Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
90-3 REZONE PLANNING 2 OF 3
BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO AB,,�LTEMENT DISTRICT 5117 LARYeih ROAD rv11.,�.lAlrt l�. NAzMI»Tlt��. nalrrsr 0,Ztrt'iIGT oFFICZ ti MANA411A LIN V!K0NIr11 N7ALIST tArZrCQppVajk or OROVtLLZ AIRPOAT' OROV1l-.LE CALIFORNIA 55965. 63N I-,AAMN ROA, iY P*40141% 19101 533-0030 312.7306 - August 30 1989 Butte County Planning Commission I County Center Drive Oroville, CA. 95965-3391 Dear Larry; After review of the Levy tezQne vie are car, :erred with the potential drainage into Keefer slough. Historically Keefer Slough is an intermitten`. channel that drys up in Late spring. With suburban growth increasing east of Aighway 99, this channel will receive drainage watt'r from this and other developments, thus providing a suitable hk,,bitat for breeding mosquitoes inn the existing low areas of the, slough. We request. as i a condition m approval ance beaperformehannelto l be put to grade and that periodc ainten prevent the recurrence of mosquito habitats. These comments are consistent with the Districts adZpted policy cabled "Guidelines, Checklist: and Standards for V���tor Prevention in Pro,pOsed Developments'."- s If you should have any questions regardncr these cammei;t please give our office at call. �. Z ional Supervisor JLS dm AAi COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS' 7 County CenterDrive Oraville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 5:38-7601 Butte County TO Hosquito Abatement District 5117 Larkin Road DATE:: August: 16,, 1989 Orovi,lle, CA 95965 RE PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Enclosed is preliminary data, Our office has received or generated conc:ern,i.ng the fojluouri:hg pro,jert. Paul and Sadelle Lev Rezone from A-10' (Agricultural; 10 acre parcels) to SR -1 (Suburban. Residential, 1 acre parcels), Iodated on the east side! of Kighway 99 approximately Y of Keefer Road, pproxsmatel 4 OOQ feet south identified as AP# 047-440-012, Chico, CA. File # 90-3 Log# 89=08-16-01 bWe a.remaking an assessment cI f6 possible environmental impacts and will egpreparLve ng an environirnenta': documel t, either a Negative Declaration., eclaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental I ttpact Report (tjA) , Please provide anyfactual suatements ideas for investigation, or opinions you can o=fen in to either physical, social,thateconomicur area of c�ntpac sncern othatpthissprtjat relate generate y Please respond within 1.4 days of the above -noted date;' I no xesponse is generated by thi; inquiry, then it shall be, assumed that there are no significant environmental im project. pacts which are potential. from the We appreciate any assistance you can provide; Sincerely, MaVLa�1�A �♦� COIIIi'iients : Dppsq _ your agency wish to receive a COPY of the environmdhtul (initial study for Negative Declaration (tth document or 4FxthOut Mitigation Measures) or R for this project),, " YES ON ttu�b�; Cc:, �annfngC.ct'"tt�' ; .,. J U L 311989 APPLICATION FO R REZONING C�ro�llla, c,�ll#aurin BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPL,ICAN1 . Read and follow inskrticiions set forth on last age cif This fnrnt. "°% p° Contact! Applicant's Name Paul &' Sa rLe_ Phone lo, 893-159 Applicant's Maiting Address 364-Ras-t—Saft Madele. 'reSna. CA 5304 r,... Applicant's Interest in propertttCDwner-Lessce, Other) Owner's Name and Address Same ^ Contact Person for Project (if other than ap l canf) S' -« - BAG N(;T 'f�'.F' (342.-4x36 3012 Esplanacle, Chico, CES. 95928 Assessor's Parcel Number(s)47-4/5-17 - _— - .Present Zoning,_,:;, 0 „,.. . Requested Zon rill SSR- l Location, dimensions and size of areas) to be rezoned rhe,_pl of rty a 5 &A 19 f' 7nr ;.n size and is located on the a le . of Ha; Way-9�_ North, r _ �• just_ South of Keefer Road, Chico,, CaliforniaZL _ 'Street Address (if applicable) U Directions for travel to property (rural and mountainous areas only) blar 'h of ih n,,nff tL Q' lWah - Y99 , just South of Karim"s R:esaurant Applicant's reasons for rezoning y`to- deye1gR a subdivision in c.oriformitY ,,with_the..general zonink of the. surrounding area. Proposed Wieduling/Associated projects (formation of service district, etc,)_ Owner has no scheduling proposed at this tithe. When the property is eventua'11 ,tlubdt�vtdgd; *a uri y o - .11H e ? g ti g Wt Il Anticipated incremental development (future devcloptnent dans subsequent to rezone), Anticipated incremental development unktiown''at thin, time. )existing % proposed sewagc disposal hethod- Igcl'iyidual septic tanRB Proximity 6r power and phone lines.- 9C,q.sj, 3r�rit1 -- Distance to haturzi water coarse or storm drain: Kee i»er Slow " .just North of ;rt traverses Portion off Keeedfer Slough -,._._ �_.. the Nbttheast end of the property. 1z „ I r � , Describe anticipated on and off-site drainage improvements (PULS, MHP); AA_____�_�� Describe how on-site and. downstream drainage channels Will be affected (PUD, MHP); __tj/A Water source: Ind Jar fbia1 rTe1 1 r Proximity of water for fire fighting purposes (Hydrants, ponds, ctr,) 1/4 mile to "Nord Fire_—. Station WiU excavation or grading bo accessary?..11,5_ Cubic yards (estitriate)? Nnt knOW13. Q(2nstructipn of .sntOrinr1?hialivi,Gon nadr G 1v_ nn Last and describe and other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, State and 1~e decal regencies: Encraachment:'Vormat as required by Cal Trans for road mpprQ ch it residential, include the number of units, whether units are single or multistory in height, schedule of unit sizes, and type of household site expected. Not known at this time If commercial, ,indicate the type, whether rm-iehborhood city or reeional.1V oriented.. souare fnotnee or sales area, and loading facilities N/A ii industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities, Ifinstitutional indicate the 'major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, ading facilities, and community bene;.ts to bt derived tram the projeect. N/A > NVjR_ONMENj:AL 1MPAC"I'S AND MITIGATION MEASURES Identify potentially significant cm t YJtmental features or special conditions o., &Jloroval ( environmentalImpacts? Frsritia_�ot acts asOCNIM with ((re rezone. What project design ;quota measure!;) are proposed to alleviate potential I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the Instructions and that the foregoing statements are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. bated:1%,"' 4- "- ---=--- _� Applicant's signatu C,at»di _ . .�., ,._:_ PrOertY owner's sij ENVI WVKF T 'SL NC I Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topgr,<phy, soil stability,. plants and animals, and any cultural:, historical and scenic aspects. ,Describe any existing structures on thesit and the use of the structures, c, The property exists as a combination of walnut and almond orchard. a Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, cur scenic as type peas. indicate the t land h` of use (residential, com;nercial,:etc,), intensity of hand use (one•fa,miiy apartment houses, shops, department mores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.), The surrounding properties are as fol ws ------ Exist4n>? a d 09 orchard o. to the'North eXisting walnut: orchard to the south• sues ranging from 0.85 acres, to 1.75 acres to the West and to. the the East.The to the South and North are currently 14, the rezone process. _ '' I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the Instructions and that the foregoing statements are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. bated:1%,"' 4- "- ---=--- _� Applicant's signatu C,at»di _ . .