The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About83-90 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1 OF 3mono " LANNING COMMISSION SUhiriASIIEET MINOR mxvm� ?LICANT Shastan Com an Inc. g3-90 83-05-2 ._. A B. a Sa P.O. Box 4143,, Chico, La. 95927 Same s` M,, ,,T B T DESCRIPTION Genera. Plan Amendment from. LDR to Medium Density j PROPERTY ZONED A -SR LOCATED on the south side jf 4Sacramento Ave. , ap-roa 330 ' west of Oak Lawn Ave G.'r+f `7` .0 rr jASSE.SSORIS PARCEL NUMBER(S) IDEItiTIVIED AS AP 43-26-03 GEN, PLAN �'RO,IEC'T CONSISTENT? - CITY Chico DAT—r. .APPLICATION RECEIVED 5/23/83 j DATE ;REZONING PETITION SIGNATURES CHECKED PHRCENTAGBr I)AT- LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED OR CHECKED. `1 Pili3,LxSiIED ;DATE PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN lit.,� DATE ':DISPLAY AD PRBPARIsD PUBLISHED :PLACE NEWSPAPER NOTICB(S) PUBLISHED - 0.6) P. G. B. - DATEE MAILING LIST PREPARED DATE MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN MAILED"�-' NUMBER E'NWI:RONMENTAL CWtGORICAL EXEMPTION DATE PILED , DETERMINATION AND 'DATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATE ADOPTED �C ENV. IMPACT REPORT - DATE CERTIFIED OTIIt- R COWMI.SSION HEARING DATES COIotISSION ACTION BOARS ACTION ORDINANCE (S) ADOPTED N MA ' Shastan Company Inc. - General Plan Amendment (item on which a draft environmental impact report was required) frown Low Density Residential �to Medium Density Residential on property zoned A -SR (Agricultural. Suburban Residential) located on the south side of W. Sacramento Avenue,' approximately 330 feet west of Oak Lawn Avenue, identified as AP 43-26-03, Chico. File 8`3-90. Staff read the analysis from the staff findings. Commissioner Avis asked if agreements with the fire and schools should be at the zoning level. S°taff stated that this should be discussed at the beginning of the project. Bearing opened to the public. Sharron Howell, representing applicant, was present to answer questions. There was a discussion on density, Low Density 1-4 units per acre, Medium Density 5-13 units per acre, commissioner Lambert stated that she had received several calls in opposi- tion to this project City -Commissioner Nelson, Chico, stated chat stthinotbe s:pedesnot t conform to the City's General Plan for the area an' There was a discussion on density and doing -a PA -C. Sharron Howell suggested continuing the hearing so Ur. Halbert could be present. Commissioners om issioners Avis tans BBehunin stated there was a real problem with 'kiedproperty. Closed hearing and confined the comments to the Commission. Commissioner Lambert stated she received a call from a Mr, Baily concerned about storm drainage going into Big Chico Creek. Staff to contact Public Works on Mr. Baily's concerns. Commissioner Limbert made a motion to deny, seconded by Commissioner Behunino as follows.- BVT $ CCll�t' Y B' ANNI'NG C �iY5;5Y'C1i? r T � 5 .,- Ac us _ ;. J$3 A4 Note that the requirements-of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered.in making this decision; and B. Pind that the proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium D`ehtity Residential does not confum to the policies of the Butt,,. County "General Plan, and C.. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny* the General Plan Amendment to Medium D'ensi?;,y Residential for AP 43-26-0,3 (Shastan Company, Inc.). AYES': Commissioners Avis ,, Behunin, Lambert and. Charman Schrader NOES: No one ABSENT: Chairman Bennett ABSTAIN :No one Motion carried;. 80M COUNTY PLANNING CQWIS81,ON WNM8 August 4 ; 0813 Q � t ' itbJECT NANIEC �� Sias fan Company SCH-f' AP 43-26-4 ReVlew Period 13nds Re vi elv , Period Ends - 4 OUTGUIN A l'2 IT r+ _ J+. j. ry yry Mite 41 Act�.OA,, �]ff +#a letter I2E:_ memo and checklxs 0 {Va;ter�oid s � pleinent > a Pig" r " s c 0 copy 0:r- to .SIR i Y- , r 1� 4 ws,LD No., 83-90 To: Butte GoLTty Planning Commin 9$3 Staff Findings - August 4,`1 PLT CAN T : Shas tG:n Company, Inc. Giv-NER : Same A general plan amendment requesting EQUEST't Medium Density Residential from Low Density Residential A.P. N0 43-26-03 SIZE: 4.8 acres On the south sid6 of Sacramento LOCATION: Ave. 330 feet west of Oak Lawn Ave... Chico r -EXISTINC� ZONT..�1G i Zoned A-SR May 22. 19`73, Ord. 1356 SURROUNDING 'ZONING A-SR, R-3 SURROUNDING LAND USE; T ixed low density residential and Imulti-family residential to the north anc1 east and predominantly low density residential to the south ana West. project site ropresents a portion SITE HISTORY: of the '�ristec PA-C, T tst known as the of Highland_ Park Subdivision. Both those projects are naw defunct. GENERAL PLAN ibrSIGNATION: Low density 'resa it .ent al APPLICABLr REGULATIONS y Plan The Butte Court General CON'i1v1ENTS RI1 CE tVID Piro 11artment: "Eire protection renuihicon. G BCI�Dill lac required, due 93 of C will: be asking the to the cievelopmel t -6H the developer to provide 1/2 wesi side acre fire station site e,c.ceptable to the fixe depar't,�nett," Ch '.to Unified School D' st'�^icti t soe Analvs i.s 116101'� Btzt c C.o,urTt 1),01211 till Glit of Public jVotl:s, Lnvirnnmen � ] llealtl� r ,�; 1 Bei z`i mitt end_ tl�e ca LY. of .;rl,� co had nta com�nnts or ave r,ti oils. FIL Y� FILE NO-. A"MNLYSIS: 711s is a request to amond the General Plan from Low Density Itesid.ential ,_co -to Medium Density Residential on property located on the south side 74est`Sacramento Avenue approximately 330 feet west of Oak Lawn Ave. Irlixe project site contains approximately S acres, and is identified as parcel no. 43-26-03 located. on the west side of Chico. `he site designation criteria listed as part of the Medium Density R,6si.dential designation in the, Land Use 'Element of the General Plan a -re 1 Needed for urban residential development within 2. years. 2.. Adequate water supply. 1;2�, Sewers available or natural, conditions well suited to septic tanks. Adjacent or hear existing utilities and urban development. S. Excellent accessibility to commercial services, schools, fire protection and other connunity facilities. . regard to the above criteria, Califofnia ivater,Supply can service this site. Soils in the area are well vti.ted for septic system and City of ico sewer lines are nearby. The project site is adjacent to land ,already designated for medium density residential to the north and east. Vl-.ile the project is close to commorrisl services) schools, fire pro- tection and other community faci:l�� ".i,es n there are some concerns. The -project site is within the hest Sacramento Drainage District, however, tiro project was designed with this property assumed to be developed 3-rito low density residential uses. 'A change, now, would require to - calculating the assessments for this property. The Sire Department � %s ;Mated that they will be asking, the developer to provide a 1/2 acre .Lre station site that would be acceptable to the Fire Department. :fit the present time, fire protection facilities in the°area are located t the east of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and at times when trains are present , response times are severely lifnited Discussions -with the Chico Unified ':school District Have indicated that wlaile schools re nearby this project would create a potential for an addition of 28 s'..Udents, i5 of these would be in kindergarten thru 6th grade, 7 projected "ora 7ththru 9th grade and 6 are prolacted grades 10 thru 12. These ,rodect Increases a1ong with projected increases from other developments already approved in the area would put Rosedale ]elementary School which services this area :117 students over capacity; Chico Junior Righ School Vo students over capacity and would leave Chico Senior Ili.g]i School with an availability of X37:. students. 8sthearea i.n the availability of public services and tile dovetopg trends n a it appears that this project site may be dppropriate for a mod.11um donsity d si.giation. Ilowever, due to t]ie concerns involving, schools, fire protOttL31.0ft and traffic it appoars that the mod: um density - rsidneti,il dosi,gila'tion- may and. I)remature If suitable agrbolllelits lctt']i the Faro Dep�nitmcht and schools could be achieved before the adopt on c,f ` t be fined: um density residential dosigt atiotx, t7ien, tlirse concert a wotxl t. n� longer exist. she environmental documents for this project have been completed and the certified impact report for the Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision, as supplemented by the yet to be certified supplement prepaved for Waterford Subdivision adjacent to this project, is sufficient for con- sideration for this General Plan amendment, RECOMMENDATI"ON A. Note that the requirements - of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considere6 in making this decision; and Find that the proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium 7Jensity Residential does not conform to the policies of the Butte County General Plan; ,and C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny the General Plan Amendment to Medium Dbnsi y Residential for AP 43-26-Q3 (5hastan Company, Inca. If the Commission can make the finding that the project does conform to thepolicies of the Butte County General Plan then approval of this 'General Plan Amendment would be appropriate, if so; A Note that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in making this decision; and Find that the proposed General: Plan Amendment does conform to the policies of the Butte County General Plan; and a, C, Recommend that the Board of Supervisors certify V° supplement to the Bid; Chico Creek Estates Subdivision's ETR prepared for IVaterford Subdivision; and by resolution, recommend that the Board approve the General Man Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for AP 43-26-03 (Shastan Co., lnc•) Alttachments: Location lxhibit Site Plan Bnvirolimen.tal Documents FILE No.BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING kl �` 1 � 4 i �,�a►�n�ratu�vuwkF:x:rraemrmra�q�l.'kwot+3evcu�n�Anws�� '•9Ewc�".;ls�s61�.M�e-ira9+Qc:+�'. ^.a�',PsaCrt4'w6itllt'e�4`aA Yexi4f�3'M�id.l^�"tiV.Ka2s�'.a1L�s�bM+a" Lr-. tr G. a.WE-8' ' C L '�1�Nti a�Nt fi Xi `IRIU QUI .= aSR SCI I. G�tQ�w�ratra+ttwxrr,�amaia sptirtx.�mtxsar5�+xaW�'ntc�er+�mrte�ut�t�+Rr�C:a�slik�v�nr;.v*tarre»*t�ia'4+�hsi�titis6Qma^�t'Ft�:.Krx�swtztti r. .. j Low :y..rwew.ns�,awv«�ctirrn+an..+rk ' uaa�t3kCi+o:�nxlYlsna:tnaui: �?Ca�k�'c�nsarma�are*x�. cmmxw.,xerw.1«m�k�wfraioxnM.av'.�tasusarritiiase�arsantaeririaxmwae:� �aahrk�.try�..., - ) -, . 5 ri1:1/^ LL .�I��ii. �,:� ,�'",�� i-a:r: �.,�•ltt ij ZAP 6 1 ;C>Giil.`�� i,C��/"�E...f cC'a V t hereby declare' unde'►^pentdty of per!&& that I have wad and unc� rStclni] 0a lnsttuct►ons and Clint the foregoing statements are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge, batted s � Applicant's signature INSTRUCTIOu" TO APPI'CAN% FOR G N RA PLA bMENDMENY 1, .:i appliaunt is not the owae,r, written .authorization 'Pry the owner nr, other prop{ of agency�anust be submitted rn order for the appliearit to legally stgri the applicatioti. Appircattoiia' sl«ill be '' t consftlered void if notsigned by the owner or legal agent: `? �' All items on application shall be filled in as c p y P ;not app(ic-� om letel as ogsible: if an _item is nb1e, ploAsti indlcatri by the term ," IIIA" . �7. 