HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 79-49 1!
��) i � ����, y[ l,I ._ARS �4 �'• -
N� � ,��. a •'' [ ! � � � a. ?` r t ,A? 1 •
)Wvllmzlz�,,
or
�14fv•
��vr.iCYyet?�f� HAi,,C N� r aM1L, ..V� ,7 �'� r
r
1 '�'��ry^,,yypf,.'it7�,,, ���,�.i.{ff knf � - r .�•.�, �.
� 4 �• i kf �� "��;��.�a �fbtib� r 1' I �!, ^ c _ P ) '4•?
!
,r
,
4
t{
I ' R , �t � F t i. •
r/ f. „•, ',,: "N•/'.�+ IR » � gra
yj
Mo
• ! t ,T !
�• 5
{
I'd
C A r
t a n
x1l
.. r .Q" A _ ,. : �T �. :'d - " ,.� � .. ., ,:''i c ♦ �° ;» I i0. t. t1' 4 t . ,. ..
tx APPLICATION FOR fAl24A�VCE ar a±3�6lPdC
Butte sm00y Platdhg omniaissa®n r .
File No.
Date filed`
Hearing date..
Action by Planning Commission
Action by Board of Supervisors, -<•�-- ---
Assessor Map Book % Page No. rdel- No, ,
PRESENT ZONING: —�--
REWUEST:
APPLICANT'S N45:-y"��= �Wr�" ._ K PHONE;
ADDRESS,
STATUS OF APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN PROPERTY
i,I
,PER`S NAME:PHONE:
ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION (7F PROPERTY:
�, CPLAIN FULLY REASON POR APRUGATI"ON, }
[�1 r+/�ir�.y" � c %� �� ' y / � �C�iri �7'`c ;C 4` 'S -'�.k,-ve "S , �rY'ti•i' "�.,_.._...
+J V
V1. 11ng1 0MThe above sWeniehts are cerfgidd by +he undersigned to be correct.
i�
1.78' r�:L
Signature of Applicant
Villi! C'.:diitcSr:.P+wa ��.=�.� .z,�� . - a•-----^----
able to County of Butte; also a
NOTO: Please submit herewith a check or money order in
'he amount spawn bel les, a 1
detpspro ed p. p P ertyand on the adjacent
led lot Ian shown tho locafion of existing and ro osed structures on your prop
EteceiJit No.
_
----------- "-,rim'reieelT!(�4mni�(eim1YNY91P9N'd
u
I
Ir
�
o
I
fJ
NOTICE TO AP1?L:C.A�7� — RZC?N'DrCr
::;
cttP,,wcel iro,2.
it
Tjoc 4 ion,oo
II
4
I!
4. '(?(AUC c ' `o, `jOIAi.X�(?; '
y
5 �tr'1C L°E�.'1 G'F I crrj --
As thy, a p T)7 Arlt C'a�� t,17ry rclcIlluCtc:CX ro,,ionlng r()'COrrc:d to
oil Idilf.' 11, tbt%,
rea.atioal""hip botwcon bht-� i'luttrl
and "
� t x,, �.,
my r c;vori zj, r. c u �„ has 1 oxi � c{a� a �
..
tyIi�D undcr'w I' (r y1���a r � a� •; : C m�'rrt`�, �x n in k,
-
s y tS
""'Oh -mg .. ap.p t..�:�,iat i on. I am C``� w;'117,�o I'h {., bh e
I � Ir
.15.x.(1();..st['U
.1. iµ 1��l ryyi
o t tlt; not c^c 11 OTm to thl Putto faounty
T,A/9= .`�r 71 W.
.x c, �/2,PC",�;�,rl�` � /N`cc_ %
' i � �li�J! /�l�.
�1- �.�:� ... .�r�/Y1 ✓ c .ri. tc !Y�'7" e;�ra` Jr r vr'�Y
r
II,VO
�
71
Aga'' r.,.r�
,
C3. ;fin Co. pig»�titary
Q r,,m
n a
APPENDIX h .
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VORM
(To he completed by Lead Agency)
I: BACKGROUND Log #. 78-10-11-.03
1. Name of Proponent you 0ui.11on
- '
Address
2. and Phone Numbe of Prop`6nent
45 North Valley'Plaza Mall c/o MCGAin iate5
Chico, California 95926 422 Ri4_Lindn��
_hi o a ifor�1"ia
S. Date of Checklist Submitted
'S26
4. Agency'Requiring Checklist
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable- Te_ntative Subdivision Map'
to create 28 lois on AP# 44-053-79 & 39, northwest.Chic'o.
II ENVI ROMENTAL IITACT5 ;
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe"' answers are required
on attached sheets,)
,y
YESs MAYBE
NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in significant ;
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
Aft
changes in geologic substructures?`
b. Disruptions, di_splacjements, com-
pact`ion or o vercovering of -the 'soil?
c. Change in topography or; ;round sur-
face relief features or removal of .
topsoil?
d,Destruction, covering or modifica-
tion of any unique geologic ox
physical features?
e. Increase: in hind or water ,erosion
of soils, either on or off, t46""site?
f. Changes in deposition epostion or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in silta-
tion, 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 prime agriculturally pro-
ductive soils outside designated
urban areas?"
