HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-90 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2 OF 3111. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This Proposal is a PA -C (Planned Area -Cluster) ReZOne project to
create a 123 'unit residential development. Single
housing will accountfamily detached
for 91 units and single family attached housing
'Will Comprise the remaining 32 units. The -proposed dev61OIDMent is
located on 20.74 acres in the western fring
Q of the ch,
Lawn Avenue, Avenue :LcO Urban Oa
Area.
The project fronts on West Sacramento
, 900 feet + west of k
enue) west Chico. The Proposeddensity of the'd-
evelOpment is
5.93 dwelling units per, acre, Present plans are to develop the project,
in 7 phases as shown on the Plot Plan.
The site currently is in agricultural orchard use (almond with some
walnut trees), as are some of the surrounding pro, Residences
are dispersed along Bidwell Avenue to the eakt a
ndp,westertiesadjacent to
the Project site. Unit #3 of the 13ig Chico Creek Est
borders the property on the west. atos Subdivision
Sacramento Avenue to the north Rural residences Occur along West
-north, west. N'lultiple family residential
complexes; urban -density single family residences, and commercial uses
exist eas6t of the Mite; -, to is mil -Le away in the Highway 32 corridor
area. This West Sacramento Avenuearea is experiencing an urban
residential growth trend that has already
sub4 tsion development projects an nearby properties - been established. Several
*
apn 'val.from the County in recent years :. have received
jj�ROIB'CT SIZE DATE OF APPROVAL
Walnut Woods Subdivision, 73 lots on
northwest of this proect July 11, 1978
across W. - project 30 acres
11 W -K V tu i.
2. LeisUrewood Bstates' 40 lots
north Of Walnut Woods, 14
On September 7, 1978
acres
51 Highl and Park Subdivision, 42 to
600 feet east of this
on July 17, 1978
site. 15 acres
Big Chico Creek Estates 170 lots
west and north of this 75
on January 22, 1980
projeCt, acres
Development of tl!IsO Projects has not been fully accomplished. —
has been made i n1plished, Progress
11 "Onstructing residences 0IMPtoVeintnts
three of the fo
approval has, Ur subdivisions mentioned
OXPir0d),
and related on
(Highland Park Subdivision
, The cumulative development of .
projects wl . ail four approvect
establish a total of 406 residential lots oft
in this local +
area. The Big Chico Creek
represents 42t of the total development.
.140 acres
t8tatos 8ubdi 70 lots)
This
project
t represents 500
Appendix V
P&ge 8 of 9
DISCUSSION, EVALUATION (continued)
OF` ,ENVSRON'1'�iENTAI
of the total development and includes the las-td previously planned
for the McDowell Subdivision of 27 lots. This site lies within the
Chico Urban Akrea and is designated by the Butte County General 'Plan,
Land Use Element, for low density residential use; However, the
Chico 'General Plan (which does not have jurisdiction in this unin-
corporated alea) designates. this area for agricultural use.. Current
zoning is A-SR (Agricultural Suburban Residential)
An environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared. for each of
the previous area subdivision projects. Please refer to these MR
documents for a discussion of the environmental information pertinent
to the area. Many of the individual impacts. that- are potential from
implementation of each subdivision project are addre.-sed in these
former EIRs„ An, environmental impact report is required for this PA-C F,
tativesSubdivision
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act
additional adverse impacts, the
increase in magnitude of impacts, and the cumulative effects of all
development in the area. In this case, the Big Chico Creek Estates
ElR is suitable for Consideration of this current project (as per
Section 150968 of the CBQA Guidelines) along with a supplement (per
Sections 1506 and 15067.5 of the CEQA Guidelines).
The potential impacts include
1. Drainage. Increased storm water drainage into Big Chico Creek
w 11Be generated by residential development of the land. as a
result of development of impervious surfacing. The potential exists
for reduced water quality in this stream. The State Department of
Water Resources, Reclamation Board, has jurisdiction over this
drainage channel and is a responsible Agency with subsequent permit
approval. The storm drain for Big Chico Creek Estates Unit #3 was
designed to drain this property also. The Reclamation Board recom-
mends that the flood-catryi.ng capacity of Big Chico Creek be studied
further.
2. Sewage.Disposrl. The 123 units will utilize 'individual septic-
leachfield systems fol• sewage disposal., sots lie as close as
350 feet from the Big Chico Creek channel. Contamination of this
surface tmter body from residential effluents, as well as from
residential use of pesticides, fertil,iz.ers, and other chemicals'
used it the home may be potential. Data about the groundwater
resource, including depth, to grourdwater table, direction and rate
of flaw of groutdwaters, and, potential for contamination is included
in the Big Chico Creek Estates MR. The following memo has been
received from the Environmental. Health Department regarding this
pro j ect ''Soll depths and percolation rates in the vicinity of the
subdivision are excellent, The proposLA lot sizes, though, are
considerably substandard with respect to 'the Subdivision Ordinance
sewage disposal area requirement. The developers may either redesign
the project toprovide lots of adequate size for the proposed indiv d-
ual lots or prcvide adequate common area for community sewage disposal
systems. Should the develope-r revise the PAC to provide common
soilage disposal arra, permit applcation may be required to complete
our review." Refer also to January 10, 1083 letter from Tom Reid:
Appendix P'- page 8a of 9
i
46 83-39
DISCUSSION OP ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
3. Reduction of agTiculturany agriculturallyproductive land. The project site
currently is in agricultural use(almond orchard With some Walnut
`trees; formerly a prune orchard). The Bina fine sandy Loam soil is
a highly productive: prime agricultural soil. (Class '1 0 Soil. Conserva-
tion Service Classification)., Residential use`of the site will remove
20.74- acres of cropland from agricultural use. The property lies
predominantly within the Chico Urban Area.
4 Reduction of orchard: and wildlife habitat, Residential develop-
tr ment on 1/6 acre + parcels will result in rentnval. of most orchard
,trees and reduction oT wildlife populations that currently utilize
the orchard for habitat:
5. Land use alteration and urban The site lies within the
low ensity resa. ental designation of the County General Plan
and entirely outside the :City of Chico's proposed urban expansion
area. The ;site also lios outside the City's ;Sphere of Influence
(primary, secondary and ultimate)
This development (in conjunction with other already approved subdivis-
ions) will increase the residential population density and use of the
local area. The property lies entirely outside the City of Chico's
proposed urban expansion area. Continued urban development pressures
may be exerted on other lands in the area (including agricultural
Lands further west) by 'this project.
6. Tragi c_ and traffic-relatied imlattcts(noise; reduction in air
glla.li y, etc The 1.23 residential parcels will generate
substantially increased vehicular use of West Sacramento Avenue and
the other area streets. The increase from this individual development
is estimated to be 860+ ADT: Cumulatively,, the inc,ease from the
total development proposed for the area to date is estimated to be
approximately 4500 ADT, which is about a 180 increase over the pre=
vious traffic load of 1500-1.600 ADT on West Sacramento Avenue: Access
to the development is planned from West Sacramento Avenue via one
street intothe site. The property :fronts on Bidwell Avenue and access
from the south is possible off that street though not desired by the
Butte County Public Works Department; However, the applicant designed
the development plan with the intention of preventing traffic impacts
on Bidwell Avehue from this subdivision. Bidwell Avenue is a narrow
vindiiig rural road adjacent to Big Chico Creek, Which is bordered by
riparian vegetation and large oale trees; any additional traffic on
Bidwell Avenue may have adverse effects on that area; Thoreiore
All traffic is ptoposed to be channeled. onto Nest Sacramento Avenue,
which provides direct access to Filglwoy 32 and thence into Chico.
The Public Works Department has plans to Widen and improve Sacramento
Avenue) between Glenwood Avenue and. Highway 32, within the 'next 2 years.
Traffic circulatl.on problems within the development and in the sur-
rounding area and congestion at certain intersections (particularly
the Nest Sacramento Avenue access locations) may result from the
at the
use considering the number of lots 'being created. A
Appendix :P page 8b of -9
a
bISCUSSION OF ENVIE MENTAL EVALUATION (continued)
traffic study should address any potential circulation problems and
possible alternatives.
West Sacramento Avenue and the other roads in the area are relatively
narrow rural Streets With no urban improvements (curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, or shoulders) and With light to moderate traffic loads.
Urban residential use of the ,site ivillimpact these currently non-
urban Toads With siqnificantly increased traffic and the need for
further improvement along the entire length of West Sacramento
Avenue from Glenwood Avenue to Highway 32,
7. Increased public services demands and expahsioii of utilities.
Additional,development, Will increase demands for public services
and for utility extensions in a-peviph'eTal area of the Chico Urban
Area, The Chico Unified School-DistTict indicates the subdivision
Will have a serious impact on their ability to "house" students, and
When combined with students generated by other projects approved
in the area, Would place Rosedale Elementary School and Chico Junior
High School beyond their capacities. If building permit applications
for residences in the project are made subject to any school mitiga-
tion fees established prior to the filing of building permit applica-
tions, or if a Community Facilities District is fo.,med prior to the
issuing of permits, then some mitigations of impacts 'would be
achieved. Comments received from C.A.R.D. are very similar, but no
mitigation measures have been proposed. Extension of California
Water Service Company water lines in conjunction With the Big Chico
Estates Subdivision project is required for water service, Thirteen
fire hydrants are required by the Butte County Fire Department.
S. Might -path of, the Ranchero Airport. Land to the West of the
project Site 116S 6 e tie established flight pattern of this
light aircraft airport. Residential use of the project site should
not be incompatible With the airport land use, considering the
distance from the site to the airfield,
9. Increased use of energy and other. natural -resource.q. The 123
r6siaenc6s M-Et—Will ultimately bo developed. on t e project site
,
a
s a :result of this land division proposal Will utilize considerable
amounts, of electricity and natural gas, and of building materials,
including non-tonewable petroleum products for paving, Additionally,
this number of -residences Will generate conside gable we of vehicular
fuels,
10. Archaeolo ic,a1 resources. The property has the potential to
8 - Ubsur E6 iaeological resources due to the proximity
of the site -to Big Chico CreelCi A survey of the Westerly portion of
the property Was conducted in June 1981 and clearance recommended.
The easterly portion of the site is similar in character,
Reference: Initial study for Big Chico Creek Estates Tentative
Subdivision, AP 43-29-19. 22, etc, Log # 78-12-21-01
Initial study for McDowell Tentative Subdivision,
AP 43-29-15, Log It 81-05-22-03
Appendix P page 8c of 9
,a.
u
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be: completed by the Lead Agency
on the basis of this initial e_valuationc
C) I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significank
4 effect on the environment; and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is rco mmended.
Q I find that althoug�i the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not.
be a significant efi:ect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project, A 'NEGATIV9 DECLARATION
Is RFCQINDED
I .find the proposed project MAY have a sigtificant
effect on the, environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT ;is required.;
DateJanuary 7, 1983
----
(bignature _
David R. fliranimus
Associate Pla.nnor
Fore
"""`u aurzy /f nn�n epf.
