HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT . 78-23 12r 1.
3
anter-De��rimen ar 1.�nlaranduI ra
ro:
Planning Commission
FsoM; Environmental R&View
suejtct: Eastwood Oaks PAC
of r January 27, 1981
D
At,tachea afire addtionax Comments°and infoirttaton to 'be
added to"' the Draft ETR:. ;This infoxmatcn Baa,
by our de,arrtinert`,' ubset4uen.t:.j,to pub]ac �.omrnents,�staff
( p !I
in ut and Cgmmiss�, on d6Liberations at the roreilt heaii,a� s,
and represents our respo'�hses to signify cant c'orlcerr�s ex -
ye
r ssed in the pctbla c I..arxr�,Rs
In yaoir 'fttiWi of project ,.de ,i,sion, you should `1indicate '
j
that th'e' ;informa:x.o�i 1pzpsented in the draft eriv`�i ran
?` "� me�nta�,
impact reps rt was Considered in al-rivinaL
Your de wlisxon'
IfI' Grin he o f aaa�.
P,
tnal assistance Xease, call or, me
��
R1Ghara
E tt1', �IAJ Car
Lnvironynent,al Review Specialist 10
RCT I k t
Aa'tachment
I.. t
ti
rl Iwo
i
a
1
... 1 �J
1,
;a is � •
, ,r
IX. Additional information being added to the Craft EIR
-Zast�rood Oak's PAC Development.
1.
An alternative development plan has been designed
and proposed',by the applicant .in response to the
Planning Commission hearing on .January 14y- 1981.
The niwtq plot plan has further reduced the number
Pof residences proposed osed from 124, to 96 and finally �\
to :91 units, ref�ucx,ng;the overall density from 8.1
<<
to 6.1dwelxi per acxz (7.0 DU per acre in the
! f4 Anes
. ni, :: near- Lassen venue and 5.9 DU'per
acre withV � -1 e sj uthern 12 acres of R- area).
This redes`a gn to i,5 a fewer total. units will generally
.
reduce environmeneaa impacts resulting from the }!
P
,project, includ,�.ng runoff, nois ,, traffic, and
aesthetic effects. However it �noted that an
ks
development in this area (where overall density as
genie •-a,Zly higher than ! typical, and where open, space °I
is la;Aing) will increase: traffic and traffic am-
pacts, potentially`) causing, additional congestion on
area streets (pf,l•ticularly on Tom Polk Avenue and
%at East Avenue intersections). :.
The proposed traffic control signal on East Avenue, 7j
`'at
r;1
Tom Polk will alleviate considen6le congestion".,
problems. The proposed development of a,`collecior
�7
street through the development will help resolve:
areawide traffic circulation problems, Also,., the
rede;•plan has eliminated some of the access
�- re previously locate d,4,immediattly ad-
xoad� that were
jacent to residences on adjoining properties,,
thereby` reducing some
noise, air pollution, and
aesthetic iibacts: and land UO conflicts in the`
nb iborhooE�
2,
Traffic incre� ..
rises from this current PAG d�Ve�.opmen,t{� �`o,
'
plan are now,,, p ected to total 680' ADT (850 ADI
under the earlier pian), primarily affecting, ash
Tom V acrd East Avenue (50t; 1 ADT)'; `
withrati estimateet '200 "i ADT in°creme onto Lassen
A"venue from the nrarthe'rn development units : By
'to
comparison, if th"i
c
40
4th
' Noie: One reason for this lack of substantial
d`ifferencre between traffic volume increases from
the, two types,of development i due to da,ffere;;t
traffic generation rates: W,
a, ') Multiple -family condominium units typically
are smaller than single-family residences,
with .fewer bedrooms and ,residents por unit. �
Average daily' trip ends generated by these
types of units have been calculated to be
µ 7`.5 trips ;per unit.'
b.) Single-family residences typically are
larger with more residents per home (and
therefore more vehicles, generally) Average
,
dail�r trips generated by these units are 10+
trips per unit. The existing R -I area is
approximately11.4 ar�te5 and could accommodat
`'an estimated 40` single-family homes, under
f, ideal design and development conditions
3 Traffic volumes on existing area streets have increased
"
considerably over recent years. The Traffic �Im �act
Anal� siscontained its Appendix IIT of tiffs E'IR was
WTITten in 1978' for the original' 131 -'unit PAC develop
meat and utilited 1977 traffic volume data. Figure l
o;r`: that, report was modified for the current 1980-81
proposal to include 1979 traffic data (the most recent))
but was not dthetWise altered. Theredesign of the �
project to 120, unit's and thence again to 91 snits re-
duced the magnitude and importance of project traffic
increases (particularly percentage increases).