Appendix F - Waage 1 of.
9
p
Yes
rrA��� rro '
;> i. Reduction in the amount of water`
otherwise available for public
water supplies?
j. Exposure of people orproperty
to water related hazards such as
flooding? r,
. lant% Life. Wi lI the proposal result
—st—antiali
an sU-B
a. Loss of vegetation,or change in'the
diversity of species or number
Of any' species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic -,plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique; rare or endangc7red species
of -plants?
c„ Introduction of- new species of
'a
plants into an area., or -.in a' barrier'
to the normal replenishment of
!i
„I existinp speca es?
d,, Reduction an acreage of any agri-
cultural crop?
5. Animal Life, Will the proposal: result
"
in substantial,
Ai Change in the diversxtq of species,
Ornumbers of any species or -
animals (birds, :land s,r,imals `
including reptiles, fish'' and shell*
fish, bcnthic organisms, insects„ or
microfauna) ?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any,
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?,
c. Introduction of new species of
animals into an arca; or result in
a barrier to, the mi,gx•at-ion or
movement of animals?
d.111 Reduction of, encroachment upon or
deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
lee
w Appendix F'` -,page 3 of 9
..
M .....tea ..�, .
li
YES MAYBE ', NO
�i.
,.
Noise. Will the proposal result in
sub s taut i:�,l.
,_�
a.) Increases in noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
7.
Light and .Glaze . Will the " o oral;
pro uce Mtf icant light or glare?
8.
Land Use, Will the proposed result
in a significant:
l�
\1
a. Alteration of thelanned land us,e
of ah'area,or establish a trend
which. will demonstrably lead to such(
alteration?
b. Conflict faith uses on adjoining
Properties,, -or conflict vjith
establiNherecreational, educa-
tional, religious or scientific
rrAril
Uses of an area?
k
,
9
,Natural Resources. Will the:.._.
Naturalr proposal_
in substant l
a,, Demand for,' or increase inthe e rate
of use of any natural resources?"
b, Depletion ofany nonrenewable
natural rea'.I?
�i
10,
Risk of upset. Does the prop osa]
involve a risk of an explosion or
the : release of hazardous substances
(-includi.ng, but not' limited to, cit,
pesticides,chemicals or radiation)
in the event oi'an accident or upset
conditions?
11.
Population. Will the proposal
saRni£icantl,� alter the. locat°ion,
distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population of art
area or physically divide, an
established community?
1.2.
Housing, Will the proposal
sig icantly affect
existing housing;'
or create a demand for additional
housing?
. �
r,�;,
ndiX F' - page 4 of 9
Ads
. i
YES tA'YBE
:; NG'' ,
13 , Txa_ortaCion/Circul ata on , Will the
_.
M proposal result -J11,
;1
a;, Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b; Significant effects on existing;
pa'rking''fdcilities, or demand for
new, parking?'AML
c Substantial itiipabt upon. existing
Lir
transportation systems?
d, Significant alterations ' to present
patterns of circulation or movement
of
People and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterbornej rail or
air traffic?
f. , Increase•
�.n txaf�z,, hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclist$
or. pedestrians?
,
14. Public Services.,c Will the proposal have."
an ef Fect upon, or, result in a substantial.
need for
new or altered governmental
services in any of the following a. -yeas:
a. Fire,;protection?•
J,
b: Police protection,?
C. Schools?"
d. Parks or other recreational
facil,itie?
�l e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads
•
;i f. Other governmental 'services?
15`, Enex Will the
x proposal result in:
a. Ilse of substantial, amounts of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the development: of new
sources of energy?
1,6. Utilities Will the pro osal. result
1 nee�T�for neiir
syste#tis or sub-
stahtial alterations td"`R;he following
utilities:�
'.lyl
-
Appendix Fpage`5
mf
.r
i�
t 4YBE NO
a , Power or natural gas?
-
b Communications systems?
ML
c. Water?
a
d Sewer, (w.11 trunk' line be extended,
providing .O,Kapacity to s e r V new'
dev'c-].opmeti"1�? <�
r,
e. Storm water drainage?
l7.
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in,,,k.,
a. " Creation of arty health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health) 7
b, Exposure, of-�• people to potential
health hazards?
18.'
Solid Waste. Will the proposal result
in any significant impacts associated
with solid waste' disposal, ox" litter
control?
19,
Aesthetics . Will the proposal result
?'?
e ostruction oC any public
designated or recogniz'cd;i scenic vista
open to'the_public, or will the
-1;
pros osal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
Public view?
r,
20.
Recreation, Will the proposal result,,
in animpactupon the quality or
quantity ofehistn � 'Public xe
s Brea=
Y . g p
�7
tion facilities?
21,
Archeological/ Will the
proposal7result in n "alte'rat i on of
a significant ,archeo,logical or
historical site, structure object ;
"
Q
or building?.
