool:, VVnnis courts, barbequc
pits, RV storage, etc. Clustering could also be used to Minimize
impacts on neighboring properties.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
for
WATERFORD SUBDIVISION PA -C
AP NO. 43-29-12
43-27-08
43-29-13
PROJECT APPLICANT: JAY HALBERT
PREPARED BY
McCAIN A8SOCTATES
P.O. BOX 2118
CI3xCO, CA. 95927
JUNE 1983
FOR SUBpAITTAL TO.
OUTTE COU14TY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
7 COUNT' CRNTFR I7Ri\t1;
OROVZLLr,, CA. 95965
LOC; 4R2-11-15-02
Di SCRTPTION
This project consists of 98 residential, single-family
homes which the developer intends to market at various prices ranging;
.from $128,000 to 158,000. It is contemplated that 'build out will
occur in two years.
The interior street and sewage disposal system will be private
and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The West
Sacramento Avenue frontage will be fully improved to centerline in
accordance with Butte County Standards for urban inprovements..
Utilities will be provided by the local utili ty companies, i , e:
California Water Service Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
Pacific Telephone and State Gable TV'
All interior i provements will be installed by the developer;
including storm drainage and street lighting. The interior improvements
will be maintained by the Honrx c wner's Association,
ANALYSIS
The following fiscal analysis is based upon "per
capita multiplier" methods with the exception of
and sales tax revenues. Property tpzopexty
ax revenue a.s estimated
by using projected unit sale
prices. Sales tax revenue is
estimated by using State Board of 1;q ualizat�on
year 198
fiscal data for
.1-82,
Revenue projections are generally based upon the
1982-83 budget adopted by the Butte County Board of Super-
visors. The county revenue aper
primarily consists of property
and sales taxes; fines, ,forfeitures and penalties; stare
contributions through highway users taxes and other stat
aid; transportation aid and miscellaneous contribution o
including welfare aid, s
Federal aid includes tram
welfare and CETA funding. sportation,
Revenues received for welfare, CETA and some trans-
portation funding are not included in this :analysis as +;he
are generally credited directly to the various Programs and
do not become apart of the
general; fund. All costs con_
idered were those that were not met by grants, g
id Of fees. o,eYnment
Costs were allocated in various manners-. Adminis-
Board o ensure/Tai Collector, Assessor,
Recorder, which includes the Tr
Supervisors and The Assessment
Board, Areenq; 1
Appeal r,
g - �� ty ..oum f' -wide servic es
Judicial, costs include those for Superior Court
System, Municipal Court System, Court fork Referrable Pro ra
County Clerk and Tamil g m,
y Court. Those are county --wide services,
Health and sallitation services include
and public health servimental health
ces,.These services are count::"
Wide.
District Attorney► Public Defender and. Court
ffi.ees, although a part of the Judicial
cial systReporter
em,' ,
as a separate count _
Y ifunction, were listed
"2"
a,
BASE DATA
AREA: 20,587 acres
'TOTAL DWELLING UNITS (DU) ; 9
CAPITA PER UNIT: 2.33
SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER UNIT 0.56
COUNTY pQPULATION 156,300
UNINCORPORATED YOpa.krION 93,030
ANNUAL
REVENUES
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Assume average
selling price per
dwelling unit: of $143,000
Property tax rate
= 1% of market
value
Butte County percentage
of collected property tax: 22.554
(143.1000) (98)
(0.01) (.2255) =
31;601.57
SALES AND USE TAX
Per capita revenue
Total amount to
Count Y (98) (2.33)
18.39
(18.39) 4,199-17
FINES, F0RFEIr`iRES
AND PENALTIES
Budget
$715,114.00
Population
156,300
Per Capita
Per Unit (4.58)
(2;33)
4.58.
Total to County
(98) (10.67)
1.0.67
1 045, 80
STATE HT(71 WAY USERS
TAX
2104 Fund
2106 F'utid
$1, 551., 693.00
520;000.0D
Total to County fr om State
2,011,693.00
Population
156,306
Per Capita
Per Unit (2.33)
(13.25)
13.25..
Total. to County
(98) (30,87)
30.87
3,025.26
MOTOR vE11ICLB IN -LIEU TAX
$2,009;672;00
Total from State
156,300
population
12.86
Per Capita
29.9E
Per Unit (2:33) (12.86)
2,936,08
Total to County (98) (29.96)
,STATE AID (not including welfare)
Total from State
$6,022,164.00
156,30.0.
Population
38.53
Per Capita
89,77
Per Unit (2.33) (38:.53)
8, 797.46
Total to County (98) (89.77)
FF,DERAL AID (not Including welfare
and. CETA)
Total from Federal
$77:3,796..00
156,300
population
4.57
Per Capita
10.65
per Unit (2.33) (4.57)
i,o43. 10
Total to County (98) (10.65)
GOVERNMENT. TRANSPORTATION AID
Total from Covernment
$2 r029;b43:Q0
156100
3'
'Population
12.98
Per Capita
30.24
Pet Unit (2.33) (1:2.98)
2,963.5L
Total to County (9 8) (30.24)
55,61.1.,y6
TOTAL ANNUAL RDVENUF
567.46
PER UNIT
ANNUAL
COSTS
ADMINISTRATION
'dr
$2,302,781.00
Budget
7,56, 300.
County Population
14.73
Per Capita
34.33
Per Unit (2.33) (14.73)
c,
3,364.34
County Cost (98) (34.33)
FIRE PROTECTION
,$2,153,653.00
professional Budget
187,169.00
Volunteer Budget
!$2r3401822-00
Total Budget
93,030
Unincorporated Population
25,16
per Capita
58.63
per Unit (2.33') (25.16)
5,745,74
County Cost (98) (58.63)
SHERIFF
°r..
x�
$51299,71.00
Budget
156,300
County Populatioiz
33.91
Per Capita
79.00
per Unit (2.33) (33.91)
j,742,00
County Cost (9) (79.0.0)
JUD7 ` � SER_ VICE5
315860.Q0
Superior Court
933,1.84.00
Municipal Courts
489f564.00
County Cletk
..:...;f .
