HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5 OF 5r
E
3 � y"U
«t�rM�
I.AtdL `)"r ras'xTtor,A 1, k","� I lti l;l�t) ba:AU!ti°
PLntoivi W3 c rr411 :1 ON
7 COUN tle ct ilr k moor OPOV)t l E, CAI IF fl%Nil+'s,+375
+laaa,catary G, 1984
Jtovo A14 bbs
11CID, Small C iticis Affairs
11 ? 1 fl tlr S treca
Sac-ramento, CA 9551,E
JtJ; "J"c;].ophono corY %-1-r at.ion of January 5, 1.984, X1'45 r'.m.
concerning Denial: of butte county's Reg11o:;
APPTINWIX
ilk;(�.'1'Ciri I11,[,CtitkA'1'lC1"vC.,1tI 11�IlI�,C a
x IVF1 l Its k, .thy, hrr� ! csct �lr �� r~� 1����1 1lral rltil Ia,l.� hr=c�n
� ar i tic wi t�a�."rtant
to � he l rOV 1,S'Lcno, �a� the ��al i C�°°,t��l!� ixe iiia'u � rcat�.tba�aa�
"S Code
1p
to.c tt.t a eyf Act of 1970 ��'ra�' •z� � tia�oaai t�aai 11. rlaac�tl h aur; rtk ., i c;tli !'1 Craaa k
�j,-t'(irmi nat! 0aa 111—ts lac
fi c� L 1'c't irlaryaa °t
he eaaa 1 r-canrlr?tat I+r� {t (17 7 01
1iI;;G;1tI�'`I`KY
A M i
1 , f
itr�lt�.iaa , I�`i�.ai�ah tztir��a I t«�x,tttl'.'I l ha�hl�,i ca1"it
T►ttlaayvl,tctlt Cfltcalrn�aaatca�ta
l,tll:.t�'1'TON CII PRO -J1' 'X y
3, rattllactt, C.
t11 t,it , (,he ("I tV or
' C h is p ,u they
ADD SS 014 "I jzO.TVCT A]?PLICAN.
I;ttttc s
Cnataaty tic and 01 ;sa►lac�xvi.t;r r
w5taaanty� Ccttt��x Drive
1,1X"C i iiAT IOir r111ASURM
IN' o to y
(; r, r►Ea » o f the 'Mit iia l s tttciy a"n�;n�'����T tile
Cc�t���� xl lla�ittrr�i,I orov t ;1.1r:�
A C tia LS i''roj sect i,s Oil C.t 1 e at I t 3
Thi-, 8 tlxdy Tara
rI arnsolatud,
S� �is. tttu`li C''tr•;►t ns atiact
r 11tCf�171:� til a,is th chrzri,ges . c, _iC
"tt.i1C*0d4
`A i
by ttac
tuh.I tc
Ica `as E asa t a111.a><; bcc1POdy
tt,o Cr,ttt7ly
Doc�m7
'Da 't C'
cr �' 1�. � � a a� ttr ,t rl, t is .a r� as r� `1. C•+,_,,�, t ��� � � __��,,..�..._.� .�., _�---F—��-�
Dot orill! t't t leas
On ti,� i,�r,="1 <, rl C "l kBt. i 1ti r « itrWty�1�• c�/C�y�tttp�G tile-: 4. riJ 1.
Gil 4a.GL �: C. �11. l��r C�L J. l{M.i n? 4r Vtd.i �. H6. �7
a ,1 °,4t1 ,lax ttr (at�(r i<nrac�l.nl r .and �n41=s1�r�aa���ttt acs ���aa�1a
nci i11e i1rop ara�1 a �Oct C,�1II,i
O 1a.av� Gt �,��,t���acaut
k
is aat�° i.., ,a ren �r1.c;; �,'C VIII. Il �(:l�atRw "T IC►Zv :i s
isFr;�!c;t r+rt; 0 c �
lr zarl
riot,
��aaiCacat ft
t1l" till rtjcct COULD have tatse o`itt tii.caso tcra
On the onvaaotment bot j�ill dat
rt t' t� r'kt � ci rit t' i �a t k�°) 11 m r~ s t t e t ct d (-."i c a' l l w a 3. ra '� t cw aaa above
of projec't
will'oh it ars: by tha ..; . �� ARMON + ' hero y
_ t (` I 1
ut al ''a�� r'l r*t tt�tt'�atatl.'tL `�,}' ,F, 1'
���i: i ,',��.1. �1�Ai int �,:''
k7tirt Do tar'. Clul 1 't' F
l:tIL i�' C's�tt1E i1�3�t�'�L >C+l" 1r1w7c°
Utaa�
FhVIId()N I1'.l`;ttia' t111iCK41S'Y Ittl{hr
Ct6-1.�h t�etiritltic�I0-1 liy i'tl t1,,crrr:,yl
itAt. hr,t't511i,1j�\X�Iy
I N 0 01* }�rrypyr�rt.�r ( P,Ift to Z"rtttnt'y Botttd ci f .Sl~ porvisors, C'itapil mrt town
?. plarvs. or trrulrlroottk ani vE'laret�sr�rx�rlko 'F at,r filial lt'
25 Cottttty Cetltet Ur: vc
.: " _ CA 95 (t5
S. l*rOJcct wie,.(..rilt i 1t►llotaslrt��-Roh'abilitntion F�►'O�;t�at11 tltt�l E'tiblic
E�acili't"'ios irtrltrt�ti�otttrt►'tAS,
C I. MANDATORY FINDINGS 01; SIGNTIFICA.NC YES SIMM 81 No
rte Moes the project htrve the �,OtFential to dqt rado thio
rl.uality )t the erivironw nt, substantially redo e
the habitat of a fish ur wt"ldtif•e �oecics, c,7ust, 3
fish or wadi irt: pafIttlatio-1 to d't%.)p Belot,, tkelr
stlstairling level:,', thr~e,atetr to e1lminate a. pi;t,nt or