22,
Mandatory,Findings ofSignificance.
a. Does, the ,,project have the potential
to de$trnde the qualitx* n F the
-
envirohv-ant, stibstanti Ay reduce
the of a fish or wildlife
species; cause a fish n wildlife
'population to drop
op below self
,
Oeridix
F 9, p`age f� of
k,
�( YES MAYBE
NO
sustaining. levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or^Fanimal com-
munity, reduce the ,4 umber or' restrict
the range of a: rare or endangered
plant or a`himal or eliminate important
exar(:Iles of the maj ox` `periods of
California history, or prehistory?
"
b', Does the project have\ the potential
to achieve short term benefits to
the detrimbnt of publicly adopted
long - term environmental, goals?,
c Does the project have impacts which
are indkVidually limited, but
ctx u7 a eLy considerahlb? (a project,,,'
,I
may impact on two or more separate 7
reso4trces where the impact on. each
resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of
�.`
those impacts on the environment is
sign.ifi,cant. )
d,, Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,,
either. dl;tectly or indirectly?
r'
)
1;
a.
Appendix F
Pp
-page 7 16g 9
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I
This project.-Is.a land division to create 28 lois o'n,AP# 44-053-79
C39, northwest Chico. The 13 acre site is located at the northeast
end of Shasta Avenue and adjacent to Highway 99.
The 1
Westerly parcel s presentl roductiVe al mon dJorchard.
The land has agradualslape�l�t � y a p o the northwest+ There are several
buildings on the10 acre/, tarcel including one.residonce
lot 1 of the tentative sa (shown' on
d,i;vision map), two sheds presently used
as garages,, one barn, orie huller shed and one pump shed,
The easterly"3 acre parcel, is an open field with an ,abundant ov,er,-
rowth of star thistle, Ether weeds and rase
9 The fre,�eway
?Highway .99) li+es at t,'he leasterlyy boundary of the open field,
1' ,J +
This) property lies w4hihi, two drainage districts: the Lassen /
Drainage District an tP;0e Shasta Union Drainage 'AssessmentDistfrict.
There is an existing/,sto,rm drain at the southwest
Sewage, disposal would b'e by septic tanks and leachprerty
lines, California
Water Service Contpal�y is the proposed saur,ce ,of water.
Soils in this area /Vare�
general ]y v+lira 1Qam. These highly agricultural soils/,"'haye good natural driie g Y productive
tion and are well suited to a variety ejf' crops good moisture reten=
/1
The sut; rounding 1,And� uses include a
multi-family residences (duplexes) to the eWest home andkanooper f eldetot'g
the 'north,,. The butte County General Plan deis nate,
low density residential, 1 to 4 dwelling untsg a c this.are'a ash.
site lies `ust to the 'north,,of an area designatedrforrmedum�lowoect
density resideniial, 5 to �.,Awellin.g units per acre, on the Land ilse
Map of the General Plan. the
Residential) ani"d A-2 {General )resent zon�n is R-•3 Medium Density
9
1(b) 3(b) Tjhe site
pre kPatiOn and eventual construction of tri-
plexes on Z:7 lots (lot 1 of the 28 lots has an existi;n
would compact- and overcover a significant 9 residence)
The r�esiiltinc increase in storm' water rUnoffrfrom buil'dfnpsopeVe
ment , sidewalks and other urban improvements would flow to'the
existing storm drain along the southerl
y property line. The drain
-
age from this property would flow into the facilities of the Lassen
Avenue DraYinage District. Conditions of approval for dra'nage would
be needed,. The effects on drainage along with the compaction asci
overcoverinqof the soils is not considered to be'�"significant enough
to warrant the preparation of an Elks w
r Appendix F
r
Ain �k
1(g): The project would result in the loss of prime agriculturally
productive soils within an area..dosignat"ed for urban- residential _use
`'by 'the Butte County General Plan,
a
1an.
a) A localized decrease in ambient air, quality.would occur pri-
ma ri I y from vohiaglar emissions of the ''residents" of the proposed
triplexes. About 570 ,vehi cul a r trips per day would be added to th:e
average daily traffic counts in the area.
3(f): An incremental decrease in surface water quality would occur
as oil residues, fertilizers and other substances were washed away,
With the storm water runoff.
4(a): The subdivider''s statement indicates that 1010 15 almond
trees would be removed initially in the future road areas. The
majority of the trees would be removed as the
developed Some of the almond trees should beproject were fully
tai6ed as part of the 'landscaping,
preserved and main-
4(,d) The project would result in the loss of a productive almond
orchard of about 10 acres in size. However, as mentioned in item
1g, the project site is within`'a designated urban area,
5(d). Some wildlife habitat would be lost though this is not ;con
sidered to be a substantial factor since the land has already been
altered considerably from its hatura`l state by the orchard use.
2i3 b)2&he potential residents lDf the triplexes on lots 10, 11 12,
.24 would be exposed to hi gh,., nol se level s due to th.e proxi mi ty
of the freeway. Actual noise meter readings have not been taken.
However, the noise readings' for highspeed roadways in the Noise Ele-
ment (Section .IU -10) of the Goner'
al,Plan are indicative. Within 100
feet of the freeway a ,noise. level of 70 decibels could be expected.