r}
r
JUDICIAL, SERVICES (cont'd)
County Work Retraining
$ 19,064.00
43,608.00
Family Court
Total Judicial�.,8n,3ao.00
County Population
156,300
11»52
Per Capita
26.84
per Unit (2.33) (11..52)
County Cost (98) (26.84)
2,630.:2
MALTH AND SANITATION
Public Health - Mental Health
$1,072,223.00
County Population
156,300
6.86
Per Capita
Per Unit (2.33) (6.86)
15. 98
county Cost (98) (15.98)
1�, 566 .04
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER,
COURT REPORTERS
$20052,162.00
;;oun°• Population
156,3b0
13.13
;ger Capita
30.59
Per Unit (2.33) (1.3.13)
2,997.82
county Cast (9 $) (30.59)
JUVENILE HALL, PROBATIONDEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC'
GUARDIAN, JUVEWILE COURT WARDS
$1j591►052.00
Budget
county Population
1.56,300
10.].8
Per Capita
23.?2
Per Unit (2.33) (1.0.18)
county costs (98) , (23.12)
21324,56
PUBLIC WORKS, PLANNING AND BUILDING
.INSPECTION
Budget
Unincorporated Population
$5,145,000,00
Per Capita
93,030
Per Unit (2.33) (55.30)
55.30
county Cosi'_s (98) (1.2Fr. 8G)
128.8.6
12,628.28
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND FARM/FjOME ADVISOR
Budget
County Population
$ 514,020.00
Per Capita
1.56,300
Per Unit (2.33) (3.29)
3.29
county Costs (98) (7.66)
7.66
750.68
FISH AND GAtyE, C7ETERANS SERVICES AND HALTS
Budget
County Population
$ 82,934.00
Per Capita
156,300
Per Unit (2-33)(0-53
0.53
County Costs (98) (1.23)
1.23
120,54
ANIMAL CONTROL
Budget
Unincorporated Population
1221000.00
Per Capita
93,030
Per Unit (2.33) (1.31)
1.31
County Costs (98) (3',05)
3.05
298,go
_gam
r
r
WELFARE
-
$ 209,640,00
Budget
156,300
County Population.
1,34
Per Capita
3.2
Per Unit (2.33) (1.34)
305.76
County Costs (9 8) ( 3.12)
LIBRARIES
1.,059 ,195.00
P.udget
156,300
County Population
6.78
Per Capita
15.80
per Unit (2.33) (6.78)
1,548,40
Costs- ti"8) (1.5.80)
.County
4,2 ; 024.38
TOTAL COUNTY COSTS
-,[28.82
pER UNIT
SUMMATION
567,46
COUNTY REVENUE PER UNIT
47$.82
COUNTY COST PER, UNIT
13 6
NET GAIN TO COUNTY
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE_ OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95814
(916) 445-0613
GEORGE DE JKMEJIAN
GDVBRNOR
April. 22, 1983
Mr, Stephen A. Streeter
Butte County Planning
7 County center Drive
Oroville CA 95965
Subject: SCH# 79080708
APP D
pq}Ie Co, Planning !:;WnU
APR 26 1983
OroVillet CaUP 14
SWTSAWPAT,L St7BDIV1S10N PA -C
Dear Mr. Streeter,
cies for review. The review period is closed
The State Clearinghouse submitted et a above named draft Enviroranental impaa
Report (EIR) to selected state ac ies is are) attached, If you would
and the comments of the individual agency(' ) is(are)
contact the staff from
like to discuss -their concerns and reCndationsr P
the appropriate agency(ies). rand
must include all comment responses (CEQA
When preparing the final ETR r YOU
idelinesr Section 15146) . The certified EIR ;must be considered in the decision
Gu eCt in addi.tionr we urge you to respond directly to
making process for the prod to them, including the State Clearinghouse
the commenting agency(ies) by writing
number on all correspondence.
C`1 Pary v Cbu -` c4 -an, cl aLa (118 Cal. App•
A 1981 Appellate Court decision in to review comrmnts. SpecificallYr
3d 348) clarified reQuirments for responding giving reasons why
The responses must show
the court indicated that �commeesti nstweranoteaccep ssed �d�tailr g po
the specific comments an g estop az comment to be
factors of overriding si.gnificance which required the sugg
statements but must be
rejected. Responses to cOm experimust mental ot be scientific authority or explanatory
supported by empirical . 'The
information of any. kind. The -court further said that. the responses must be a goon
inf
faith, reasoned analysis-
Proved without adequate mitigation of Sig -
18
In the event that the project is app
nif icant of fects r the lead agency must make written itten findings for each overriding g
effect and it must support its actions with a written statem deloinesSect on 15088
siderations for each unmitigated significant `effect (CEQA
and 15089).the Nctice
a ,oval from any state agency,
If the project requires discretionary pp os at (g16)R445-0613 , as well as with
of Determination must be filed with the Secretary f you have any
the County Clerk'. Please contact .Anna poly
t the erivirormental review process.
questions abou
Sincerelyr
& &W.,V
Ron Bassr Director
state Clearinghouse
cc: Resource's Agency
attachmen
State er-11forn a
�4
,tAemora ndum
To Mr. Ron. Bass
Wxecutive Officer
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
SacrarWnto, CA 95814
From a DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 3
Business and Transportation Agency J
Date, April 14i 1983
Files 03-Bqt-32-7.8
Swa,l.tt ail Subdivi ion
SaI 70080708
en5),
Subject:
Caltrans, District 3, has reviewed the supplemental EIR for the 123 -lot
subdivision west of Highway 32 known as Swallowtail Subdivision. This
subdivision is adjacent to the Bi,� Chico Creek Estate Subdivision, for 'which a
previous EIR has been prepared.
lt of i
We are concerned about the cmulat ve traffic impa cts as a resuclt of this iand
t
other',subdivisions, as identified in Item 6 on page 8b, parte
relates to Highway
32 traffic. As this area continues to develop, Highway 32
will experience more congestion. We concur with the need for a traffic study
which addresses these problems and possible solutions, and we urge the County
and/or the City Of Chico to include Highway 32 in this study.
E. F. CALLIGAN nation p F s! �tr� i
Acting District,. Director of Trans. R'(
� u � 1
APR 19 1963
R. D. Skidmore
Chief, tmArormtental Branch' State C oar nghousv
L]
ST17ALLOWTAIL SUBDIVISION
STAFF RESPONSE TO STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW
CONCERN: Cumulative impacts on
additional congestion on HighOn
Hi qhw
ay 32 wi17. cause
County should conduct a traffic
County
for32. htheCty or
which includes analysis of impacts on Ior th Chico Area
y 32,
RESPONSE: J',,rt, and Associates has
entitled "Chico Urban Ivrea TransportationaStud*� report
November 1982, The report addresses the antic dated
congestion that will be generated by the 'arca n
Sacramento Avenue. Present traffic ear Gies
between West Sacramento Avenue and MesiuSenle on NStreet 32
approximately 15,000 vehicles - Thus, Street is
Presently ;provides a " �� per dad'• Thus, IlicrhwaY 32
Of capacity. D level of service and is'at 93
The report anticipates that the volume will ncxea
21,200 vehicles per d« se to
Per day at full. build outs inhthe eChico ar 2000
rec 2 7 y 3(10 Vehicles
estimated at 170,89x). The report estimated
out oc currincq in 2032, fullbuild
The report further recommends that FT'5hway 32 he widened
to a inq is facility with bike lanes on each side• Th
widening is scheduled for a 10-2 This
widened roadway would provide a r,BYear time frame, `The
vehicular traffic amici aced in y se,r_V� ce for
level of
p the year Of S
The report examines two method, of fincancxnct the improve-
meats, iassessment districts and deveYo er i
concludes that this area. T,r P fees. I
included in such a disEtict st 'Sacramento Avenue) not be
The develOpor :Fee recommended in the report is ,
unit, and, if the fee schedule is adopted by theCountyButte, then it would be appropriate for the clovelo
por to
contribute the fee. ty of
The City Of Chico has officially. accepted thz� ,
not adopted ally measures to impl stent the tho rtntotdbut has
Y i}YN
� of ��..� \ .� . ��.•.,,� �. T i
,Y Y'
..,
Baie
LAND r, (NATURALWEALTH AND BEAUTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS
CLAY CAMEEIERpY. Director
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, OROVILLE,
Tele CALIFORNIA 95965
phcno; (916) 534.-4h81
WILLIAM (Bill) CNEFF
OOI'ufy Director
May 3l, 1988
say Halbert
Rt. 2, Box 1,02
Chico, CA 95RE Waterford PA -
926 C Subdivision.
AP 2E3-2 rT-08 and x•3.,29-12 1
Dear Dsr. Halbert: s 5 ptn,
held t the nregular 'meeting hOf e the Butte Count
May 25 1983, Y Subdivision Co
tsnative PA -0 subdivision. committee
� Co the >:tbove-re ferent:ed
mmi�tee reviewed
• ��u>�.1;.:��;ed ,Please find the
recommended L,. , list of conditions Which w3:11 be
• 5 �%�. � De�rtmerit of
Public Wotlts.
. The Plann3.n p
$ De artmelxt Wi,U notify
that the Planningcommission You of the date, time and
mmission Will be revieDr ng this place
If you have -pproject.
y ve any questions regarding
this office. n& this matter aw
contact
Very truly amours.,
Clay Castldberry r,
D'rector Of .
. Public Works...
imld$ J "Mendons,
attachment Assistant Director
ccTanning
Health
BuFb Co. Planning Cow%
. MAY 31 M
Orovillo, i;614arnki
WATERFORD PA -C SUBDIVISION, (Jay Halbert), 128 units approximately
1100 ft. west of Rose Avenue, on the north side of Bidwell Avenue,
east of Big Chico CreEk Estates and west of Highland Park Subdivi-
sion, Chico,
Assessor's Parcel Number: 43-27=08 and 43-29-12 & 15 (ptn.)
Public Works Department conditions are
1 Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public
Works for approval and install the required facilities.
2•rovidecte 20 -ft. radius property line returns at ail street
inter3• Pr,.lide right-of-way for standard No. S-5 at all street
intersections.
4= Indicate a 50 -ft. building setback line from the centerline of
Sacramento Avenue.
5. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all
street intersections per County requirements. (Submit five
alternate street names for each street to the County
address coordinator for approval of street names.)
6. Deed 30 feet from the centerline of Sacramento Avenue to
the County of Butte.
7. 'Construct one-half street section on 'Sacramento Avenue to
RS -3-A road standard with vertical curb
and
and 2" AC, 811 AB, SC 250 prime, fog seal andt95% relativeWalk
compaction. Construct full street section on all interior
streets to ser+ion shown on tentative map.
D. Provide monumentation as required by the Department of Public
Works in accordance With accepted standards.
9. Street grades and other features shall comply With the Butte
County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted
engineering standards.
1,0. Provide permanent solution for drainages
Il, All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
12 Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Depar
other respons,ibie agency, tment or
13 Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte
County requirements, accepted design dr
of PG&E teria, and recommendations
Cantahued Qrti next sheet
I
14. Pay off assessments.
15. Meeh the requirements of the utilityco
Pacific Telephone, Neater, sewer). Mpanies (i.e., PG&E,
16. Pay any delinquent taxes.
17'• File a tentative and final subdivision map and a -
fees. � Y appropriate
18. Developer shall provide all required traffic
including stop signs. c safety signs,
19. Construct emergency
access road on
and construct breakaway Victorian Park Drive breakaway gaffe on Bidt��e11 Avenue.to
9`�-T
0
a
•
in I UKA1. WEALTH AND i;l AUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE -. OROY14LE, CALIFORNIA 9$465.339/'
PHONCr 53d.460
March 3, 1985
Jesus R. Garcia
P.O. Box 584
Gerber, CA 96035
Re,! File No. 83.39
Dear Mr. Garcia:
In reference to your letter of February1�
advised that your request to expand th�, 1986, please be
home at Property p garage and remodel the
pro ert located at 617 Victorian Park Drive (AP 93_48_10)
is permitted pursuant to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone
controlling the Property. The zone has no required setback o
buildings and eave lines can be built to the �t.o and
be advised that you must maintain two Property line. Also
measuring 10 by 20 feet each on the Parking spaces
Property,
Your letter and this response are being placed in the file for
thethroject for future reference. In the future i
Please address File No. 83„.39. � when referring
If you have any further
contact this office, questions regarding this matter, please
sincerely;
B.A: KIRC14tR
Director of Planning
David R. 8ironimus ^
Associate Planner
DRx/ss
AInner
u --
a���nlnQ ar m
"� Cnu►�C` �� �'r,
bruan i�j M
BW9 Co. Manning Ocvn
FEB 18 1986
1-- 1-
provill®, Cau
C1
a.»1 w ` , to yoU jn 1 -1�Y to e ct�aV Y1eu1 t. ocG,rpl� ► sl en .
�4e{--'r�sid and Genet ?,Anep �—S6,rs—
CnFc"AXI1c,,
in �,qtm.ershipw*a `,uOOd, Z 4m a ro IVB 6yea >
an►tt�in w a anT�tk co "' r ,rou 1 used ad I�r,S
-si�,e
C.�w es; In 6 1a oyr-5. fo11o�n jy'
Nve
�_��` (�1 � e\j�y q �". 1..44. towards �-+S re Q-- ;q 5y 1 u
under-AOW 4e - e 's Mo MA I to br-b ee.1t
e, endern line: a, havolo►
s�i�e. -�o� edves� wd11 �I�n�ss
dim�iorts wj�j
re�uirnme'
.�... �p.