�., ,._:_ PrOertY owner's sij J.NSTRC1CTiONS TC REZONMG APPLICANTS I , If applicant is not the owner, written authorization by the owner or other proof of agency must be submitted in corder for the applicant to legally sign the application. Application shall be considered void if not signed by the owner or legal agent; 2. All items on application shall be filled in as completely as possible. Very few items s be marked not applicable by the term "N/A", hould Property p pp i de an accurate and complete description of the `3. It is very Important that the application licaGon include . P y pro osed for each requested zone. The applicant hill not be processed until i receive the following information about area(s) to be rezoned: a. Assessor's parcel number(s),from the tax bills or Assessor's Map. b. Street addresses (if available). c. Distances and directions to named streets, bodies of Water or railroac'7. d, Ler,,f description (subdivision lot numbers, fractions of sections o- distances and periftwer dimensions), bearings of e, _ Copies of map with rezoning areas) outlined (Assessor's ma s or other map showing parcels); P: ubdiVision map, 4.. California Government Code Section 65300 et seq, requires Loral finning ordinances to be consistent with a jurisdiction's adopted general plan, bounty approval of a rezoning reqquest. must a supported by finding of consistency with the Butte County General Plan, Applicants Amendment, filing may request changes in General Alan designations by g an Application for General Alan. 3, The ,Application for Rezoning is subject to PubV. Commission and Board of Supervisors. The is dccduresa for Cound nty by both the Planning i County action on :rezoning applications are stated In Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code, 6, Applicant fees as is m _ (date) are 7. Qa Pecs may be paid in cash or by cheek made payable to Treasurer of Butte county, 7Before submitting a rezoning appliPation; applicant is requested to discuss with 3t oaestions about application requirements, Count start all Alan. and the provisions of existing and requested zoning classifications+ y General County procedures, consistency with the Gen v L . IV as 2 -D'( ori r7 44i; 4 000 STATUS ACTIVE 1 C„7r7. Bachman, Engineer PLE��IMDtfdw',1�. _FH L 3012 ;esplanade 756 LORINDA Lt,� Chicu, CA 95926 CHICO CA 95926 L !'sd47 25tlt 0W; 00x6 o STATUS ACTIVE L 047 440 Oi5 000 STATUS AC('IVE your': tll E 7MEL CLARE ETAI CWASE CLARE A 9.,AUDREY B ' CAI-` ;',HAsw rjnLL F 1595 HAWTHORNE AVE 13754 GARNER LANE CHICO CA 951)26 • CSI wI! �� 9S9i:s6 L 047 E6911 024 000 STATUS ACTIVE L 047 440 016 000 STATUS, ACTIVE j BLACf=', PATP I Cit R ” BEST CHARLES C 13987 H;4Y 99 PO BOX 4059 CHICO CA 9592.6 95457. S6 P127 008 ,i STATUS ACTIVE L 1%147 440 ta3i 1Ji1(1 STATUS ACTIVE A S S Rk-'14''HES INC PIANDVILLE G L 9, BERNICE L 5011 WILSON LANDING ROAD 13891 GARNER LANE C'ql= CA' IF 95956 CHICO CA a5 .9816 - L OArl 560 138 000 STATUS tib i i Y4 L 047 430 002 Y11_ 0 STATUS ACTIVE LIPTFAAP EVEL`1N C SS BENNETT FRAM' G & MARION C 996 r OLORES AVE 4055 'KEEFER RD LOS ALTOS CA -CHICO CA 95926 r S60 139 00 5TA`ruS t,CTIVE' L 047 430 003 000 STATUS ACTIVE rE11GP, TRUST B ' HAUSELT WILLIAM H MARGARET S t%LrN5:AU8H._ I B RAY CRIC E LOUISE TR 1464 WINDOR WAY �F P It P 0 X c44 LIVERMORE CA a ZRIC0, CA fi59E 7 r 94556 'Al 3515 ol''. oori, STATUS ACTIVE ORE87ANa SERGIO & MARIA ANTONI4TA R bE C,10'89X.'771 INCLINC VILLAGE NV 59451 L 047 350 082 000 STnTU5 AC` I'VE w tJJ'PJN'ER WA J HLEI N R 8.8129 FLOFA'L �iVE C44IC5 CA 959816 L 0,47 440 t509 000 STATUS ACTIVE MAtilbVIL.LE GGEORGE L & 85RiN OE L ETAL 1'=C^ GA,? -R LTA' C4i,^O Chi 'S9S6 L 04'� 440 011 000 STATUS ACTIVE ' TtJLi '4M S L Y N t 4 & BONNIE MARIE TRUST TULL LA MES UYNN & BONNIE MARIE, TRUSTEES FFEt'�LtP�'I CA �45�6 L X41 '"0 x"12 1%3150 STATUS ACTIVE LEVY E'. LuL M� SADELLE S rp, 864 W" SAN M ELS FREShO CA 5�,3`1t1 J PF SU ALMONIF � wr Resaluf ion No_ r OI, -MON FOR AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECLASSIRCATION OF ZONE FOR PAUL AND SADEILE LEVY BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be and ,is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Butte relating to reclassificaticn of zoning with: PAUL ASND SADELLE LEVY aad to do, and perform everything necessary to carry, out thet purpose of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on the day of ! 1990, by the following vote-- AYES': ote;AYES NOW. ABSENT NOT VOTING:: ' CHAIR Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST'- WffJ-IAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By COuwff OIC' BUTTE l OFFICE OY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUJN7Y CENTEfi DRIVE a "r �� ^ �� ORO�IL%H, CALIFORMA 95065-3397 .z, �r:�� �NA`µ� / �iMw YI l � A�, 1 {`MYYY'9'0 i � r wd t:11};% .� �� "� a �: yy Pl..a%rAC. AVS ORICU CA ;� 9592 North Chico Residential Rezoning "Traffic Impact Study Project scope This study, Investigates the traffic impact crated by rezoning three contiguous ,parcels located adjacent to State Highway 99 north of Chico, They border Garner Lane to the east and Keefer Slough to the north. The location of the parcels is t epicted by the shaded area in Figure 4. The existing zoning is A-10, agriculture to acre minimum, on the 94, 68, and 98 acre parcels with an a c re ar total of 260 acres, Within this report, the impact of rezo� i gg g Will be considered, and the following matte slN will beS ddressedban one acre minimum, I. Ten nber new motor vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed estimated'and assigned to adjoining roadways. 2. Peak hour traffic volumes are presented which represent traffic conditions at two future forecaastst evaluate traffichorizo ns. The horizons considered, 1992 and 2-010 conditions ith and the osed ning isolate both the short and Wong term itmpact of this pplann planning decision, to . I Adverse traffic impacts as a result of this proposed zoning change are identified and, where prudent, mitigation measures are recommended'to alleviate potential difficulties. Thi- report is intbrided to helpplanners, developers, arld land owners address the existing and forthcoming transportation needs of the Chico urban area i n the vicir;ity of this rezone project . Also it is designed to suggest appropriate alternatives which will help to avoid costly problems In the years to comer Existing Traffic conditions j; > 9 y Highwaylane99 is a major trucking and travel route In Butte County, , At this location, at is 2 two lane all with gravel shoulders through the project area :end a varying pavement cross section, Garner Lane and Keefer Road 'are both two lane - paved ely roads, Most of Keefer Lane hasb een re cetfy repaved and is in good condition While Garner Lane has only partially been improved to just south of the project area, northerly Portion of Garner Lane which connects to Keefer Road generally remains a narrow, country asphalt thoroughfare in need of maintenance, 5 Road and Garner Lane ca' gosh Keefer The current and historical traffic volumes on Keefer UMO residential fG " Highway 9g were obtained from three sources: Caitrns; Butte County Public cer �W and E�epartment, and field observation b Y Works from �}o Air y project staff. Land use inlorrriation was taken std t .Plan adopted by Butte County Planning Departrment The t usedtoevaluate the f thisceixistin strafic �n detail he sources of nforrriation which were Highway 09 area. conditions of the Keefer Lane„ Garner Road, and State Highway 99 is maintained and operations are evaluated by Caltrans on a regolar basis. Signal warrant counts, corridor studies, and route concept plans were readily available for the section of Highway 99 near the proposed zoning change. Also the publication TrVolume� an State Hiahaladi-Ivs provided an extensive history -of traffic volumes on this route. Table i summarizes relevant information determined from this publication,, Table 7 Trafflc Growth History of State Hlghway 99 (Averaq© Daily Trips) Location 1968 1978 1988 1968-1988 1988.Percent I%Ahnual Growth leak Hour Eaton to Wilson Landing 4,200 7,500 io,800' +4.s�io +i b. 22% ttl3lson Landing to Keefer Road 4,800 i,200 10,200 --------- +3,8% +9,8% Norah of Keefer Road 4,600 7,100 9,400 +3.6%, ° +10.0011 *Source: olr�mes On State N , o ��ltt,�ys Butt City o staff were also helpful in gathering usetul information efor thisyplanning the Cit of Chic. Garner Lane were rovided byphe�Bu Butte undtylPubi Public Works Dec counts partmentKeefer . Demographic and Demographic information of the Greater Chico