Reviewed b�: k 7.�
v 5 ephen A S teeter
Senior Planner
*The Big Clti.co C eel Dstates BIRD AP 42-15-34 & 37 43=27-01. P1 12
4a-29�a9 22/Dog # 78-12-21 -ol/SCH #79080708, is suitable for
consideration of this project (Pei; Section 1.5068 of the CFQA
Guidelines) a1mv, with a supplement (per' Sections 15067 and 1.5067 , 5
of the CDQA Guidelines),
1. Conventional Subdivision: This alternative would require lots
that could support an individual septic system and meet the lot
design criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinance. Minimum parcel size would. be 65 ;feet wide and probably
approximately 114 acre in area. Street widths would be 40 feet
from curb face to curb face, instead of the proposed 24 feet to
34 feet. Resulting densities would be 4 DU/AC or less or
approximately 83 units at the most. A private road subdivision
in the urban area will yield the same densities. If the project
could be connected to a sanitary sewer system, lot sizes could
be as small as 650`0 square feet resulting in densities of approxi-
mately 5 DU/AC or 104 units.
2. Split Duplex Subdivision: If such a project used, individual
septic systems, the resulting densities would be the same as a
conventional subdivision using septic systems, or no more than
about 4 DU/AC. If the project was connected to a sanitary sewer
system, then lots could be as small as 4000 square feet resulting
in approximately 7 DU/AC or. 145 units maximum.
3. Clustered Dwelling Units With Common Recreation Area/Open Space
(PA -C): A deveiopment of this nature utilizing a commonly owned
and maintained septic system could yield the maximum density
allowed by the General Plan designation of 6 DU/AC and provide
pits RV facilities
e eta s swimming _ pool) tennis courts, barbecue
p _ Clustering could, also be used to minimize
common tac�.l.ities such as a swimming
impacts on neighboring properties,.
.APPENDIX C
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
for
SWALLOVITAIL SUBDI`)ISION , P.A-C
AP NO. 43-29-12
43_27-03
43-29-13
PRO 'ECT APPLICANT: JAY H.A..LBE.RT
PREPARED B
MCCAIN AS80CIATPS
P.o. toX 2178
CHICO, cAi 95927
APRIL 1983.
x -
DESCRIPTION
This project consists of 123 residential, single-
family homes which "the developer intends to mar.ket'at various
prices :ranging from,$89,000 to $130,000. it is contemplated
that build out will occur in two, ,year's .
The interior street and sewage disposal systeiw will
be :private ,and will be maintained by the I•iomeowner''s Associa-
tion., The West Sacramento Avenue frontaqwill be 'fully
improved to center
P line in accordance with Butte County"Stand--
arses for urban improvements. Utilities, will be provided by
the local utility companies, i.e,, California VTater Company
Pctcifi_c' Gas Electric Company, Pacific Telephone and State
CableM,
,
'll interior improvements will be installed by the
developer, L-ic'luding storm drainage and street lighting The
int
erior improvements will be maintained by the Homeowner's
Association.
ANALYSTS
The following fiscal analysis is based upon p "
capita multiplier" npermethods with the exception of Property
and sales tax revenues. Property, tax revenue is es
by using projected unit sale
estimated
esti prices. Sales tax revenue is
mated by using St'
State Board of
fiscal year 1Egualization data for
981.-82.
Revenue
projections are generally based upon the
1982-83 budget adopted by the Butte County,'Board of Su
visors. The count revenue pors-
and
sale., y
primarily consists` of property
taxes; fines, for eitul-ia'and
contribution" s through highway users taxes, Qand t��s'Other
state
transportation aid and miscellaneous contrbutionste
including welfare aid, ,
k'ederal aid: includes transportati
welfare and CETA funding. on,
Revenues received for w
pelfare, CEA and some t
rens
ortation funding are not included in this analysis a
Y to the vari
are generally credited dzrectl s they
do not become a
part of the geous programs and
neral fund.
sidered were those that were not met b All costs con-
aid or fees. Y grants, government
Costs Were allocated in various manners
tration, which _includes the Treasure/Tax Collecto. Adminis-
Recdtder, Board of Supervisors and The Assessments, Assessor,
Y� • ' .le services. Board, are generallycount Appeals
Judicial costs include those for Superior Court
System, Municipal Court System, Court Work Regie rrable
Count' d �'a
roily Court, These are countProgram,
Y C1eHeal.th and Y wide services.,
and public health
sanitation services nclUde menta, health
servIces. These services are count
District Attorne Y wade:
Offices, although a y, PubliciDefender and Court Reporter
Part of the 3udica�,, system, dere listed
as,,a separate county-wide function.
Ju•, e*e Hall �
, Probation Departont, Public Guardian
and Juvenile Court Wards are also county -wide services.
Public Works, Planning and Building Inspection are
operating on a fee supported basis. However, the budget in-
dicates that these operations are not fully se
1£"supporting
and additional funds are required to -maintain these operations.
Agricultural services and Farm/Home Advisor are
county -wide services.
Fish and Game, Veterans Services and Veterans Halls
are county --wide operations.
Animal Control is
count- y areasprimarily in the unincorperatd
,
Welfare and L
ibrary are county wide.
ANNUAL
REVE---�5
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
me average selling
Assts g price per
welling d1t
gun
Property tax rate = `l$ of ;marke't
of $106, 500.00
value
. Butte County percentage of collected
(106,500) (l23 (0.01) (.2255)
Property tax: 22.55%
=
2`9,539.37
SALES AND USE TAX
Per capita revenue
Total amount to Count Y (123) (2.3`3) (18.39)
5,270.10
FINES,," FORFEITURES' AND PENALTIES
Budget
Population
$715,114.00
Per Capita'
1.56,300
r Per Unit (4.58) (2.33)
�
4.58
Total to County (123) (10. "67)
10.67
,1,312:58
+ STATE HIGH;jAY USERS TAX
2104 Fund,
2106 Fund
$1, 551., 693.00
r1'utal :c 0c4_ °,t y from state
520, 000.00
Po pulataon
2,071,69.3.00
Per Capita
156,300
Per 'Unit (2.33) (13..25)
13.25
Total to CountY (12 3) (30.87)
3087
3,797.01
`
MOTOR VEHICLE IN -LIEU TAX
Total from State
$2,,009,67.2.00
Population
156,300
Per Capita
12.86
'Per, 'Unit ('2.33) (12 .,86)
29.96
Total. to County (123) (2'9 96)
3, 685.08
STATE AID (not including welfare)
Total from State
$6,0,22,164.,00
Population
156,300
Per. Capita
30.53
Per Unit' C•2.33). (38.53)
89.77
Total to County (123) (89.77)
11,041.71
FEDERAL AID (not including welfare
and CETA)
Total from Federal
$713,796.,00
Population
156,300
Per Capita
4.57
Per Unit (2.33) (4.57)
10.65
Total to County (123) (10.65)
1,309.95,
GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION AID'
Total from Government
$2,0291043.00
Population
156,300
Per Capita
12.98
Per Unit (2.33`) (12.98)
30.24
total to County (1.23) (30.24)
3,719:52
TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE
59,675.32
PER UNIT
A 85.1,7
ANNUAL
CQST!7t
ADMINISTRATION'
Budget
$2,302,781.00
County Population
156,300
Per Capita
14.73
Per Unit (2.33)(14.73)
34.33
County Cost (123) (34.33)
4,222.35
FIRE PROTECTION
Pro£esSional Budget
$2,153,653.00
Volunteer Budget
187,169.00
Total Budget
$2,340,822.00
orporated Population
93030
der Capita
25.16
Per Unit (2.33) (25.16)
5,8.63
County Cost (123) (58.63)
7,211.1.8
SHERIFF
Budget
$5,299,711.00
County Population
156,300
Per Capita
33.91
Per Unit (2.33) (33,91)
79.00
County Cost (123) (79:OO)
5,71144)
JUDICIAL SERVICES
Superior Court
$ 315,860.00
Municipal Courts
933,184.00
County Clerk
489,564.00
7'i
JUDICIAL SEWS (cont' d )
COUnty Work Retraining
$ 19, 064.00
Family ("curt
43,608.00
Total Judicial
1,;801,380.00'
County Population
156,300
Per Capita
11,52
Per Unit (2.33) (11.52)
26.84
County Cost (123) (2`6.84)
3,301.32
HEALTH AND SANITATION
Public Health - Mental Health
$1,'072,223..00
County Population
156,300
Per Capita
6.863)
Per Unit (2.3 (6.86) •
15.98
County Cost (123) (15.98)
1,966.02
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, PUBLIC DEFENDER,
COURT REPORTERS
Budget
,
$2,052,162.04
County Population
156,300
Per Capita
13.13
P-er Unit (2.33) (13.13)
30.59
County Cost (123) (30.59)
3062.82
,7UVENILE HALL, PROBATION DEPARTMENT; PUBLIC
GUARDIAN, JVVENILE COURT WARDS
Budget
$1,591,05"1.00
County Population
1560300
Per Capita
10.18
Per Unit x(2.33) (10.18)
23.7:2
County Costs (123) (23.72)
2.917.34
7 ,�•
PUBLIC°WORKS, PLANNING AND BUILDING
INSPECTION,
=Budget
$5;14,5,000.00
Unincorporated Population
93,030
Per Capita
55.30
Per Unit (2.33) (55.30)
128.86
County Casts (12'3) (128:86)
15,84;9.79
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES AND FARM/HOME ADVISOR
Budget
$ 51,4,020.00
County Population
•156,300
Per Capita
3.29
Per Unit (2.33) (3.29)''
7.66
County Costs (123) (7.66)
942.50
FISH ANDGAME, VETERANS SERVICES AND HALLS
Budget
$ 82,934.00
County. Population
156,300`
Per Capita
0.53
Per Unit (2.33)'(0.53
1.23
County Costs (123) (1.23)
151.29
ANIMAL CONTROL
Budget
$ 1.220000.00
Unincorporated Population
93,030
Per Capita
1.31
Per Unit (22.'33) (1.31)
3.05
County Costs (123) (3.05)
375.15
WELFARE
$ 20g.640.00
Budget
County Population
156,300
1.34
Per Capita
Per Unit (`2.33) (1.34):`
3. t2
County Costs (123) (3:12:)
383.76
LIBRARIES
$1,059,195.00
Budget
County Population
156,300
Per capita
6.78
Per Unit (2.33) (6.78)
15.$0 -
County Costs ('123)` (15.80)
1,943.40
TOTAL COUNTY COLTS
$ 52;744.40
PER UNIT
428.82
Bi0-
i
'GFORf---c ,DEUKME.JIAN
Ante
of C11'al, tz1`��� C � rr=X D
APPRN
.e Y
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 9:814
(916) 445-0613
aril '22, 1583
Mr. Stephen A. Streeter
Pnutte County Planning
7 County Center Drive
Oroville CA 95965
Buffo CO. Pfgn"Thq Q; ','Jnli
A P R 93,16.19,,8 3
C7rarillu`.'Z;aliiotn(q
Subject: SCH# 79080708 SMLLMA.LL SUBDIVISIM PA -C
Dear mr. Streeter,
Sta`e C]Barin house submitteyd the above uAmed dra�eEnvironmentai c(;,
g x`
Report ETR) to selected state agencies � (1es�s (are) attached,review "' you would
and the comments of the individual a enaR
like to discuss their concerns and recoamnezd;ations, please contact the staff frf)m
the appropriatefagency(ies) .