1�II nl ort ihq� 4�x e-- c Infos 1+S
e er v�dQ In de. d X e, 1 ertor
Pe
t TQ
-I-he-
lvr�antnce,
also Tan `(o o�in -�� a��e1T/
t my ���I adch'it-ons /,s
elle w'r�en cettcurrenc�
� U;6
�enoj Tr
Yaw
�ease roe�� know i{' --T nem �}o �roVid� add�nal ll�or m '
�j YT manse. 4�
Snce`f�ly�
.-
.w----------------
Bffl 04TY Fila; DEPARTf
iCrJT - �'
.� .�� �q F t►it PROTECTION STANDARDS Rtvt[W
bEUELOPMENT NAME t%lbgrt— ,Z!�,
,1 Ut 4gtO
AP
LDCATTON N �.._
This project Ijust meet the re uiretnents ill the'Uniform
Building Code amended to Butte County standards,
'In accordance
ith
Improvement
Sararerds., tile watery requiremei requirements this Of
Parcel/project (ATTitCff f3USZ)JsSS C��U IIERLI
(Applirfable standards are Checked).
Rquirelflent Class 1, .A wot e supply f"or fire
protection wf'll�not br;"required: however, 3f the
domestic water Storage system has a capacity of 11000
gallons or mora, a first department connection to
Butte County Public CJorks Standard 5-29 shall be,
installed, The`fire deltarbnent must be notified of any such connection.
so that t is readily accessible to fire department equipment. such connection Point must be located
l3 Dl ,s hb'trirement -less , A Pressurized water Sys tell with adequate nuhibers a hydrants is t �rT
khis is eat fNasib��i ,�f�e following option will satisfy the fire department re u�irr�lnr�nt far Water,ref
pre t, red, but If
�J�i,Ger re dope teens with a capacity of l0,DDD gailnns or morel equipped wfLh rl ract esti weather^ access
and fire deparUnent cahnection (6-2g);
(, In round swpinunin pools equipped with a drafting Connection or drafti�trt aces, or
C. A dry stand ipe system, Plumbed to a. reliable water Source, Suc}i stand rl r
9
1,000 feet in length.
[ It wys,tem wilt not exr.ued
There must er at least l'D,ODO gallons of water available and strategically incased for ei?r±h lq dwelliri s ar
portions thereof, ;4xample: li dweilirtgs would require two separated sources). Provisions must be mads t
ensure that the water stored is always available and accessible for use under a'Il wr:uther conditions.
13 Dl- Re iremo�ttclass 3rel pressurized cCmmunit' water' a
µ � "`e, a " y"` Y system is required, Tcrrtative "hydrs nt i.crra'tiarts are
indicated on bhp p hrinary map, Final locations rnrrst be exactly indikaGeB aril reCardr~d on the final
map1./
Number Of hydrants required X11 , nraxil IN hydrant to hydrant sp,ruinr '
y,..,--a. _ ..
9�.c.7`C'���cep o� r3b ��cl� � lit s,__ and instal f W �1 fcrt h st a t „r
[t +ref rrsun� ��,r rn,aG rl� l ed accurdtng ho Har to (.irunLy Prrtrlte`Waf(mt, l+ydrant size
S-21 and requir(ar•jents of local Water agency. '1:03 GM f:rC. �`�'
( ) 13 ill-# R uirenent ion
Class 4. Water for fire protection is r�equnad« 1lre r ,�Y
capatilei7f meeting tits fire floc requirements. if this is riot feasible,l,enr involving independent pumps,
t r �ir.raiale �ystern is a hydrant system
stasis water Storage arra dry strlrtdpipes h,ay lee substituted, such a systu�rr il, ,utr,fenv to the approval t the firta
department, The iIvailable water flew from such a system must flow
volume of water in ssorage nrnst Car gallgnt. PraS!i5ions iniist bca' inatdelGpSirisuNeinil t[teesytt+n provided
i5 maintained to its design eapat.iLy�.,' =
( ) 11-019 Requirement Class, h (aressur°ix'ed wdter for fire protection is av,ril,rble withrrt l,tgtlD feet csf tftie crew d
parcels. fn lieu of lyeai^��irig the' cost of in5taltirt!p a ,lire hyrlrant�s') the davrrloawl ma Le
nto - �x the fire departw
...,..
mens hydrant fund, Pay in,liell,fee i t � pay into
irrntti`t',r,q,r�,`rY1 .11 _. by" tel: fund`ha,kd dh 1.2fa prtr'Frr}rltagr;
fron foot, Frontage is indiVated lay, the rod liner on the ats:rti,tred nrd aw y
sides
the $treitan L be made by surveyor arta rNurded on flirrai tua tjofrortdrtetL luulatS�y�r i4 1-11 irr::lursaal -
sides C: fire street un included strr~ut$.'
Other trmiditions.-
004o dd
plarttCoer,m
( ) Response tura.' C)roviilC+}litrrrafi
Os For the ril^st 3 fire enti'iles il, is follows,
1. Station 0N CDf,rBCl fr
2f Station #
3. station
( ? in the Safety tlejhent of the (Butte C&un4 Rener6 Pwn ' this ro t�cG area is classified as
fire hexa area. � vu#te +a, Atihutq arq + p d .
4flLLlAM C, TETE
ec; ll -R fila JUL C"Canty ware liardeai
eattallon Chief
t�toVillet 'r✓ahior`rtia Dyt ,
1/ Local water agency r i3'ra Lai inn C�.`i�
y equirements f
Cr hydrants shay be mare r^ostrictivc,
Chief
i
BUTTE, C ..
COUNTY P, )KING COMMISSION
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE CALI'FORI 95965
PHONE: 5344601
TO: Department of Forestry DATE: June 27 1983
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAT., EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or
the following project: 83-39 Jay Halbert - Rezone fro teneraA SR to tod �PA-C
of 20.74 acres for proposed develo ment of 98 small unatta:hed,
single family Victorian homes located approx. 900 feet west of Oak
Lawn Ave., on the south side of Nest Sac
CreeK s a es, i en %ie as ramen�co Ave. east of Big Chico
AP 43-29-15, Chico. �por ion of
We are making an assessment of possible environmental impact
8 and ll e
preparing an environmental. document, either a Negative Doclaration,71Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
YOU CEW offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either
physiceal social, or economic .impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond Within 14 days of the above -noted date, if no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project,
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
.t �''`-L--gra•`
DavId R. Hironam s
Associate Planner
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheat)
4� 1
Attention Butte County Planning Commissions
The undersigned are in opposition to changing the Vzoning
of Mr. Jay Halbert;'s acres identified as Ap 43-29-12, 43 -2? -08
& portion of 43-2q-15 from A -SR to PA -C. A cluster of 100 hoitias
would not be compatible with the general plan of the existing;
neighborhood density. The increased population would aggravate
the existing problem of traffic and pedestrian safe That
type of population density/ would create environmental problems
that would need, to be addressee]. That density would devalue
surrounding lower density property and jeopardize the existing
expectations of surrounding property owners for a rural, living
environment. r
j
June 23,1.983 v2V U" �r �r Vl JJ
' y ^. ereS Ap'i(' 1!H' 7 t`',
Contiguous property owners to ��+r= ��.Lert s ��
w 1
J<1Ws71tr1 Q
me
W..