Area wa µ tlable from the 1988 lr' At roan Transport^tion Plannin R y` y St aff, Although the years Burin whichm' 9 port provit; , o the cit engineering 9 uch of the available data Was recorded differed from the desired base year for this report, a good overall conLeption of the 1989 traffic conditions Was determined b applying short term extrapolations of data recorded in earlier years. y p P. area:. The directional moturning movement at three key intersections within the stud Lastly, it was necessary to measure peak hour y verrtent of traffic at the intersections of Garner Lane and Highway 99, Keefer Road and Highway 99, and weekday, These c i _ p ur of 4:30 to 530 pm on a Keefer Road and Garner ►a_ne were counted at the peak ho y counts were made to verify data obtained from all other sources and to help evaluate the basic traffic distribution trends of trips generated from existing residential dwelling units. These turning movement counts are provided on the following three Figures 1 through 3, tt 2 F=igure 3' North Chico Residential Rezoning Traffic Impact Study Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts Intersection: 'GarnerrLane and Highway 99, f Time: 4:30-5:30,7/13/89 Thursday. Conditions; Sunny and Clear, Dezcription Signalized Intersection. Traffic Generation The relationship between land use and traffic generation is used to predict added traffic from a new development. For this study, the number of new dwelling units that might be built on the 260 acre site had to be estimated. The existing toning as reported by the =o Area L0,nd tan designates the lots as Ag -Residential l to 40 acres per dwelling unit. With the proposed zoning change to SR -1; one might expect that 260 new dwelling units could be provided. In actuality, the numher of available lots will be smaller than this. A portion of the available space must be utilized for roadways, leach fields, drainage facilities, and unsuitable lot geometry. It was estimated that the 94 acre parcel could contain approximately 68 new dwelling units and the other 98 and e8 acre parcels could be developed at this same number of homes per acre. This gives lot sizes consistent with developed lots in the immediate area, Overall this accounts for an expected 180 new dwelling units as opposed to an estimated 17 new units if the current zoning is maintained, trips new , L The 180 dwelling units on the 260 acrt parcels cause hese trips ris to use the C:14cto4 -rl offals, and highways adjacent to t properties, p e referred to a* trig. Z:in..b p vehicle leaving the proposed development with a resident going to work would rep-mripr�,� o, ;: "rib end. A delivery truck stopping to leave a package at one of the new residenr: •'-oro,,06 i�roduce two trip ends, one when entering and one �� when leaving. Each -trip end ,--oi),rp. 4,3 w one vehicle and is added to the traffic on streets and highways most likely usr-;d to oom.-!Pte that trip. The numbers of vehicle trips estimated W U�= geti?r= ted under the current A-1 n and the proposedSR-1 _zoning classifications for all three parcel at buildout conditions are shown in Table 2. Table 2 , stlhiaiad Trafflo GeneratIdA at BulldoUt Conditions Land Use NUrnber of Averane'N.1ekdaYPtJf Peak Hour bWelling units iraffi In but Total A- 10 1 7 170 1 1' 5 17 260 ACr©s _. 8R-1 f 180 J800 108 260 Aoros 'SotJrre: no Generation, 4th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers:. 6 I Traffic Distribution Since one goal of this study is to investigate the most adequate access three the three parcels in question, the matter of traffic distribution had to be considered Jafq carefully. The general direction of traffic from the study area was at rid fthefstudy provided and referring 88 Chiro t, rb n Area Transpor i n Y g area a to the trip tables used in thehicoUrbar Aria Tram, o�rtatl4ll Punning.S<UJy, the proportion of traffic using each key route could be approximated. To further refine these distribution approximations, the turning movement counts at key intersections were utilized. The directional turning patterns were at combined with the results of the trip tables used in the Chico lrban Area Transoms $ dv. From this information, the routes on which the trips generated by the new development would likely travel during peak hours were estimated. The distribution used for the work presented herein is shown in Table 3. Table 2, Estimated Trip Distribution TO om Proposed Nezone Site Location Portlon Of Trips State Highway 99 North106/0 State Highway 99 South_ 50% Esplanade South 20% - Keefer Road East 100/0 internal Trips Traffic Projectiovis wo futu eyears were used to evaluate the traffic impact of this -property zoning gdevelopment.- 1992 oes condition, tnofhe expected, change and The first future date the SR 1e resegntattve of year that the all 2ta0 acres will be built out under It is assumed at this year that the property will not be attractive for development under the present A-10 zoning,,and consequently will not generate traffic beyond existing historical growth rates This historical growth rate is based on the assumption that existing conditions and land development rates will remain relatively constant in the future. The model is geometric and predicts a greater number of future trips than a simple linear projection. Huweve,, any drastic land use change or other factors such as a fuel shortage or economic depression which is likely to effect the characteristic of future transportation trends will skew these results. At the time of such changes, new studies will have to be made if projections are necessary. 7 he second future date which was use for this study investigates the effects of rezoning combined with long term background traffic. At this year, 201 q, the property 6s expected to reach build out regardless of zoning conditions. However under, the rezone an additional 163 dwelling units are estimated to exist. These long term dare casts are highly dependent on the assumption that historical conditions will continue to exist and their application must be tempered with judgment at all times. At both future dates, different property access scenarios were tested: Since the strongest attractor for the trips generated in this region is the Chico urban area to the sough, a northerly access route to Keefer Road didn't effect the overall traffic distribution greatly: 7, he following Figures 4 and 5 show the projectedtraffic volumes for both future dates ,, ider the two different access conditions. Levels of Service A Level of service (LOS) is assigned to describe the quality of service offered to rmotorisi., by a particular road segment or intersection. The commonly used definitions of LOS are; A - Little traffic delay, tree movement._ B Some vehicles are inconvenienced, minor delays. C average delays, some disruption considered acceptable for peak hours. D Some considerable delay and inconvenience during peak hours. May be cost effective to operate at this level of ser! 