Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 94-05_PLANNING I SEPARATOR � nvx Ove tv e,) PROJECT NUMBER SPR 9y o5 I PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE NO. 94-05 PERMIT NO. PROJECT TYPE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT APPLICANT• Bunte County Board of Supervisors ADDRESS: 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 REPRESENTATIVE: Planning Division Manager ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amendment to the Butte County General 'Plan Circulation Element. ON PROPERTY ZONED: Various LOCATED: Alternative (A) Eaton Rd/Esplanade intersection to Hwy. 32 via Carmack. (B) Eaton Rd/Esplanade interchange north of Carmack Dr. to Hwy. 32. (C) SR 99/Garner Ln. interchange west to Hw32 north of Mud Creek. AP NO.: TOWN/AREA: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Orchard & Field Crops, AG-RESI. , Low Density. 1. Application Complete: X , 'Amount: Receipt No.: 2. Comments sent to: PW,EH, City of Chico, St.Trans. Dept. ,CA Water Ser. ,PG&E north Pac.Bell Chambers Cable 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: S. Mailing List/Lead-In Sheet: 2/10/94 6. Assigned To: 7. Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption - CEQA# State Clearinghouse No.: Negative Declaration Mitigated Nagative Declaration Subject to Fish & Game: Environmental Impact Report General Rule Exception - CEQA#15061.(b)(3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: 9. Clearinghouse Circulation required? Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 10. Publication Notice Written: Display Al Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: 12. Newspaper Publication Date: O C P G B R 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): Action Taken: Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): Action Taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No.: Adopted: 15. Type Use Permit/Send for Signature: 16. NOE/NOD/APPENDIX G: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: .19. Copy of UP/VAR. to Planning Technician: AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager BY: Stephen Lucas, Planner DATE: 8 March 1994 REQUEST: General Plan Amendment(GPA) -Butte County: An amendment to the Circulation Element of the Butte County General Plan to indicate the future alignment of the Highway 32 Bypass/Eaton Road Realignment. FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of 28 April, 1994 ABSTRACT: This application to amend the Circulation Element (CE) of the Butte County General Plan is addressing the Highway 32 Bypass/Eaton Road realignment in north Chico. This GPA is intended to create consistency in the CE as to the future construction of these roadways. Staff recommends approval of this application. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: This GPA is initiated by the Butte County Board of Supervisors in order to amend the CE with respect to the future transportation needs of the Chico Urban Area. The GPA will identify the selected alternative "B" for the alignment of the Highway 32 Bypass and alternative "A" for the Eaton Road realignment. These alternatives were chosen from the three alternatives presented to staff by the City of Chico which initiated a "Highway 32/Eaton Road Alignment Study" prepared by Heritage Partners of Chico. The "study" indicates three possible alignments for both roadways labeled A, B, and C on the attached maps (Exhibit 1). The Highway 32 Bypass (alternative "B") is currently indicated on the CE map as a anticipated use and this GPA will place the roadway on the map as a definite future principle arterial, although the alignment will not be precise. The Eaton Road realignment (alternative "B"), is indicated on the CE map in its present location and this placement will remain the same although the roadway will be widened to accommodate increased traffic. The analysis offered in the City of Chico study was detailed and driven by the interests of the City of Chico, however, the proposed roadways will be constructed within the jurisdiction of the County. At present, the majority of the affected land is agricultural and well beyond the 11greenline". These factors are pertinent to the policies and objectives detailed in both the CE and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Although these alternatives are not ideal as presented, they are suitable to amend the CE as to the tentative location of the proposed roadways. The factors controlling this decision were based on the maximum preservation of agricultural land, preservation of identified wetlands, and the least impact on structures to be condemned to accommodate the roadway right-of-way. These roadway improvements are not anticipated by County Public Works to occur until 2005 or later, depending on the availability of funding. At such time the proposed roadways are initiated as projects, an environmental review will be conducted and any proposed GPA or ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 1 AGENDA ITEM zoning changes will be presented to the Commission for approval. This GPA will require that a formal designation of the proposed alignments be indicated on the CE map and that any inconsistencies be amended