3. It is 'very important that the p4ppliontioit include' an accurate and cnmplete °description of .the property proposed for amendment, 'I']te application will not be processed. until we receive the following lnformntion ahout>'the areg(s) to be' amended. " :. n. Assessor"s, parcel numbers) (from the tax bills, or Assessor's Maps) ; h: Streot addrossesJil, available). "tar c� �.i)Estances and d'redtions to named streeCsf bt+d as of water or railroads. d, Logal description (suhtilivsion lat nutubersT ,t2acl;ions of sections or distances ,and bearings of peelmoter dimensions). e. 10 copies of map witlj, area(s) outlined tAsse'cya"r''s map, oubdiviaion map, zoning map or, other map showing pr rceIs) and a ,reproducible master of the Taap r ,J 4 pp p ''`Appendix ]rt I:-Environmental Information or o". Application muat iarlude a com feted 5: Because the, California Coverpoidnt We requires that locA' general, plans be integrated and internally cons#strt±,t, amendm�lfnts to this TJand' �jse [Matt Njft (s) of the Butte County General Plan must he� �`itt itt 'witlr' written policies and.,standards contained in the adopted .ole- M menti of the' , 6, Amendment" Es subjeet to ptiblic heatIngs And approval *",Ceneraton Tho9 AppToa� y e?l� >t f, e iomn3iss and Board of S6�ervis'orsi-Ilan " �- 65— (date) are & $ o t'� Application fee > %� r pees. may be p ash or by checl- made payable to "Treasurer of Mille County'". 5,; l3etorc subm tri �' application" applictrnt E ,Yrequested to discuss with staff it ticstions about applEt alien; . �stlutremenls, Cttunly procedt�kes, stto designation o„•`erin tend policy con- �IdCratltiTl�._ ,, j 5. Appliennt is roquestad to be as c'otnpleto as possible tr, sl.�t;rt�; the ,�r�� . tis for -the applica•` Lion and encouraged to discuss in writing the proposal's conformance with the pnlieies and i, criteria of the band Use Elemont of the butte County General Plat#. xl 1 ly 43--26-7 1 1 . V. , . A , E Miguel I Ronald W. Lewis J. D. `& 0. V Shuler ` T I 813 Oak Lawn Ave. , 823 oa-klawn Ave, Rt 2 Box 817 Chicon Ca. 95926 Chico, Ca. 95926 ' Chico Ca 95926 I r i _ 43-2.7=6• 43-27-7 4,3-2�i-10 1 � N L . A. Black T. s�. ► J . L. � B. •• 43-26.2 i 43-26-3, 43-29-72". 4.3-x— r Rt. 2, Box Chico, Ca. 95926 1 , Chico, Ca. 95926 C Phyllis E. Hussey Douglas Warnock g 1233 Muriel Wirth Turner 498 'E Sacramento Ave. Rte •- ;Box 103 95926 1 P .0. Box 1 Ghico, Ca. 95927 ) Chico, Ca . 9S926 I. Chico Ca. nary Jean Jessee Box 101 . .. .• Chico, Ca. 95926 Rt, Z, Chico, Ca. 95926 .� . � �43-26-5 43-26-6� 43-28-12 43-26•-03 L. C. � E. E. Rudolph San 'C. Aloxse I G . J. & C. Nisson. i• Gaylord M. Shuler 1 820 Orient St. 121.7 IV Sacramento 1 1021 Macy Ave. � Chico, Ca. 95926 � Chico Ca. 95926 u Chico.' Ca. 95926 1 . - - •l t. 43-26-8 43-26-9 43--26-7 1 1 . V. , . A , E Miguel I Ronald W. Lewis J. D. `& 0. V Shuler ` T I 813 Oak Lawn Ave. , 823 oa-klawn Ave, Rt 2 Box 817 Chicon Ca. 95926 Chico, Ca. 95926 ' Chico Ca 95926 I r i _ 43-2.7=6• 43-27-7 4,3-2�i-10 1 � N L . A. Black T. s�. ► J . L. � B. J. "Flowers 99-% i Marion 2 Box�100cer P.C. Box 11 r Rt. 2, Box Chico, Ca. 95926 1 , Chico, Ca. 95926 C Porto'la, Ca. 9.6122 43-27-8, 43-29-117 43-28-3 a 43-28-8 Jay halbert 911 Blanton Ct. nary Jean Jessee Box 101 i Richard Jessee 1 1212 W. Sacramento Ave: Chico, Ca. 95926 Rt, Z, Chico, Ca. 95926 i a Chico, Ca. 95926 43-28-10, 11 43-28-12 43-26•-03 L. C. � E. E. Rudolph � M. H. Dilley Shastan Company Inc. � P.O. Box 4143 1280 W. Sacramento Ave,. 1 823 Karen � Chico, Ca. Dr. 95926 i Chico, Ca. 95927 Chico, Ca 95926 1 - - •l - C U NL , Receipt Project ect �'� Date Filed Environmental .information Form (To be c ompleted by applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION 1- Name and address of ec developer or ro• .� P a t: sponsor, 2- Address ofproject: --„�' ----- Assessor' s 1G✓ B;loek and Lot Number 3. Mame concern , address ing telephone number of this project: oject: ��• '�� 9rerson�,. o �.�r S • �/1be contacted 4.;, Type of project.. ------ �i•e. rezoning,rrsbdivision) ed 8 5. List and describe any other related approvalsnttrx5J a Pprovals required for this project, permits and other public City, regional)state and fedecI incl agencies: lud ing h se required by da fi. zoning � ` ,. Existing oning district; � �� • -. 7 p use of site: fir' �r1c�'o PRProposed uOJECT DESCRIPTION ��l r c.� a•� 8, Site size,,i 9. Square footage of buildin E(s) . 10,. Number of /),role��►"�� , � , floors of construction, ll: Amount of off-street Parking Provided, �-�k�'r�-, ( c�.'c .c?r� >� r^��• t� .•�t� c,*!�" 12 Attach site developtaont plan.15- ` Proposed scheduling, 14 Associated Projects, 15, Anticipated Co. incremental. dove �.opment u4t� °0 GrbvlCe, Ga1�4ot�► Appendix E page 1 of 3 APPS DTX If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit ;sjzes , - and type of household size expected • 4�n is- k,rot-j �0 If commerc ial, indicate the type,, whether neighborhood, city z•egiona.11y oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading a i.lities r if industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, -mdloading facilit es.A)I +9. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated cloyment per;shift, estimated occur ancy, loading facxlitiep mac. community benefits to be derived fromthe project. a ,4 0— if the project involves a variance, conditional use oY rezoning ap-Plicc.ttion, st ate this and indicate clearly why the application is ;?`squired .Ar-� e th'e following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary); Es NO. 21. Chane in existinglfeatures of any beaches, lakes, Change round contours. or hills, or substantia ground 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23 Significantly change pattern, scale or character: Of general area of project. 24. 83.gnif'icant amounts of solid waste or litter'. ` 25. Change in dust, ast smoke, fumes or odors in Vic 3 pity. 26. Significant change in lalze, stream or ground water quality or quantity,, or alteration of existing; drainage patterns: 7� 2'7 , sub8tantial change in e�i.st3.ng noise or vibration levels 11111 the vicinity. 2H. same on filled land or on slope of 30 percent or ;more. or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic. substances , fl.ammabl:es or expl6,sive9 . , Appendi�t F page 2 of 3 YES NO 7C 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.) 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) 32. Relationship to part of a larger project or series of projects :ENVIRONMENTAL SETT INt9 3 . Describe the project Site as at exists before the proj ect 1ncluding information on, topography, soil stability; plants and ;animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing ,structures on the site, and the use of the structures. 34. Describe the surrounding properties, includixig information .on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspeatt M Indicate the type of :land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land usz (ane -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage set -back, .rear yard, etc.). -CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnl:nhed- above and in the attached exhibits present the data and ;,.aformation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the ,best of my knowledge and belief. Date Mig-n.ature) -,:= ^`ICT. V, A71 : hifer.Dep0rt ent'al blemoralidurn Planning Commission Dave Hironi:mus, p.j anni.ng, Revised Envirop—et' al Analysis for the Shastan Company, Inc. General Plan Amtndment, AP 43-26-03, 83-90 July 14, 1983 This project is a General Plan Amendment frolit Low Delis ity Residential to ;dedium Density Residential on pro°pert;,. zoned A -SR (Agricultural -Suburban-Residentia-1) located on the south side of Nest Sacramento Avenue, approximately 330 :feet Nvest of Oak .Lawn Avenue, Chico. The property to the nort-h, ar .-' east of the subject propeTty 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 (Agi"cttltttral,-Suburban-Residential) and are in a Low Density Residential general plan designation. Land uses ;n the vicinity are mixed lora density residential and multi-ramily .residential to the north and east and pre- dominantly low density res uential to the south and west. If successful, this General, Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential on this 5 acre parcel would represent an incTease Of potentially 35 dwelling units. Maximum buildout to the 13 dwelling units per acre allowed by the General Plan designation may not be possible due to septic systom limiti-i-tons, property.he If -the tect iebi��°ut to the 13dn�lingunits eracehiswoudrep�et an increase of 245 traps per day onto, Nest Sacramento Avenue. Using the Chico Unified Schoo'- '�'istrict formula for projecting student loads, the change in the Gene -'.,I Plan designation could mean an increase of 15 students gei— rated on this proporty to total of 28. Kindergarten through sixth grade would increase by 8 to 15 students, junior high seventh through ninth grade would increase by 4 to. 7 students and senior high school would. increase by o to 6 studen`rs. This increase; coupled' with already projected increases due to'other prpjects, would put Rosedale Elementary School 1.17 students over capacity, Chico Junior High School 70 students over capacity, and Chico Senior High would still. have 373 stations available. The Chico Unified School, District has i�tdicated that this. Could be a significant impact on their .11dic availability to pro vide school housing for the development: As such, a environmental. impact report is required The attached supplemental EIR for the Waterford project immediately to the west of this project, coul)1ec1 with the above figures, is sufficient for consideration of this project. The supplemental ETR prepared for Waterford is in conjunction with the Envi.romrtental Impact Report preva.ously cortiliod for the Big Chico Estates Subdivision located to the west ofthis currentpJ ro`ect Planning Cormnission AP 43-26-03' 83-90 Page July 14, 1983 Supplemental xnforl n ato ri l• Comments received from the Butte Cote indicate that tviti, stibsequeat develo ty the butte Count P• my Pare Department P Of this pxnperty, Y _ire Department will be askitl developer to provide � acre fire station s• to the fixe department, the x'to acceptable `• The Chico Unified: School District has Pro' is located within the attendance that this Rosedale oe •Elementary School, e area for the beyond its This school is , pract1cal capacit Presently growth in this attendance areeaawotilci �havoo e a Rosedale Fl.ementar ny additional cannot be adopted nsronjunction wit-, o impact on 'Since mitigation measures. men ts or Rezones, an Environmental Intpac. `eR�loPlan Amend gtzired, In this case report Supplement fied draft env x•onmentalrimpactIS e I�Plement prepared for jyater:ford is sufficient. DH:1kt At�achtnent CC: 5h4stan Company, P y, Inc. APPENDIX A APPEN.DTX F . • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLISTFOM (To be completed 'b7 Lead Agency) 83T39 ERD Log # 82-1,1-15-02 AP 43-29-12) 43-27-08. I. BACKGROUND pto 43-29-151 1. Name of Proponent _Jay Halbert 2. Address and: Phone I1um er or Proponent Rt 2 Boli 102. Chico CSL 9'5 9 2 6'., 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist .. 