T�n:+n Pins, Section 15146) IR, yev must , include X1.1 comments and responses (CE;QA
re
t andel certified ETR 'lust be considered in the decis oi--
making process for the, project. In addition, we urge you to respond directly to
the cotmnenting agency(ies) by writing to them, ,including the,St,ate Clearinghouse
number on all correspondence.
A 1981;, Appellate Court decision in CJw-.r.3r _,..S
z= f_ -V of Bk , s1a��a (118 Cal. App.
3d 348) clarified requirements for rests°,aiding to review comments. Specifically,,
the court indicated that comments mush �,,a address;e.d in detail, giving reasons why
the specific comments and suggestions, V:c re not accepted.` The responses must phot
factors of Overriding signif icance which required the suggestion or comment to 'ibe
rejected. Responses to comments must not be conc1.11psory statements but must be
supported by empirical or experimental data, scie)it:ific authority or explanatory
information of any kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good.
faith, reasoned analysis.
r4` the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of sig-
ficant effects, the :lead agency must make written findings for each significant.
.1�zect and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding con
szderations for each unmitigated significant effect (CE'QA Guidelines Section 15088
and 15089):
If the pro7ect requires discretiOna.ry approval tram any state agency, the Notice
of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with
the County Clerk. Please contact Anna Polvos at (916) 445.0613 if you have any
questions about the enviromental review process.
44
SWALLOWTAIL SUBDIVISION
STAFF RESPONSE TO STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW
CONCERN: Cumulative ,impacts on Highway 32 will cause
additional congestion nn Highway 32 `' ��'aer City or
County should conduct a traffic study ictf the Chico Area
which includes- analysis of impacts on Hip.Thway 32.
RESPONSE: J.H.K. and Associates, has prepared a report
pti
, I'
November 198.2. The report adclressesathenanticnatedted
entitled "Chico Urban Area Tr
(, congestion that will be generated by the area near blest
Sacramento .,Avenue. Present -traffic volume on Highway 32'
between west Sacramento Avenue and West Second Street is
approximately 15,000 vehicles pet day. Thus; Highway 32
presently provides a "D" level of service and is at 93%
of capacity,'
The reportanticipates that the volume will increase'to
21,200 vehicles per day by the ,year 2000 and 27,300 vehicles
per day at full build out in the Chico Area (population,
estimated at 170,894). The report j68timated full build
out. occurring in 2032.
The report further recommends that Highway 32 be widened
to a 5-lane facility with bike lanes on each side: This
widenintt is scheduled for a 10-20 year time frame.. The
widened roadway would provide a "B" level of service for
vehicular traffic anticipated in the year 2000.
The report examines two methods of financing the imp;cove
men s, i.e., assessment districts and developer Nees,, it
cohcltides that this area _(West Sacramento Avenue) not. be
included in such a district.
The developer :Fee recommended in the report is $1720 per
unit, and, if the fee schedule is adopted by the County of
Butte; then it would be appropriate for the developer to
contribute the fee.
The City of Chico has officially accepted the .report but has
not Adopted any iteasUres to implement the report to date.
N
i
a
L 1
wdY• r� l� r ��VI . ��i'N i�lf� \
.,IAND OF .,iNAT,URAL WEALTH AND BEAUTYe
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WnHKS
CLAY CASTLEBERRY. Director
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE, OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95963
Telephonot (916) 534"4681_
WILLIAM (sill) CNEFF
Deputy Director
.May '31, 1:983
Jay Halbert {
RE:' Waterford PA-C Subdivision
Rt. 2 Box, 102
. � AP 43-27-08, Dad' 43-29-12,. 15 stn..
Chico, CA 95926
Dear kir.-Halbert:
At the regular meeting of 'the Butte County Subdivision Committee
held on May 25, 1983, the Committee reviewed the ab
ove-reference3
tenative PA-C subdivision.
Enclosed ,please find the list of conditions which will be
recommended by the Department of, Public Works.
• The Planning Department will notify you of the date, time and glace •
that* the Planning Commission will be reviewing this.prajecte
if you have any questions regarding his matter, please
this office. contact
ga ng t
Very truly yours,
May Castleberry
Director of'•Ftablic Works
J&n Mendonsa
Assistant D3ract0r
ttachmant ,•
cc /'Plan ing .• ,
Health K.
MAY 11983
• salitorni�' ,
•
Y
. —... a .....___,. ..... y
*r WATERFORD PA -C SUBISION, (Jay Halbert), 123 uni pprgximately
the north side"of�iell 'Avenue,
�. 1100 ft.
east of
west of Riles Avenue, on
Bi-,g ;Chino:; Creek,Estates .and west -of Highland Park Subdivi-
Sion, Chico.
Assessor°s Parcel Number: 43-27-08 and"43-29-12a&'15`4(ptn.j '
Pub1'ic`aYJorks Department conditions ar,e.
1.
• g ent o
Submit road and drainage plans to
iPublic
thethart
for Approval,.and Inst 1required
,Works
2.
Provide 20 -ft, radius property line returns at all street
intersections.
3.
Provide right-of-way for -stan&*-�-:No. S -S., at al1l street
intersections.
4.
Indicate a 50-fti 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,)
61
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 45 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.
S.
Street 'grades and other features thall comply with the Butte
County Ordinances, design resolution and other accopted
`
engineering standards.
lo;
Provide permanent solution for drainage.
11.
of record to be shown on the final ,
All easements ,map.'
12.
Meet the requirements of the Buvte County Fire Department pr
other responsible agency: ,
13.•
Street lighting shall be provided in accordance wf&h Butte `.
`
. n teiteria, and �Iedommendat ons
Count,► requirements, accepted desg ,
of, PCE. • : `
• Gantinued on next sheet '
r
1 43-26-"� 43 -29 -*72
j Muriel t^lirth Tuxzier
Douglas Warnock 498 E Sacramento Ave. i
>Flussey i
gl B. I P .0. Box 1233 ' Chico , Ca. 95926
Box 103 1 Chico , Ca, 95927 �m
.Ca
- 95926 ) - 43-26-6 .
i.
II t Gaylord M. Shuler
I G .. J . 6 C .. Nisson I 820 orient 5t .
I
1 10'L1 Macy Ave . Chico , Ca . 95926
C. Morse 1 95926
Sacramento i Chaco , ca
C.. 95.926
� s 1 ' 43-26-t
1, 43-26-8
11 Ronald W. Lewis �
T L ox 817Miguel 1 813 Oak Lawn Ave.
0 V. Shuler 95926
� � I R�• 2' B 95926 ' i Chico.,. Ca ;
oaklatv25
n Ave. I Chico, Ca 1
ico, Ca. 95926 1 43-27-7
..,.. ►
43-27-6
26-1'0 1 Marion L . Spencer
. Flowers
I J. L. Ei B. J i t, 2, Box 100
L4 A. Black l : Rt . 2,, Box 99 -B i Chico, Ca. 9 9Z6%
Box Cad. 96122 j. Chico, Ca. _ 95926 '�
PCT' sola. 1 1 0-28,8
I 43-28-3
43-29-117 Richard Jessee
.Halbert Diary Jean Jessee
1212 W. Sacramento Ave.
ManChico, Ca.
ton Ct. Box 101 95926 t
Rti. Z� i
Arco, Ca. 95,926 I Chico, Ca. 95925
I
X43-26-03
'1 43-28-12 InG.
-28 - 0 11 ► i Shastan Campany
# M. H. Dilley p .0 . Box 4143
C, 6,p, E. Rudolph � g23 Karnn Dr.- I Chico, Ca. 927
1<
95926
iZ'SO
14. Sacramento Ave. I Chico , Ca.
I
1C`n3.+co, Ca. 95926 I •, `
I ..
I
t �-
,,
I 1
w
7 t
I t
I W ..• I
I
� 4 I.
BUTTE COUNTYPLANNING COMMISSION
idotige is hereby given by the Butte County Planniv,g Commission that
public hearings will be held on Thursday, August 4-q 1983 in the Butte
County Beard of Supervisors' Room, Administration Cernter 2S County
Center Drive, Orovil:le, California,, regarding tbld following:
I' , MS ON VAICH A NEGATIVE DW ARA.TION
REGARD NYMONMEt3MM£�NDEJD
8:1S p.m., Robert j. Smith. Chico Congregation of Jehovah Is Witnesses
Use peamat to allow a church on property torsed "L -Io' (Limited
'Industrial) located on the south side of Bntler Avenue a approx-
imately 400feet east of Laguna Court,, identified as Ali 40-40-26
Chico.
9:45 p.ap un g'j,,�.sgpite - Carlton Lowen - Rezoane from "S -R11 (Suburban-
to "PA -C" (Planned Area Cluster) to a low a 45
unit development located on the southeast corner
of Shasta Avanov,- and Bay Avenue,, identified as ,AP 41-34-49
mo"re partiou� ar1y 4 ax i *d as:
All that certain real voperty- situate in the County
sof Butte,State of California, described as follows-,
Lot 15, as shown
on that certtain_ Map entitled, "First
Subdivision of the Bray Tract"Olihich Was iTt the
office of the Recorder of the County 01: Plutte
of Cal:lforAia, on Pebruery 49 199S 1n Book I of Maps
at Page 42
EXCEPTING MREPROM the aaortheastor;ly 240 feet of the
nort4hvresterly 290 feet$ Chico.
ITEM. ON WHICH A DRAFT
ENVIROMENTA` "`` ttl CSC ,JC A
S:SO p.jnj Shastan Company Inc. - Gohoral, P19A AneendMent frank Low Density
hosldential: to Medium Density_Reasideaatial. on proporty zoned
of -SWI (Agricultural w Suburban, Residential) located on the
South side of W. Sacramento AvenUe , apprOXiM4t0lY 350 feat west
of Oak La%vA Avenue, containing 5 acres, identified as AR
432 i- , Chiso, hie 85,90.
The above inentione4 appl.it4t ions, maps b and environmental impact report
Are on filo and avgilabl.o for public viewing a� t3Ye oEfuce of the Butte
County Planning Bopartrtiont; 7 County CcnteT brl.Ve, QaavaZle, Cal•ifoyhla.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
D4 A„ RIRCH'SR, DIMTOR OAF PLANNING
TO BE pUBI,ISfitD IN THE CjIICO EN', ERPRIM3 RECORD ON THURSDAY, JULY 21, 1.983:
° a
�a
74:Ni
-_
WMI
0 —_15
T. 2,21V
R />E
M. D. B 8 M.
62-..:
q3-266
,.,�,..«.