,
/ Ito
/✓ y"-'�-� �`. rye.
vI` a
rJe lahbor np property _ Owners
41 t
'Alc A- e ,,,(,c -k-
7�� r
1)
T`
DX liL1 /.
741Z'f-
w { :fit t �` 0 r (.• r
ELEANOR M, [if G�CC4R
COUNTY CLEr4K jjI,CO(i[yt fi
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - 2h r ()11h►TY CEN'PFR DRIVE
OROVILLE, CALIFORIIIA 05965-3375
AnSS'.�ntt,nu:tyCtrwrk,ttrCa,7L�nJqulet l`btephanrs� SVe(.ikihl
A,yr,tfgr,t C FPM,, t3uar•,l r1t SoPrviaora, Cathy Pith 53d'4551
A443Ia I Ft�;U.jer, Gwen Ferlan 534'4371
A3;tatait its is+ ar 9 ul Vetnr , 5 Beltylt534.4691. Barrett 534-4,161
August 3, 1983
Jay Halbert
Route 2,, Box 102
Chico, Ca. 95926
Rc; Rezone File 83-30
Dear 1,Ir. Flalbert
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of supervisors
held August 2, 1903, a public hearing date was set for August
23, 1983 at 10,30 a.m to consider your request for a rezone
£rorn A -SR (Agricultural -Suburban Residential), to PA=C (Planned-
A -tea Cluster) oaf 20.74 acres to 611OW a 98 unit residential
development on property located. ap
west of
(-yak La;,in Avenue, on the south sideofXhVcsteSacramentotAvenue,
identified as All 43-27-08, 4S-20-12, and 43-29-15 (I�ortion
Chico, )
The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room,
County Administration Center, —5 County Center Drzve, Oroville
California. -)
Should you have any y questions regarding this matter
act thus office. , please con
Sincerely,
ELEANOR b(, ttCKRR
County Clerk- and Ex -officio
Clerk of the Butte County Board of
Supervisors
DMB r
cc t A Q ];ngzieers
1280 tdst Oth Street
Chico Ca. 95926
4 '
I GQUNTY CENTER DRIVE -, OROVIL ISE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE 534 1601
July 22, 1983
Mr. Jay Halbert
Route 2, Box 102
-Chico, CA 95926
Re: Rezone Pile 83-30
Dear Mr. Halbert:
The Planning Commission, at their meeting on July 21,
approved the proposed Rezone from "A -SR" (Agricultural -Suburban
Residential) to "PA -C" (Planned Area Cluster) on the above -
referenced parcel subject to, the following conditions c
1. Submit road and drainage plans to the Dept, of
Public Works for approval and install the required
facilities
2. Provide 20 £t. radius property line returns at all
street intersections.
3. Provide right-of-way for standard No. S-5 at all street
intersections.
4. indicate a 50 ft. building setback lime from the
centerline of Sacramento Ave.
54 treet signs wall be provided by the developer
at all street intersections per County requirements.
(Submit five alternate street names for each street
to the County address coordinator for approval of
street names.)
6. Deed 30 ft. from the centerline of Sacramento Ave.
to the County of Butte.
1. Consjtruct one"half street section on: Sacramento Ave,
to Ma -3-A road standard with vertical curb, gutter;
and sidewalk and 2" AC, 8" AB, SC 250 prime; fog
seal and 95t relative compaction, Constiruct full street
section on all interior streets to section shown on
tentative map.
Mr. Jay Halbert
July 22, 1983
nage 2
•
8. Provide monumentation as required by the Dept. of
Public Vforks in accordance with accepted standards.
9. Street grades and other features shall comply with.
the Butte County Ordinances, design resolution and
other accepted engineering standards.
10. Provide permanent solution for drainage.
11. All easements of record to be shown on the final map.
12. Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Dept.
or other responsible agency.
13 Street lighting shall be'provided in accordance with
Butte County requirements, accepted design criteria,
and recommenciations of PG&E.
14 Pay off assessments.
15. Meet the requirements of the utility companies
(i.e., PGyE, Pacific Telephone, seater, sewer,)
1e. Pay any delinquent taxes.
17. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay
,appropriate fees.
18. Developer shall, provide all required traffic safety
signs, including stop signs,
19. Meet requireme.►ts of Butte County Environmental Health
Department.
20. Provide 2 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit.
21. Underground utilities are to be provided to each lot
in the subdivision. Retain some OP the almond trees
to supplement landscaping on the lots,.
220 Verify that the storm drain system for Big Chico Creek
Estates Unit #3 is adequate to handle the increased
drainage Prom this subdivision. Provide protection
of Big Chico Creek against runoff discharges during.
period of low creek flow such as summer flows.
Maintain the dry wells (or other means of Water
quality protection) on a yearly basis:
13
Dir. ,(,r halbert
July r., 1.983
1' Page ;S
a'3 Utilize the followin
g measures .cess,,I,r
construction im azts: 9 as nn � to reduce
1' a) Water- to prevent dust,
b) Restrict chnstruction-related vehicles to the main
streets. c) Limit working hours to the daytime,
24. p Building n ernits for residences Will he qubje,ct to
any school mitigation fees established by Butte
County Ordinance enacted
applications for building prior to the filing o£
er
Facilities Act of 1982 District sllcre ted co
mmunity
to California Government Code Section 53311, et. se
q. 1 ant
anVerinry bu ldine Project area, prior to the ssuznce seq.
y g Permits.of
25: Provide a permanent solution for draana e
the protection p'�£ down"stream h �, including
affected b s�; Properties which may he
face }eater ritno£f generated from this
development. Verify that the flood carrying capacity
of Big Chico Creek is adequate to accommodate the Y
projected amount of -'runoff at buildout,
26• Contribute
pro rata share toward traffic signal at
the intersection of IVe,t Sacramento Avenue and
Highway 32 or agree to future inclusion within a
traffic assessment district if created b
Of Supervisors for such Purposes.y the Board
27 There Will be a 30 ft. building setback
westerly boundary line adyacent to Bi line from the
Estates, g Chico Creel;
284 The development on westerly lots not t-
story residences, o exceed 1 1/2
29i Plant-L" of trees along westerly
Chico Creek Estates to be maintained n
inedinra livixg
Condition And to be planted immediately, ng
30. Applicant must also comply with all other a
State and local statutes, ordinances and re
pplicable
A, report of this at ion-will be made to regulations'.
On August 2, at which `t'ime the the Board Of Supervisors
You will be notified of that date,
set a public hearing,
i
Jay Halbert
July 22, 1983
Page
t
Isle tions, Feel free to
questcontact our office, if you hnvo 7t�
Sincerely,
8. A. Kircher
Planning Director
teP en
S, treeter
Sonxor Planner
SAS:sb
Cc: A & Q Engineers
1280 East 9th St.
Chico, CA 95920
r
t
�/.L*^� rL.-t;.1-G •1...��.�-ir ��i ./%"z�- ��"�4„' C+f '�A'�4:1"? �,.'�rz"l •7��/
.....�°. �''� �''�.`'�.�' ✓��u.E`f�c�� Cyte yt > a'L!:�!•''�G„-�'' 3:4;//�,� /"
a
Zee etA-1 V,
X19- ...,. .