animat community, the nuni4er or restvict the
range of a tiare,ro'r endangelrty,i plant or anitpal or
eliminate inPOrtaitt examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
h. Does the project h,aro the potential to achieve
short-term brrnet`its to the detriment of lortgµtt+rrrr,,
envivortmontat goals? (A short-term impact on tiro
environment is one which ot.cuts in a relatively
brief period of time while long-term impacts
endure into the future,)
tw Does the project have impacts which are ind vidu-
allyLimited,, but cumulatively considerable? (A
project may impaction.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.envlronmertt is sigttificant,) `
d, Claes the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial advorse eetects on human
e ;r ndi,rectly?
b ins either dirt ctl or i
To be Cotte le b' h
Completed r `
( p Y e Lead Agency)
On the basis or ,'this ;nit,al evaluation
on the find the proposed ro "ect� COULD NOT have a significant effect
I/lit: #'i p p p J � 6
environment and ri NEC;A IVE D>;C[AltA"i` ON will be prepared,
I/Wt: rind that although the proposed project could have a signiCi-
Cant r"1'rect on the erivClottlnetttj thct;e will not be a significant
effect in this case because the MITIGATION MUSURES described on
the ott�iched shoot have been added to the projoet. A NBOATIV
Dh�CLAVA'tON Ivill he prepared
I/wF find the ptattost±il j�rdject MAY havo a signi'ficant' effect on
`
e n v i ronment, and an tN�"I.ItitNMPN'TA1, TMPACT IIr.11ORT is regltire&,
utr'rI : 4u ►as t s 19 `3 COUNTY OF AU� TE $ PLAWN(\ HPARTMP.NT
... ,. v _
Lauxei wi;L
,Assn s' �t►�t � �ti�t.e
Rev iewrd hid.
VA
,02
��.AN
V. ENVIRONNIt-NTAL Zb1
OI 11'µ �,'e'st' ttjtlsi)'ZtC�' 01"Iro
r tp18I1�tLOnS
anal required
on attached
sho:otts)l
YES
NMAYI�11. N0
1 EARTH Will the proposal result in si:g,nifi.c<111tw
mw .�
a.
Uns talol e , arth conditions or in changes in
geologic suis 4ruct.ures?
b,
Disruptions, dLapltlr,.C'jitF nig, compa.ctlon. or
o'erOd�lerltl'.; Of th-0 still?
c.
Change in topog .-,phy ,cr ground, surFace
relief feature.'"
d.
Destruction, co-vefing or modification of any
µ.�
unique 9001001C or physic41 featUres?
e.
Increase in 5.,iiid or ;ti'a;:er erosion of soils,
either on or off-site?
ChalLgOS i11 deposition or crosi:on of beach
sands, or changes in siltatio , deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel; of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean, Or
any bay., inlet or lake?
g
Loss of rime agriculturally
p � ly- productive soja,s
outside designated urban areas?
J
h,
Exposure of people or property to oealoga c
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, myaid,-
slide ) 'ground failure Or similar hazards?
2, ATR, Will the proposal result in substantial:
a:
Air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b�
The creation of objectionable odors, stroke
or fumes?
ci
Alteration of air movement, moisture, Or
temperature, or any change in climate,
locally or regionally?
3 WA'TEt< Will 'the proposal result in substantial:
F
Changes i.n currents, or the course or
dtrection of water movements in either
marine or fresh waters?
b,
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and 4mount of surface runoff?_
c,
Need for off-site surface drainage improve-
merits, including 'vegetation removal:, chann.el-
iaation or culvert installation!
d
Alterations to the coarse or flow of flood
waters?
e.