" Rdwever
: cumulative traffic increases and congestian
Ate area concerns since existing Area densities arc
greater than typical for single-family residential
ateaso since lands north of bas sen'Avenue are rapidly
developing, and sinc��area circulation patterns are
6Xist inLlthe,viciniti r pets do not
p ,� fie o th c'
.. collector str..
,. �� aor an
1', r north �sotiefer to Planing Ilepartment's
_Y �
m�mot ndum,. of ,January l4, 1981. to the Plannilig "Com-
mitsidn the . Rezone $IR, and Appendix VI
, , e North ;.Chico
o£ ttiis� EIR where Caltrans_,. nnte9 that Lassen Avenue
se6ible future).p
access to Via. hive'y 99 cannot. be � rovaded i �n the fore
The following table of recent; traffic counts in the
Ar06 iIlustrat-ei the area's rapxd� growth (reference:
N6rth Chaco Rezone S IR) 5iMilar future traffic increases
an:Yarea growth ha.s the pose tti'al for creating ,additional
cb igestion of area circulation't•oads and on residents ai
y3treets _ ,,,
`..� Stt,� ,.
�:fff
, j
,{ 1.'.
}
, c
`OhcoArea G.Iraf f is Vo1u 1_
Repent ADT; _ Measurements
E 1�, 6 ,ur y j
v
Hlghwa ` 99 �,c'..V1�6) e
diviO,A freewat,i t
South of Coiha: `set 3w;�4 22,700 19,700 , t
P ,, , lS i', 3 500 .. 11., 200 1.0., 000 } 4r
South of Ear t+' A�ren x. " . 1 00 6 00 r
73
BA'ween Ear,t' d T", r, ,000 , ,5
. :t, h.
�. 7 app 00 5.;1.0
„
�a `f, 5 7
Nort,h,, of E�a��r o GG oa �' ,
w.r
4--Year
Percent
1 Increase r- '
Oohasset Road,
South of Eh t Av;�;`tze (4-lane 20, 600" 17, 6/, . 1-4, 561 41%
North of E;,st Avenue (4-lalie� 1.6,900 13,962 8,816 92`�
South. of `ton Riad (2--lane) 6,1D0 2,076 None None Taken 200%n. �°
North ) 5,400 2f 73Y
d (2.1
ane � ,
X11
East t-en.Iu1o45%Easof � r}'e ;Es�l pade (4-lane) 11 8,900 17:4 6 13,057 °
West of trG'�id. et� Road (4-lane 13r `100 8,445 9,432 39'a
Easb- of 0l)hasse+.,' Road. (1�--laze 15,100 11,995 1380 80%
Lassen A've�°,xe
2 Non; oaken 2004"1 r"
East, of4. he Esp'l,anad,e (2-lane) 41150 ,79
N
4 app 2 OOg 1; 240%
West oto, ohas8w toad (2--lane , �, •�
Eaton Road';
1 990/
East of l;'lhe Esplar_ade (2-line} x,900 2,602 1,,721 12,?/0
Ea �t of �.giwdy 90 (2-lane 2,1050 l' 38? 1' 076y'
.
y _�� 155 3
f�ohasset Road {2 ane ,
West of
2--Year
�
lncxbagg�l.