Between 100 and 200 feet Brom the freeway, a noise level of 65 deci-
be'1s could be. expected, Ano'level reading of 60 decibels or less
is expected beyond 200 feet frort the freeway:
Sound attenuation measures are necessary -,-t mitigate the effects of
L from Vehicular traffic on the freeway, Y A sound Wali of suitable
height and depth should be constructed along the freeway frontage and
the walls of the proposed triplexes; particularly those facing the
freeway, should be'specially insulated to reduce the noise, levels to
an acceptable level for residential use (60 to 65 decibels).
8(a): The project site has two zones. AP# 44-053-79, th'e 10 acre
Parcel, is zoned R-3. AP# 44-053-39, the 3 acre parcel, is zoned A-2.
V condition ofproject approval should,be that the 3 acres zoned A-2
be. rezoned. to a specific zone allowing multiple family residences;
R-3 zoning would be the logical choice'. The zoning in the surrounding
area is A -R to the south, C-2 to the north and A-2 to the east be-
yond the area zoned R-3
page 8
Appendix F - a of g ..
�r
,r
T e proposed density of 6._3 dwelling
'the one units er acre" (27 triplexes
PlIbg existing residence on 13 acres would be in excess of
the s'desi nation on the La,,nd Use Map of the General,
Plan for this area.
However, the Planning Deppartment has determined that the Land Use
Element Amendment would be applicah°1e since, the prpject s to is
adjacent, to and surrounded by similar developments." �X
g(a)" (b): The proposal Would increase the rate of use for natural
resources (mainly construction materials) on a short -'term basis and
the use of additional natural resources,, some of which are non-
renewable (fossil fuel is such as oil, et.c.)i on a long-term basis.
11: The project would involve the installation of 81 dwelling units
(27 triplexes,). Using an average fiqure of 2.5 persons per house-
hold, there would be about 203 people added to the population in the
area. `The project site lies adjacent to apartments, duplexes and a
mobilehome park which also house a considerable number of people.
The significance of the population increase would most no
ticeablyf be
in the increased traffic that would be
clenerated. A traffic cilrcula
tion pattern and appropriate mitigation measures would need to be
proposed and carried out. A means to handle the drainage would -,be
another concern of a development" with this density (63 DU/ac're).
126 The '"proposal—would be in accord with the present zoning an 10
acres of the 13" acre site which i s R-3Medi urs
The existing housing in the contiguous areas isDmostly ofSadmulti�J`
family nature so this project is not expected to create substantial
controversy among nearby residents.
This '
s proposal would add about 570 vehicular trips per day to
the average daily traffic counts, in the vicinity. There are no traffic
counts available for the east side of Shasta Avenue`;
ffit
counts in the area show an average daily traffic (ADT)Rofe768ecnt ton,
Shasta Avenue just west of The Esplanade and an ADT of 10622 on 7he;ri
Esplanade to the south of Shasta Avenue
Road improvements would be,neede,d to mi"ti gate theeffects of in
traffic on Shasta Avenue. Extension of the access road to the north
and thence back to The 'Esplanade maybe needed for adequate traff1C
circulation. ,,
13(b)r Six off-street parking spaces per triplex or '," total of 162
_
sp aces would need to be provided in acco'r`d with the z�`?ning ordinance.
13(c), (d); As mentioned in the discussion of item 13a, extension
of the access road to the north and thence bark to The Esplanade may
be nee'd'ed for adequate traffic circulation. There may be a substan-
tial impact on Sh.,,-ta Avenue without the provision of an alternate
Appendix F '-- page 8b of 9
;-
!f
route to an`d from The' Es lanade.
p One possibility that should be
studied is a road connection to Commercial Avenue
nwhich lies to the,
orthwest of the project site and
presently provides a
Esplanade for several commercial enterprises. ccess to The
13(f), Traffic hazards are likely to increase with more; vehicular
traffic using the local roads; °Sidewalks are planned withih the sub
di Vision for pedestrians. Road improvements i'ncl;ii.ding widening and
the install ,'on of p
ti
hazards. fir-°;, „roper signing would help mitigate the traffic
14(a -f): The project would increase the demand for public services
in the Chico Urban Area. A substantial alteration of.governmental
services is not expected, due -in ,, p
part to the closeness of the ro-
jest site to the:.. City of Chico,
sFire hydrants spaced at proper intervals would be required by the
tationsutte ufor fi re xprFire otect on �arehe closest available lab1e cau►a'ty fire {
the Nord Fire Statiorn on Hi Highway
.t99E to the north 'and; the North ;the east. Chico Fire Station on Cohasset Rou-d
oo
There may be. -40 students or more that would be sent to schools of the
Chico Unified Sc,hoal District. The number of students would°Vary
depending on the 'triplex tenants, Shasta School or Partridge School
would be attended by students n' kindergarten to 6th grade,
- 15(a): The amounf., of fuel and energy
project
would be considerable on a long-terbasis uthough itmed' as rwou1dtbe compar,
able to similar multi -family developments near an urban area.
conservations measures should be incorporated into the Energy'.
and I project design ,
p hat should be empl-oyed where fea-
sible mincludeaSite�and building orientation in rel _ '.
overhangs to shade windows, the use of double ation to the sun,
tion in excess of code regt�i rements and the use
appliances efficient
appliances in the triplexes. gy
16(c). California Water Service Company is available to provide
water subject to approval by the Public 'iltliT ties Commission.