SI
Cel" // + 0( �+�c,2[.ie r•
�y ,..y! �r �-�. Cry -•c"% > -� �' 'GSC
8utfo Co, planning Comm,
JUL 20 1983
OFoville; Galltomia
NOTICE OF A REZONING APPLICATION ,
In 1975 the area bounded by Sacramento Avenue, Bidwell Avenue,
and Oaklawn Avenue was zoned "Agricultural -Suburban -Residential' (ASR).
The ASR zoning was initiated, via a petition, by the residents of the
area, and the Board of Supervisors L;nanimously approved it.
Recently, developer Jay Halbert applied to the county to rezone
20 acres at the east end of this ASR area to a "Planned -Area Cluster".
(PAC) zoning. The PAC zone allo%rs higher density. This proposed
development would concentrate houses along the borders of the 20 acres,
and appear as a "wall of 2 -story houses", sitting 20 feet apart,, The
open space would be inside the development. Ninety-eight (98) houses
are proposed for the 20 acres,
Mr Halbert has just recently purchased the :farmer Vistec property
containing 15 acres adjacent to this 20 aores; He has applied to the
county asking for an amendment to the General Plan for 5 acres of the
newly purchased property, which would change it from low density to
medi xm density, or up to 1.3 units per acre.
In reality 35 acres in our neighborhood is being proposed for
the PAC zone: Five of which seem to indicate multiple family dwellings,
or duplexes.
Our purpose is not to stop Wtr. Halbert from deveNting the property,
C
but to maintain the current zoning, and compatibleode4s tze
^�4
Should this rezone be approved, there smloms tolbe COOP
tK /, "b,
major effects: [ u
1. An estimated increase of 784 cars per day from the 20
acre project onto Sacramento Avenue. (p. 6, E.Z.R. report)
A, possible increase of an adai tional 896 cars from the
"V18tec property,
Presently West Sacramento Avenue averages 2,500 cars daily,
r
2. An increased concentration of septic tank effluent
into an area where many people -are dependent on wells
for their drinking water. p55,000 gallons effluent
pe, day from the 20 acre project. {p. 5, E.I.R.)
Increase crowding of students at Rosedale School,
3
''According to Chico Unified School Dsitrict Officials, Rosedale School's capacity, will be exceeded by proposed
devlopments that have already been approved by Butte.
0 ou7,1ty, and the City of Chico. (P 5 E.I .R )
4i The impact, on adjacent property owners, of the "wald ll
2-story Houses effect of the PAC zane.
like an even higher density development because of 'the
packing of houses along the borders of the property.
The alternative to this prop
ose.d rezone is to maintain the
fmulated
current A.SR roning for the entire area as was originally or
by the residents to insure that all future development will be of a
compatible natures thus minimizing itimpact. By developa.ng in
the ASR zone, the density could be in keeping with current development
in the neighborhood,
If you would Like to make your opinions known concerning this
proposed rezone, You should contact Mrs. Nina Lambert, Planning
Commissioner for this area, before Al 2 at 342-3780; The
Ally
Planning Commission hearing, will take place on July 211 in oroville
C'
EM
0
mi
'gaffe
?rr• •.
ti, h�rM AND BEAU r.
LAND OF NATUP.A`L "
PLANNING CoMMIssION
7 COUNT' CENTER DRIVE - OROVII-LE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE' 534-4601
July 130 1993
Mr. Jay Halbert;
Route 21 Box 102
Chico, Ca.
95926
Rei Rezone Pile 83-3.9
Dear Mr. Halbert
Enclosed is a�coPY 0f, Staff pindings concerning
a l cation for a rezone from A -SR to PA -C
your PP
property on the sc'uth side of 1Vest Sacramento Avenue,
.approximately 9(i0 ft. west of Oak Lawn Avenue, on,
the taest side of Chicoi
a public - hearing has been set
As -you are aware, P fox
for this project for 7:5 P. M. me July gill 'be
the Planning Commission; Their meeting
held in the Board of Supervisors) Room, 25 county
Center Drive., Orovil.le
If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact our office.
Sincerely,,
A. Kl roller~
I Dir0-Ct6t of Planning
jhd
}-,nc s_
cc A 4 0 tngifteers
280 'Das 9th Street
Chico) Ca. q 5926
6
,(1��C6 'l�Ynl�62l1 �C�OOL �GB�JI�C
July 11, 1983
Administrative Oltice
1163 EAST SEVENTH STREET
CHiCO, CALIFORNIA 95926
Area Codo (016) 091-3000
David Hironimus, Associate Planner
Butte County planning Commission
7 County Center Drive
Droville, California 95965
SUBJECT Environmental impact for the Waterford Subdivision
Deur Mr. Hironimus:
At the December 1, 1982 meeting of the Board of Education, the Boardreviewed
the potential impact of the Swallowtail Subdivision and its potential impact
on student housing. The District recently received a revised map for this
subdivision, renamed the waterford Subdivision and with this reduction of units
to 98, the number of students generated from this subdivision, when combined
with other subdivisions, in this area, would place Rosedale Elementary School
and Chico Junior High School 102 and 63 students beyond their respective
capacities.
In addition to the student housing concern, because children attending these
schools will walkorride past the proposed development, we strongly suggest
the inclusion of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks;
Because of the potentia impact on student housing, it is still the position
of the Board of Education to recommend the Waterford Subdivision not be approved
pending agreement between Butte County and the school district on possible ways
of financing for the housing of students in this area.