Change in the amount
g of surface ,rater in any
Water body?
'
f.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
'
alteration of surface water duality, including
but not limited to temperature;, clissolv'ed
�'turbidity?
g.
Alterationofthedirection or rate of flow
of ground waters?
h,
Change in the quantity of ground waters, ,
either through direct additions of with-
drawa,ls, or through interception of an
aqui £er by cots or excavations!
I
Rdduction in the amount of water ofpert,'
i se
mailable for public tater supplies?
j 4.
Exposure of people or property to orator .
'hhazar`cts
related such ,as flooding?
YES
1•[Aq* NO
4.
PLAINT LlFE. IV,�, the proposal result in .0stat�tial:
a. -range in the diversity of species," or nu;rb(;,
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
X
b : Reduction. of the numbers of ani• unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
C. Introduction of new species ofplants into ejrt
area, or, in a, barrier to the normal replenish-
ment :i
e�t'. pecs
�oi
d. Itocitrrtxon in acreage ofany crop?
agricultural
S.
ANIML LIFE. Will the proposal result in substa,'ntlal,.
a. CYange in the diversity of species, or numl)ers
of any species of aniiila.ls (birds)land anion I8
.including+, reptiles, fish and shell fish,
henthic organisms or insects)
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, 'rare
or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals?
n. Deterioration to existing ,fish or wildlife
habitat?
6.
NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial,
a. increases in ;exis.ting ,noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
i.
LIGHT AND GLARE. 'Will the proposal produce
si n f'icant light and ,glare?
8.
LAN 1) USE, IVill the proposal result in a
substantial altaralti on of zle present or planned
land use of an, areal
y.
NATURAL RESOURCES: W ll the proposal result in
substantia:
Ai Increase in the rateiof use of any natural
re�lources?
b, DepletionOf an -
p y n on-x•enetvnble natural
resources?
10,
RISK OF UPSET,: Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk: of e.%plos oil or the release sof hazard-
ous substances (including; but not iiMited r:,,,
oil, pesticides, cheinical.s or radiation) in
event cif an accident or upset, conditions?_.
b., Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or etftergoncy evacuation plan?
'l.
Rt1PCJIJA,MN. 11111 the proposal alto ,he lc c wltion,
t 1i
Wy
'10n -) d0n, Itv or growth T.iLu of the lljktilan
j
C of ulatU
lc;,
FiOUSi\'C . 1i�, ti thri pl,oposal; affect etistins, I ou8iflg,
c
or CvOatc a eftliari>.l Cr r addi:itiunal housing?
fl
-
1'E 5
YI,
13
'1Ct1IC�/CIRCU11Willthe �.
�MA� .L
�
result
a ., Gcncration o;C substantial. addi t:iorxal vclt (:j tr
maven, ent?
b. F.EFoct:s on existirIg par:i.ng .f1cil5t;es, car
demhrrd for neiw park rig?
c. Substantia zmE�a�t On Eels .,.ng tl clIJ,
ny rl o r t a r) r�
'
Sys tel -,Is .�
d. Significant altera.tio �s to presertr- pattertl
of Ci "Culation or IiIOV I�er1� OJ People and/orgoods?
e. ;Alterations to waterborne, rail or air trir. jc7—
f. Increase in traffic hazards* to rat:. tor `'"eh 1 Gl. os
bicyclists at` t�c:costi a,ris"
14,
PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal hakre alt,
upon, Or result in a need for new or altere�l
governmental services;
a. Fire protection?
b.
Police protection'" _.
C, Schools? ----
----
_
d. Parks or other recreationala ilities?
fao
e. Maintenance of public fa�;ili.ties, inclr,rcHn
p
�
roads?
f. Other governmental services?'
-- -y
15.
ENERGY. ''il,l: the proposal result int
.T.—Use of substantial amotants of' uel.or' eneray?
b . Subs antial icrease in demand upon existing "`
--
r
sources of e;rergv, or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16.
UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
following:
a. Power Or gas?
b. Communications
tions systems?
-----.
C. iYater,. ,
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e. Storm water d-rainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?,'
x
17.
HUMM HEALTH: Will th,e proposal result in
a. Cre`- o of atny health hazard or potential,
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of pPoplo to potential health
h at aids
18,
arSTR TICS: Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or viow open to
the pttbli;c, ct t�'i�ll tine .... '
tO osa l res
P p result in, the
creation of an aesthetlCall}" ol`fr`n5irr�i sita open
t0 public �ra.e�ti"? _
T
MI. REIRJAT1011
l the proposal result impact
upon the goal _ or gu11rtiIo e l.stir_n in
impaxci�a1
ohPO rtunnies ? -
20, CULTURAL RESOUR
CES.,.
a• wy`ill the proposal result in the altor<ition
Of or the d;estz`uction of a prehistoric. or
'historic arcliaeological -site?
b Will the proposal result
in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure or object?