62-0�
cq 28
a
2g
SACRd 'ENT tT/-.
AVENUE /00'
-
I
J6. r�-Y
r
.. r,o
rm
404.5
. ,Q
riz
is
- 129.:0.'.
100
-. so -
t
f �
i
/�
€
- O;
l4
� r
0
L�.''�.''�J
3z
i
-a Lor'
D
!!
I-
30
S U
NO
IDWELL
29
•
i.
-
� ,
4 -
la
IQ'
NTS !!O:
-
- �.
_
/9 IB
�,Zp
hb o
t!
o
is
is
n
IS :
rs .ti zo
Gil�
-
Vi.
a
l
o
c-3 Cr
r'
o f
a
B/DWELL
DR/VE
A
o z
!Y'AC
i'
I66 dG
/ 66 AC
�
t J-
o
z
2l /7
c kt F..
C=3 cc
Z Q
(`
/O
o
}C
2
�•
zz
QLLI o` � cj
f
t
o
0
Q
�c
r— ca1045-
so
70
7c
70
1
50
zJ rs
..
LAJ Z
29
25
z
8/DWELL 2N40 sue
f Ac Bx s PG. zr
Assessors Mop No. 43-26
frGCULCfY BCOCX`R;A
BX,' s PG. 23
�
.f
NOTE—ASSESSOR'S PARCEL BLOCK
County of Butte, Calif.
04A' L,4W f A'ANOR` SUB.
R' M Br. /7 PG JT
c
d tOt NUMBERS SHOWN
re! r)Vr1FS'
414RCH, !95'4 -
Real Estate Develop„tent & Construction
P. 'o, Box 4143, Chico, CA 95927
August 29, 1983
13uti',S �,+iy i`Xilf•ltli] �KJp,e(T,
leis 'Betty Kircher
Director of Planning '` } 7
County of Butte
25 County Center Dr: ve QroYi�la, Cali;orisic
Orovlle, CA 95965
Re: Rezone File No. 84-3 and General', Plan F•`ile No. 83--90
Dear Betty,
At this time we are requesting that your office suspend the processLng
of r above
ve referenced files, The General Plan Change Request is no
longer an active project having been denied on August 3rd by the planning,
connission.
` Attached with this letter is a new application for rezone which includes
all of AP JX3-26-0-0034.0 and 43-29-0-0720 whereas the above referenced
rezone included but a portion of the parcels,
It is my understanding that thefeesfor the previous rezone application
will be applied to this new request,
Very truly yours,
SHAST,07 goMTAW, INC
hayHalbert
President
JSR ; sh
Enclosure Application for rezoning with Appendix E and conformance 'report
Subdtvivsion application rai,th Subdivider statment, title'
policy
Neap copies (16) taith Sepia (1)
discal analysis (16)
EIR Supplement (16)
LAND OF NATURAL W AITH ANO (Si.AUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROSILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 53d•4601
August 5 1983
Mr., Jay Halbert
Shastan Company, Inc.
P 0 Box 4143
Chico, Ca.
95927
Re: File No. 83-90
General Plan
Dear Mr. Halbert
This letter trill serve as your official notification
that the Plann3,ng Commission, at a public hearing on
August 4, 1983, denied your request to amend the General
Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density
Residential for property located ori the south side of
Nest Sacramento Avenue, approximately 330 feet ,rest of
Oak Lawn kvenuo, containing 5 acres and identified as
AP, 43-26-03, Chico.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
our office.
Sincerely,
f
B, A. Kircher'
/lid Director of Planning
ffuttle count
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CEOTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE! 534.4601
July 26, 1983
Mr. Jay Halbert
Shastan Company, Inc.
P 0 Box 4143
Chico, Ca
95927
Ret Pile No. 83-00
General Plan
Dear qtr. Halbert:
Enclosedis a copy of Staff Findings concerning your
application for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density
esidential to Medium. Density Residential on property
zoned "A-SR" (Agricultural Suburban Residential)
located on the south side of West Sacramento Avenue, ap-
proximately 3S0 feet west of Oast Lavin Avenue, containing
5 acres,identified as AP 43-25-03, Chico.
A public hearing by the Planning Commission has been
set for 8150 P. M., August 4, 1983, at their regular
meeting which will be hold in the Board of Supervisots`'
Room, County Administration Building, 25 County Center
Drive, Otoville
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
our office.
S i 11 corely,
B. A: Kircher
Director of planning
/lid
i
Lnc:
®'®
CITY
A7*?41.
n
rz
�...fyPAP op)
_
,rte',.^"'• •. , F{ J +Hh �ij7
�7 tY tS/
�,�'�,s-fit ��.»:; a � � t .;i�w .rte ,,�.�x,;,. >� •��i� G � �;�tf r�
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLEo CALIFORNIA 95965'
PHONE: 434.4601
July 18, 1933
Jay llalbert
P. 0. Box 4143
Chico, CA 95927
RE General Plan Amendment
AP 45:26-03
File # 83-90
_M
Dear Sir'.
This letter is to irl.form you that•the previous environmental
determination sent to you :From this office on July 12, 1983
has been rescinded due to adclitional information received by
this office since that date.
Because of potentially significant environmental: impacts
identified in the attached memorandum and checklist, an
environmental impact report is required pursuant to the_
reglri cements of the California. Environmental Quality Act,
In this case We are recommending the use of the previous :y
prepared EIR for the Waterford project located just west of
the General Plan Amendment property, Normally, we require
the submittal of a draft BIR within 200 days from the date
of -receipt of the EIR requirement notice. Since we will
need additional copies of the supplemental EIR prepared for
the Waterford project; we can either bill you for the additional
copies this office runs or you can supply us with those copies
yourself. In the event that unforeseen costs are incurred,
we will require the submission of an additional deposit to `
cover those costs. When the project is completed, We will
refund any unused remainder or bill you for any costs in excess
of those deposited:
The General PlAn Amendment has been scheduled with the Planning
Commission for August 4, 1983. At that time the Planning Com-
m ission
oni-mission Will receive input from any interested property owners
Jay Halbert
Page 2
July 18, 1 ,83
in the vicinity and male a recommendation
-to the Board
of
Supervisors to either approve
or deny the General Plan
Amend-
ment. As pati of considering
the amendment, they will
take
action Based on the prior EIR
and the supplemental information
forwarded to them. A copy of
the Staff Findings for the
amendment will be forwarded to
you within the next week.
If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact
this
office.
Sincerely,
B. A. Kircher
Planning Director
David R. H,ronimus
Associate Planner
DRFI lkt
Attachment
Via= 'r °"� �� �
Inter -Departr � r.+x,l � Neworandum`
Planning Commission
Dave Hironimus, Planning
.Revised Prvironmental. Analysis for the Sha.stan Company, Inc.
General plan ,Amendment, AP 43-26-03, 83-90
July 14, 1983
This project is a General: Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to ;`Tedium Density Residential on property zoned
A -SR (Agricultural -Suburban -Residential) located on the south
side of Nest Sacramento avenue, approximately 330 feet west
of Oek Lawn avenue, Chico. The property to the nortl,i ape
east of the subject property is currently zoned R-3 (Mea.um
Density Residential) and in a medium Density Residential
designation, The properties to the south and west are
currently zoned A -SR (Agricultural. rSuburban-lies:3,deiit a7;)
and are in a Low Density Residential general flan designation.
Land use's in the vicinity are mixed lour density residential
and multi -family residential to the north and east and pre-
dominantly low density residential to the south and west.
If successful, this General Plan Amendment to Medium Density
Residential on this 5 acre parcel would represent an increase
Of potentially 35 dwelling runts. Maximum buildout to the
13 dwelling units pot acre allowed by the General Plan
designation may not bo possible due to septa.c system limitations
on the property. If the project does build out to the 13
dwelling units per acre, this would represent an increase of
245 trips per day onto Nest Sacramento Avenue. Using the
Chico Unified School District fortula ;for pro j ec'f i,ng student
loads, the change in the General Plan designation could mean
an increase of 15 students generated on this property to a
total, of 28, Xindergarten through sixth grade would increase
by $ to 15 students, junior high seventh through; ninth grade
would increase by 4 to 7 students, and senior high school
would increase by 3 to 6 students.. This increase, coupled
with already projected increases Blue to other projects, would
put Rosedale Elementary School 117 students over capacity,
Chico Junior High School 70 students over capacity, and
Chico Senior Fligh would still. have 373 stations 'available.
The Chico Unified School District 'las indicated that this
could be a significant impact on their availability to pilo
vide school. housing for the development, As such, an
environmental impact report is required.
The attached 5upp1e111e tal PIRfor the Waterford project
immediately to the hest of this project, coupled tvi'th the
above figures, is sti;[Picient for consideration of this
project; The supplemental DIR prepared for Waterford is
in conjunction With the EnviVorillicntal Impact Report previously
certified for the hig Chico ');states Subdivision located to the
west of this current project
��plemental Information...
�. Comments received from the
the Butb t]lat with subsequenttde`velopme t r
yte Count i� c nepartrnent
the butt County Fire Department will be as i,nllishProperty,
developer to pro�rxae Y
acne fire station site acGeptable
to the'fire department.
2. The Chico Unified School District has in
project is Located �vitll,i.n the attendance aareae� � til this
Rosedale Elementary School. or the
l TliIs school is 7)rese itl'y
beyond its aract�.cal capacity and
growtl in this attendance area Would in in any
o
Rosedale tlernentar , ) additior�aL
cannot be adopted lnSconjunctS nce m ti ation measures
merits or Rezones, an Envirbnmental ImpacLoV' plaa Ameiid-
quixed. In this case, the dr aft envitonmer�tal *111pact
report supplement Reportis a+e�
Prepared for Waterford is l � t
suf f-Ic.ient.
BUTTE COUNTI' FLANNING COriD17 SSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
given by the Butte County Planning Commission that
Notice is hereby g August 4, 1983 in the Butte
Tablc hearings ��ri11 be held on Thursday,
Board of Supervisors' Room, Administration Center, 25 County
,C unty Or , Cali.fornia, regarding the following :
renter Drive
anon of Jehovah's Witnesses
5.15 p:tn. Robert J. Smith - Chico Congreg erty zoned "L -I" (Limited
Use permit to allow a church on prop a rox-
Industrials located on the south side oadci7iaedvasuAT� 40p40 -2G
imately 40q feet east of Laguna Court,
Chico.
• a Carlton Lowen - Rezone Eton► "S -R" (Suburban -
9 45 P.M. Jon Gregoire - ro
Residential) to " a 45
PA -C" (P'la?�nlocAte� onuthe rsoutheast ��corner
unit resp dential developnten
of Shasta Avenue and Bay Avenue , dentifiod as AP 42-34 0
more particularly described as:
All that certain renl property situate in the County
of Butte, State of `California, described as follows
"First
as shown on that certain hlcl vas' ilea in th
Lot 15 rl , e
Subdivision of the Bay Tr
office of the Recorder of the 185tnoif�oolctleofSMaps
of California, on Tebruary � ,
� at Page 42.