,,jIOC1-405C1 5 x:'25 None Taken
Ei Paso r, o
North o�,'�Eas ;Avenue 2 ::100 ` jig el, None Taken
South o,.!' Lass,�n Avenue , y
Wh3.te Av.Knue r 164
r
Nor , f East Avenue �' 1��11b400 y84 None Tarn �103�i
South o Laas�n Avenue 5 ne lsaken ;' ,, ,,
Godman A04hue -
near Lassen 690 Taken None Taken �
Morseinan Avenue - nest Lassen 1,'05 i
Bu±nap. Avenue
None''
Noxth` of Lassen Avenue „77p Taken None 'Taken
�, l 55d 1, 5C4 None Teb1%' l ,1
South of tarsen Avenue 1' s 4 ,241°
1 �t��
Wes�b' o:� Or�hasset Road �" �
_� 1
ken
Ndn� a
O_' s
(ADT Avor4ge Daily
iTighway capaodt es fix` tai bel . tt b�dene' uvbaft � mp ovpcl s roe Lsi ti, 7
ood sentr c+ e�"cid f rto 10 0,00,AM` (congestion),
range from 8000 ADS (g Oa aoiti.es Pot fotir' lahei'
urbin pstaridex�dtx`eet w� dhe er4rly uxgn. (good ° an and se'aate,
g Opp ADT ood serv' ce 1eved� to
m roved streets rangcroi,,
0 2l 000' ADS' (boil estiblA devei �7h t � �� ,anon �4.jth full woda P �° If
ofd'-turn IwriM 4 Sotzrr:e ; a.`;:t'�t11 tap�1 rli�'r,0paci t' Manual , , 5 ,
e.
f
i ✓(ki
r
EJ
r,
1
81
4. :An additional alternative to be considered, and
include2l i.n t e
Development of a through-traffic collector street
as part ,of this PAC development plan, linking Lassen
Avenue and Tom Polk/Bast .Avenue with a standard-
width public road for thoroughfare traffic (.rather, 1 t
than with the."proposed 24-foot wide) private, access- E�
only driveway). This alternative would improve general
area circulation 'atterns `and would ,,help re
;psolve to c>
an extent some ,,:`isting traffic congestion problems. 11
(Refer to the
a Planning Department, randum to the
Planning Comml(ssionof anuaryl4, 1981) (� w.
a.), ',The primary advantage of this, alternat V,e would
_,.5-P be the improved area-wide circulation north-south,
not only for project residents t,
but,; also for hunt,
dreds a�f- residents in the area to the north. No
/i nearby major coil' lector" reads provide existing
easy access to Past Avenue an&. 7 the. North; Valley
blaza Mall for the extensive residsiitial develop
Avenue furring north of �-Lassen Avenue along Godman
meat oc; a,
ue and-horseman A'
' ';venue
b.) Another advantage would be the abilit)t for reason-
able separation of low density single -family resi-
dences from higher-,densitymultiple-family residential
development. In this transitional landtiise area,
segAgation of types of residences could be more
easily achieved by this road corridor. -=
C.) This descgn would reduce traffic congest ion.`i�ndnd
circulation impacts on bl Paso Way hand passibly
on White Avenue)
Disadvantages of this alternative include:
a::) S4ubstanti.al traff id increases through the ptope' ty,.
aridon Toro Polk Avenue ('of unktimni amount since
a, considerable percentage of traffic north of the
site would be Induced to EV "el' onto this collector
street) t`h'is increased traff'I will affect To
(Polk Avenue re,._,Fdehts')(though 'bgly 6 home's front
10 on Toni)
Polk ` !d future residents 1%,f this develop-
riien `,+
b •1 )� T�n�rease�► ocs congestion, anA traffic hazards on
Torn Polk Aven>,,, and potentially within the Lassen
Aven
uef Gadhi�:i Avenue i�itersection
,
�j r�
' c,). Incresed noise and air pollution locally.
d.), Loss of security and control, ol access „on-site,Y`
d.
and loss of the dead-erid, local!acc'i ss»only
character on Tom`P.olk Avenue. "
Ie.) Loss of the �aestthetic, quiet-1,residential
Character of Tom Polk' Avenue: (Cre��t c,n o
` a traffic nuisance.)