16(e);: Storm water drainage would be handled by facili
Lassen Avenue Drainage District. ties of the'
17(a)- Soil data must,be provided to the Env!r"onment l Health De'part-
ment to verify that the proposed septic tanks and leach lines are
feasible.The Vina loam soils are generally very good .for leach -
fields. Nlowever, confirmation from the ,Environmental 'Health Depart -
Ment of ,the proposed subdivision design and density is necessary.
19: The proposal would result in a change to the visual character
of the area as the aim6nd orchard and open field are converted to
triplexes with related i"'mprovements. the
x y
Appendix F ,., page 8c of 9
21: According to the Archaeology Lab at CSU', Chico, there are no
recorded archaeological sites on the property,. Due yo the orchard,
use, any surface relic:$` that may have existed would have been'damaged
opment, an archaeologist shauld.be s are: unearthed during devba
considerably: If an cultural resource
g contacted immediately,
REQUIRED MITIGATION MLASURES;
1. Fi re protecti on measures shall meet the requf rements of the
Butte County Fire Warden.
2. Sewage disposal shall moet the requirements of the Butte County
Environmental Health Department and the State Regional Water
Quality Control Board, -
3. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks .shall be installed for the safety
of pedestrians, es.pec,ialty school children.
` 4. Drainage g provisions .,hall meet the requirements of the Butte
County Department of Publ i•c Worksi'4
5, ACCeS'S
Provisions shall meet the requirements of the But
County Department of Public Works, and Shall include right -of,
way to provide for eventual road construction to the north and'`
thence to the west to connect 'to The Esplanade
6, Water shal i be provided by a licensed public water system.
7. If any significant cultural resources are uncovered during
struction, an archaeologist shall be contacted, con
8. Sound attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the pro
ject design. A' sound wall of 6 to 8 feet in heiht should be
installed along the freeway frontage., g Also, the' proposed tri-
plexes near, the freeway should be specially constrropos and
insulated to reduce the noise levels to 60 to 65 decibels for
residents, within the buildings,
9 Energy conservation measures shall be employed in the construc-
tion of the dwellings. Possible measures -include thermal -paned'
windows, energy-efficient appliances, solar -assisted heating,
insulation in excess of coderequirements, shading .of windows
and orientation of the buildings . in relation to the sten ,
Appendix Fage 8d of 9.
i. )
1
NN
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
I L LP
TO: /7 Secretary for Resoti ,ces
1416 Ninth Street', Room 1311 SPR 111979
Sacramento, CA 95814 .
CLAW A$ NWON, IrAg iv C!
'ii►IOODSONJ sir
/7 y
x Count ooferk BuMOM;
tt
..._._. (Lead Agency)
1 BYE " _Bnyironmenta.l. Review Epi " t..
rove ea. '18-I' ��ountY enter Dr.
;, Orov
110 Ga.
SUBJECT rri4ling of Notice of Determination in Compliance withSection,21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code
L
RD09// 78-11-17w-02 r
-io]ect 1tTe
"=`--- Rezone from A-2
to R-3 G. /Py. Williamson
tate C earing ouse 'Num ez:
l submitted to St' Le Clearing Nouse
Contact Persoi!�
c' ep zone Number
Earl D i Nelson) D:i.rect or
-Location
:.
91(5-534-4777
Project
Ua Ico
Northwest corner ref Shasta Avenue extension and Hwy. 99, northwest
Project Descra.ptlon:
-
Rezone from A-2 (General)
to R-3 (Medium Density Re, sid.enta:al.) 6n
AP// Z14-0�5-39<•
This is to advise that the`
Board. of Supervisors y
Lead Agency
has made the ,following determinations regarding the above-described i
will
project -
11
11 The project have a sign .ficant effect on' the
F;:77 will not
environment,
2. /'7 An Environmental Impact Report was p� epared for this project
pursuant to the provisions of CF
and was certified asJ
requit6d by Section 15085(g), 14 California Administrative
Code
27- A Negative Declaration, was prepared for this project pursuant
to the provisions of CSQA, A .copy of the Negative Deciaza- ,
tionmay be ekaniined at the Environmental Review Department
7 County Center Drive, Oroville., California 35965„
3. /7 A Notice`of Exemption was filed' indicating this project is
exempt' from environmental review.
G�C Appendix H _ page' 1 of 2.
44-053-1
44-053-2, 169Q
44-053-3-24 4,, '.5x.
B. Fj J. L. Carrell
R. W. &-EU. Chambers
Transamerica D%ve1. Co«.
1698 Manzanita
Rt. '1, Box 41:9
�
1111 S Grand Ave:
Chico, Ca. 9.5926
Ca. 9592E
Diamond Bar, Ca 91766
UChico,
44-053-1.2
44,;053-13
44.053-15
e
LaughriU4-6
E. S. Mohammadi
ej
fi. iii. F N. D. Ray,
6280 Pcntz Rd.
�
85 6 Rtanzanita Ave.