EYCEPTING THEREFROM the northeasterly 240 feet of the 83-60
northwesterly 290 feet' Chico:
ITV.ON jjHICH A DRAFT
EQ�IR D
ENVIRONMEN FAL I A T P RT iV R
- 'General Plan Amendment from Low Density
8t50 pm Shastar� Company Inc. propertyzoned
Residential to Aled um Density Res�.dential on octed on the
nti
,�p�SR!' �Ag'ricultural - Suburban Resp approximate, gximately feet west
330 feet
south slide of }V. Sacramento Ave Suacresp ti dontified as
of Oak Lawn Avenue . containing
Ch.ido ; Fa,le 83-90-
43-26-03,
. office the the But
e mentioned applications, maps > at the � to
and environmental impact act
p
The above viewing report
T lo, Calilo"�na.ax
are on filo and available for palit Center Drve� gra1
. Planning DNpartment, 7 County
County ,
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CM111SSIC?N
B. A RIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
TO Bt MLISHED IN THn
CHI CO ENTERI'RIS>; Ill?CORD ON TEJURSDAY , JULY 21y 1983
APPENDIX Il
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
70I., Secretary for Resources
❑ 1.416 Ninth Street, Room 1311
Sacramento, CA 9581
County Clerk, County of Butte
nX 25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
FROM: Planning Department
7 County Center Drive (T`°i1ed
Oroville, CA 95965
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in Compliance with
Section 21108 or 21152 of the Pil l i0r5 l eSsoOt ices So%n
Project Title
General Plan Amendment AP 43-26.03 Shas'tan Comaan Inc.
State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to State Clearinghouse)
,Contact Person Telephone Number
13. A. Kircher, ,Planning„Directar 916. 534-4601
Project Location On the south side of West Sacramento Avenue,
approx. 330_ feet ,west of- Oak _ Lawn Avenue , Chico.,
Project Description
General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to 'Medium
Density Residential on property zoned A -SR.
this is to advise 'that the Butte County Board of Supervisors
Lead Agency
has made the following determinations regarding the above. -described
_ project: _
1. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on
the environment.
will not
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of CPQA, and was
certified as required by Section 15085(g), 1.4 California
Administratve,Code.
A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the
Negative Declaration may be examined at the Planning
Department, 7 Cottnty Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95065,
A Notice of :Exemption was filed indicating this project
is exempt from environmental review.
A statement of Overriding Consideration ❑ was; ❑ was not;
adopted foil this project
Mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency to reduce
the impacts of the approved project are.,
Date
Si,gn�.ture
Stephen A. Streeter
Title
s
A
ON REGARDTNr. F
.APPENDIX G
1= NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the proJect described below has been
reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Pnvirolimental
Quality Act Of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21100 et, se
determination has been made that it will not have a significant a
effect upon the environment.
33-00
Log # 83*05-25-03
2 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: AP 43-26-03
General Plan Amendment :from Loin Density Resident.aj to Medium
Density Residential on property zoned. A -SR..
3. LOCATION OF PROJECT:
On the south side of West Sacramento Avenue, 4PPI'Oximately 330
feet west'Of Oak Lawn Avenue, C}lico.
4 • NAME AND ADDRESS OF {PROJECT APPLICANT:
Shastan Company, Inc,
P. 0. Box 4143.,
Chico, CA 95927
5 MITIGATION MEASURES
b. A ro study g
Of this�pro'octnasaon file ate arcing the environmental effect
7 County Center Drive, OtOVIl.le.
This study was:
E] Adopted as presented.
Adopted with changes. Specific modifications
supporting reasons are attached,
and
7• A public hearing on this Negative Declaration was
d'eclsion niab:ing body, held by the
Hearings Body Butt.e_qounty Board of Supervisors
Date of Determination
Determinations
On the basis of the initial study, .
information presented at hearig,ocommentsnreeceived on tile
Proposal and our own l no Vledge arid' independent research:
We find the proposed project COULD
e a
effect on t}�e environment, and a NLGATTVOT vbBChARATIONc-ist
hereby adopted;
We find that the project COULD have a significant effect
don the environment but will not in this
attached mitigation case because of
t��liich measures described in item 5 above
are by t}�is reference trade conditions of project
approval A conditional NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby
adopted,
Signature
Title
July 12, 1983
..let,
• t, .GCount
�. I.AND OF NATURAL
WI fly
EALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING "MMI SSI ON
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OPOVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE. 534.4601
Shastan. Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 4143
Chico, CA 95927
RB; General Plan Amendment
File ff 53-90
AP 43-26-03
The Butte Count} Planning Depft tment has cotnp� etcrj
study at potential environmental Consequences initial
connection with the above -menti project a p in
is being forwarded to yott, copy of which
Please revieivt the enclosed checklist, noun ,
environmental p�•oblems tvliich could be minimized avoidedaby
the care and manner 3.11 which the project is carj,ied eut,
please reviez•r any recontmonled tnit� gat ion measures ot.' Also,
Of approval condition,
AFtor reviewing the checklist ou may see tvn�rs to improve py o3oct design, w esign imPtovements to minimizer i�I improve the
0I1CdU t•a ed, ore
g If you nate any error, or omissions in o'tir e r.
plOase bring them to otlr attention: �ltaation,
OLI Will be notified of the time rtd place of tho tibl..
CoI your project . i k YOU have an d public hearing;
rev' civ, please contact this office, �luestiorts' regarding env`ironMontal.
Sincerely,
Aft
David R, 'Hironimus
Associlte planner
DRU j.kt
$nc.Ll
00,
Inter-Dep art il0ii Memorandum
7_: Planning Commission MML_oft
Dave Hixonimus, Planning
est fir: Environmental. Analysis for e Ih Stan Co rNip. n I ic, wG"fin a. "
Plan Amendment, AP 43-26-0.3, 83-90
July 12 108S
This project is a General Plan Amendment from Low Densi Ly
Residential to Medium .Density Residential on property zoned
A -SR (Agricul,tural. Suburban -Residential located on the south
side Of West Sacramento Avenue, approximately 330 feet west
of Oak Lawn Avenue, Chico, The property to the north and the
east of the subject property is currently zoned R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) and in a Medium Density Residential
designation. The properties to the south and west are currently
zoned A -'SR (Agricultural-Subt.irban-Residen tial) and are 'in a
Low Density Residential general plan designation, Land uses
in the vicinity are mixed low density residential, and multi-
family residential to the north and east and predominantly
low density residential to the south and west. If successful,
this General Paan Amendment to Medium Density Residential on
this 5 acre parcel would represent an incrcase of potentially
35 dwelling units. Maximum buildout to the 13 dwelling units
per acre allowed by the General Pia1i designation may not be
possible clue to septic system limitations on the property,
I:C the rolect do `
' p . � - t1�Ve�.l,xng' unit!,, per acre,
this would represent an increase of 245 trips per day onto
West Sacramento Avenue:
The attached initial study utas prepared for the Tracy Rezone
as initiated by the coarct of Sttpeivisors iii 19$1: That initial
Study was subsequently used aizd updated for another 'Board, of
Supervisors' initiated Rezone in the area later that year.
That revised initial study,Log 0 81-06-18-01, is Sufficient
n
for con8iderati.0of this current project, and a Negative
DOciaranon is recommended,
Sttlaplemental In Cormatio
1, Comments received from the Butte County vire Department
;indicate that With subsequent development OT, this pl.-oper ty
the 13uttc County Tire Department will be aski°hg the
developer^ to provide I$ acre fire "station site acceptable
to the :Case department, -
2, The Chico Unified School District has indicated that this
Project is located Ulithin the attendance area for the
Rosedale tlementary School. This school is presently,
beyond
in this attendance capacity
and; thereforo, any additional
bge and its practical ca �acirca would have an impact on
Rosedale Momentary School, Since there is no specific
devel,opmont Information available at this titti , it is
impossible to assess the impacts that any future development
i
Planning Commission
Shastan Company; Inc.
Page 2
July 12, 1983
may have on the school system. Additionally, under the
current A -SR zoning, no impact could take place beyond:
what is already planned for. Therefore, at the time of
rezoning or at the time of subdiV cion, this impact could
be more fully assessed. A subdivision or PA -C zonings
could be conditioned for the standard mitigation measures
the school district has been using; however,, a Rezone to
R -s or other multi -family zoning may requ;iTe the developer
to either enter into an agreement with the Chaco Unifiod
School Tistrict prior to the approval of any zoning or
the entering into a development agreement with the County
of Butte in conjunction with the approval, of the zoning.
DR lkt
Attachment
CC,. Shastan Company, Inc
av
l I—anning File PrBI-139
e 81-06-18"01
Plann-ng Commission/Board of Supervisors
Stephen Ai Streeter, %nvironmental Review
Rezone to R -S, in West Chico, AP 43-29-71.11 •ou , 3 -26 -various
lee
July 15, 1981w
This project is a ez o �abbtt '9 `;act.e m front A -SR (Agri -
cL11tural-Suburban sx ti'a'S) A-2 (General.) and C-1 (Light
commercial) to R-3 t`ie ' ' m 'Densi.�ty Residnet:i�al) . The property
is located on both s de ;of `lVest Sacramento Avenue at Oak' Lawn
Avenue, west Chico. Ior`b specifically; the l5 parcels involved
in the rezone are located on the S.E. and. S.W. corners of
Oak Lawn Avenue and IV. Sacramento Avenue, on the north side
of IV. Sacramento Avenue at Oak Lawn Avenue, on the north side
of W. Sacramento Airenue '+600 feet west on Oak LaWn Avenue and
on the south side of W. Sacramento Avenue, + 400 Feet East of
Oak Lawn Avenue
A Negative Declaration regarding environmental impact is recom
mended based on. the attached initial study prepared for a
similar rezone to R-3 in the vicinity. Subsequent proposals
for multi -family development would undergo additional environ-
mental review As part of the -sewage disposal permit application,
k Su _ lem-ent, a1. Comments.;
include apartments, single i
the property
1. Current land uses on t
family residences; an active and an abandoned cohtmercial use
and remnants of orchards; The properties that would be most
likely to develop to apartments or sim�.lat; multi -family land
Company cels located west of the N. R. Jessee
uses are the three par
iVell Dr'lll nd p y on the 'north side of West Sacramento
Avenues
2, Sound attenuation measures are recommended for the design and
conof future dwelling units
struct'on , particularly those
adjacent to West Sacramento Avenue. Noise Froin vehicular
traffic, traveling at up to 35 miles per hour,is the main
noise sou.rce Currently, there is additional noise c --r tl
by machinery; large trucks and heavy vnuipmerit being
Utilized to install stor"M drain linea as part of tilt
Sacramento Avenue Assessment District.