5. Name of Proposal , if applic`a6 Rezone .. II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . "maybe" (Explanations of all "yes" andanswers are required on attached sheets.) SES MAYBE NO 1. Earth; t.7ill, the proposal result in significant a. Unstable earth conditions or in in substructures? X changes geologic b Disruptions, displacements, d0 m" of the soil? paction or ov'ercovering ..�... G Change in topography or ground sur- 'removal of face relief features or topsoil? d. Destructionj covering or'modifica- tionanyunique t�q�geologic or physicalfeares e. Increase in wind or OAter erosion of soils, either on or off the site? err f. Changes in deposition or erosionr in - of beach sands, or changes silts which tion; deposition or erosion modify the channel of a river or may stream or the bed o,f the ocean Or lake? _ any bay, inlet or g: Loss of prime agriculturally pro- ducti%,e soils outside designated urban areas? Appena'4 cx 'F - page 1 of 's A� 'ecndix F = page 2 of 9 s YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people o7: property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in a. Substantial deterioration of ambient or local aii; quality?, ,b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes?;. c. Significant alteration of air movement moisture ce t p e� or any change in climate] either locally or regionally? ✓. 3,. Water., Will the proposal result in 'substantial; a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?, b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the ,rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Need for off-site .surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channeliation or culvert y installation?C u. Alterations to the course or flow flood of waters e, Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature; dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of grautid waters? h. Change in the quant ty.or quality Of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? A� 'ecndix F = page 2 of 9 yn: MAYBE NO . 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" Life . Will the proposal result rn substantial: a: Loss Of ves:�� . . ation or change in the diversity Of species sor ' number of any species of faits Uncludi g trees, shrubs microflora and gras aquatic c roplants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of ;any. unique, rare or endangered species, of plants? c. Inteoduction of neer 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, Grill the proposal result in substantial: a. Change In the diversity of species, or numbers of any s ecies of species animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish; benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b, Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species Of Animals? c Introduc"tiott of new species of an into an area, or result it a barrier to the migratian or movetneht of animals?' di ReductiOn of, encroachment upon, or deterioration to a cist3. fish or wildlife habitat? Appe:nd;i k F - page 3 of � a YES MAYBE I�0 6. "Noise: Will the proposal. result in 'substantial-: a, Increases in noise levels?. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? `r 7, Light and Aare. Will the proposal pro duce sig:cant icant light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a significants a. Alteration of'the planned land use of an area, or establish a trend- cwhich will demonstrably lead to such Alteration? b. Conflict with uses on adjoining properties, or conflict faith estab 1il;;--d recreational educa- tional, religious or scientific uses of an area? 9. Natural Resources: Will the proposal a result in'substantialc r a. Demand for, or increase in the rate Y of. use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural resotirce? X 10. Risk of Upset. Does theproposal nvolve a' risk of an explosion c,,x the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, diii, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition,? 11. ,Populattion, Will the proposal significantI ly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area or physically divide an established community? 12, Housing, Will the proposal RgH icantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional, housing! Appendix 'F page of 9 YES MAYBE. NO' 13. Trans ortation/Circti.lation. , Will the proposal result in,-, a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular rrivament? b. Significant effects on existing g parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation syit.ems?' X d. Significantpresent of circulation or movement of people and/orgoods? e. Alterations to waterborne; rRil: or air traffic?. f. Increase' in . traffic hazards .to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?.. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have aneffect upon, or resnl:t in a substantial: need for new or altered governmental services in any of the fallowing areas; a, Fire protection? G b. Police protection? ci Schools? }� d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? X. Y 15. Energy. Will thero'osa p p 1 result in: a: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? C b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? w y Appendix F cage 5 of 9 YES MY NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result In a nee for new systems; or sub- statitial alterations to the following utilities: a . Power or natural gas b. Communications systems? -.._ .. X C. Water? c. Sewer (will trunk line be extended, providing capacity to serve new development) 'i - X e. Storm water drainage? C, 17. Human Henith: Will the proposal a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental. health) 3 b. jExposote of people tb Ipotential �hea.1.'LIQ L�t,.:C. iw.r "? 18. Solid 'Waste. Will the proposal result znany significant impacts associated Vi.th solid waste disposal or liotel oontrol? x _ Aesthetics, Will the proposal result in t e o struction of any public designated or recognized scenic vista open to tLe public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20`. Recreation. Will the Proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of eXi.sting public recrea- tion facl.lities? 21.: Archeolo ical/Historical. 41111 the ro P pora re su t in an a teration of a significant archeological or historical. site, structure, object Or building? A YES MAYBE, N0 22 . Mandatot'Y �'� nd3.zL�a of Significance, a. Does the project have the potential the to def rade. the quality of substantially rladuce; einvizc•nment, the �.abi tat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threatento a or animal com- eliminate plant munity, reduce the. -number or restric endangered the range Of a rare or plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods Of., ---- California history or prehistory? Does the project have the,otential benefits to to achieve shorn term the detriment of publicly adopted long-term environmental goals? _ ---- c Does the project have, impacts which limited, b►�t are, individually ro ect cumulatively considerable? (a project ` may impact on two or more separate the impact on each resources.where resource is relatively small but of whete the effect of the total the environment is those impacts on significant:) d., Does the project have environmental. roJ substantial will effects which will cause adverse effects on iiuman beings, either directly or indirectly? Appendix V page off' 9 43 , j a LTE . 33 Subject property is basically . y y lly level and pl=nted with 40-50 year old almond trees The have been sadl neglectt�rl b tfie tevious owners for approximate le the last ten years.. The soil ispexcellant, sandy viha loem and the wildlife are the usual inhabitants of ne- glected orchards such as doves quail,' pheasant Mid ground sgUirrls. The existing structure is a '.0,18pidated old faxim hoUse tiiat will. be torn down. The most significant cultural or histozoic aspect of the property is a single, huge and beatifull'black walnut at the entrance to the propertypon 5acram �, to Avenue. The tree I a feet wide at the bas. 100 pproXim�etely 7 5 years old and planted by GeneralJohn Bidwell. Unfortunately, didwell. p;,anted them too close to the road. Instead of cutting the tree down, l am proposing that we are willing to tree a pa sdtotaon the x,580 neccessary to make it healthy again, to the county will allow the tree toremain-. It will take up what would normally have been a parking spot on bacramento Avenue. I LEM' 34 On the east side of this property lies Highland Park Estates, an approved subdivision of X acre lots. Highland Park was neves built and from my investigations I think it probably will be a candidate for NAC zoning soon due to its present poor land use design r1do being economically feasible to built. On the west lies dig Chico Creek Estates, a large subdivision of y4 acre lots. The neighborhood is a MIX of light commercial, apartoients and single family residential, on Sacramento Avenue. TnformAtxle `osubmitted, 11-715-82 by applicant s PROPOSED HO ,iF9WNERS AS-SOCIATI13N The private drive, drainage systems, sidewalks, street lights, entry and all front yards will be landscaped and maintained by the Homeowners Association.. Each homeowner will buy a'building site and negotiate his own construction loan to bu .ld one of our 'models with at being the builders. Their back yards will 4e completely fenced with seven foot tall grape stake fences aocd they may landscape these rear yards however they wish. Thera will be covenants, conditions, and restr'i'ctions against anything that would be detrimental to the quality of life rpt Swallow' 'Tall Homes. HRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROVISIONS FOR STORM ORAINAGE,_S&LAGE DISPOSAL AND PUBLIC UT'.ILITIES Storm uraina e Due to the phased -nature o€ -this project, we would Like to surfac.: drain the first 630 feet ( Phases I and IT ), Froo that Point oOt an underground dnlhage system would be instailed i.n phases. tach phase would drain into a tempozary leach Field until! Phase U was reached. At this Point the Main outfall: into Chico Creek would be installed. we are proposing somewhere along the line to 'install !close ,Jointed pipe set in gravel. This would allow low flow Pollutants to seep out of the loose 'ointed J pipe. When the first storm of the winter coriieb along, the initial rush of storm waters wily also seep Wit of they loose joints, and as voter Volume picks up C1880 water will Flow into Chico 'Creek, N 5e"wage Uisootal Eabh residehce will be on an ind9%vidualsepti c' tarik and leach lines accordino to the guidelines set forth by Butte County Hdaltfj: Information submitted 11.1,5-82 by applicant III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION This proposal is a PA -C (Planned Area -Cluster) 2ezonQ'project to create a gg unit residential development: Single f4mily detached housing will account for all 98 units„ The propos ed'devel,opment is located on 20.7.4 -acres in the western fringe of „h -e Chico Urban Area. The project fronts on West Sacramento Avenue 900 feet 4- west of Oak Lawn Avenue, west Chico. The proposed density of thea >*,°'opment is 4.76 dwelling units per acre. Present plans are to dev )fit the project in 3 phases as shown on the plot plan. The site currently is in agricultural. orchard use atm � (almond with .some walnut trees), as are some of the surrounding properties. Residences are dispersed along Bidwell Avenue -to the east and west, adjacent to the project site. Unit #3 of the Big; Chico Creek Estates Subdivision 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, h to h`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 oil nearb y Properties ..have received approval from the County in recent years:, PROF -SIZE DATE OF APPROVAL 1: Walnut Woods Subdivision, 13 lots on July 11, 1918 northwest of this project 30 acres across W: Sacramento Ave. 2. Leisurewood Estates; 40 lots on September 7, 1978 north of Walnut Woods, 14 acres S. Highland Park Subdivision, 42 lots on July l7, 1978. 