f.) Increased traffic lights and glare, in this
residential area. .,
g.) Lack of neighborhood accep'Lhce (particularly
Tom Polk Avenue residents):
Most of disadvantages represent tr�,.ns��er�al of
,these:
existing and increased traffic f £ic impacts f torn tit�k E1 Paso
.. Way residential corridor, to the Tom P61k Avenue area,
''evin El Paso Way of man eac�s in problems. The
rely g y y t,` g
;r
.... advantage would boi t e. cYe'ation of 4north-south collector
r,=aroad
that ist;specid desgr%ed to accommodate urban
traffic volumes curtent and expected (ti!hich' El Paso
Way has got been de g:�ed for) ;� and" that ha `; better
alignydp� etpro �,65
Montt
,dldeveloping urbanlands.accessto raPi
S Another alternative is a redesign of the,;/�'AC,, development
.
involving re uction of density`, and redis`�;,dbution of
unitg. The proposalof 120 units ,was an earlier, re-
design from the original 131 units: The. current January
280 1981, proposal for 91 units is 41.80 mplementation r
of this 'alternative. Such an altet ative r6d) es; but
does not eliminate rho ,identifie' environmental impacts.,
A greater concentration o un ts, (7.6 N/ac :e) hips been.
,A-�3
clusto,ted within the t,xisting ;zoning distA wit'' -
1k-I (81�,9N;nd/
fevier Units �aeveloped in the exist .ng area
X�
acre] , thereby r ' using land use Conflicts and inccm�-
pry? lity> concerns, ��-also, ac�less driVe�iays along +e
�t
prop; rt bou idari'es ,fax,, be re4,i4ved or reduced in length
£��. xin
p p�, .Cts on eXitting con- t`
to decreo.se redicted traf
tigtious " rea�esi�d�ncs.
1 '
6:"av:s type of reduced d4 ' t�` P�1C `�s he
Another, alternat
developlhen A of` fixe'e_ir�dpperi� ;,{t cul-c1e sac access
off Tom Polk' Avenue yl Lassen A venue r and hl `Verano ;
p y N g
res el•�ive1 without ah conn'ectin streets b�etI46et
z.
A
Tom p61 alnd Lassen Avenue: Ad inc3iide reduced
g - to tvaf`fic circulation. dis"
and
tAbutio nrof ,the total traffic load t.e, 'several
.d
r si C3 -
..
jf
different streets, segregation of types and density
of development, and reduction of circulation driveways
air>ng the edge of tile property: thereby, reducing
txafic impacts on adjacent properties.:]
Disadvantages i P
include otential loss of the irate gr 6te'd
character of this planned cluster development, reduced
ability to provide easily' accessible t9creatic+n facilities,
and the opening "Of Bl. ` erano Way', with additional traffic
increases onto El Paso Waya.
Mast impacts identified -in the EIR, a depenc%ent on dente
sort im cts opment and w�.11 occur` whenever the property
is developed in some f,ashon.: '
7, Recreation facil t �„ as proposed are not centrally, located,
an may.¢ ect a loaning residents.
According he app-
1i may
and project engine
central. recreation facilities
axe less desirable avid not approved by financing inst�tuti,ons,
Also, they could become an attractive 'nuisance for neighbor-
y
h � readily ,.
i, and Children �.f access is easy and �,er,..ral (ie_..
t
available) .
R Nib►,ht lighting of the facilities is notx�posed, though
y.
ra the future homeowners association may' p ,
� • g �wa.sh,,; to xova.de such
r owever the design for the duan tennis courts
+ i lighting. •
> ��t has;,been a�.tered reorienting them so that one court t i
be adjacent to existing residences and the other court will
=' be nearer the acces11, road, but further from those affected
Lighting of the ironer court could be provided r
residents, ;
With reduced impact on, residents (75 to loo feel. distance
to the 're,t;idences) , whits the muter court nhe in the prop`
y ry cocatedenearer hetaccesssincroad inner court
ort bounda ad and parking
4 woti 1,d also be l
users would likely prefer, t� At court if demand were
log': no', vdvwri bothirtourts..m oe actively used, depending,al,ern
r`
An altern-
upon the spe�ci' .3; xe'sid�nts of the cievel6pment;
i �'' five would d �:onstr'uction o'f -,a solid wall. or 'fence between
the retedrereatrn area and eXist ��ng resac�erts of sufficient
hey grk noise and light of disiurbing� levels .from
re�$�.der`ts on 'anima Avenue, rather than restricting hours of
�..