3, 'The Chico Area Recreatibn and Park District is concerned' dit'ional development on their facilities,
about the mPact of ad
The Planning Department will respotyd to their comment about
the Park' be,, ration Policy: This policy will likely be
modified once the Recreation Plement of the General Plan
is reviewed and adopted, This document should be available
I
n the near future.
Planning ConwnI.7 an oars OT a,NEWT
Page 2
July 15, 19$10
4. Solid board fencing should be installed a'lont,
lines which are common�v.:h adjacent single familypreside ices
Landscapitig with hedges Ind shrubs along these areas would
also help to serve as a buf ter. The City of Chico Planning
Office has suggested an additional setback: area along the
Property lines of parcels ulhich are adjacent to existing
single family residences along Oak Lawn Avenue'.
S. All of the subject
� parcels are within the Sacramento Avenue
Drainage Assessment District. The assessment rate for
most of the parcels is equivalent to existing R-3 apartment
type land uses ($5,000 to $7,999 ,,er acre)..
6. The minutes of the Butte County Planning C64imission meeting
Of May 27, 1981 and of the 'Butte Countv Rnry,rd �)f Supervisors
meeting of ,lune 23, 1.98I, "for a:-s;im�Ia'r rezone 'to k=3 of
AP 43 -?,6-04 & 05yare'cited as reference.
7. At the May 27 hearing of the Planning Commission, Katherine
Whitney expressed objections with regard to traffic' the
One-way Rose Avenue Bridge and the heavy traffic onnarrowOak Lawn and Bidwell Avenues; Developments which•would
direct traffic to Rose ;ivenue would be required to pay
a pro rata share of the reconstruction costs of the Rose
Avenue Bridge. TheHighland Park Subdivision, tentatively
approved by the Advisory Agency on July 17, 1978, was
required to pay a Pro rata share which was estimated
at $1.5,000. The approval on this particular subdivision
is expected to lapse :Za August. 1981. Eventual development.
on the referenced property (owned by Muriel Turner; will
create a new circulation pattern with a northward extension
of Rose Avenue from Bidwell Avenue to Nest Sacramento
Avenue. The Turner property is identified as AP 43-29-72
and 43-26-05
As noted in the initial study for the MCDowoll Subdivision
(27 lots on M3 acres identified as AP 43.29-15 and located
north of Bidwell Avenue) 1,200 feet + west of Rose Avenue),
traffic circulation is a concern svitF the anticipated
single family, as well as multi -family, development proposed
in the area. One option being explored is a road connection
from the McDowell Subdivision to the Rose Avenue extension.
w
if these plans materialize, new circulation patterns and
traffic congestion on {Vest Sacramento Avenue and in the
viciniteXtensionofBRoselAvenue
AvenueWould intersectuscar. vith' eThe
Ymay
oth tiVe�.t 5acramerito
Avenue at a point south of N. R. Jessee Dell Dx'illing.
APPENDIX: I''
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To be completed by Lea4 Agency)
t'RD LOG 81-04-13-01
BACKGROUND Planning File # 81-111
�. Name of Proponent Board of Supervisors/Orville & Linda Tracy
2 Address and, Phone [tum er 87 Proponent
c/o Planning Commission 1207, W_ Sa.eramento Avenue
ounty Center Drive —hi co CA 9592_Ei_
rovalle, CA
95965-
3.
5965_3. Date of Checklist Submittal' _
4 Agency Requiring, Checklist --
zone ftom A -SR to R-3
5. Name of Proposa-1, if applicable ReAP 43-26- 05
C Ix, ENVIRRON�iENTAL 11TACTS�� �; and "maybe" e" ans ers are required
{Expl anarions of all yes
on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1.
Earth. Will the proposal result in saga fiaant
a. Unstable earth conditions or in i
g' substructures`?
changes in geologic
b Disruptions, displacements, com; !
paction of overcover ung of the soil?
C. Change it topography or around sur-
face relief features or removal of Ani
topsoil?`
d. Destruction, covering or modifica
tion of a unique g i'oldP,ic or �
physical features?
Increas
e y e it1 wind or Hater erosion
of soils, either on or Offthe site?
f. Changesiri deposition or erosion
of beach 8a 8, or changes in si,lta
tion, deposition or ol-r5si on Which
may modify t1le channol. oC a rimier or
streatxa or the bed of the occatt or
s any, bay, inlet or lake? --
g+ d crave prime dgoLIculturally pro`
r
ils outside rlesinated
urban areas?
1 Appendix r page 1 ' of
YIDS MAYBE
N0
i .
Reduction in: the amount of water
otherwise available for public
water, supplies?
j.
Exposure of people or property
to water related Hazards 'such -as
flooding?
4. Plant rife. Will the proposal result
in
su stantials
a.
Loss of vegeratlon or change in the
diversity of species or number
of any species of plates (inclilding
trees, shrubs, grass, t ops,
microflora and aquatic, plants) ?
b.
Reduction of the number:` of any
unique, rare or endangeredspecies
of plants?
c.
Xnttoduct .on of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species? E
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agri-
cultural crop?
5. Animal Life. 1,131-11 the proposal result
in
substantial:
a.
Change iii the diversity of species,
or numbers of any' species of
animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna) ?
b.
Reduction of ,'t'te numbers OF. any
unique, rare or endangertd species
of animals?
C,
Introduction of new species of
animals into an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration ox
movement of 611ma187
a,
Reduction of; encroachment upon, or
deteriotation to existing fish or
'G
trildl.ife habitat?
At pendik E
- pdge 5 of
r
APPEND2 � F
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORT
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
ERD tog, # 81-04-13-01.
I, BACKGROUND Planning File # 81-111
1, 'Name of P.r.oponent Board of Supervisors/Orville & Linda Tracy
L.. Address and Phone [Jum. er o., Proponent
c/o Planning Commission 1207 W. Sacramento Avenue
7County.Conter Drive Chico, CA 95926
Oroville, CA 95965
3. Date of Checklist Submitted
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
�; _Name of Proposal, if appl,i a e Rezone from. -.A -.SR to -R-3
AP 43-26-04 & 05
II: ENVIRONMENTAL VIPACTS
(Explanations Of all "'Yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets,)
YES MAYBE NO
1 Earth, Will the proposal result in significant:
a,
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displaaem,tnts, com-
o Q�' -
paction of overcovering of the soil?
c,
change in topography or ground stir -
face relief features or removal of
topsoil?
d.
Destruction, covering or modifica-
tion of any unique °geolo is or
! �,
'
physical features?
e,
increase in mind o'r watterosion
:of sols, either on or off the site'?
£,
Changes in deposition or erosion
"
Of beach sands, or chariReu in sista=
tion, deposition orcrogion which
may modify the chahndl oC a river or
stream orthe "the bed o f. the otoan off,;
Any, bay,, ftilet o1 to e'?
0A
g,
Lose of prime zIgt-icultutqllY Pro-
ductiVe 803.1s outside designated
G
urban aj-ta8?
_. ..
Appendix ,E
- page !'of ')
v
^
YES MAYBE
r
NO
h.
Exposure of people car property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides,mudslides rout d failure,
or similarhazards2
2. Air., Vill the proposal result ' in;
a.
Substantial .deterioration of
ambient or local air quality.?
i
b.
The creation of ob j e, tion �ibl e
odor`s y smoke or fumes?
c.
�8ii rtifiaggnt alter'atyion of air
movement, moisture or temperatuxc� g
or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
3. Vater., Will the proposal' result in substantial,;
a a•
Changes �n currents or the course
fi e
or direction of raaLer movements?
b:
Chanes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the'rate and amount of
surface dater runoff?
C.
NO for off-site s•irface drainage
improvements, irrcl.t.idi.ng vegetation
removal, ehannel.i.:a iogi oi: culvert'
C.
installation?
,i,
r`,l orat*ions to the. course o,. r -.10W
of flood waters?
e.
Chang6 in the amount of qut.fact
waster in any 'water body:,
D
._._.R
f,
bischarge into surface iaaters or
in any altera.t ion or. surface {
tmter quality, includin,t but not
limited to tenlporatuee, dissolved
o2:jgdit or turbidity?
g,
Alteration of the direction or
rate of r -low of ground '�ta.tots?'
hi
Chatig;e in the qu,,,intit y n5' quality
of gro and vmtaes, e .t.iter through
direct adtlitio-n8 o withdrawals;
or` thtOUf1.1 itlt.r'Li:eption of t3n
aquifet 6t cuts or E?::cavatiotls?
n sl x, pr�, e" 2
0
t;
VES MAYBE NO
I.
Reduction in the amount of coater
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
3.
Exposure of people or property
x
to water °related hazards such as
flooding?
4. Plant' Life. Will the p"-aposal result
E
s'ubstantial.:
x
a,'
Loss of �e;etatloin or change in the
div, ersity of tpecies, or number
of any species, 'of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, Crops)
microflora and aquatic plants) ?
,
b.
Reduction of the numhers' of any
unique, rare or endangered species
Y+
of plants?
C.
introduction of new species of
plants into an area,' or in a barrier
to .the. normal replenishment: of
existing species?
d.�
Reduction in acreage of any agri-
cultural crop?
5. Animal Life: Will (.-Ihe proposal result
in
substrantial
a4
Change in the diversity of species,
or hUmbers of any species of
an°imA16 (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell
fish, bertthic organisms, a.i�sect,s or
microfau+a
b,
Reduction of -the numbers of any
-=
uttique, rare of endarigeted species
of animals?
c,
intr'oduc'tion of tILW species of
aniigals into ah ares, or result its
a
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d,
Reduction of, ericroachment upon, ot,
. , h or
g fis
� C
'�ildlifeahnbitat7ek�.st�.n
AppendiR F page of '5
y .
YES r7AYBD
J0
5.
Noise. Will `the proposal result in
substantial:
a. Increases in ;noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
7:
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
ro uc�`"e si n`ifficant light or 81aro?
8,
Land Use. Will the proposal result
in a significant;
r
a. Alteration of the planned land use
'
of anj area, or establish a trend
t�liich will demonstrably lead to such
e►)
,I
alteration?
b. Conflict `with uses on adjoining
i
properties, or conflict with
estab l::-h;jd recreational, educa-
tional, veliyi.ous or scientific
uses of an area?
9 .
Natural Resources . Will .the proposal
i
result in substantial;
a. Demand for or increase in the rate
v
of use of annatural rhst�urces'?
V r
�k►moi'
'.
L�r.�
b, bepletion of ,any nonrenedable
natural resource?,
10,
Risk .of Upset, Does the proposal ~
involve a risk of an explosion or
the 'rOlbase Of hatdrdous Substances
(including, but riot limited to; oi.li
pesticides; chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset
Condition?
ll ;
'Population, CIil l the proptm, i 1
signi -icantly alter tho loc rt tion,
distribution, donsi.ty; or growth
rate of the hum n population of Ali
,
area or uh�sically div*rje an
estt�hl. islied colnmlana t;y7
,;;, _
12:
l ous.irivzY Will the proposal
sI cantly tzftect oxi,sti- tib; iiousi.n i
pr crontte a demand fot additional
housing?
ng?