600 feet east of this 15 acre site. 4. Big�Chico Creek Estates. 170 lots,on January 22 1980 west and north of this 73 acres project. Development of these p projects has not been fully accomplished. Pro gres.s has been made in constructing °residences and related improvements On three of the four subdivisions mentioned (Highland Park Subdivision approval has expired) . The cumulative development of all four approver projects will establish a total of 381 residential lots on 140 acres in this local. aaThe Big elEeSSubdivision (170 lots) represents 42tofthe totaldveopment. Thispro)ectrepresents 30 :r Appendix V page S of 9 B3-39 DISCUSSION OF ENVI°RONMENTAL'EVA.IUATION (continued) of thetotal development and inr.ludes the land previously. planned for the McDowell Subdivision of 27, lots. This site lies Within the Chico Urban Area and is design -t'od by the., Butte County General Plan; Land Use i lament, 'for low Ae_nsxity residential use. However, the Chico General Plan (which does: not have jurisdiction in this unin- corporated area) 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 p:ra)jects. Please refer to these EIR documents for, discussion of thr.:,environment l information,pertinent to the area. Many of the individual imp actsthat Iare potential from implementation of each subdivision project are addressed in these former Ellis. Ani. environmental i:tpact report is required for this PAC t, Tentative Subdivision pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ,because of the potential for 10ditional adverse impacts, the increase in magnitude of impacts,,and the cumulative effects of all development in the area. In. this case, the Barg Chico Greek Estates EIR is suitable .for consideration of this current project (as per Section 15068 of the CEQA Guidel;iaies) along with a supplement (per Sections 1-5067 and 15067.5 'of t`ne' CEQA Guidelines) . The potential impacts include;' 1. gillnbeesd �t�al Tdrainage ' into . Big Chico Creek generatedb -- Y residendevelopment of the land as a result of development of impervious surfacing. The potential exists for teduce,d water quality in this stream. The State Department of - Water Resources, Reclamation Board, has jurisdiction over this drainage channel and 18 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 -carrying capc.ity of, Big Chico Creek be studied further: 2 Sewage Disposal. The 98 Unit-� Will utilize individual septic- leachfield systems for sewage disposal,. Lots lie as close as 350 feet fl.�om the Big Chico Creek channel,. Contamination of this surface water body from residential effluents, as well as from residential use of pesticides, fev'Alizers, and otherchemicals used in the home may be potential, Data about the .groundwater resource, including depth to grouni'water table, direction and rate of flow of groundwaters, and potential for contamination„ is included in the Big Chico Creek Estates EIR. The following memo has been received from the Environmental Hea'!,4th Department regarding this subdi.ct'. "soil depths and percolation rates in the vicinity of the gtdexcellent. The pn�p'osed lot sizes, though, are considerably, substandard with respEf.lt to the Subdivision Ordinance sewage disposal area requirement. The developers may either redesign the project to provide lots of adequate size for the proposed individ ual lots or provide adequate common area for community sewage disposal: systems. Should the developer revise the PAC to provide common sewage disposal area, permit applit ation may be required to complete our review:'' Refor also to January 10, 1983 letter from Tom Reid. Appendix P page 8a of 9 y 3 83-39 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL �VALUATION (continu.ed) 3.' Reduction of ajzriculturall r rod.uctive land. Th'e project site currently is °ln agricultural use ralmon orchard with some walnut trees; formerly a prune. orchard). The Vina fine sandy loam soil is a highly productive prime agricultural soil (Class ;I Soil Gonserva- tion Service. Glass.i'fication) . Residential use of the site Waal 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 de Ment on l 6 acre +parcels will result in removal. of most: orchard trees and reduction off' wildlife populations that cilize the orchard for habitat, urrently ut S. Land use alteration and urbanrowth low ens�.ty rest ." The site lies wit entlal eslgh3tlon Of the County GeneralPlan area. le andentirely Site also lely outside the City of Chico's'proposed urban expansion The outside the City's. Sphere of (Primary, ec Influence y, s ondary and. zultimate) - This development (in conjunction With other alreadyapproved ions) will increase the residential o ula.tion denitandeuse uoflthe 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 lands further'west) by this project„ (including agricultural 6. Traffic and traffic -related iiri3nrtq r,,., ,,:.... , -, L_ _"'"•, x,iC ya reSldential= parcels w111 enerate. substantially increased vehicular use of West Sacxafiento..Avenue and ADT is estimated to be 785 + Cumu Stively this individual development ,he other area streets. The indrea `total development lative,ly, the Increase from the P proposed for the area to date is estimated to be approximately 4500 ADT; which is about a 180% increase over the pre- mous traffic load of 1500-1600 ADT on West Sacramento Avenue. to the development is planned from jVest Sacramento Avenue via oneAccess .. p property . street into the site. The.fronts on Bidwell. Avenue and access Butte County Public Wo t street though not desired b� the from the south is ossible off that the development plan with ttheaIntentionHofe rovente applicant designed p nting traffic impacts on tirltvell Avenue fro,rI this subdivision. 0 Bidwell Avenue is a narrow rparanrvegetatianandclargeooakgtrhico'Creek, which is bordered by hli elltraffic Avenue may have adverse effects�onnthatdarea3.nalTherefoic x'e�n Ali traffic traM zs proposed to be channeled onto West Sacramento Avenue Which provides direct access to Highway 32 and thence: into Chico, The Public Iforks Department has plans to 'widen and a.mprove Sacramento Avenue, between 'Glenwood Avenue and Highway 32s within the next 2 years, roundan circulation wit, tin the development and in the 8 • Problems congestion at certain intersections ur- at the {Pest Sacrafiet►to Avenue access } ocations) may resulttfroml,'.rly residential use considering the ;numberr of lot being created. the Appendix P Page 8b of 9 83-39 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (continued) traffic study sho,ld 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 ttbaii improvements ('curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or shoulders) and with light to moderate traffic loads. Urban residential use of the site will impact these currently non- urban roads with significantly increased traffic and the,need for further 'impray.ement along the entire length'of West Sacramento :Avenue from Glenwood Avenue. to Highway 32. 7. Increased. public onal detielosmentces wil1--increased expansion,fo of utilities. r p demands or pu lic service and for: utility extensions 'in -.a. peripheral area of the Chico Urban :Area: The Chico, Unified School District indicates the subdivision Will have a serious .impact on their, abil i ty`to "house" students, and when: combined with students generated b ^,ther 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 formed prior to the issuing of permits, then softie mitigations of impacts would be Achieved. Comments received from C.A.R.D. are very similar, but no mitigation measures have been proposed. Extension ofCalifornia Water Service Company water lines in conjunction with the Big Chico. Estates Subdivision project is required for water servic Thirteen firL- hydrants ° aj e required by the Butte County Fire Department. 8. Flight -path o£ the Ranchero Airport. Land to the west of the project site lies un er the established flipt pattern of this light aircraft airport. Residential use of the rroject 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 resources. The 98 residences that will. ultimately e develope on t e project site as a result of this land d "vision proposal will utilize considerable amounts of electricity and natural gas, and of building materials, including non-renewable petroleum products for paving. Additionally, this number of residences will geerate considerable use of vehicular fuels. 10. Archaeological resources. The property ha 'the potential to yield subsurface arc�f aeal.ogical resources due to the `proximity of the site to Big Chico Creek. 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: tog # 78-1'2-21601initial study for McDowell Tentative Subdivision, AP 4S_25115i tog # 51-05-,22-03 Appendix F - page 8c of 9 - IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead P,gency,) " An the basis of this initial evaluation.- CD valuation.CD I find the proposed project .COULD NOT have a significant- effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE: DECLARATION as recCmmended. C� I find that although the proposed.pro jec t ,could have a significanteffect, on the environment, there," will, not be a significant effect in this, case because, the mitigation measures, described an an attached. sheet have been added to' the project., A;NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMr`MIMED . I find the proposed ed , P prgject tdAY have a significant effect on they environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.* Date January 7, 198 �,,�,/.