Su;ybsted Ntiti;gation Mea8Ute t . �G0h8t°rust an g` foot
solid fence or walk: along the s,p �thern, „eastern, and
' boundary (350 feet total length) y'
1�est�ern prop:rty
where adjacont to 'ie,proposed recxea�''ion facilities.
(And deletion of Wiaition 025 -.n planning Aept. 7 st.)
,
1 II
(
cf
J,
_.
.,.�8. Sidewdlks',alan'g Tom Polk Avenue are lackiixg and should
6e ins' led "to reduce 'hazards to pedestrians, particu-
��
"larly if'� the Tom Polk - Lassen Avenue extension is de-
4
".'
veloped as.a gublic access, collector street. The "
original EIR stated that sidewalks are needed on „both
sides of Tom Polk Avenue. Si, 4ewalks on only one side
iaould su£ficer reduc,A the requirements for tree re-
V4 �
moval and encroachment onto existing r6idential ';,rap
erties and laftdscaplig,for the 4 to 5-foot sidewalk
width. However, area children may be safer with side
walks on both sides of the street, particularly can-
sidering the through-traffic circulation, since mid-
bidtk street crossings would occur to gain access'
these wa'lks�tays. However, most area streets have de-
walks along a"single side (E1 Paso Wayl, Suggesteu�'�
walks
change to' Mitigation Measure #18: delete "both sides
J1
r
fC:J
fl u"
f
,
r
rte.
i r
Bust of PetsonsaCommenting
on the
}v� Eastwood' Oaks PAC
January 7, 3.981
Y
TomLehmann
Gary Ritchie ..
John Otto
B� 11 Gates
:,. Richard Reid'
Carol Curtis
Joe Barron
it Aletha Curtis
Ed Peck
..,
Diane Barron
Joe DelaPP ,
Ed Gettfle'
Russ Croningex
William ,Evert
" January la, 1981
�I ,
Russ Croninger
Tom Lehmann
Gary Ritchie
Neva McReynolds
.. ,, ti `i:' t •4 ' F •^ f�•vti,/. t � j.Ka �.y,�,y�(Iw�.ji'+'�•f, ��.�•� •vVgwr�l��}e'..1�3i 7F!'+rJti�r. J,'"J,�'�"".e ,yyr"C' ,;
• l : w `� .t?tl+s"�441 ','r»r h i.+f 'a'NY�,i'av �!h�uls-'" '^•a
:. � i i''r _G 4 � � y rJ ��� y. � �r �y,•"'`.�. µ, wf .!�ri�,�J
"'.� - r d w+e! ♦Nit r }�� y ,;3r'4' ,f/ t/�{4•'�f�:d' � 'e*/j.' , f `JR .,,��.{•.
.+ a :. 1 `w Y � h9,n„a „1.Yn Y •r, �rA �,i( .�J�.
.+. ,. +.a r Y' +-LiA.t v, "'�{`ir„r ,• •'. ,yf� , •6,. 'fJ� T !hlx.iw vu::C �J•��-'•.r. M
�` ��. 4 1 4• '?� ro''7'�' .w"7Y x'ti,.ip ♦ icyy w t A + �.