Q)>
AppndiY' ,
pale poi 0
N
}
nMAYBI
NO
13, -'Trans orfation/Circu:lation . Will the
proposa resu t in.
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? r_
b. Significant effects on existing
,p ark�ng facilities, or demArid for
new ark�in ?
c
�..a
c. Substantial impact upon existing;
.. QP)
transportation system,,,?�
d, Significant alterations to present
patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods"
"
e. Alteratin., ^� to gate rborne; rail. or
^'
air traffic.
E. increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
144. Public Sery .ces . V31-11 the proposal have
an of ect upon, or result in a substantial
need far' new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas;
a Fire protection? :�...
b, Police protection?
C' Schools? ----
di Parks or other recreational
facilities?
ei Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
,
f. Other governmental services?
15 Vaietg , 1111.1 the proposal result in:
A. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or eriergv?
b. Substantial increase in demand uponext
ty".
'
� f or
re�uiregti•teudevelorces merier�;y,
p tnt OE nr~ca
r.
sources of encegy?
`
a Appe'ndik F
page 5 of 9
16.- Utilities. Will the proposal result YES
in a ne,ecT for
�� YBE NO
new syatems, or suh-
stantial alterations to the JE011owincr
Utilities:
a. Power o `r natural gas
b. `
Communications systems -._._
c
,
Water?
d
Sewer. (w'll.' trunk •line be extended,
providing capacity to serve
developments new
Storm `-
------
e. j4ater dra,inage?
17.
17. Human He alth1111 the
proposal
result in: sa,
; A
a, Creation of akiy health hazar�j or
poten#;ial health hazard (e:�cJ.udin
mental
health) ?
b• exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18. Solid j7aste:°
In any s��nifWill the proposa.l result,
cant impacts
associated
with solid waste disposal or �j fitter
control?
19. Aesthetics :�
iS2.11 the proposal result
In t e a structiori
of atty Public
or recol
gnizod vista
open to the public;
or Willethe
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthe=tically offensive
site open to
pu171 is `view?
20, 12eere�"tion; t�yll the .
ro a
in an x)np�-Ict Upon. Chep p mal result
quality or
quantity of
eLipStin
tion facilities? public recrea-
21, p000. LSu�Hs,to7:iC1ill the
` su n`att a-te at on of
:. sx,8nzfitaht arr,teol
dg. cal ,
historical site, sttuctllte ab�r ct
off: hu5' ldin ?
ti
�
page G of 9
f2
YDS
MAYBE NCI
2.2. Mandatory Findi_n s of Significance,_
a. Doe the ro ''ect ` have the potential
to deptade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
P es ausE a fish or wildlife
populatiojl to drop bo oto self
sustainin,, levels, threaten 'to
eliminate a plant or .animal com-
munity, r8duce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered
Plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve s1zort term 'bdmafi.ts to
the detriment, of publicly adopted
long-term environmental goals?
c. Dries the project have impacts 'TNhich
are'ndividually limited, but
cumuVatively considerable? (a project`:
may impact on two or more separate r
resources where the impact on trach
resource is relat"ively stna'11, but
where the effect .of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
Sianifidant
d , Does the project have enviro'nmenta ►.
effects 'which will catoo substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
A
Board of Supervisors/ 43=26-040
Orville F Linda 'Tracy Assessors Parcel �
81-04-13-01
DATA SHEE'U ERD Log _
Project Descl , ntion
I. Type of Project: Rezone
,Z. Brief Description:_ Rezone- of 3.3 acres from A -SR (Agricultural -
Suburban Density Suburban Residential) toR�3 (Medium De y Residential)
3. Location
South side of IV. Sacramento Avenue, about 200 feet west
:
of Oaklawn Avenue,''west Chico.
p : U • • enep .an en •z is
�-. Proposed Density of Develo ment. Undetermined; u to 8 DU acro
. Amount of Impervious Surfacing:de4ermine area.
Frontage on No ;
: Sacramento Avenue
6. Access and Nearest'�ublic Road(s)---
. y in 31 mile to the east.
Highway 32 (Nora Avenue). with
Sept'cta�-7 FacHT ie systems; sant ary
,. Method of Sewage Disposal'.,
Source of Water Supply:' .
Californ a Water • aervice Co.
19. Proximity of Power :Lines: Available to residences onsubject,property..
n
3 zoing
J. Potential for further land divisions and developmen,� : R- _
would provide opportunity for multi -family -development such as
375. Environmental Setting.
Physical Environment;
1 . Terrain
Gentle, relatively level valley,
a. General Topographic Character. _..�..
floor terrain.
b Slopes-* e s : g'
Sli ht slope toward zest and south.
:
c. Elevation: 178' + A.S.L..
d. Limit' Factors _ -
Soils
Types i am', allUvial soil with
suitable
aw es and Charecteristicss.
ina ° Dori ermeabilit.
effective depth of 9 feet or more, g p y
-for broad range of agriculturr' purposes:
b. Limiting Vactors:_ r _
Natural. I atavds of the Land.
a, Farthc�ual o Zone: ortc. iri area;_ moderate eartliquake intensity zone
VII
b. Erosion Potential: d: Fire Hazard: LOW
o. tandslide Potential:e. Exparisive Soil Potential
0 f. Po _ Ytaa1ubsadence. des
4. Hydrology
rA n n r%.
,. 81-04-13-03,
. tt continued
b. Ground WaterModerately shallow aquiieaz at ..-S0 ,+ £eet „
: .—
ac� l� as nage for
' g tzesCbeari
c.
Drainage Char :,installed Poor. ,natural s g :i.nstalled.
compact oils , drainage pine and, f
d. Annual Rai of all (,normal ") : 22- . 4"
e. himiting la actors;_
.. Visual/Scenic; Quality:.
;,. Acoustic Quality._' Moderate'- intermittent noise xom.'uehicular, traff'i
�-- g. p e r e t on
a, on a �y N�tt?.ry
Air Quality
ace roa s an we ra xn
is '
ronment:
.�',�;ca10 ,cal Env large
Vegetation: .. Orchard: trees onssoutherly portion of site;
B -
al, ever
gree
• n trees along Sacramento Avenue frontage;
walnut, o
t c 1 5 5
.� Wildlife Habitat: _
Limited to birds.
and small mammals utilizing -orchard area.
cultural Environment:
Archaeological ;
'1;0. Archaeo] ogical and Historical Resources in the area:_,_•
grunted for area in July 1979 as part of assekisment district
clearance v„
Ili Butte County General Plan desi,gna�tion= Pled;iunt Dens
oViet
Res dentialy up._to g DU/ac:re
+ ing: A -SR -
Lan
Two resideYzces;•.. co1.a storage budding
Exp st�.n and Use on-site c
e in wcstex y resadence;
.. �� xi a to _ o
(fo mer Crystal Cream J
orc�iard .gees , etc. as desaxiherd under Ve
''Iv+.,
Surrounding Area; Apartments to the N. & E.; metal building with
old refrigerators to east; single family residences
j—
ai Land U" es. os ulama n�aane 'j
to ti4_ . , r ar s. -a e
Well dr�l�n com an to IV.' ' ' an tentativel
�S•er5ed 7t'ES1eLTi_
.�- n r o v
b . Zoning
A- 8A R=1, C�1, City o Chzco�L i�ng a c se
D�edi:um density, residential; 10%qc. Gen. Plan designations .
32 corridordensity, residential. to 1V. ; CL amereial. to E along �iwy.
d S'arcel Sizes: l/`8 acre to 10 acres
e. population: -
Low to hi 11 density ..
cter of Site and. Area:a��rtmeAts; orchards
some commercial
X15. Cham city 1,i"mits nearby to N. E
,16. Dearest Urba)1 Area:ci
. Chico . `
•17 Relevant Spheres of influence: Sacs amento.Ave Assessment. D:1 strict,
just Svest of spheres of infl.uernce for City if Chico' Calif. 1Vater Ser
�Na
'18. Improvements Standards Urban Area.
Chico (curb i gutter, sid
'ig;. Fire Protection Service:
a� Nearest County (State) ViVe Station: fair Street Station
_f1 Brants an C.�V.S �CoWater Mains,
Water Avai labilit 7 i.
C8 0 i Chico 'to 11 Chico Una.f' 1 Da stri ct
8dhbol.8 in
Appendix V page �b of 9
81 -;0.4 -IS 01
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This.pTo3ect is 'a rezone from A -SR to R-3 to allow the ;potential
establishment of duplexes and/or multi -family dwellings(apartments)
an 3.3 acres of land on the south side• -of West Sacramento Avenue,
,about 2'00 feet west .of Oaklativn Avenue; west Chico.
'The following envixopMental impacts aind '•coneerns have been identified
regarding this rezone proposal (and subsequent multi-familyL residential
.development;on the par.cels). Drainage and traffic improvements are
necessary in thi°s area to accommodate higher density development.
S milar,rezones are expected;y in the near -future, for nearby lands
,which have been assessed comparable,fees as part of the`Sacramento ,
Avenue Drainage Assessment. District,,
i. Soil �di'sr
upti.on 'a:nd oVercoVering, resulting in drainage
increases.
2. ,Reduction of agriculturally productive soils.
3,
Potential removal of trees, and the parts Al loss
of open space, with resultant aesthetic impacts,
4. potential conflict with adjoining orchard uses
_ (however, 'Fills entire -I•rea is undergoing a
transition from mainly agricultural uses to
residential uses)o
C S. population growth and expansion of the urbanized
area:
6. iiicrrased area traffic cirttilation and additional
ingress/egress traffic movements on West Sacramento'
Avenue.
14 Increased public service' demands in the Min 'Urban
Area.