• Y r" (signature) David R. Hironimus Associate Planner Fors u ount anningng �." Tp f`. l Reviewed by 10 �S.ephenlAi. Streeter Senior Planner "The Big Chico CtObk Estates EIR, AE 42'-15-u4 4 37, 43-27-01 & 1.2 4.3+29-19 22/Lo # 78-12.21-0 //ject erH5#CtoWon 5068sosuitable for Gudel.ines)oh of alongthis with a�supplement (pet Sect' the CEQA of the CEQA Guidelines), Cp _ .ons ls'067 and 15067,8 Appendix V - page g ALTERNATIVES TO THEPROJECT 1. Conventional Subdivision: This alternative would require lots that couldsupportan individual septic system and meet the lot design criteria of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. Minimum parcel size woulei be 65 feet wide and probably approximately 4 acre in area. Street widths would be 40 feet 34ofeetre face Result�ncurb densitiesinstead wouldbef4the DU/AGonrsed 24 feet to Resulting face, less. or approximately 83 units at the most. A private �oad 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 65Q0 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 subdivisioTriasng 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 4A•00 square feet resulting in approximately 7 DU/AC or 145 units maximum. 3. �vlustered Dwelling Units With Common Recreation Area/Open Space '(PA -C): A development 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 common facilities such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, barbeque pits, RV storage, etc. Clustering could also be used to minimize impacts on neighboring properties. - 1;LE NO. 83-90 To,: Butte County p7,anning Commission Staff Findings - August 4,•1983 PPLICANT: Shastan Company, Inc. ItT�TERs Same QUESTS A general plan amendment requesting Medium Density'Residential from . Low Density Residential ,.'P. NO. 43-26-0.3 SIZE' 4.8 acres :LOCATIONr On the south si'06 o Sacramento Ave. 330 feet we`8 - of Oak Lawn Ave., Chico B'XISTINC'ZONING: Zoned A-SR May 22. 1973, Ord. 1356 SiJRROUNDING ZONING A-SR, R-3 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Mixed low density residential and multi-family residential to the north Ana east and predominantly low density residential to the south ana west„ SITE HISTORY: This project site represents a portion of the'Vistec PA-C, later known as the Highland Park Subdivision. Both those projects are now defunct. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. al Lour density residential 4PPLICABLD REGULATIONS: The Butte County General flan COMMENTS itr CL 1V'E D EIre De. arjµjnent "Fire protection ret iiirement #3 14111 be required due to the develop;�►ent 6h the west side of Chico. BCFD will be asking tile ,developer to provide 1/2 acre fire station site acceptable to the fire e-epartment.„ Chko_Unin'od School. District: soe Ajialvsi.s 'beloif. `ate Butte County Do art»tol t of Public Works, fty.1romner�al Hdalth be-. gxtmoJit ajtd the CXtY of Ch1,co had no comments or 01)jectiojls: _,. ANALYSIS: this is a request to amend the General Plan from Low Density Residential fi Density Residential on property located on the south side of West' Sacramento Avenue approximately 330 feet west of Oak. Lawn Aire. The project site contains approximately pproximatel 5 acres, and is identified as parcel no. 43-26-05 located on the west side of Chico. The site designation criteria listed as part of the Medium Density :Residential designation in the Land Use Blement of the General Plan are: I. Needed for urban residential development within 2, years. Z. Adequate water supply. 3. Sewers available or natural conditions well suited to septic tanks. 4. Adjacent or near existing utilities and urban development, 51. Excellent accessibility to commercial services, schools, fire Protection and other community facilities, In regard to the above criteria, California Water,Supply can service this site. Soils in the area are well suited for septic system and City of dChicosedy wer l roes are nearby. The project site is adjacent to land for medium density residential to the north and east. Uli.1e the project is close to commercial services, schools, fire pro- xection and other tl"Munity facilities, there are some concerns. The .project site is watiin the West Sacramento Drainage District, however, the project wasdesigned with this property assumed to be developed into low density residential uses. A change, note, would require re - ,calculating the assessments for this ire De has stated that they will be asking, tllleodeve.loperh'to �yprovideaat1/2 ache fire station site that would be acceptable to the Fire Department. At the present time, fire protectionfacilities in the 'area are located Z-0 the east of tyle Southern. Pacific Railroad. tracks and at times Callen trains are present f. , response times are severely limited. >aiscussons with the Chico Unified School District haveindicated that while schools ,are nearby this project would create a potential far an addition of 28 Students, 18 of these would be in kindergarten thru 6th grade, 1 projected f0t 7th thru 9th grade and 6 are projacted grades 10 thru 12. These' project increases along w'th probe ct ed increases from other developments already approved in the area would put Rosedale lalementary School 'tvhie}i services this area 1.1.7 students over caYaeit . Chico 70 students over capacity and would leave Chi ,an Senior Ilir High School an availability o 37 st1itients. gll School with Based on the availability of ptihlic services and the dcveloping trcjlds s 'a it appears tllat tltis project site may be al�l�ralriitte for the donsity designation. however dti n medume. e to , . 8!chools, fare protection and traffic it�adueat that ctyleenediitnvdensi.9y al k.dosignition gray be p oma.ture. xf suateil�le ,agi'ecmea is ivilli herestiiro�Departmont and schools could die acl Of the meditull density residential desig)lat, ojle ti �, t] psi tc�enc��oias adoption longer ecist otil r FILE NO. 83--90 Staff Findings, 8/4/33 Page 3 'The environmental documents for this project have been completed, and the certified impact report for the Big Chico Ci;eek Estates Subdivision, as supplemented by the yet to be certified supplement prepared for `i1aterford Subdivision adjacent to this project, is sufficient for con- , -sideration for this General Plan amendment. RECOMMENDATION A. Note that the requirements -of the CaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in making this decision; and B Find that the proposed General Plan Amendment to Medium. D'ensulty Residential does not conform to the policies of the Butte County General Plan; and ,C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors deny the General Plan Amendment to Medium Density Residential for AP 43-26-03 (Shastan Company, Inc.), If the Commission can make the finding that the project does conform to the policies of the Butte County General Pian then approval of this General Plan Amendment would be appropriate. If so A. Note that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in making this decision; and Pind that the proposed. General Pian Amendment does conform to the policies of the Butte County General Plan; and C, Recommend that the Board off Supervisors certify the supplement to the Big Chico Creek Estates Subdivision's EIn prepared for Waterford. Subdivision; and by resolutions recommend that the Board approve the General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Rbsidentia. for AP 43=-26-03'(S]ta:Stan Co'., Inc.) a��fijhd ,Attachments. Vocation Eliibit Site Plan Ei vironfnenta,l. notiments '« V U�j e t aux �' I L E No. C� U E T T �y j wr3. ate i .ewa scf zsxttir r „c; y,«Tk� �. U N �.�,,,,,_,,�.�. l �M�V � W��y 4s�V' ��'A'�'�a$i�t;in�x,�MfRSi'.e�y9i.+a+ "r¢'sALi7C£eesstnd.t��r-An`a y• ` �lk:�C:1L�:: .'iS4FCf`R,dl�-! S`hw4-a+ze�t�sxae,+nii�rw,s w.uu9,t"MNEI �eep,. Tb 'xnrwse`tandwtaaa`�tx:aw�Y:l�n>arixsr�,+c.��r,x�i+a.�wyw rs n M CAL IE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING INt+-Lice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that Vublic hearings will be held on Thursday, August 4, 1983 in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following: ITEN18 ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION nr_rA nn "A5 liLsN REDO lMENDED S15 p.m. Robert J. Smith - Chico Congregation of Jellovali 's Witnesses Use permit to allow a church on property zoned '"L-T'(Limited Industrial) located on the south side of Entler Avenue, approx- imately 400 feet east of Laguna Court., identified as AP 40-40-267 Chico. 94-45 p.m. Jon Gregoire - % Carlton Lowon - Rezone from "S -R" (Suburban - Residential) to "PA -C" (Planned Area Cluster) to allow a 45 unit residential development located on the southeast corner Of Shasta Avenue and Bay Avenue, identified as AP 42-34-49, more particularly described as: All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of. 'California, described as follows Lot. 15, as shown on that certain heap entitled, 1'First Subdivision of the Bay Tract"; which was filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of Butte State Of California, an February 4, 1895 in tool 1. of Maps at page 42. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the northeasterly 240 feet of the northwesterly 290 feet Chico. 83-60 ITEM ON IVH I CH A DRAFT ENVIRONI`IENT L IP TG`5 —REP R` A� REQUIRtD StSO Pim. Shastan Company Inc. - Gene r:,1 Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential on property zoned "A -SR" (Agricultural Suburban Residential) located on the 1V south side of . Sacramento Ave, -"e a ` of Oak Lawn Avenue, containing 5 acres) I dentlfxed3as AP 30 et west 43-26-031 Chico; File 83-90. T"ie above mentioned applications, maps, and environmental impact report are on file and available for public vieiving at the office of the. Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Orov lle, Cali-fOrn a BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING C%jNjISSION B. A, XIRCHno DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO BE PUBL1511ED IN 'T14t C141CO ENTERPRISE RECORD ON VURSDAY, JULY 210 1983 '. SUPPLEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for BIG CHICO CREEK ESTATES S1JBP'1VTSI0N and including SWALLOWTAIL SUBDIVISION PA- C (WATERFORD) AP #43-29-12 43-27-08 43-29-15 Project Applicant: Jay Halbert Prepared by McCain Associates P' 0. Box 2178 Chico, California 95927 February, 1983 Reviewed by Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive 0Voville, California 08965 Revised: March 1983 May, 1983 Planning # 83.39 SCH 79080708 (Big Ch ,zO Creek. Estates ` Subdic' cion MR) Log # g2-11-15-02 TABLE OF CONTENT SUMMARY • . Page a DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ; A) Locution . . . . . . B) 'Description C) A Statement of.Objectives Sought by the Proposed• Project . . . . y . . . .♦ D) General Description of the Project's •Economic, 2 Technical and Environmental Characteristics Considering the Principal Engineering Proposals . 2 RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER DEVELOPMEN'T'S IN THE AREA . DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING . . • . 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TOPICS OF PRINCIPAL CONCERN . . . A) New Resicential Units in an Agricultural Area 4 B) Riparian Vegetation and Orchard Trees5 C) Water Quality Degradation in Big Chico Creek . . 