'r =•. `?.1 "e i.µ+. A`J}. 1 f. ,+� r:.: t/"1� wl�� �„ M r ,� "� .3t Y3%i,�- `�.`°�S. Z
� r � } : 2 1 r�,�f ti ���� y�t'.ti�♦.'i�'t.•.. r/ �' V'�e�b ♦+� t'- t5 "Kt,, r.aT.; vi�,..P�-,C ,�ry'e'r`j;loy
.. r .. ,�, +F-� i 4 {' N•'^" �.Fb,(,,, 4 !�y{��f�+•..,yMwu 1 p 'l , .nF 91 � .w7'�'a' A' �+. .tic
' i 1. -;'. .r Sry, i' � J [ S cwt "� -+.' � Y Y Gr�+d'Cl�+i+ i• +, � � i r �. • 1 {" rd ,t'...
f, � + �+ „'^a yi„ f p+dR'! rs�'v: ti'r �"'W, 'lx"ir....•i`5„r<i•n �� ,C'., w ✓.
r
liter ar w�n� /.f W�:,X�ti+tr a, ✓.v° -e i "�<x ds.,
�.
ycZ L h
, �' i 3'c. i ,r, ;k Tai f tt • t it ,tit L.q
i .•+: '."'ter xf. w.y + • s t � +. w�+s Yv �1- .,"7! v r�„♦.
Butte County Planning Commission � r a ` « ' �F � +f+•�,�s{
t , .. :' A r ! µ y + � lira• r �, � it r -•t. i
25 .County Center Drive � v,
x i ♦ '+.'� . i•w y.��# t ,rY siir�s rt r,+s tit?�..yrlY•1i•'1'- %v
oroville,.California
Dear County Commissioners; ! ` ' '� ," ' "�0
We would like to commend you, the Pla iia Commission' -,An belpidg
solution to a long-term problem which has pla nod, both they developer °and::ta�i
surroundingg neighborhood for the past ten '(10, years`
` » �tiv.`' .:tom .•a> � �:.,+1
On Wednesday, January 14th., you mandated that. Chet cleva�gpe�Vdec�e�e,"ths'c�cvi'•
sitar of the proposed project to conform more (l.asely tc:.th+e surrounding;-meigksw
borhood`, including a twenty-four (24) foot private road with approgrzrxke Fspeed "`z•� x
'Dumps»
Following this mandate, the property owners.from Tom Polk and Fl Paso areas
most affected by the development, met with the developer's en ineer on.Tuesd
� A
January 20th.; and agreed to the plan presented here tonight for'your't3nal
approval.
r.
We wholeheartedly support this project as presented by the developer tonight
• ,i
because as proposed it will have the least negative effect on the area in terms 'of �
traffic, pollution, impact on local schools; and the present general environmental
condii,tfon of the areas affected by the proposed project.
Sincerely,*
Concerned Citizens of the Tom Polk/Pana
Lynnwood Circle Community 11
Op
,,�,, } y� ,��, r , 1 /fr'�'f� (�/•l �•� F [dry //j
�.r� '+C r 7>e"'J � H '` `.I�•1:�Y'\ ''.�7'/,� ./ X"� �Y / I' H„�.+---�.. l,,y,Y,', , ,� ff'w�.i•� .,;,t.'s+ 'li,r..-.-.•.'.' � �r,�/ �1 ;. i '�'
1•,,iwyY I
;i� �,
u.
�� D�0��5� y �. t� � CA3A pE►�j=�.oR�y �, ,
4- S A RANeW� O' M O q t�:E 11011E
,
imotc4ER (.j
•F ;i • of
At,OW) •i•x�r� 7+•
J.
�,�'64 VISTiC,iA
rs fs �rfrfrlr• .h r.
-t f� ���, r••! rr
•
C1 + !•!• ! rs ! r r•
e7�! narf r�r� rsr`r'f
o 'hu i fiMi.FF ss 8.4-1 At
�rr�i � r!
' � ,� t ' ss =siii. i ii: �# l�f� ! • fr ! fi {;rrf r r .� (,
<( �ts .. �a��,r r ,� ���•r'fffrrsrt�r� ;
.� �� _ �3 �h At ,�=i frr�••22t�:i;,�+:?fr�jf�f':•i!!, rrr �{.: ``�
i::'FF•:a:Su.��+ �j•Sl�;•'f!!t rlr�+�f f 9.
_:�f
', -3 �^ s� ;`+ =.i�� • � '�N;
��o Y
-
qQvr- ANN 1 RG COM 811
BUI, TE EL
i
,
( r
i
APP IGANT'!cct # fi, pA
r -
Ls
{± LE'
u i •,.} Y
r4`d