,
1. 1 F Shasta
Paradise, Ca-. 95969
Chico, Ca. 95926
Chico, Ca. 95516
4'4-053-1.8
M
44--053-19
44-053-20
J. E" €i K. L. Schmidtke
R,- & L. ,Novak
D. ,F, M. Longg
3018,Lsplanade
892 Naoma Ave.
?
Rt. 1, Box 704
Chaco, Ca, 95926
Chico, CA. 95926
i
]ted B1uf1 Cali 96Q8,0
44-05,3-27,
y,r-053-28,
44-053-34
L. R- & "J. L. McDaniel
�r
- ,• F, _ L. M Johnson
n�• � . b
Jeanette E. Whig
3006 Esplanade,
�
10,85 E Sth Ave.
0 .netts
1 00 Dunbarton Circle
Chico, Ca. 95926_
Chico CA. 95926
t •Sacramento,
' Ca,. 958001.'
44-053-35
44(,,,Q53.3,6
?
44-05�-37, 69,73;74;,75
„
44-615, 6, 7
Nellie Ce 'Chapl a
5 . B . 6 D, M. Boehmo
JohnD D. Drake
1615 Cirtus Ave.
353 Rddwood ;Ave
675` E Fir st Ave 4 E)
Chico, C;a. 95926,
�
Santa Clara,, Cao 9505.
Chico, Ca. 95526
44-053-38
44-053-39
e
44-053-70, 71
Louise StilloL.
r
� C. Steel.
E. Std'. 6 G." R. Hylton
2731 North Ave.,
352 Vallombrd'sa Ave.
277 East Ave.
,Chico;"...Cay 95926
Chico, Ca. 95'926:,
;;yy
Ch3'.co Ca.. 95 2, .j`
44-0,53-72
44 053-73
r
44-053-75, 7`7
5>. & R , G . Lynn '
Jo lift D . % �r o
Drrake & Dufour
>?.C�, l3a.c 1237`
520Ce�r�asset 'Rd. 7
$00 Cohasset 'Rd. '
Yuba City', Ca. 95991
Chico`; Ca,. `'• 95926
Cha'co, Ca. 95926
44053-76 92
44-OS3r.7$
44-053-79, 80
Edward No Pflueger'
L. R. & J. L McDaniel
G. F $ B. J. Cam p
P«p, 1oN 1237. "`
3006 Esplanade
`;�
Rt. 1, Box 390
Yuba City, Ca 95991
Chico, Ca. 95126
Durham, Ca. 95938
g 44-4'3-8
44-43-18
44-053-39
L. F, C. Steel
E. F l~II, Greenlee
''
G. G. Williamson
3.52 Vallombrosa Ave.
1073 Via Verona
15 Fain,',-Drive:
-�1 i c o Ca, 95926
Chico,, Ca. 95926
Chico, Cay 9592>6
f
j'
`BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF'FINDIN.GS - March 7, 1979
. G. G. Williamson - Rezone from "A-21' (General) to 11R,3'►'
(Imulti-Family Residential) property located on the north
side of Shasta Avenue extension, on the west side of State
Highway 99, identified as AP 44 -os -39f,,
The applicant states that the purpose of the zoning application is
" To conform to zoning to the west on 10 acre parcel which ,
'combiAed wYi,th this 3, acre parcel .is submitted as tentative
'subdivision map of East Shasta fox R-3 development."
The subject property is darrently undeveloped with the parcel:` im-
mediately,adjacent to the west being an almond orchard. There is
a kesidence and several,out buildings on the adjacent 10 acres.
The parcel to the west is currently -zoned R-3.
The General Plan designates the area as Low-De'nsity Residential,• 1-4
dwell ilig units per acre;
The Planning Commission has initiated hearings for General Plan
amendment that would designate the subject property and some surround-
ing area as Meddum Density Residential, 5-8 dwelling units per acre.
There is existing multi -family residential development to the south
and to the east,,.
The General Plan amendment ,re ardi,n
g � properties that are con�tigurus
to and surrounded by like land uses would appear to be applicnjoie
to this project.
t,
„r
-4-
„ I
law,
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES March 7`, 1979
30 G C. '1'1illiam8on - Rezone from "A-2” (General) to 11R-411
(Mult-i-Futiily Residential) property located on the ftorth
side of Shasta Avenue cxtenr.,,on all the west side of State
Highway 99, idcv�'ti.f.led as A?, 44-Q5-39, more pArticularly
described as: .._
l
:-. That portion of ;Lot 12 of "Esnoralda Tract" Per map of
r
record in 'lap Boot: 1 on Paso 33 oC the Butte County
llecordcx located west of the -rest right-of-way line of
Statc Highway .99
Containing 3.021 acres, more or legs, Chico.
k _ u
9-oQ-2-424
Mrs. Blair read staff findings.
Earl Nelson commented that this was only a portion of the development-
that an enviro me��t_al study had been made on the other portion and
his department had recommended a Conditional Negative Declaration.
Proponents: No one.
Opponents! No one
The hearing was closed, Commissioner Bennett noting that t1Yis proposal
is in conformity with the General .Plan, that:-Ia Negative Declaration had
2�
been proposed, made a motion to recommend e,pproval of this rezoning
notingthat this would eliminate a hit more of the A-2 in the County.