'ne for peak hour's, B - Capacity reached, long delay,. The maximum number of vehicles, are served, but service to each is poor. There is a risk of reaching forced flow and congested conditions: F - Breakdown of the traffic flow. Forced flow with d -lays and congested conditions. The number cif vehicles actually served is below those served at capacity. This Level of Service is to be avoided. Predictions of Levels of Service for Intersections in the project vicinity given the present geometries are given In Table 4. These predictions are based uvon methods in the 1085 Highway Capacity Manual for the stop sign controlled intersections while the "Capacity of Signalized Intersection" Method was applied for the Varner and Highway 99 signalized *ntersbction. The peak hour was assumed to be 10% of the average dally traffic; This Is based on peak hour and average daily traffic volumes recorded by Caltrans near the project study area, his peak hour Is Intended to represent the hour of 420 to 5:30 pm on a busy weekday. Table b 4 Estirnatr.:;:; 1. eveis of Service at Controlled Intersection Api��roaches for Wee day' PM -Peak Hour ,; LOQ bv Case Lrfs:.attrsn 1 2. � 4 _ Highway Hca -;, nd (,garner Lane A B F F Keefer Ro:d at Cerner Lane A A , A Left Tu rn A Garner L,7,ne al Keefer Road A A � Left Turn A A, A Right Turn A A A g Keefer Road Hi hwar 99 at Left Turn A Keefe?r road -t Highway 99 E F F Left Turn E B C Right Turn A A prap 'V.aedAccess at Highway 99 N/A* E E E Left Turn Right Turn N/A B A` B ' Highx;•ray 99 at Proposed Access B B D Left Turn N/A* Cc -se 1: 1992 Without Rezoning Properties Case 2: 1992 With Rezoning properties Case 3 2010 Without. Rezoning Properties Case 4: 2010 With Rezoning Prorierties N/A; Developrnent is assumed not to have occurred by 19915- without the rezone z 1i _ J Recommendations and Mitigations: The area along Highway 99 north of Chico will continue to be developed steadily in the future. Caltrans and local agencies are expecting significant traffic ncreases throughout major routes in The Chico urban Area. Although it does not have as high a priority as sections of roadways to the south, Highway 99 adjacent to th project site is no exception. It is not likely that major improvements will occur along this section of Highway 99 by the year 1992. Due to this situation, auctions must be pursued that will minimize the traffic impact of new developments under existing conditions, Keefer Slough roG. "ing, Since the City of Chico will be the largest attractor for any new trips generated at the project site, the greatest impact of development will effect intersections and roadways to the south. Of most concern are Highway 99 and intersections on Highway 99 at which new trips will loar . Any new connectors which crass Keefer Slough and load onto Highway 99 to the north of the project will be expensive and inefficient because the majority of trips desire to travel to the south. Traffic from the development to the north would also use the new crossing rather than access the arterials of Keefer, Garner, and Highway 99. For these reasons, new collectors are recommended to the west and east from the project site to load new trips onto Highway 99 and Garner Lane. Site.AC�:SS F c3 ;n W c Since Highway 99 curves near this location, sight distance must be considered as a significant factor in the exact placement of any new intersection: The suitable access location is at the approximate middle of the long straight section of Highway 99. An aces point at the southern border of Mr. Hauselt's parcel (thenorthern most of the three parcels) would provide adequate sight distance and serve the functional need for this development. This intersection should include a left turn pocket off Highway 99 southbound and a separate right turn lane for the new roadway. The developer should be responsible to construct this specific improvement, Also an access to the east to Garner Lane will be required, A one iane access to Garner should be sufficient. A separate left turn on Garner would be desirable to serve the 2010 estimated horthbouiLid traffic, Garner Lane itself is in need of a consistent cross section, The pavement width varies considerably between Highway 99 and Keefer Road. A painted center line and edge lines are necessary to delineate the traveled way. As development occurs along the route improvement of the pavement structure to County standards should occur. Wherever the road narrows, care should be taken to provide a gradual transition along with adequate reflectorixed delineation and warning signs. Hick hwav There are many abating intersections and driveways ;along Highway 99 between Garner Lane and Keefer Road, Additional access points should be kept to a minimum In the future. A signal at Keefer Road and a four lane cross section on Highway 09willbe required to serve the 2010 estimated traffic, Thls recoMmendation is based on 2010 ADT projections for Keefer road and Highway 99, Table 5 .summarizes the warrants which justify signal installation and predicts the expected rr 99 widened to Level of service if Highway 99 were to remain two lane!. With Highway intersection of .� lected to be 6 at the tour lanes, the level of service 1., pro �Ceefer. Table 5-�-- �..•�' F-7 •� °�"`" level of Service for 'Keefer Road Signal warrant; and Two Lanes At 2iJ10 and ,►�n��''.Expected v, , ant Fuifill Warrant Criterion Level of Service Traffic Volumes Minor With Signal L ocation major Minor Major` �� 8,000 1,650 _-.--- 22,p00 2,050rsection 'at 201 Q%hotlt Rezo* for trips loading onto e addition of this signal would help to create gaps -rho crier Lane and Keefer Road and would improve Highway 99 to the south between Ga nal should only . should not be instati�d based on a the: overall level of service of this segment< Actual als installation of a s►9 occur when traffic~ counts exceed warrants. 9 as a frontage this option is to redesignate the existing highway projections alone. improvements o An alternative to p e west, Alttruhough major imp Caltrans in ^+ a ne."1 expressway to the !ugh It ar s these to Highway 99, have been funded through road and cons. -.t s regional interEst� such .a. a be required in the future reg rh 5 it is lik►lly that local funding m Y ' the area. Ho Never each addltional dwelling its the past, occur in zoningchanges watch may Ce the immediate need for such improvements, herein should be required to added in the near future will parcels under the study She p fee on a per unit basis that can be used for therefore developers on rovement contribute a transportation imp est` ►mprouPn � e nts to Highway 99 or other highway projects of areawir'e Into paid Conclusions. 0 acres of agricultural land to residential has Summary acts of rezoning 2r .n. Moth direct and background traffic at two future The traffic imp street networks, been investigated by estimatt 9 s to the surrounding ears and assigning these trip sst that the badkgrc°and forecast hoe►xc+n y will be the key factor in raffic conditions and historic growtanjngC hange, s clear' The e�t►sting t this specific meht5 and intersection traffic, not the traffic generated bo Provided by the road seg pang the levels of service p Will involve extensive low rade of these surrounding facilitie4the • site. 'f The, upg Cityof Chico, and will not likely o occur for their ,the prole ,and the provide efforts by Caltrans, F3utte County, ver future developers e� in this rs.gian should provide uh 9 p near future, Howe improvements which Will ultimately be essential to p portion of these al•ea wide imp reasonable levels of service to all motorists, t3 i For the traffic directly associated to this project sites zoning change, several accaas routes will need be provided. The distribution of current traffic indicates that two collectors, one to Gamer lane "to the east and one to Highway 99 to the west, will meet the needs of future residents adequately. in order for these collectors to work 8mcientiy, the existing roadways will require some upgrading. This would include left turn packets with adequate delineation at the neve Highway 99 intersection and a constant cross section along Gamer Lane. These improvements should be completed by developers of is and surrounding property sites. 14 y. / ✓ June 5, 1990 r„ i-9`� 's-.fir-�.;A¢!• r `= 'cite Ca ant LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY �''• - .ate PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER OF31VE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 Cal Bachman Bachman. and Associates 3012 The Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 RE Appeal Fees, Hauselt,, Levy, and Lptrap Files 89-24,,90-3, and 89-49 Dear Mr. Bachman: The letters regarding appeal fees, recev, ed by your clients William Hauselt, Paul Levy, and Evelyn Liptrap, are correct, The Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1989, adopted Resolution No, 80- 208 es'Llablishing fees which included the provision for "appeals to Planning Commission_ decisions" to be "50% of total application fee,"_ The application fee for a rezone, as of the date of adaption of the subject Resolution, was $1100.00 Planning; $51,00 Environmental. Health; and $50:00 Public Works for a total of $121%.0�0,. thus the $508.50 appeal fee. It is unfortunate ,fiat a Flanning staff member erred in a letter to another of your clients, Mr. Hayes, regarding the appropriate fee for the appeal process; regarding an FIR inasmuch as the appeal provision, in the event of a requirement for an Environmental Impact Report, is "50°1a of total application fee", not "50% of the original application is as stated in staff's letter. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution No 80-208 for your information. Should You have any questions, please contact this office between 10;00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m: Sincerely, a 0 may 29, 1990 loll BACHNI.AN ASSOCIATES COUNTY OF BUTTE Department of Planning 7 County CenterDrive OroVille, California 95465 R8: APPEAL FEE/NORTH CHICO REZONES Doi o.mnntnq; Levy - File No. 90-03 ptrap - File No., 89-49 MAY .3 0 1990 Ha us e l t - File No. 89-24 ofavillej Cali" ATTR: Mrs. Bettye Kirshen Dear` Bettye Enclosed are copies of the letters received from your department dated May 24, 1990 in reference to the denial by the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 24,, 1990. We do 'riot agree with the appeal tees of $608.50 as stated in the referenced letters. We are 'basing our disagreement on Exhibit "A" of the Board of Supervisor's Resolution, and the enclosed letter dated. March 77, 1990 for the Rip Hayes parcel map. That letter States that an appeal fee totaling 50% of the Original application fee is required. We, therefore, feel the appeal fees for the subject rezones should be Cts follows William Hauselt; Original fee $'468,00 50% = $ 234.00 Paul. Levey t Original fee $ 487.00 50% $ 243.50 Evelyn Liptrap Original fee $ 487.00 - 50%' $ 243.50 We ztppreciate your consiaer'ation in revising the subject letters to reflect the rev;ised.appeal fees. Tie thank you for your time and assistance in this matter; very truly yourso emL Ci W . BACHMAN` CWBjb 'ENGINEERING 4 SURVEYING PLANNING 4 p'ESIGNING 8012 the EsplAhi ide, Chid, Cali airilld 55026 (516) 34214136 Ba, tze couqq LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: ($16) 536=7601 March 27, 1990 CW. Bachman 3012 The Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 RE: Tentative Parcel ,Map, Kip Hayes, APO 047-Z 0-183 Dear Mr. Bachman: Perour phone conversation on March 26, 1990, I am writing you to clarify provided to you stated "Appeal t ernative . the letter sent to Mr. Hayes on h March 8 1990. The 4th alt Su ervisors", Pp EIR requirement to the Board of p However, I did not indicate that an appeal must first be made to the Advisory Agency .A fee totaling 50°Jo of the original application fee, taken in by the -Public Works Department at the time of propect submittal, is also required as pp �1 pact of the appeal: If the Advisory Agency denies the a eal request, another a ea pp l fee also totaling 50% of the original Lost is required' to go before the Board of Supervisors: The remaining options 1.2,3 and 5 are still in effect. Should you have any questions regarding this matter office between the ljours of 10:00 atm. and 3;00 p.m p1'ease contact this Sincerely, B.A: Kircher Director of Planning e 'Lomas Last Associate Planner BA .-TAL *oto cc Kip Hayes q ��' �i '♦y' �: 1rf�rs+.�- w fir- M�M5... 4yII � _ • y, __ � {R1 ; � �} 'n'lT T�Yi"°+n .1+'�FAf'=',1+.��4 ♦i?y �S RVISORSA C7, �.w r - - • M " • �'+ ¢�fy���'F '^`:o: L�U� y V 1.. �' .STATE. 05 CA�..IEUI�.IVIA`' , - o 4 Fifa r e�� t--..`+i�: �: r, • � r,� •.::� yx'}y,+•{h�` c. -., y �i .. +Its, i 'Stt is�i`.-. ..Cf..i:r»i•�l'i�•- c- A` 1�.^'"' ►., ,moi �+1.:s..i.+.,:.:tWit+-:.. u..� r.aLki�r`�N�.'d:fStb�.auirt l6uui'�YkJ►.%i$�+a .y - �t!°•ml-+t'° ♦�i hesolution N0,89-208: A RESOLUTION INCREASING APPLICATION FEES FOR, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, REZONES, USE PERMITS, VARIANCES-, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, SPECIFICPLANS, RE - APPLICATIONS, TPZ INCLUSIONS APPEAL OF DECISIONS ANP ESTABLISHING FEES FOR APPLICATIONS FOR PARCEL MAPS, SUBDIVISION MAPS, DETERMINATIONS, BOUNDARY' LINE MODIFICATIONS, LCA.INCLUSIONS, LCA WITHDRAWAL AND SURCHARGES FOR THE;Ls,YD DEVELQPMENT TECHNICAL ADVISOR. WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65104 provides that funds shall be provided for the -work of the Planning Agency; and WHEREAS,: The Planning Commission functions as the Planning Agency for Butte County,- and WHEREAS, ib is necessary to establish filing fees for the Planning Commission and Planning Department to recover the cost of processing applications; and WHEREAS, pre -application permit processing for hazardous waste facilities is required by the Health and Safety Code 'Section 25199.7; and WHEREAS, Health and° Safety Code Section 25199.7 providesthat the local agency shall impose fees equalto the cost. of the: process WHEREAS, regulations for permit processing for hazardous waste facilities require more review, regulatory agency interaction, and specialized analysis than most projects; and WHEREAS, the Board' of Supervisors believes that the cost of processing; all -planning 'applications should be the responsibility of the applicants.. WHEREAS, these application fees do not exceed reasonable cost for -the service provide. IOW,: THEREFORE,;,BE`IT RESOLVED,; Planning Department application fees to be effective upon adoption of this Resolution are as indicated on Exhibit A Fy y F .EXHIBIT "A.r' General Plan Amendments; - - -- - ' - $1,100 plus actual cost. over. $1,100 -- General anAmendment - Hazardous Waste Deposit* Rezone _ - _- - - _ - - _ - - - - - $1,100 plus actual cost. over $1,100; Rezone - Hazardous Waste - - - - - - - -t DePOS' Re-appli,ntion (Within one year of a denial) - $150 d TPZ Zone -.inclusion. - - - - - - - - - $1,100 Appeal of - EIR Re _uirement - - - - - - 50% of Total App.; Fee Appeal f Planning,: �o�����_ssion. PP g - ...i Decisions - - - - 50% of o' Total. APP'. Fee Publication of adopted zoning ordinance - -- - _ ***' - Publication cf Development Agreements Pre application review for Office of Permit - - - Assistance - - - - - - - - - - - -- Deposit** Land Conservation Agreement applications inclusion - - - - - - - - - - $250 Land_ Conservation Agreement applications withdrawal - -- - - - - - - - - $1000 Surcharge for Land- "l Technical Advisor on.all applications' taken by - - - - $17until. Planning Department $15,000' has been received *1. The applicant shall deposit: with Butte County -the -sum of $1.,000.00 for each application up to a maximum of $2,000.00 for: concurrent applications.. 2. When the initial deposited funds are depleted' to a minimum of. X500,00, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds. to maintain a $1,000.Oo` balance. In the event of insufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. 3. ]Funds shall be maintained in a separate budget control account. 4. Aft -s- final action. of the appropriate legislative body, any funds remaining in the account shall be returned to the applicant.. **I.- The applicant,. when applying; to the State Office of Permit Assistance for pre -application review shall also deposit with the Butte County Planning Department the sum of $500.00 for . implementation of Health and. Safety Code Section 25199.7(a) 2.. When the initial deposited funds are depleted to a minimum of $00.00, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds to maintain a $400.00 balance. In the event of insufficient funds to continue processing an.application, the application will be denied.: 3. After completion of the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 25199.7(a) funds remaining in the account shall be returned to the: applicant.. ** Apel cant. will be notified to deposit: the estimated publication costs of zoning ordinances or development agreements. If the actual costs for County employees' tir.a and publishing are less than the amount deposited the remaining amount of the money shall belreturned,. If the costs are greater than the estimate, the applicant shall pay the additional amount. In the event that payment isnot received for the additional amounts within 30 days notice by the Cleark of the Board, by registered mail, the Clerk of the Board will Lmmediately notify the, collea;. on agency.. EXHIBIT"B" -� SecificPlan-__.