5 . . D) Sewage Disposal. Methods E) Potential Loss of Agricultural Production• and• Land . . . F) Increased Population Effects on C.U.S.D'. & C.A.R.D: ., G) Traffic 6 • . H) Water Quantity Impact . . . . n Y A AN ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED . . . . • • i • e i MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MXNT,MItE ADVERSE IMPACTS . >. . 6 8 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . ORGANIZA'T'IONS' PERSONS AND REFERENCES CONSULTED . 10 APPENDIX r'1 . • . Environmental ChecklistForm (ButteCounty 11 APPfiNDIa B i . ' E1R for the Big Chico Creek Dstates Tentative Subdivision, AP 42-15.-34 & 37. 43-27-01. F 12, 45-29-191& 22, SCH # 79080708 (fontarded to local and state agene:ies only upon request; refer to Section 15067.5(d) of the CtQA GUideline5) APPENDIX C' Fiscal ztnpact Analysis - April 1983 APPENDIX ;D Correspondence frc-. Qtate Clearinghouse Response to Corres� iidence Correspondence flxOm Dept, of Public Works T2 7 ---- I UT7 GUNS PLANNING' � HEARING DA ES.',, . 'Ut e R ra .yrs,=±EXI TING SUMMARY The purpose of this supplemental environmental impact report is to explore the potential significant effects of this lot P, --C residential subdivision that were not examined in the Sig Chico Creek Estates Subdivision Environmental impact Report. This development oleates 9.1 detached single-family dwellings and 32 multiples -family dwellings on 20.587 acres adjacent to West Sacramento Avenue approximately 1600 feet West of Iiighwav 32. The Zzhsity equates to 5.97 units per acre which is in conformance with the General Plan's low density desiRnat3on ,for the area. There will be a single access to the subdivision off of Saest Sacramento Avenue. The interior roadway system. will consist of several loops and short cul-de-sacs. There will, be an emergency access to the subdivision off of Bidwell Avenue approximately 700 feet West of RoseAvenue. The interior roadways will be priva.tp Road widths Will primarily be 34 feet, with some roadway and cul-de- sacs at; 24 feet in width. Environmental impacts discussed in •phis supplemental report include the effects of storm water runoff:, water quality in Big Chico Creek, sewage disposal, loss of agricultural Land to. production, traffic impacts, and the effects on the school district and C. A.'R. b. I Currently, there have been three subdivisions approved' in this area totalling 283 lots. Approval of this project will bring the total to 406 residential dwel:linq units, The subdivisions are 'listed below. 1. This project - Swallowtail Subdivision PA -C, 123 units. 2. Bio Chico Creep Estates 1170 lots) 450 feet West of this project. 3. Walnuts Woods (73 lots) across West Sacramento Avenue northwest of Bier Chico Creek .Estates. 4. teisurewood Estates (40 lots) North of Walnut Woods on oak Way. Several alternatives to the proposed subdivision are dis- cussed. Thebe include no project, Standard subdivision Lots, large lots and alternate design for this project. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT A) Location: The project involves the development og 20.587 acres between West Sacramento Avenue and Biaw°el1 Avenue approximately 750 feet Gest of oaklawn Avenue, B) Description; t The p3�03ect proposes creation of 91 single-family dwelling units and 32 multi family -dwelling units. The: site is designated as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 43-27=08f 43�- 29-W1,2 and 93-�29-15.r The area is presently zoned A SR, Ac�rieultural-8uburban Residential, The General Plan desihnates the area a$ Low Density Residential�1-6 j The project density is in conformity with the 'General ung is per Pry, e r sen lymand onel and y Plan. The ro]ect site presentl has one s�rinle-�fMil." residence and is an untended 60"y C) A Statement of Objectives 1posed project,: Tile, objective of the proposcci pro jest is to create 91 single-family residential: units and 3� multx�fanlily-residentJa1 uiaits on 20.587 acres all as a residential. Planned Area -•cluster concept. This will result in an average derisity of 5.97 dWel.linq units pet gross acre. t)) Genera Descri-Ntion of the Pro,ert's ,conomi�, ..� � �. T:ec iilcal and Fnva.ronmentaI Characteristics, ConSidetinc ale nrinc1 Fi�tineernex Pra op sa? l.i Bconnmic Considexation' The project involves d0velopment or- a 123 -unit Planned Area -Cluster. The developer has undertaken a market analysis and determined that a demand for this type of dej;elopment exists in the Chico area if it is taste fulx designed, Xt is estimated that the project will tate t�5o years to complete. ConStruction employment will be provided through the term of development. Estimated cost of don-. struction for the entire prrject is $9,000,0000 excludinq land costs The following estimates are made of the economic factors for the project: Value of clwellinc unitsr including underlyinq land and ownership of common area - $89,000 to $100,000 x 723= or 123 dwellinrl units the following fiqute is derived': 20 units @ $150400 20 unit's 0 $95#000 26 units @ $1.20,000 02 units 25 units @ $1050170 Tota. value = $1009300 A fiscal analysis 3 $ Uoirig propaxea by s VepTosentati.ve for the ailsble by the time t l-- � roject applicant, This analysis will be av is head by the Planning COmIlliss on, -2 using a market value of $13,000,000 and a County tax rate of 1% of market valuer the property taxes returned to the County would be approximately $130,000 ayear at completion of the 'Project. Additional revenues may be realized. in the future by special taxes or bond payments which may be applicable. The existing almond trees on the site have been neglected for several years. The age of the trees (50"60 years old) affects the crop production and present production is negligible. In ,order to bring this land into comnercial pr6diAction, the orchard must be replanted entirely. It is estimated that itwould be approximately seven years before a significant yield could 'be realized. The general area is known for the presence of Oak Root Ftinqus which can be severely damaging to almond orchards. Commercial orchard production would be possible-, though difficult, given the land use incompatibilities which couldresult. 2,, Technical Consideration: a) 123 new residential units will be created, re- taining the streets and common areas under joint ownership, b) Sewage disposal will be provided by on-site' septic tanks and conventional leach fields6 c) Water will be provided by California Water service co.t Inc. d) Sacramento Avenue will be reconstructed to ,centerline to County Standards (RS2-A) along the Project frontage. Emergency access Will be constructed between the project and 81dwoll Avenue. e) Storm drainage will be collected in an ander :groundsystem and directed to 'Biq Chico Creek. The creek serves as a drainage c011ectOr for several developments upstream from this project as well as for three developments downstream. 3, tnvirdnmontal Consideration: a) The project will require removal of a small amount of riparian vegetation in Big Chico Creek to accommodate the storm drain outfall. b) The project will provide 123 residential units and Will ptovide an increase in traffic on West Sacramento Avenue and State Roi�te 32, c) The project will be low density residential in an area which 18 primarily low density residential. There are a few untended orchards in the immediate vicinity of the project, Several nearby parcels are 1atc .;er than one acre in size. d) The project will provide storm drainage for the project only and will not drain areas to the North or West. There is a possibility of degradation of the water_ quality in Bich Chico Creek with storm drainaqe runoff, e) The project's sewage disposill method will be by septic tank and conventional leach, fields. f) There will be a loss of potential, agricultural production and agricultural land. q) The Proposed increase in population may adversely effect the capacity ofChaco Unified School District's existing facilities. h) The proposed increase in population may ad.irersely effect this Chico Area Recreation Distracts ability to may Provide rsely tional services. i) The additional storm water runoff that will be directed to Big Chico Creek may contribute to downstream flooding problems. Each of these considerations is addressed in detail, as a supplemental topic of principal. concern,. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTI to DtVELOPMENTS IN THE AREA There are several heresidential yveopments in thearea. New subdivisionsuch�asWalnutVlObdsRiT Chioa Creep Estates and LrdSurewood estates, are developing as single-family homes. These Ute located westerly and northerly of this project. Several, apartment complexes have been built easterly and northeasterly from the proposed project. This projectf although more dense than the new subdivisions; is considerably less dense than the apartment complexes. The project will act as a buffer zone between the tvIo types Of development. An Environmental impact Eeport was prepared for Big Creek Estates Which addressed many of the impacts that occur when development is implemented in agricultural areas (Loa 08-12-21-- o1/8cR#79088708), bESCRIPTION Off' ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Refer 'to Appendix A in this report ► the Butte County Eng- vironmental Checklist, and the Big Chico Creek Estates R.I.R. for information regarding the environmental setting. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OP THt PpOpO,SFb ACTION TOPICS OF PRINCIPAL CONCERN A) NOW Residential units in an ,Agricultural Area: Construction of 123 new residential units may have an adverse impact on agricultural areas nearby,. The almond orchards in the immediate vicinity of the project axe untended and old. "4. This development mai encourage further development in orchards which presently have a -minimal economic yield. The addition of 12.3 dwelling units in this area will brine? an ;estimated population increase of 287 persons, based upon 2.33 persoris per dwelling unit. Since the land in question presently harbors no population, this is a sign:ificant increase. An estimated 69 children can be expected to attend Local schools, with approximately 41 children enrolling at Rosedale School, Accordina to Chico Unified School. District Officials, Rosedale School's capacity will be exceeded by proposed developments that have already been approved by Butte county and the City of Chico. B). Riparian vegetation and. Orchard Trees Riparian Vegetation along the banks of Sicq Chico Creek' is a significant wildlife habitat in the area. This project would destroy a small portion of that habitat with the introduction of a storm drainage outfall structure in the north bank of the creek. The native berry and drape vines in th- area should quickly grow over the structure. The outfall pipe diameter will be 30" or less. The present orchard trees have no economic value other than as fixeivood. The trees clot however, have some esthetic value and the developer will make every effort to preserve°and incorporate the trees into the project landscaping. C) Water Ouality Degradation in Bice,Chico Creek: It is anticipated that during peak runoff periods, storm drainage will not exceed 15 cf`s during a 10 -year storm and 21 cfs