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
a physiwal change %vhi.ch would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d, lVill the proposal restrict existing
or sacred uses withi
area? n the Potential importoos
V. DI
SCUSSZON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATTO'N 84-4
The program Outlined in this application invol,vc s ..housing zehabil -
tation;, public World improvements and upgrading Of Chapmantow.n The
program Is designed to Primarily benefit persol s with low-moderate
incomes.
The project will, have no significant adverse effects
the reasons which follow., on the area for
1. The land use p8ttern dor th6 area has been previously
established as urban residential.
Residential densities will not be significantly
as a result of the project affected
3. The project is consistent with the goals and policies of
bath County and City of Chico general plans.
V1- EXPLANATIOIN OF Y11S AND MAYBE AN81VERS
during, Short-term roductlon. in ambient air duality 14,111 occur
streets with instal.lationho ecurbof publuttic to� �s improvements to
gutters, and drainage.
3b A slight Increase in storm :runoff will occur, because of
ade�i.tiOnal paved surfaces resulting f'a. om; street anprovCinents t
6af This impact Iq 11 occur only during the construction phase of
the+ project, and will be confined to davl ht ]curs: This impact
is not ex ected to be substd1itial,
17a; Housing reharixli,tti:tioh I t'he objoctive of the project and
w" l l occur,;
1sc: Project c��,l 1 im prove Iiouello
.8 Strect, x r Streoks llavi.s (hrecf) Street aotc
14b':: St#fclxes havo drown that neihl�orl�ood imresvrttfolit may reduce
the demand fo;• Iiaiicc P1`0toct1On by el imin ting J)Jj ;1jted and do..
tcri,orated neighborhoods rero high ctimt rates Occur,
�,+T"s7AtC 0 CALVORNIA
DEpARTiv1EhJ OF Ha cl EawA" [ ttwslt
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'�
Community Development Section
921 Tenth Street, Room 402
Sacramento, CA 95$14
(916) 4455-.6000 "
July 26, 1984
'1r. William Cheff, Director
Department of Public Works
County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Bear Mr thei:f
This letter is in response to your request to reprogram $24,630 from the Nous
ting rehabilitationro ram to
p 9 general adnti7istrattan far the purpose of pre-
paring a Chapmantown Specific plan.
It is our understanding that the Chapmantown/Mul'berry. Specific plan will rn-
hance the County Is 1983 CDBC grant by addressing the follokrqng issues for the
State CDBO target area:
1. The location and standards for improvement of- storm, sewer, and utility
lines and facil it -,_s.
2, the location, widths and standard of lmprovoment for streets.
3. The evaluation of soil canditians and areas far septic tank use p ending
the completion of a sewer collection system for all of Chapmantown.
The spocific p'lah will also address a number of other issues which will allow
for a More coherent approach to rovitalization of the area, including,-
1,
ncluding,l, Residential density, type, and location, including minimum lot sires
lot coverage, and required open space requirements on vacant parcels,
2. The mi'tigatioll of non -Conforming uses within the specifiic plan area.
3. parking standards, including the minimum number of spaICesper dwellit1�g
unit, the location of parking, parking' space improvements, and on -street
parking
4. Tile location of any hely public usos, including parks, open spaces, and
administrative offices:
5. 'tile loeation and types of non-residential' uses other than
an p ub1,
u uses,espec7ally an undeveloped aryeas ad0acorto Highway 99.
Y�
Mr. William Cheff
Page Two
July 26, 1984
6. The and preservation
` improvement of'Litt! e Chino Creek and drainage
courses related to the creek.
7.. The location and improvement of bridges which cross Little Chico Creek,
8. The mitigation of noise impacts from Highway 99.
9 The mitigation of ground water contamination.
10. The mitigation of potential traffic and noise impacts from non-residential
development proposed for undeveloped lands between ChOP111011 frown and High-
way 99.
11, The location and Maintenance of the streetscape along unimproved shoulders
within the specific plan area.
1& The implementation of specific plan provisions through various County
codes and ordinances; including zoning, subdivision, building, and other
cedes
It is our understanding that the reallocation of these fUnOs from housing reha-
bilItation to general administration 'trill not adversely effect the 40 total
units Which the County, in its application, has identified it will rehabilitate.
It is our understanding that the'County does not have the resources to fund the
Specific tan
p p and has not historically funded these plans.
With the above understandings, the State Community Development Block Grant ap-
proves the reallocation of �24,630 from the housing rehabilitation program to
general administration far 'the purpose of preparing a specific plan for the
Chapmantown/Mulberry area.
Sincorely
UJohn Turner
Community Development Representative