--__-_--� p Deposit* Development Agreement - - -._ _ _ _ _ _ ., _, _ _ _. $2,200 plus actual cost. over $2,200 Development Agreement - Hazardous Waste - - - - - Deposit* PUD Rezones (;Planned Unit Developments) - - - -- - Deposit* -- Conditional Land Use. Permit - - _ _ _ _. _ - _ $830 Conditional Land Use Permit - Hazardous Waste - - Deposit* Mining Permit/- eclaimc� ::r -Plan - -- - - _- - -- - - $830 plus actual cost over $830 variance _.,___----_.��-__.___�.- $450 Subdivision map - - - - -. - - - - _ - - $533 plus $1G per lat Parcel Map $533pluls $10 per lot Waiver of Parcel Map - - - - - - - - - $533 plus $10 per lot Determinations (Certificates of Compliance) - $100 - Boundary Line modifications _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - $250 *1- The applicant shall deposit with Butte County the sum of $1,000.00 for each; application up tc, a maximum of $2,000.00 for concurrent: applications: 2._ When the initial deposited' fund's' are: depleted' to a minimum of $500.00, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficent funds to maintain a° $ ,,000.OG balance.. In the event of insufficent funds to continue- processing an application., the application will be denied.., 3. F'und's Sha',11 be maintained in a; separate budget control account. 4., After final action of the appropriate legislative body, an.�v funds remaining in the account shall be returned to the applicant,, x h ^~ NATURAL WEALTH AND BSA L A ty d PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY �CENZ'ER DRIVE. OROVILL�, CALIFORNIA fld965-3397 TEL ''HONE. (qiM 538-T8oi May '24, 1990 _ Faul and, Sadelle I:-r-vy 364 WeSt San Madele Fresno, CA 9110 Ret Rezone, File 90-3 Deer Mr 4nd lvrs. Levy: old. Nie, Planning commission i" �� located ' of the Butte County 10 to SR-1 for property of At tlhe regular meeting a re,Zone from A U47-4 0-012, north our.` request for identifiedas the east side of �Ughway 99, on the • Was denied, Supervisors on Chico, w made #o tht' Beard of Sup do So, in atter will tle m this decision you must A report of this . rn ttf Fppeal costs of $1.00.00, Lf yon desire 508.50 p'�us publishing California 35, 1990. appedl fea of, $ L Center I7nde, �roville, with an county , ,a 5-day appeal writing, 7a r 19911 the end of the to the Clerk of the Board, rune 2a; onday prior to �i:Utl pan•, Ivi, period ftora the date of this reporit� contact this sti,ons regarcln' this matter, please. Should. ydu have any que office between 1000 a.m, and09 pim• Sincerely, B. A, Xjrcher Director of Planning paula S, Leasure Senior Planner P:iLar cct 73aehman & Associates Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO;' Butte County Planning Commission FRONT.- Planning ,Staff SUBJECT: Paul and Sadelle Levy, Rezone, Pile 490-3 DATE; May 15, 1990 At the planning Commission meeting of April 26, 1994, a Motion Of intent was adopted to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve a conditional rezoning from A-10 to'SR 1. for the above referenced parcels. 'rhe' eetin),-� was tlien continued until May 24 and staff was asked to reword conditions recommended that Condition #13 from regarding traffic; drainago, and floodn , 1990, the list of conditions (Condition 2 l from proposed the Conditional Zoning Agreements) be deleted, and reworded as follows: 21: "Participate in the development- and financing Of d Specific Platt or tither are i a wide fan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIIt) that :addresses cin�ulative impacts regarding traffic, drama a .and drainage rainage district funding, downstrean flooding, and other impacts that may be identified prior to any ;applieixtion for discreiyoriary action at public agencies. Agree not to oppose formation of a mechanism to provide and fund infrastructure identified bythe r,tlting plan as being necessary for additional development in the plan area." Recommendation# MOTION'. ACCEP"1' TIDE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TjqE STAFF MEM MAY 15. 1990• y O LIATED THF', FIND LTSTEI7�UNT7ER "Ahj "B", AND "C"; MOVE AS ()iJTLiNED iJIwrDElt "D" AN,D )✓ YNCL7UDJI�iG THE CONDITIONS NUMBETtED 1 THROUGH 15. ALL OP A >~ind that: Was completed m ,come liance with 1, i i i i i An �n�t�al stud ova p th CEQA.. 2, Said study and comments received. thereon identified potential) significant environmental effects which the protect may have had but'will not in gtlis case because Of the adopted rri tigation measures attached; ariii B= rind that the environmental documents together with any comments received during the public review process have been reviewed and Board of Supervisors adopt a Ne�� • , Considered and recommend the attached, and o_tive Declaration with, mitigation. measures C. find that the proposed rezone co ,iu.;is'io the policies including the text and ma of the Butte County General ;Plan; and -p D. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Jrdin>'n,,e rezoning 15 SR -1 that property identified as AP 047-440-01,2 (Paul andSadellc: i;e:ry); and J, E. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution apps. 'ring a Ccjitional ZoningAgreem�=it for AP' 04 -440-012 (Paul and Sadellc Le� following conditions: ✓y) subject to the 1. Grant a 60' Non-exclusnye e_-asement to Liptrap and Haiiselt and their Heirs, Successors ,and Assig;is and offer for dedication: 2. Easement to connect the HausiMt and Tiiptrap easements Duca• their property and to provide for circulation from State Highway 99 to Garner Lane: 8, All road construction in the easements is to be to Butte County Standards for maintenance and offered for dedication. All new lots created must take access either throught he Iftuselt or the 4 Liptrap properties: tX to 20 to State ,Highway 99 o to Garner Ianots eaAdditional popeusing i single access S� State Highway 99 to Garner Lane. Additional properties connecting $• Creation of the 21st lot taking acces, via tiny basement will require the construction of a road to .Butte Count}t standards for maintenance, and an offer of dedication connecting Stats Ftghway 99 and Garn(:r Lane, 6. Paya pro rata share toward the reaconstruction of Garner Lane. 7 All access to State Highway 99 to be via the easement at the south property line of the Haiiselt property, Roadways to be designed to provide for culverts and proper drainage desi to insure that no additional flooding will take place. gn 9. Finished floor elevations to be in accordance with 1yE1vfA and County requirements. 10 Retention ponds are to he Used so that stream pear floe above existing levels. s are not increased 1X= The retention ponds to be designed in accordance with County standards and standard engineering practices: << a 12, o n for ina owner is to sr g0 an agreement greement to join a draa assessment district when 13. Participate in the development rand financing of a Specific P Wilde plan and associated i✓aivironmmental pmPactReport OEIR.) or other area- downstream impacts regarding traffic, drainage and draina a district OEIR) that addresses flooding, and other impacts that may be identified, unding, a DI' • ' discretionary .. n P , prior to any formatran of a mechanisnc fo I1A UV.I!�„ anrj fu agencies Pl aca ion for d�scretiona action at ubl�: g Agree nat to oppose. d infrastructure identifiad'by the resulf�.ng plan as being necessary for additional deveio 'I ent in thegh. Ian area,14. Preoir de a 110-development setback from Keefer S1ou P 15. Designs for roads and drainage systems to corxply wthE MA DAH.-Irrequiremeht%. �i i' 'I . Butteco""'fil LAND Gs NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95055.3397 TELEPHONE; (918) 538-7601 April 26, 19.90 { Paul and Sadelle Levy f 364 West San Madele Fresno, CA 93704 Re: Rezone, File 90-3 Dear Mr. Levy At the regular meetingof the Butte County. Planning g Commission held topricons der �you.rthre request he was continued closed to May 24 1990 for i rezone from A-10 to SR -1 for property located on the east �sidc of Highway 99, approximately, 4000. _ feet south Keefer Road, identified as AP 047-440-010 oath of �, :Chico:....: The Commission adopted a Motion of Intent to approve to revisions to the proposed Conditional ZoniYour project subject; ng to address formation and funtiin of a g Drainage District and to require development of an Area Specific Plan and EnvironmentalC1PIImpact ation I Report prior to any subsequent development. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 Center Drive, Oroville, California:_ County Should you have any questP.m.ons regarding this matter, please contact office between 106-00 a.m, and 3:00 p:. this ,sincerely, W: - . rcher DirQ;�ctor of planning BAI'L.Ir r' cc: i3achinar< & A!sociabes i DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS 65tiCAPITOL MALL, .s SACRAMENTO„CALIFORNIA 958144794 REPLYTQ AT-CNTIONOF April 19<, 1990 Sacramento Basin Branch BuffQ Co. P4anning. COML Ms; Judy A. Kramer APR 2, 5 1990 Butte County Planning Commission. Oravllle, Callfomla 7 -County Center Drive Oroville California 959,65-3397 Dear Ms., Kramer: We have reviewed three Project Review and Environmental Lvaluations for ,Rezones From A-10 to SR -1 on adjacent properties located on the. east side of Highway 99 south of Reefer Road in the Chico ,area; The names of the owners are Paul and Sadelle Levy (APif047-440-012), William i'tus�lt rnr0147-43-03), and Robert Liptrap (AP#41-26-138). We have the following comments 1. Theq proposed plans may require Department of the Army Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Art Champ, Chief Of Regulatory 5eetion at (916) 551-2275, can provide you with additionLI information. 2. According to FT;tiA's FIRM 060017 0095 B dated September 29, 1989, portions of these three properties are located within the 100 -year flood plain. Enclosed is a xerox copy Of the FIRM that bhows the extent of Che potei;tial flooding; If we can be Of further assistance, do not haitcontach us; te to Sincerely; a ter Yep Chiefj Plannih ivision Enclosure i e BfilDG e i! ®21 ,Q FF 40 .1 e r; � r( vaOI i1'S°' ��..� /dt �,�y +%• � D n„�, ,�,,.:`' ��'� � � • is � f �3. �"^o^ w,.,r•„,2-;iI ZONE X '�188 a af1Cf•+ n+'+ ® eAE 4 � �" ��,•�r � � `'�T� � r S !",• t r �r �3� , �x'"`"ti � s• t�✓"1��R: ib;• �Jy��'`-�"" �' � 17,y-e * S •® ® "��' yr?�O 4 r '�+ ® }} � � s x�1; �a� �`•`. �- Wil# > �' �. � �a y ■ '� % �•-• ,� �Y+T,fir �r,�"r «'.y ZONE X- z,33 cry+ WJNE X ;+,gg i7tl��, •� `I r���;k ll�} '� • .�• }ff' 'yam �` �..�s,� e e ir• 01A Atk W`*� �d ♦ h�g "'l , u Ana. '.A� �� r �� ��� `�� "a,�. ' ��,. s.n .P .1 � �►a_. err 'S � '.� t k i 1 •s DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT CORPS 0fe ENGINEERS '! C5CAPITOLMALL ! SACRAMENT(: ,` EAL.IF`(SRN!!1 95814 4794 r� PEPL TO March 12 1990 ATTEUTI N`OF � Regulatory Section Ms. Judy A. Kramer Butte County Planning Commission 7County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965-3397::�cG-'z Dear its. Kramer: Regarding your for: project review and environmental evaluation 1) Paul and Sadelle Levy Proposed subdivision located oil,the east side of Highway 99 approximately p Road, Butte County Assessor's Parcel.Number 000 f41-440-012eet south �f Keefer 3 2) William Hauselt proposed subdivision on Lhe 1 -lest side of Highway, 55.1 Butte County Assessor's Parcel Number 47-43-03 3) Robert Li tra 34 Of Keefer Road and H.ighwayp99eidntersO!ctionn,Buttemile Countyutheast' Assessor"s Parcel Number 47-26-138, no delineation of vernal pools, wetlands or other � waters Of the United States has been conducted for these specific Parcels however we have reason to believe thebse.areas mall, contain vernal Pools. These parcels are located i,h an area of Butte County where numerous vernal pool wetlands are Present. Because of the density of vernal pool wetlands in this area,I t is very liko.ly that wetlands are present on these parcels. hhe Fekleral Clean Waver Act specifies that it is unlawLul for any party to discharge dredged or fill vaterial into Waters .,of the United States, including wetland, unless a permit is obtained from the Coxes of Engineers prior to such a discharge. We ly recommend that these developers obtain a determ hao tioh h tilt presence or absence of waters of the UhitedStates prior to any grading or fill actiuit-W-8 on these properties, dour questionnaire hits been routed to our 'Planning Vivisior for further comment. If y`ou have hr+y questions, Barbara Bengt of our Regulatory section, room Please contact: 6524, or telephone, (916) 551-2266 0 Co. Pta,minga nfl, s. ncerely MAR 19 199 QCOY11�6r CiIi�I#pPlt�q � kbert W.,yg y �,.hief Re txl:ator Unit 2 Butte, coca LAN© OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY "Oki, PLANNING DEPARTMENT' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 February 22, 1990 Paul and Sadelle Levy 364 West S,an. Madele Fresno, CA 93704 Re Rezone, File 90-3 DeAr Mri and Mrs. Levy; At the regular meting of the Bunte County Plar.Ining Commission h,-td February 22, 1990, the public hearing was continued open to April 26, 1990 at 10c30 a.m., to considerY our request for a rezone from A-10 to SR-1 for property located on the east side of Highway 99, approximately 4000 feet south of Keefer Rodd, identified as AP 047-440-012, Chca This meting will be held ;in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Cents drive, Oroville, California. Shouldou have any y questions regarding this.:matter; please contact this office between 10;00 a.m. and 3-00 p.m. ►in�erely, y^ B A. rcher Director of ,Planning BAKar cc C. W. 134 chman 3012 The .Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 V Inter -Departmental Meraorandurn To.- Planning Commission FftC, M: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Hauselt (File 89-24) ]Levy (File 90-3) and Uptrap (File 89-49) Rezone Applications DATE: February 14, 1990 Questions and comments on the Conditional Zoning Agreement received bit the Planning Depaximent indicate that there is some confus es regarding the time of compliance with some of the conditions. In order to clarify the conditions 'it is recommended that the followia;,rg language be added to the indicated conditions; r rir 2a .:: prior to recordatioli of any map on AP 047-4,10-003, 047-440-012 or 047-260-138. 2f,l,m: r priorto recordation of any map on, (AP 047=430-003 for hCauselt's; AP' 047 440-012 fo tevy`s; and ,047-260-138 for l iptrap's agreement„) DRIUr :j _ 1 Inter-aepartnema l em+ raa i Ta; J ttye Kircher, planning impartment Steve Brown, Fire 'OepartMent Fare pr. )tection Planninq - levy, Hauselt, Liptrap, AP#047-440-012/047-043-003 047-260-138 as January 9, 1990 The tare Department ria' ..veral concerns with the three requests to rezone from A-10 to SR -1. 1. The project taken by itself does not pose a sig.�ificant ;impact on fire operation of the fire department nor on the fare defense system; hm;ever, the cumulative impact of this project and others in this ar;a and similar scope will be significant. The cumulative impact will sicynificantly increase the number of emergency calls, prevention actav j.ties and .reduce the time available for training and maintenance. We estimate that based on current statistics the fife. department will respond to ten fires, fifteen medical aids and fifteen miscellaneous calls in these three developments once they are fully developed. The long term mitigation is to increase the number of fire personnel �,4 , . r',ve� and faciliti-s, to decrOase the distance between facilities and imp built in fixe proteci.t )n systems. 