during a 100 -year storm. Water quality damage occurs primarily during the first storms of the season. It is during this period that herbicides, oils and other contaminants are flushed into the dra'.nage system. The developer proposes to install: a grease and sediment trap similar to those installed in the Bic T Chico Creek estates and Sacra- mento Avenue Assessment District projects In addition, the developer proposes to use open joint pipe in areas where the drain is not under roadways in order to eliminate pollutants during low flows. It is felt that these tido methods will effectively eliminate water quality degrada- tion in Birt Chico Creek.. West Sacramento Avenue drains naturally to the West. Lands North and hast of the project are in the ,Sacramento Avenue Assess- ment District which provided storm drainage facilities for the area. D) 5ewacte Disposes] Methods: The project proposes to use septic tanks and convert tional. leach lines as the method of sewage disposal. The soil within the development area is Vita loam and ekhibits a hirth percolation rate. Ground water is found at depths of between 15 and 20 feat. The soil type has shown excellent treatment qualities and is of sifficient depth to thoroughly treat sewage efflrient. Tater will be suppled by Calif ornia Water Service Company, Inc.t so well contamination Within the project will not occur. Estimated total eXfluent from the t'levelopment will be approximately 55,000 gallons pot day. �5- Potential Loss of Agricultural Production and Land: ` This project will "emove approximately 20 acres of land from agricultural use.. The proximity of high and low density resi- dential uses partially limits the agricultural izse oL the land. Sprays, dust and noise associated with agricultural use are not compatible with surrounding residential uses. The land is contained within the urban limits of Chico as designated o', the Butte County General Plan. In addition, -the soil in the ar M contains Oak Root T'unc-us which is detrimental to many root types; The existing almond orchard on the r,roperty is not economically productive. The trees are well past their prime produc- tion years. Last year's crop production was insignificant. Increased Population Effects ori C.il.S' D. and C.A.R.D. The C.U.S.D. Board and staff has indicated that the many new developments proposed for the Chico area will have a serious effect on the district's ability to house students. Several developers have entered into an agreement with the district to provide funding for the development of future school facilities. The developer of this Project intends to also enter into an agreement acceptable to the ,district. Each new development that is approved projects a cumu- lative impact an the C.A.R.D. facilities and programs. This proposed development of 123 dwelling units will only provide approximately $220 rein taxes fer C.A.R.D. each year, The C.A.R.D. Board of Directors iis 2pse tlysnvttigating methods of implementing dcvel,opment fees but to date no firm conclusions have been reached. G} Traffic; Present average daily traffic (ADT) on t4e8t Sacramento Avenue is approximately 2500 vehicles per day. The ADT on Highway 32 at West Sacramento Avenue is approximately, 11,0`00 vehicles per day. The anticipated increased traffic that will be generated by this project and the other projects that have been approved in the area is approximately 3250 ADT (8 trips generated per household). The traffic generated b this y project will use West Sacramento Avenue for ° accost to the project. According to the Chico Urban Area Transportation ^tudy dated Nover,"ber, 1:002; which was prepared for the City of Chico by J14A & Associates of Sari Francisco, a "C" level of service occurs on an improved two-lane roadway at 1.2Y800 vehicles per clay= The "C" level. is one in which a stable t�r a:; fic operations ex;.sts and only minor delays occur: This is the level typically associated with urban design practice, If the .roadway is riot fully improved, there is a reduction in capacity on the roadway. Wast Sacramento Avenue 'is only partially improved and the°"C" level of service for this roadway is "educed to approximately 1.0, 000 veh` closper day: The Public Warks s Department has laps to widen and im rove Sacramento Avenue betwkn Glenwood Avenge and Highway 32, duriftg Eiscal year 1983-84. -6 Existing volume and anticipated volume combined amount to appro irnately 5;50 ve;� cles per day, for an "A" level of sserVice. The proposed private roadway within the project .is 34 feet in width and will permit two-way traffic with parking on one aside of the street. Curb and gutter will be installedalong the road - -way throughout the project. The entrance to the project is 24 feet in width and no parking will be permitted within the entrance a:�ea. ,traffic signal is not presently warranted at the newly revised intersection of West Sacramento Avenue and Highway 32. The intersection is under the jurisdiction of the C,ty of Chico and Calitvans'; there are no current plans for signalizing the intersection. H) Water-Quantity Impact Present stormwater runcff'on the project site for a storm with a 1.0-year frequency is approximately 8 cubic feet per second(cfs). When the project is fully develoVed, the same storm will produce an additional 7 cfs for a total of 15 cfs The majority of the present rainfall runoff is contained on the site and percolates into the Soil. Runoff sloes trot presently reach Bich Chico Creek. Big Chico Creek's flow is regulated by flood dates at the Hooker Oak recreation area. These gates allow a maximum inflow r_h.rough Chico of 1500 cfs. Additional drains downstream from the flood dates increase the ;Flow to approximately 1800 cfs in the vicinity of this project. The project's drai.nage discharge of a maximum of 21 cfs during a 100-year frequency L Lorm does not significantly change Big Chino Creek's characteristics The discussion of downstreum fl.00d- inq contained in the Big Chico Creek Estrratos 3,,_T R. apps:les to this project also. Flooding, when it occurs; is caused by the rise of the Sacramento River and not by excessive discharge into Bier Chico Creek. .ANY ADVEM ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH C-AN140T BE AVOIDED ITF THE PROPOSAL I.S_ IMPLEMENTED ., l., Approximately 20 acres of Viha Loam soil will be v,i.th- drawn from aPgrl ultural use and converted to residential use. 2. There will be a net increase in stormwater runoff. 3. There will be an increase in demand for public services .including schools and recreation facilities. Ci The project will increase the local energy demand for op6tation of utili.tiesx motor vehicles; etc. 5. There will be an here-4e in Local trGffic flow with a possible increase in congestion on �,est Sacramento Avenue; 5. Some degradation of water quality in 'Big Chico Creek may occur EtOm storm dr&ihag0 :►runoff. MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACTS 1, Widen, and improve West Sacramento Avenue along the project frontage:to Butte County Standard RS -2-A: 2. Install grease and +sediment trap in drainage :system to reduce the possibility of water degradation in Big Chico Creek.. 3 Use upon joint pipe 1n areas that are not under roar'- waya to fur4hcr reduce water degradation in Big Chico Creek. 4. Bv,.ildibq permits for residences will be subject, to any school mitigation fees established by Butte County Ordinance enacted Community Facilities Act of 1982 District is created, permits unless a. prior to the filing of applications ,for buil ` created., pursuant to California Governmenf. Code Section 53311, et. seq., coverinq the project area, prior to the issUntce of any building permits. 5. Place all utilities underciround sand landscape open areas, making �naximuM use of existing ti:ees . 6. Implement, to the q,reatest extent possible, the energy conservation me sures Set forth iia the piniform Building Code and Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map act `?.. Provide a homeowner's association with adequate author- ity to maintain, operate and repair the facilities owned in common. 8. Install properly engineered septic tanks and leach .P.zel:ds for sewage disposal; 9. Mahe use of dust palliative or water to reduce the nuisance caused hV dust during construction. Limit working hours to daytime, y architectural control. in the covenants, 1a Make use of to .insure construction of esthetically pleas- ing and restrictions ing dwellings. ALTEANA: TIVES TO V4E PROPOSED PROd'ECT �. No Project. The land could be kept in agricultural use, although r � neeessat:il,y as an orchard. The present orchard does not produce sufficient ircrontp to justify its retentions Other agricultural uses such as kiwi productions walnut production or row cxcps Could be realized on this land The nearby encroachment of residential dwellings makes agricultural use of the land undesirable, ErsuincT dust and pesticide sprays trat are a necessary part Of farming are not compatible with relatively dense residential uses nearby, The developer has performed a market survey for the type of residence that he proposeto builcl, He has determined that There is presently a shortage in the Chico Area of detached; single family dwell, nqs with common area maintenance, 2- Conventional Subdivision- This alternative would :require lot, 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 1/4 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 03 units at the most. A pr"ivate,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 6500 squarefeet~ resulting in densities of approxi mately 5 DU/AC or 104 units. 3. 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 Did/AC. If the project was cor`nected to a sanitary sower ;system, thenlots could be as small as 4000 square feet resulting in approximately 7 DO/AC or 1.9.5 units maximum'. 