Considering the location of the project site in proximity to multi
family development; the limited number of apartments that 'could be
created and the transitional nature,, of this ne'i
ughbbthood from orchard
.uses with dispersed residences to higher density residential, these
impacts are anticipated to be limited in extent and magnitude. Urban
improvements that would be required for 'subsequent development of
Another, opportunity for environmental 'review may occur for or arse.
g'
a y ;for a sewage
the 3. � acres should adc uatel mitigate the �. ent
1 pn 4 y - y �rtelcpment.Highway 32 3.mprove-
, s �osal e'imit for a multi fatni l dc;
melts are -scheduled to the east at its interoectlon with Wost
Sacramento Avenue
4ppenaix E pago 8 cif 9
8X04-'1301 , ,'
DISCUSS1014 OF ENV IRONNIENTAI,' EVALUATION (cont inued)
;SuM.emental Comments
3b,c; 16.e The project site i8,within the Sacramento Avenue
Drainage Assessment District. A truniKline system is currently
being installed .for n .15.0 .acre area, involving construction of
;about L miles of 60 inch and 36 inch stoi,m drainage. pipe. Runoff
from tht; subject property wi11 add to the concentr.ited urban
drainage discharges into Big Chico Creek, .increasing the total
volume -of stream .flow. Reference .is made to the initial. study
for the Sacramento Avenue Assessment Distrxict:� 18RD l,og # 79-05-17-01,
which_ includes a storm drainage and flood reconnaissance prepared
by,Jon M. Anderson:
is a,��ed to the runoff. It is ,+recoiltmended that
c�. be affected by any
urban phe ollutants quality of Bi Chico,. Creek woul
storm water runoff be retained on the site, as much as possible,
'to 1es?,en this factor
3h,: The Environmental Health Department has commented that the
actual density =for future devolopment will depend _, on the sail 6.epth;,
percolation rate and design of the project. A sewage disposal_
permit will likely be needed once a specific proposal for multi-,
family development is prepared. The California Regional Water
Quality Control Board is a responsible state agency for higher
density projects such as this one may be. Development would be
limited to_avai,,lable sewage disposal area. A cumulative concern
is the concentration of nitrates in the soil as a'result of high
density projects iati.lizing septic systems.
ha,d The large walnut and oak i:rees along ther-�rbh side of the
property "should be retained. Other trees on the property, .mainly
orchard trees, should be retained where possible as part of tine
landscaping. Other orchards in the vicinity are planned or likely
to be proposed for residential development in the near futu�'e,.
p p
The adjoining orchard to the south and west has been tentat.Vely
approved as the Highland park Subdiv�.sion. The second extension
of time to file a final map expires in August 1981 for the
subdivision.
Sd: potential removal of the orchard trees i5 t0t considered a
substantial reduction of wildlife habitat, The effects of
drainage discharges into Big Chico Creek on the riparian wildlife
and the fishery were previously discussed in the initial study
mor -the assessment district.
8a,b This proposal would establish R-5 zoning 'on land which
is utrxently designated as medium deii-ity residential by the
Appendix E page 8a of 9
81-04-13-01
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION tcontinued}
General P1an'A The dividing Line between medium density, residential
and -low density residential is to'the west of the proposed Highland
Park Subdivision.
The: City of Chico Planning Director notes that this property lies
to the west of the "greenline'I and is indicated as agricultural land
byy�the Chico General Plan: Land within the city to theinorth,is
indicated as high density residential-. They do not recommend
extending urban uses beyond the "greenline". Their recommendation
is for R-1 (Single -Family Residential) zoning,,. I—such-zZ: *e
tn. b - mp eaten ed; *it ivoul l"'be nece±;s ry~rto-�reva se the' drainage
aCa-%s,Y;•e,,.... e--ba.sed-mx--a--:otue;r- densir-iaty 1 -and. -use w
11 12 This rezone represents the first step toward other rezones
which are likely to be requested in the vicinity. There is approxi-
mately 20 to 25 acres of land. with similar drainage assessment fees
{ which are likely•to request R•3 nor possibly PA -C zoning. ,
l 1. a,c,f . Assuming 26 dwelling units (density of 8 dwelling units
per acre on 3.3 acres) were established, there would be about 1.80
Counts on Sacramentq Avenue Just west of Oy roads. The traffic
vehicular trips per da added to the nearbakroad Avenue haat ranged
P `� Y
from 1400 to 1517 over the past few years. Though traffic c011nts
have not, been done recently in this area, the c ,'trent traffic count.
is likely 2000 or More cars per day. , Traffic; ?ants will be in!
creasing as subdivisions to the west (Big Ch:,., .reek Estates and
Walnut Woods) are developed.
The 1979-80 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) along, the section of
Highway 32 near Sacramento Avenge is 10,800 The peak month traffic
The traffic: counts on li hwa 32 represent count is 11.00 ADT.
Mount is 13,500 ADT The , peak hourgaff . Sunt is. of tAD
ins o 9
he
predicted 1095 volume (Chico Area Tr p station Plan) The
Caltrans improvement project for this section,of Highway 32 will
alleviate the congestion presently experienced at that location.*
The two lane sections of Highway 32 are at or over capacity in
this vicinity. As additioftdl development occurs in the west Chico
area, it may be iaecessary to widen. Highway 52 ,further to the west:
The substandard roads in this vicinity will need upgrading: A
condition of approval for developing this peoperty would be con-
sttuction of a half street section The south lane of Sacramento
Avenue is currently 1t.ss than 10 feet wide; the north lane is
21 feet + to the face of the curb. Oaklawn Avenue is less than
20 feet 'En. width and may require widening to increase the 'level
of service for greater volumes of traffa c.
Along with the future street tV1 n in front of the property,
Appenl F. page 8b of 9
,., t l 7 M e hides
(The pr��l ec,, hw� a p� of ec ed ADT of �
81-04-I3-01
DISCUSSION
QP MIROMMENTAL
EVALUATION (continued)
a bicycle
lane shotdd be considered
to tie into the planned.
Highway 32
bike route.
l e The
subject 0operty
is assessed a drainage fee of $6,001-$6 999
per acre,
The assessment fee
was developed by taking into account
projected
uses, the Genexal
'Plan, existing and surrounding land
uses.
Refere, ces
Air Photo 3-22
(Public Works Department)
BIR for West Highway 32 General. Plan Amendment and
Rezone, ERD
Log# 78-03-08-01,A q B, SCH # 7°8072476
EIR for Highland Park Si.(NdiVisibn, A-P 43.-26-03 and
43-29-72, ERD Log # 77-09-276-02' SCH V78032131
Initial Study
of Proposed Improvement of State
Highway Route 32,, Caltrans District 3, 1977-79
.Initial Study
for Sacramento Avenue Assessment
District #1
- Alternate 1, ERD 'Log,# 79-05-17-01
InitialStudy
for Rezone from S-R to R=3 for Wayne Paul,
=AP 42-14-16
and,45,, ERD Log # 80409 30-01
b
Appendix P - page 8c of 9
IV. DETERMINATION
(To
be completed by the Lead Agency)
On
the basks of this initill evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, And a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
A,s rEcemmended,a
C�7
1 find that although tho. proposed project could have as
significant effect on the, 6nviromient, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
IS �ECOMMENDED
1 find the proposed project MAY have a, significant
effect on the envirdhment, and an EN'VIRONMENT'AL 'IMPACT
REPORT is required4:
Date
May 7, 1981
is gnatuxe
For ENVIRONIIIENTAL REVIEW Dr;PARimRNT
Reviewed byes ,_,., 7:t-.:
Earl ,D: Nelson
EvvIronmental RevietJ Direr tor'
a
pondix F page 0, of 0
41
r, �s
LAND Of NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY cENTER DRIVE OROVILLE) CALIFORNIA 55465
PHONEt 5344601
May 2S, 1933
Shastan Company, Inc.
P.Q. Box 4143
Chico, Ca 9.5927
Re General plan Change File 83-90
Gentlemen
This is to notify you that we have received your application
for a General Plan amendment requesting Medium Density Resp.
dential from Low Density Residential on property located on
the south side of Sacramento Avenue, approximately 330 feet
west of'pak Lawn Avenue, identified as AP 43-26-03, Chico.
An initial study of potential environmental consequences anti-
cipated in connection with this project is being Completed by
the Butte County Planning Department and will, be forwarded to
your
Should you have any qudstions regarding this matter, please
feel free to Contact this office.
Sincerely,
. t
DiLrectot of planning
BAK : It .4.
�Yr
X�
BUT,T.E, ,MUNTY. 061N r SIG COMMISSION Its
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE ~ 0ROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 534-460
TO: John Aiendonsa - Public Works DATE: March 26, 108.3
RE PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A
.Log #83-05-25-03'
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following project: 83-90 Shastan Company Inc. - General Plan
amendment from Low Mens.ty Residential to Medium Density Residential
on property zoned A -SR located on the south side of Sacramento
.Avenue, approx. 33V west of Oak Lawn Ave . , identified as AP
4'3-26.03, Chico..
We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and Will, be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Please providQ any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opiniurls
You can offer in your area of concern, - expert,lse that relate to either
physical, social,, or economic impacts't.cat this project may generate.
Please respond 'within 14 days of the abovrs--noted date. if no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shat,,, be assumed that there• are no
significant environmental impacts Which are potential from_tho project.
We appreciate any assistance you can ;provide.
Sincerely,
Mick Rodriguez
Planning Technician `
f,omnieuts
+ BUTIT. ,COUNTY„ ON I N5 COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CRNTFR DR'IVF ~ OROVILLE,, CALIFORNIA, 95965`
PHONE: 534-4601,
{
TO: Lynn Vanhart - Env. Health DATE: March 26 , I98
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIV
Log #83-05-25_03
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
'the following project; 83-•90 Shastan Company inc. General pian
amendment from Lore Density Residential to Medium Density Residential,
on property zoned A-SR located on the south side of Sacramento
Avenue, approx.•3301 West of Oak Lawn Ave., identified as AP
43-26-03 Chico,
We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document,; either .a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an.Envi.;rQnmenta1 Impact Report.
Please provide any fat.:tual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area, of concern or expertise that relate to either
physical., 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: -a,e
Sincerely,
Rick Rodriguez
Planning Technician:
. `pr,wtll8, Cdlifn�sta�-
.Comments
•
F e Co. Pleinning omm„
,,. J UN " Q 1983
x
i
' w ,. Orouiller Galitornic '.
Nki.te .or type iii space proVidea #e return thiis sheet.)
BUTTE,,,CQUINTY, .. SP1I NO COMM i S$I 0!'J Butte co. Flagn ng Comm.
M
7 COUNTY
D5I4E460OROVILLEo CALIFOMI1 95965 ,JUN 01983
PHONE'.
Oroville, California
TO City of Chico . DATE: Burch 26 1983
P.O,. Box 3420
Chico, Ca.. 95926 RE- PROJECT REVIMV AND
En, IRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Log #83-0S-25-03'
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following project: 83-90 Shastan Company Inc. - General Plan
amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential,
on property zoned A -SR located on the south side of Sacramento
Oak Avenue, appxox.. 330 west of Oa,� Lawn Ave. identified d as AP .
43-26-03, Chico.
We are making an assessmo=�t .^+ - sss"i: al.` environmental impacts and will be jy1
preparing t,.d,ocurrment, either a Negative Declaration, Mit.xgated
Y �r
,..
Negative Declaration or an. Environmental. Impact Reports
Please provide any faeLia:l statements, :i.doas for investigation, or opinions
•Vou can offer in y0ir;ar7a, aaoncern or expertise that relate to either
physical., sccial, or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. I' 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 a1ay assistance you can provide.
Sincerely, _ _ _ R C E I VE P".
. MAY 27 1983
PLANNING O�F`iCE
Rick Rodriguez CITY, OF CHICD
Planning Technician
•Comments: No contents. Outside City of Chico Sphere of Infl'Uence.
Suzanne Mathewson
Planning Technician
• rte` +• 1, ... ,
w
(Write or type in space provided & return this aheet4) '
1