Sincerely,
Robin G. Thompson
Business Manager/Comptroller
RCT:vv
cc: Robert Jeffries, Superintendent ButiaCo. PianhingCamm
,lane King; President, M,S.D, t�aard of Education
day Halbert, Developer JUL 12 1983
4
'NICO UNIFIED SCHOOL OTSTRICr
1163 Fast Seventh Street
Chico, California 95926
(916) 691-3020
duly 6, 1983
Flare rd Subdivision
98 Units Rosedale/Chico Juno
98 units x .43 students r/Chico Senior
per unit 42 students K -l2
42 •`� .54 elementary students 23 s
42 x .46 2 students K-6
9 students 7-9
10 students
i0 -12
a ,rhe Homestead Co Subdivi
sion - 207 Units
Rosedale/Chico Junior/Chico
20.7 units Senior
X •43 students .Per Unit = 89 students K�12
89 x' .54 elementary
students - 48 students K--6
89 x .46 1 2 = 20 students 7-9
20 students 10-12
Sacramento Avenue Estates 57` Un
its Rosedale/Chico J
57 units x .43 sttadents Per unit � un7or/Chico Senior
25 x 54 elementary students 25 students K-12
its = 74 students
25 k .4b = K`6
• 2 _ ' 6 students 7_9
6 students 10..12
Western Communit Builders -
21 Un Rosedale/Chico Juhio
21 units k .43 students r/Chico Senior
per unit
9 k .54 elementar 9 students k-12
y students - 5 students K-6
2 students
2 students 1091.2
4u 40 Co. Planhing Comm,
,JUL 1.�,' 1983
G+rovillet C>ali�orr�
-2 -
Rosedale School Capacity 485 students
Rosedale enrollment 1982-83 497 students
over capacity 12 students
Rosedale School
Waterford Subdivision 23' students 90 Total
The Homestead 48 students 12 Over capacity
Sacramento Ave. Estates 14 students �102over capacity
Western community Builders 5 students
90 students
a
Chico Junior Hi h
skyway Ranch #1
4 students
Skyway Ranch #2
23 students
Chico Creek Commons
Community Park: Commons
-County
6 students
Housing Authority
Springfield at he Villages
12 students
Almond Creek II
10 students
ll students
Quail Canyon
3a students
Bidwell Heights
2 students
14 Mile House
Southgat Acres
'2
4 students
Southgate Acres
4 students
Court try Club Oaks
Skansen 2
12 stt gents
Sk3nsen 3
Cliff Johnsen Condominiums
Acme Condominiums
Ellen Subdivision
Cherrywood
Payne
Meadowood Commons
9 sttidents
!
Gree,nwoOds
29S students
..
Stilson Ranch
g students
1197
Capacity
4Jaterford
l st,ldent1,
041.
Enrollment
SUnhi11
156
Stations available
The Homestead
20 student's
students
219
Students
Sacramento Ave• Estates
6
<63
Over Capacity
Western Community Bui 1de►^s
?students
1 student"
K,
Paris Gardens
sprirgfield Urive Properties l2 students
`3 students
Stonogate
student
Magnolia Woods
219 students
»
.3'
Chico Ser ii or Nth
Skyway Ranch #1
4 students
Skyway Ranch #2
23 students
Chico Creek Commons
Community Park Commons
Housing Authority -County
6 students
Springfield at the Villages
12 students
�.
Almond Creek lI
10 students
Quail Canyon
11 students
Bidwell Heights
38 students
14 Mile House
2 students
Southgate Acres
Southgate Acres 2
4 students
Country Club Oaks
Country
4 students-
2
12 students
Skansen 3
Cliff Johnsen Co'idominiums
Acme Condominiums
'
Ellen Subdivision
Cherrywood
Payne
Meadowood Commons
9 students
Greenwoods
Sun t4oadows
4 students
Shasta Bay Estates
4 students
Eisfelt Subdivision
2,students
Stilson Ranch
29 students
1712 Capacity
Chanticleer
2, students
1093 Enrollment
Waterford
10 students
69 Stations available
Sunhi11
1 student
-240, students
The Homestead
20 students
379 Stations still available
Sacramento Ave. Estates
6 students.
Payne « Leighty bupleXes
5 students
Western Community Builders 2 students
Pay -is Gardens
1 student
Springfield Drive Properties 12 'students
StoneOate
students
Magnolia Woods
l student.
Pleasant Oak
3 students
Minh3
STATE OrCAI.IFOnNIA,TFI RBSO AGENCY _Y ,^
STA
,u/� �..NIamu.=
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD—
CENTRAL VALLEY REGION
3201 S STRICT
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95816.7050
PHONE' (016) 445.0270
E
rEOfiGf DEUKNIEJIAN (irtvr.mae
8 July 1981
Ms. Chris Heinke
1626 Jaramillo Lane
Paradise, California 95969
RLi TANGLEWOOD SUBDIVISION
Thank you for your letter dated 6 July 1983 in which you expressed concerns
With the zone change and subsequent approval of the Tanglewood Subdivision'
r, in Paradise.
We wrote a letter to the Planning Commission on 28 March 1983 About this
subdivision, and we sent copies to the Town Council. We are fully awarl?
of the possible water quality problgms that might ,,arise if proper planning
is not done. A development of this magnitude would need to get waste
discharge requirements from our Board, and we have not received an appli-
cation yet.
I will assure you that when this type of development comes up for our
reviews we will exercise careful consideration and we will properly co-
ordinate matters with the County Health Department and the Planning
Department before issuing any approvals.
Thank you for your interest, and I will keep you informed on further
developments can t project.
JO -PH H- A
Ar a Engineer
cc: Butte County Health Department
Butte County Pl ann'i (;q Department
��,� . �„ L. � �`'%�- -'. lam% Wi=t �,:���� R�,:�.��--c-��,._=..•
�� � �-�'/rV' �(" .G•''�.� /"Y.�' � �]`ff� �G � fir, �r��
c�'' C. ' 4' l /(- ! fzd rcl A p
/-1/� f D �1 � Z c% - c7,_' i .� G 7 7 �,� / j" /1 �� l ! L'j r� e-
BLITTE., cOUNITY PL- , r NG car SMI ss z orat
7 CUl1NTy cCNTER , .+IVE - oROVILLFo CALIt"O2tq&gF)965
plIONE: 53 I- c16O
To Butte CoulIty UA` FI MC)'!1Qviber 19, 1982
dill\r11`O111�1C71�'cti1 EIt t1t11 FIt,; F.'120JECIP pLVIEVI AND
ENIVT.hOl IWMI :T/11, E.V6+i�LrA'fT�1N
t'nc:ioned is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the i:ol.l otrin project: J�iti� Hal hp-ri._ 30 �Zr.7�no 2192 LA ` _-S 92'-1a
PA -C of 20.74 acres for. proposed dcvclop111"ti afrJ sitt7t1,, ttnatt; ched
, � :..,w'�"�-►
located a p2 n timate y fec� Wont: o �
-tF?i—t YtZ !1 "cl u'rr 5,+atrrru • :,"i,�5 'u'>;t a t e s
1I1 Rico.