Hi.s motion was seconded by Comm ssione'r Gilbert
AYES; Commissioners Gilbert Eve
rhard, Bennett and Chairman,Wheeler.
NOES No one
ABSENT: Commissioner Lambert
l ,
Motion carried.
j!
4,
r
BOARD OI' SUP a, vZSOtS
MINUTES March ' 2"! 1979
527 ADOPT ORDINANCE 207.2; PUBLIC BEARING,., G. G.WILI ,
IAMSON - 1hROPOSEb
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE FROM "A-2" (GENERAL) TO °t;-3" (MULTI-
y FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF :SHASTA AVENUE
EXTENSION, ON THE WEST !IDE OF STATE ,HIGHWAY 99, IDENTIFIED AS AP 44--05=39,
CONTAINING 3.02 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, CHICO.
The public hea'rit9 an the G. G. Williamson proposed negative declaration
and rezone from "A-2" �� 11
(general) Sh o R-3 (multa�family residential), property
located, on the north side of Shasta Avenue extension, on the Caest side of
State Highway 99, identified as AP 44-05-39, containing 3.02 acres; more
or less, Chico was _held as advertised.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director, set out the background
of the negative declaration. lie recommended a'negative, declaration.
Bettye Blair, planning director, set out the background of ,the
rezone. This project was heard by the Planning Commission, who recommended
approval. It is low density one to four units per access. The proposed'
?amendment on the General Plan would be medium density„five to eight units
Per acre. On the basis of the ani�ndment for cxrrouttd peight :nit
the rezone was recommended for approval.
79-
Hearing open to the public. Appearing No one.
Hearing closed to the public `hand confi ' 3i
nes.,, to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Moseley,seconded b
y superve
and ur.�animously carried; on the basis ofthe initial evaluarionorf heeler
a negative declaration was reco ava_''a signficsnt effect on, the enviranme
proposed p oject could not h
i. ended r,iG ,
the r
On motion of SupOt-i,1isor Winston, seconded by Supe;,Viso,r Wheeler
and unanimously carried,' the rezone from "A-2”
(general) to !
family residential) propert°R-3" (mujti-
y located on the north side of ShAs`4a Avenue
extension, on the west side of State Highway 99, identified as AP 44-05-39
containing 3`.02 acres, more or less, Chico*concurrir '
Planning Commission that the proposal is conformance h the ButteGenCounty
in cf
ral
Plan;'that a negative dee,laration has been accepted and that it is to the
best interest of the people'`of the; County of Butte to"specificalit zone,
property to remove it from the J'.�,41 zoning;; Ordinance 201,2 was adopted
and the Chairman authorized to sign. - .
/ 1
�,�/ "^� `'d ll:�t4� Rj': ,�r. ,�t.�„ 1 +Y•�ir+i��'<a` a��, .'�( ,� t 5' »_.,_.ay4
rr
Lynn L Vanhart - Environmental Flealtli
79-49 CAP '4rs-3a)
Rezone from A -L to -3
On tlye ,.N1V coxrxer of Shast°a AVb extension HWY'. 99, Chico �
G'. G.
15 Fairway Dr., Chico Ca 95926
' .. ....
,r • r_r. .. a. i it ..
�l• .. '�� T.',•.+,�
:. ... r v a. .a.. ..
Y . { •5i'4 •G<a4 til �' t`Iv�}I �'by •�� t�t� Y. �.a 4.}4 �..
11/20/78
i
` `1
eY � 4 '+'`��� a ^'
: r1M"7 M�+ .""`^" �,I W!.�"'^ � • � ;.. �fy��i l�'*IG��.�. �A�
� a r
1
h
�{ ii DD
Paulus fj
-e s L x�'
� . f k�. � '� ''+• /� +T ,a1^y a av 444vU �
'Ij''�� __. ���(////7 'I(fL�'y'
r`.`
7 t X49 P 44-052-39
z
NUV? 11078
Rezone from A-2 to
R- DEPARTMENT OF
FORFURY
BUTTE COUNTY
On the NIV corner of. ,Shasta Ave, extens',, �, IItlry, gr
4....n ...", „ -•va:. s✓ .. -♦.-t u. -J a Y+x,__. ,•,a ,... :. ya rz.-wn+.:' ♦.r4.. 4w,.aa
..
„ :.�. . ♦ 'eaa u. ,a,, a��..::1^ ,,..., -.. . ,'.x ✓n .u.., wa. tite.-nrsr.
C'. Gi Williamson:
w
m 1S Fairway I)r,, Chrico,�Ca{.� 41 5926�
4 # V
+�1�'x,
11/20/78
Y I
w ,.:rt ♦ µ . w m .:ti
1 ,l
1
Go. 01116
00
�
"
t.B
r
ARL
RM ONE REPOPT
t
Applicant: G. G. Williamson
r t -
Owner: G. G. Williamson
Request: Rezone, to R-3
Location. On the north side rod' Shasta Avenue extension, on
the
west side of State Highway 99, Chiop
Slate Action. Requested: November_ 17, 197$
Number of Parcels 7
Acs: eage : 3.02
II laTining Commission Findings.-, This proposal is in conformity.
with
(-;General Plan, that a Negative Declaration had been proposed, ..
g
rtr]'txn that this ?,could eliminate. a bit more of the A-2 in the County.