4. Clustered Dwelling Units With Common Recreation Area/ Open Space (PA-C)u A development of this nnattureUtilizingide commonly owned and maintained septic system could density allowed by the General plan designation of 6 'DU/AC and provide common faoill ties such as a swimming pool, tennis courts, barbeque pits, Rv storage, etc. Clustering could also be uses to minimize impacts on neighbor ing properties GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT Off' TH8 PROPOSED ACTION Several developments nearby alonq with the proposed develop- moat encourage additional conversion of agricultural land to residential use. Recent action by Butte County to rezone several parcels north and east of the project R-3 also encourages development of agricultural land in the area, 0.,; oRGANI7,ATI0NS, PERSONS :AND REFERENCES CONSULTED County of Hutt Planning Department Public Works Department City of Chico Public Works Department McCain Associates Rolls,_ Anderson & Rolls Chico Area Recreation District Soil. Survey of the Chitj Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture, .1.929 Onsite Wastewater, Treatment and Disposal System, EPA, 1980 Urban Stormwater Management, Report #49,APWA, 1981 E.I.R. for Big Chico Creek Estates - LRD tog IJ78-1.2-21-01 -10- y APPENDIX A APPE14DIX ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (Ta be cornp1 et:e,d, by Lead Agency) 83-39 ERD Log # 82-11-15-0.2 I. BACKGROUND AQ 43-.29,.12, 43-27-08 F, p n 43-29-15, 1, Name of Proponent Ja Halbert 2. Address and Phone Num er o Proponent; Rt. 2, _Box 102 Chico, CA 95926 3 Date of Checklist Submitted 4, Agency tequiring Checklist 5 ;, Name of Proposal, if a ]ic a e Rezone p � PP II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS � (Explanations of all "yes" and '"maybe" Gnawers aye required on attached sheiats . ) YES MAYBE NO Earth. Will the proposal result in significant a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b : Disruptions, , displacements. com- paction or overcovering of the soil? c, Change in topography or ,round sur- face relief features or remov it of topsoil?._ d: Destruction; covering or modifica- to�features? geologic or Y q g physical e Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, eitheron or off the site? f, Changes in deposition or eVi)sion of beachsatds, or changes in silta�- titin, deposition or erosion which ittay modify the channel of a river' or stream or the bed of the ocean OV fake? any bay, inlet or g, Lost of prime agriculturally pro- ductive soils outside designated Urban areas �..�. Appendix E u page 1 of 9 MAYBE NO YES h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, hazards? or similar 2 Air. Vill the proposal result in a. Sub.stanti,al deterioration of ambient or local air quality? _r b. creation of objectionable The ,ke or fumes? c. S gnifas.caat alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either Locally or regionally? 3. Water, tji11 the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in ctirrenL4a or the course or direction of water movements? -_.- _--- --- b, Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount: of surface water runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channeli:a;tion or culvert installation? ` .j. :alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? e, Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Water f. Discharge into surface 'waters, or in any alteration of surface vtater quality', i.rtcluding but not limited to tempe+l;atttre, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X g Alteration fofhcwaters? rate offlow ground h. Change in the quantity or quality OE ground waters, either through R `direct: additions or withdtdtoal.s, or through interception of a.i aquif'br by cuts or excavations? ,.XII 4 A- 'etidix V page 2 of 9 { YES MAYBE NO i. Reduction in the amount ,of water, otherwise availabl,� for public water supplies? j, Exposure of people of property to water related hazards such, as flooding? 4, Plant'-'Life. 1411.1 the proposal result in substantial: a. Loss of vegetation or change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plaits (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, G microflora and aquatic plants) ? r� b. Reduction of the numbers of any, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d4 Reduction in acreage of any agri- cultural crop? 5 Animal Life. Will the proposal results stibs,t.ant;ial a. Change in the diversity ofspecies, or slumbers o£ 'any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, f=ish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or m.icro£auna) 7 b. R+aduction of the numbers of any t+,pique, raze or endangered species of animals? e Ifttroduttion of new species of animals into an area, or result in, a barrier to the migrat-i5n or movement of animals? d, Reduction of, encroachment upon, or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? W w A nd�.x Va pp e p. g e 3 of 5 YES MAYBE NO b, Noise. Will the proposal result in substantial-, a. Increases in noise levels? b. Exposure .of people to severe noise levels? 7i Light and. Glare, Will the proposal. - root. uc g a.cant Light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a significant; a. Alteration of the planned land use of an area, or establish a trend �� which will demons-,rabl lead to such alteration? b, Conflict with uses on ad j o ni.ng properties, or conflict with establ.iched recreational,, educa- ti.onal, religious or scientific tises of, an area?, 9, Natural '.Resources. Will the proposal resat in subgt:antial: a, Demand for, or inc in the rate .reasi:esoui~ces? of use of any natural resources? b, Depletion of any non.renewAble X natural resource? 1.0. Ride of Upset. Does the proposal invo -ve a tisit, of an explosion ,or the 'release of hazardous substances (including, but not li:mi ted to, oil, pesticides: chemicals ox radiat lon) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11, p_o_ pula�ion• Will the propogra1 significantly alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of tine human population of an area or physically y divide an es tai,) lished comttunity ? 12, li using Will the proposal sx.gn cantly affect existing housing, or create a demand for ,tdditional housing? Appendik F pag4 of 9 p 'Y t", MAYBE N0 1.3. Transportation./Circulation.. Will the proposal result in.: a, Generation of substantial additional � vehicular movement? b, S7.gnificant effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking' e, Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e alterations to, waterborne; rail or air traffic? f, Increase in traffic hazards to; motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 4 sir 14 Public Services. ITill the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a substantial need for new or, altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b� Police protection? _ G c, Schools?. d. Pants or other recreati.oaal facilities? e, Maintenance of public facilities; including ,roads? �C f,, Other governmental setviceS? �. 15, FnetgY, Will the proposal result in a. Ilse of substantial, amount: of fuel or energy? b, Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of neW sources of energy? , Appendix E page 6 of 9 YES MAYBE NO 16 . tJti.lities . Will the proposal result in a n� e-`efor new systems, or, sub- statitial alterations to the following utilities: at. Power, or natural gas? �< b. Communications sysgems? X c. Water?'. d, Sewer (will trunk. Une be extended, providing capacity to serve new development)? X e;• Storm water drainage? C 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in. a. Creation of nay health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health? X b. Exposure of popple to potential health hazards? la. Solid Waste, Will the proposal result in, any sgn3.fcant J.mpacts associated Ath solid waste disposal or litter control? �( 19, Aesthetics. Will the proposal result �:t' -i he obstruction of any public designated or recognized scenic vista open to the pub tic, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to � public p` view, 20, Recreation, till the, proposal result in an i.m"—pact upoli the quality or quantity of existing public recrea- tion facilities? 21, Archeolo ical/Historical, Will the proposal result at1 iteration of A significant archeological or historical site, structure, object ' or bui,ldn7 G Appendix E page 6 of 9 Appendix F page 1 of 9 YES MAYBE NO 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish cr wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plantor animal com- munity, reduce the number o-j� restrict they range of a: rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term benefits to the detriment of publicly adopted long-term environmental: goals? c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (a project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small.; but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant,) d:, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects- on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Appendix F page 1 of 9 rY ITEM i 3 Subject property is bosicall'y level and planted with 40-50 year cld almond trees. They have `been sadly neglected by '-',a previous owners For approximately.the last ten years.. The soil is excellent, sandy vina loam and the wildlife ara the usual inhabitants of ne- glected orcnards such as dove, quail; pheasant ei,d ground squirrls. The existing struc4ure is a dilapidated old farm house gist will. be torn down. The most significant cultural or historic bspect of the property is a single, huge and beautiFull black walnut at the entrance to the property on Sacramento Avenue. The tree is approximately 7.5 feet wide at the bese, 100 years old and planted by General John Bidwell. Unfortunately, Bidwell planted them too close to the road. Ine,uaad. g d i y proposing . y ng to pay 9 y y again, if the of cuttih the tree down- .L amthat we are Willa. Z ties sur bon the a��80 neccps:iar. to make it health a ai coun4y will allow the tree to rehiai'n.. It will take up what would normally hive been a parking spot on )acramento Avenue, ITEM # �4 On tura east side of this prr.,perty lies Highland, Park Esta Les, an approved subdivision of �4 ucre lots. H'Lghland pork was paver built and from my investigations I think it probably will t,e a candidate for FRAC zoning soon due to its present poor land use design not being economically feasi.bl.e to build. 0n the west lies dig Chico Creek Estat88 , a large subdivision of f4 acre lots. The neighborhood is a mix. of lilptcommercial.,' apartments and single f8mily resldpnt al on Sacramento Avenraga Tei formatioii stib%ittod 11 -IS -82 by applicant PROPOSED HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION The private drive, dreinage systems, sidewalks., street lights, entry and all front yards will be landscaped andmointained by the Homeowners Association. Each homeowner Will buy a building site and negotiate his own construction loan to build one of our models with us being the builders. The I ir back yards will. be complsbelV fenced with Seven foot tall grape staka, fences aod they may landscape these rear yards however they wish. There Will be covenants, conditions, and restrictions against anything that would be detrimental to the at Swallow T811 Homes. PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PNCJV151UN'-- t --UR STORM ORAINAnE, qE1,,AGE AND PSLIC UTILITIES Storm 0rLJ,2pcLe Duc to the phased nature of this project, we would like to surfaces drain the First 630 Fast ( Phoses I and 11 ), Froni that point on an underground drainuge system would be installed in phn8es. Loch phase would drain '.'Lntn a bemporary leach Field untill Phase V was redphed. At this point �,he train out -Fall into Chico Grock would be installed. we -ire proposing aomtwhero along the line to install loose Jointed P.11le set in gravel- 1hiS Would allow low flow pollutants to .,,eep out of the lo(jsc, jointed pipe. When the First Utorm of the winter comes along, the initial rush of Storm Waters will @180 8eop out or the loose joints., and as Water volume picks up -clean water Will rlciw into Chico Creek. Sotiy,ine- Each residence 1 I)Ua will tie on on individual sfiptic tank and !each according he the quidolines set rnrth b%/ Butte County Healthi Informatioil subraittett 11 18-82 by applicant