2:quick access by the fire department there must be ingress/egress off iji9hwo. addition there must be an access nts. Iii - Y 99 to all three devela route c�)nnectinq Hwy. 59 to Garner LanF.. 3, Water for iirO protection Will be supplied by mobile apparatus (water tenders) operated by the fire department., A .fee of $200.00 per parcel is currently �,ollected for any new parcels created which goes to a pecific, water tender accolint. it may be necessary to purchase an add- itional water tender for the Nord area; however, the current fee would be inadequate to develop sufficient funds to do so. STEVE HROX County vife Warden By r'" lliam Holmes Battalion Chief jf county --_ -- LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPAR'TMEN'T 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95985.3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 January 12, 1900 Paul, and Sade ,Ile Levy 364 Nest San Madele Fresno, CA 93704 Re. Rezone, File 90-3 Dear Mr. and Ws, Levy At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held January 11 1990, the public hearing was continued open to February-.22'' 1990 at 10:30 am. to consider your request for a rezone from A-10 to SR I for property located on the east side of ,Highway 99, approximately 4000 feet south of Keefer Road, identified as AP 047440-012; Chico, 'This meeting; will be heldin the Board' of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center ]drive, Oroville, California, Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office between 10:00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m Sincerely, y K; her Director` of Planning BAK it cc,C, NK Bachman 3012 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 i 4�. y AGREEMENT TTIS AGREEMENT made this day of 19 by and between "Fimt Party", as idenVified in item (a) of Exhibit l of this Agreement, and the COUNTY OF BUFI'TE,, a political subdivision of the State of California, herein called "Sect nd Party". WITNESSETH WHEREAS, First Party is the owner of real property, herein called the "Property", situated in the County of Butte; which Property is described in. ftem. (f) of Exhibit I of this Agreement;, and WHEREAS, the Property is now zoned as specified in Item (b) of Exhibit i,• and WHEREAS, First Party has applied, for a reclassification of zoning of the Property pursuant to which application the Property is being reclassified from its present classification to the classification or classifications specifted in Item (c) of Exhibit l; and WHEREAS, public hear�gs have been -held upon, ,said, application before the Board. of. Supervisors of the k00unty of Butte, State of CaliforV,'.a, and after having considored the matter presented, it has been determined that certair son sass not to thezoning an reclassification r bleats a inimical to said rdal safety and t imposed property trust y p the general welfare of the County of Butte. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that inasmuch as the reclassification specified in Item (c) of Exhibit l is being granted, the said reclassification shall be subje(:t to this conditions specified. in the following paragraphs: 1. That Exhibit 1, as completed and attached hereto, is incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement with the some force and effect as ,if fully set forth herein That First Party shall construct and comply with all the following conditans; 2a. Grant a 60 ft, non=exclusive easecneot to 1;Iauselt and Uptrap and then` heirs, successors and assigns and offer for dedication. 2b. EasOnent to connect the Flauselt and Liptra.p easements over their property and to privide for circulation fr<5na State Highway 99 to Garner Cane, 2c. All road construction; in the easement is to be to Butte County, Standards for maintenance and offered for dedication.. U All new lots created must take access either through the Hauselt or, the Liptrap properties. Up to 20 total lots may be created usng a single access to State Higlivvsy 99. Additional lots will require circulation. through the Hauselt and Liptrap properties connecting State Highway to Garner Lane. 2e. Creation of the 21st lot taking access via any easement will require the construction of a road to Butte County standards for maitir:nance, and an offer of dedication, connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane. 2f. Pay a pro rata share toward the reconstruction of Garner Lane. 2g. All access to State Highway 99 to be via the easement at the south property line of the Hauselt property; 2 y insure p ` ll' ai age s deo be designed to rovide for culverto and proper places sure that no additional flooding wall take 2i• Finished floor elevations to be in accordance with FEMA and County requirements. 2j• Retentiononds are to be p used _ so that stream peak flows are not increased above existing levels, i, k: The retention ponds to be designed in accordance with County standards and standard engineering practices. 21. Tl.ie owner is to sign an agreement to join a drainage assessment dis��rict when one is ;formed, 2m: Form a County Service: Area for drainage maintenance, 2n• Provide a no -development setback from Keefer Slough. zo Ttesigns for roads and drama e requirements. g systems to comply with 1ViA I In the event First Pa ; rty, any s�:,.cessor in interest of rirst Partys or any person in possession of the property described in Item within t T violates or fails to perform any of the condition's sof this Agreement within thirty (30) days after notice thereon as ,p Y provided in Paragraph 5, the Board of Su ervisors of Second Party may instruct the County Counsel of Seconel Party to institute legal Agreement g Proceedings to enforce the g The Board of Supervisors of Second Partyprovisions of this proceedings to rezone the proems to the classification specified inlso Initiate Y i Item (b) of Exhibit I or any other suitable classification. revisions of this .Agri*ement shall be gib. I�o'fice of viOlation, of p hi Mbit i and to the i sent to First Party at the address specific n Item (d) of Exhibit 1. �nY property of street address of the ` propdescribed in Item (d) a in possession %. the property subsequent title hplder, -.any lien holder, or party ' ion at an address other than as spec-,.fied , s1i311 also receive 'notice of such violation of e in Item (d) of Exhibit 1 by filing with the Clerk ofhe sen , with ard of reference to Supervisors this Second Warty the address to which the notice is to Agreement and the Resolution authorizing its execution. Sscond A o the County . Counsel of �.� 5. In the event suit is brought by a reps to Party to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, First Party l pay to Second Party a reasonable sum. to be fixed by the Court as attorney's .fens. 6. Each and 0ery one of the provisions of this agre�finerit herein contained shall nd and insuare, to the benefit of the successor in,,, interF;st of each ,.and every party hereto, in the same ma ner as if they had herein been WI'TPJES parties hereto have executed this A`gr��ement IN S, WHP;ItEOF, the y y' � n` ,he da ;and year first {above writtei Patel Levy Sadelle Levy CO>:TN'f'?' OF BIJ'ITE► a political ,subdivision of the State of California By Chairperson of the Board of Supervisors "Second Party" ATTEST - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 4 ButteY LAND QF NATURAL V �ALTH P;NQ BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT L.� `i COUNT`! CENTER DRIVE. oROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 959136-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7801 January 2, 1990 Paul and Sadelle Lev' 364 West San Madele Fresno, C k 93704 Ret Rezone, File rn13 +� anti tVirs. Levy. Of the St.'afr Vindirip o.. , .Bing your +applicction for Enclosed is a Oyto yc%Y °ti Pgc)po `y located on the east side ��f Highway 04 a rezone from .A:1 d as AP 99, approximately 4,000 ft. south of Keefer Road, identiiie 440-012, Chico. Also enclosed is a copy of the Conditional ironing; Agreement recommended Cay staff. h, 1990 at 1.30 Fl -me- The A public hearang has been et f forofJ nual isors' Roam, 25 County Center meeting will, be held in the Drive, Oroville, California. applicant or their authoriz�:d The Planning Conimission recommends that the app uestions the resent at the hearing to thsitre no noneo will represent the representative be p g Commission may have, in the ey applicant, plc ase contact' the Planning oiifice prior to the scheduled public hearing, regarding, this MAtter, please contact this Should you Have any Questions office. betwec ti 10100 a.m. and. 3.00 Pim- Sincerely, Kircher ,4 �. A. ICi Fi Director of Planning Mood R, Hirommus SeAlor Planner BRT..-ialr