Planning Commix Ion, Action" Recommend approval.
V01;0'
Commissioners Gilbert, Everhard, Bennett and Chairman
Wheeler
r,
AYES 4
NOES 0
AP ENT : Gammissioner Lambert
ABSTAIN: O
4
PRblNANCHl'xO,j m14,)
AN t�iiDINANCE Z(9Ai NG .A .tZ tZ'% 9 OF' T' HE COUNTY OF
�✓�
ZUTTB , STATE € R, C.AL I VORN rA, , AN „ E„3 i, ('MULZ' I -FAMILY
„R$S1D 3N'�iAi,� DYS`I'kt- C9C, ,pU S ANS'' .TO CHAPTER 24,-29.
r,
1'
Tho heard of Supervisor:' of tai® county, Of. Etitto, Sto,te. 'of
oxnia vnd'b r 'gid pry want to,, Che gater �4m29, of the Butxe, County
3
Codo Of Said ;o�,rhty iii 61R13AIN as taillows:
, y
F
SECT QN," 1. The heroinAftordesdtibOd areagitvg.ted in
'y.
.
.
q.
�;ty es:f' Et�tto Stag A� ,
hli ,. Co . �..
9 California $hall bO And it is' horesby
8'.
Z064 a tti� '`�r�,r� (M xti"Fami`ly Rbsidontial) lottict, and s�uerh ai�o
`l.
OhAl- ba s h oot' to Ith + restrxct:ioris ►d r6stricted use andre-
£3
l
dodOilaionsh0efia
M1)�y
Saia area zoned boi�a� �ooat�d' �n the unxn�vrpo a.ted
'Io
arra cif Butte Cdunty, Chido`; mage particularly dosGr. bad as feillq,��-.:
�)
11 ;
' on
That poi-tiof Spot 12 of ,','lismar Ida ," Tract"
j9
Pet% m O ;clic tA:oxrd ri' Map'Iook 1 "ori ''age -33
12
,
es the Eut;t4�4ounty gegorde: located west; of
' the west. rA R*t 0fww4y line i f State Highway 99,
13
'' Gont�an ung_ 92 aar"es, ilio o'+�a less, Chico.
15
St OTION Z .' ° ItEGULTIONS 'FOR'AN 'i' I„ 3, i7TSTC
:t
16
Ti.E fo I leaving xg latioris shall apply ixi `axi :rE ��d
p .
17
r_)
istract
1S
(A)USES I'SRA'!MED; "
Z;bw
1 tine -family dwd11ings, two.sfamily dwallingi; and
e�A°firs
2`'
mulllple family.dvellugs, hot 3wincluding tents,
"
,r
2l
t ►i e3 s a or, mobilo homes � r�
22
`Accost for build n s
y g po`rt3hu tt to the pa' rmitt6d uses ,
23
3» Housobald pots (but not incj4ding JJV6 toeM , pe tiltry
24
or poisonous re - ties) .
2
THE FOLLOWING USES SUBXtCT TO .SECUItXAdG A E15E PE.RM��'
26
7 IN t0i' CASA
u
Ile, _
ci
r
ry
X''
Y'M. Ga1f CQiI 'sas and country clubs .
2 ublic and ova 1- 011 uses including chufthes.
53irehd4ses;
hea0itv►1: perks and Playgrounds schools
4,
and public utility. bU ldings
(;/qy q gyp ..r /�+ qw►3 /� ,
e
op SECTIO �1Pl�LY.
t
7,
All tnsea of land within the district not
g
.spe�'ificolly, authoriz,ea andeftittad prohibited,
�J
;'
9
SBCTTON in comp: anco w h the prc�vis-aoxn's of, said
l0 butte 'Cauoty Code, Chapter 2�s ,1.'th dame is . err bw� amended by adding
F _
Y"
ll,,: ,this Ordioa,noe in full.
X2
S CTIbri 5,.-, The po ri �, C ie s '*or the violas'' on of the zoning
ihereby
imposed the district 'shall bdas provided in the,
14
BUtte� Cot$11 Code; Cha xe,r 2a,, this 'Ordinance shall from and Rafter
P
15
arts e o tivo'data bodwao a supplement to and part of the Butte
la
County Cider �..'Chsptor .
17
t§tc` TION M This Ordinance � sllall beana it is haroby
18
dod-Iared. to be .in; full force and effaqt,ttolm and after thirty (3:0)
19
day's aft' tho''date of. its passage, and befdre the expiration of
20
.rift' +�en 05) days a t�V. its pi3sage this Ordinance shall be
2,1
pubr�shed.ancc with -the hazes or the members of the Board of
22Su-Parvis.6rs
vatin,g fa. anclagFain.st It in the Chico Bzzterpriso Aecotd:
23
,a newspaper p�blithed to the County of B`utte; Stat® of C,Iifornia.`'
24
25
°..
H .
26,
11
w2
1.
l