We are m king an assessment of poFjsi,hlc .environmeniu, impact, and will, be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Doclarationj Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Fhvironm(;,Atal impact Resort.
pl.ea,,cp' ' �` Ovide an factual statements, ideas for invi:stig at on, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise tiiat relate to either
ptlysical•, social., or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Pl.easle respond t.tithili 14 days of the abovo-rioted date: if no resport e is
genovated by this inquiry, than it shall be assumed that there are no
signi'ficartt envirottmontral impacts which are riotential ,from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
�c�•
Sincerer, y, �ttt
ear�t�g
}todri gue�� piu
Planning 70chnic.i:711 12__q B -L
Gcmttl�nts: 16{t,� d�.,�P.t�,ar��
I
LAP—
w
s�
(41Hto oil type, in blICIGe l.'rOVIded & j,ciiint Olin shect )
�y` f P!l�1'' i°r'�l �"!f6i)III AM) FT
C'
r DEPARTMENT Or PUBLIC WORKS
CLAY CASTLEaLI'MY, Diractor
7 COUNTY CENTER DRiVE, OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95955
Telephone: (916) 34.168i
WILLIAM (6m) otupF
Deputy Director
July 6, 1983
Jay Halbert RE AP 43-29-12, 43-27.08
RRL. 2, Box 102 and 43-29-15 ptn.
Chico, CA 95926 Waterford PA -C
Dear Mr. Halbert:
At the regular meeting_ of the Butte County Subdivision Committee
held on July 6, 1983, the Committee reviewed the above -refer" -need
project. Public Works will be recommending the enclosed list
of conditions to the Planning Coromission.
The Planning Department will notify you of the date,,time and place
that the Planning Commission will hear this project.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
this office.
Very truly yours,
Clay Castleberry
Director of Public Works
l
Jqhh Tendons
Assistant Director
JM/d8
enclo ure
cc fanning
Health Bufie Co, tiahninci COMM,
JUL 0 1q8 113
OravifCo, rtiatlt��r
Wo-terford PA -C Subdivision, (:day Halbert), 08 units approx. 1100 ft. west
of Rose Ave., on the north side of Bidwell Ave., east of Big Chico Creek Estates
and wast of Highland Park Subdivision. Chico.
Assessor's Parcel number: 43-27-08, 43-29-12 and 15 ptn,
Public
Works conditions are:
1.
Submit road and drainage plans to the Dept. of Public Works for
approval and install the required facilities.
2.
Provide 20 ft. radius property line returns at all street
intersections.
3.
Provide right-of-way for standard No. S-5 at all street intersections.
4.
Indicate a 50 ft. building setback line from the centerline of
Sacramento Ave.
5.
Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street
intersections per County requirements. (Submit five alternate street.
names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval
of street names.)
6.
Deed 30 ft.. from the centerline of Sacramento Ave. to the County of
Butte.
7.
Construct one-half street section on Sacramento Ave. to RS -3-A road
standard with vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk and 2" AC, 8" AB,
SC 250 prime, fog seal and 959 relative compaction. Construct. full street
section on all interior streets to section shown on tentative map.
8.
Provide monumentation as required by the Dept. of Public Works in
accordance with accepted standards.
9.
Street grades and other i'eatures shall comply with the Butte
County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering
standards.
10.
Provide permanent solution for drainage.
11
All easements of- record to be shown on the final map.
12
Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fife Dept4 or other
responsible agency.
13.
Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County
requi,remehts, accepted design criteria; and recommendations of PG&E,
14.
pay off assessments,
15.
Ct � the. Utility G0nlpdnieS (i.e., PG&E, paCif'ic
Meet the of re uirements
Telephone, Water, tower.)
(continued)
1
(Waterford 'PA-C Subdivision)
16, pay any delinquent taxes.
17. File a tentative ani filial subdivision map and pay approriate fees.
18, Developer shall provide all required traffic safety signs, including
stop signs,
19. Construct emergency access road to RS-9-LD-I goad ;standard, and
�onstruct breakaway gate at intersection of emergenc.V access and
a publicly maintained road.
I
•
&OUR
log
L A M' D n r t: A i 1.
` - bEPARTMENT OF pUBL1C WORKS
CLAY CASTLEBErABY, C)lfactor
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, OROVI1,1 C, �AI.11 OttNIA 55965
Telephone: (516) 53,11681 WILLIAM (Bill) CHE"
Doputy Director
Ilk
00 June 29$ 1.933
i
� �/ E .AP 43 -?-9-12, X43-27-08
Jay` Halbert
and X43-29-15 ptr�.
Rt. 2, Box 142 Waterford PA -C
Chico, CA 95926
Dear i, r'. Halbert:
our: PA -C application for the above -referenced
Y1eas; be advised that Y the Butte County SLrbdivi$jon Committee on
proper'tY will be heard by aCou will recommend the enclosed
July 6 3-9834 'ihe Public 4lorks Dep
list of conditions. .
will commence at 9.30
a.m. in the conference room at #3
The ma_zting.P prov�ille, CA
County Center Dra.v-,
If you have any questions re�ardin�
this matter, please contact this
office6 very, truly yours;
Clay Castleberry
Director of Public `Wcorks
J i Mendonsa
As319tant Director
jm/ds
attachment
reglth
WATERFORD PA- BDIVISION, (Jay Halbert), 123 units approxiriiatoly
1100 ft. west of Pose Avenue, on the north side of Bidwell Avenue,
east of Bi -g Chico Creek Estates and west of FlighliInd Park Subdivi-
sion, Chico.
Assessor's Parcel Number; 43-27-08 and 43-2.9-12 & 15 (I)Ln.)
Public Works Department co'nditiurts are;
1. Submit road and drainage plans to the DepartmentofPublic
Works -for approval and install the required fac•il iLlos.
2. Provide 20-fti radius property line returns at all Areet
intersections,
3. Provide right -of --tray for standard No. S-5 at Ill street
intersections.
4. Indicate a 50 -ft, building setback line from the centerline of
Sacramento Avenue.
5. Street signs shall be provided'by the developer at all
street intersections per County renuir2ments. (Submit five �r
alternate street names for each street to the County
address coordinator `nr approval of street names.)
6. Deed 30 feet from the centerline of Sacramento Avenue to
the County of Butte.
7. Construct one-half street section on Sacramento Avenue to
RS -3-A road standard with vertical curb, gutter, and sidewalk
and 2" AC, 8" AB, SC 250 prime, fog seal and 95% relative
compaction. Construct full street section on all interior
streets to section shown on tentative ,map.
8. Provide monumentation as required by the Department of Public
Works in accordance with accepted standards..
9. Street grades and other features shall comply with the Butte
County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted
engineering standards.
10. Provide permanent solution for drainage:
116 All easements of record to be shown on the final map:
12. Meet the requirements of the Butte County F*► -o Derartment or
other responsible agency.
13, Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte
County requirementsi acreptod design criteria, and recoinr�endations
of PC&E.
Continued oo bekt'shoot
14. Pay off assessments.
15. Meet the requirements of the utility companies (i.e., PGS:`,
Pacific Telephone, water, sever).
16. Pay any delinquent taxes.
1/. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay appropriate;
fees.
1$. Developer shall provide all required traffic safety signs,
including stop signs.
1.9. Cons>tr"uct emergency access road at intersection of c►ncrgeney access
a a pub .acly maintained xoa �2d'>.Ae6- el
ter4-1
�ltxA/ r'r��