to reflect this action. PROJECT AND SURROUNDING ZONING, GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, AND EXISTING LAND USE: This GPA action will indicate the future alignment of the Highway 32 Bypass and Eaton Road realignment. The potential area for these roadways will cover a large land area and involve 9 different zoning designations (A5, A20, A40, SR, PUD, C2, M1, M2, LI) and 7 General Plan Land Use designations. ANALYSIS: The amendment to the CE will indicate the designation of alternative "A" as the route for the Highway 32 Bypass/Eaton Road realignment and will address three primary issues; 1. Internal consistency within the Butte County General Plan Circulation Element;and 2. Show consistency with Butte County General Plan Land Use Element objectives and policies regulating the Chico area with respect to the "greenline"; and 3. Regulate zoning designations in relation to preserving transportation corridor right-of-ways from future development. The GPA is intended to serve as a process for the selection of alternative "B", it is not the intention of this GPA to precisely identify an alignment. The GPA is strictly a procedural addition to the CE to allow for the identification of future transportation needs and promote consistency with objectives and policies of the General Plan. The GPA will find that the alignment is not precise, but is identified as a general orientation allowing the County to proceed with the necessary planning steps when the demand for the project is realized and funding becomes available. ISSUE 1. Internal consistency within the Butte County General Plan Circulation Element. CE Section 6, Transportation Forecast, states that a "reasonably accurate projection of future County transportation needs is the single most important analysis in the Element'. At this time it is not possible to accurately calculate the anticipated use of these proposed . Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 2 I AGENDA ITEM roadways. The north Chico area is experiencing increasing growth while at the same time, the overall county population is expanding which places congestion pressures on the use of Highway 32. The equation is further compounded by the current General Plan updates that are in progress in both Chico and Butte County. These plans will have a significant impact on the growth of the Chico urban area. A detailed study of the anticipated use of these roadways will need to be conducted. The suggested study will determine the projected use of the roadways by immediate residents and by traffic utilizing the roadways as a thruway. This difference is essential when determining the cost analysis for funding these expansions. The CE requires that current development contribute its share of any roadway improvements. In addition to these factors; CE Section 6.14, indicates that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has established a priority list for highway improvements. One of these priorities is to construct"new highways that close short gaps or improve main state wide travel routes." The Highway 32 Bypass will certainly improve the circulation of the existing traffic flow in the Chico area by routing thru traffic on Highway 32 around the congested City core. Caltrans has participated in the discussion of this project and submitted design requirements, but will not be involved with the precise alignment. ISSUE 2. Show consistency with Butte County General Plan Land Use Element objectives and policies regulating the Chico area with respect to the "greenline." Section 6 states, that "overstated traffic forecasts which lead to excessive highway capacities can also become a factor in creating undesirable development pressures which conflict with other elements of the County General Plan': The Butte County General Plan Land Use Element also indicates that the "Circulation Element controls the accessibility to land which affects development patterns, which, in turn, affect traffic volume and movement patterns." The north Chico area is primarily designated as a Agricultural in both the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Highway 32 Bypass will create a defacto boundary that is beyond the currently established "greenline". This factor will certainly encourage growth to expand in the north Chico area and result in increased pressure to develop prime agricultural lands. This scenario is in direct conflict with; Section 7.38, Policy 14.1.1 which states, 'The County will maintain the integrity of the Chico area greenline adopted in 1982." R Furthermore, this roadway, which will become a principle arterial, will serve a residential population as its primary use. 1 ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■ 3 AGENDA ITEM Section 7.2 1, Policy 1.1.4, states, "New road construction in agricultural areas will occur only to support the areas agricultural economy or to improve capacity of highway's which serve a Countywide and regional interest." These roadways, although not for agricultural purposes, will support a regional population. ISSUE 3. Regulate zoning designations in relation to preserving transportation corridor right- of-ways from future development. Section 7.24, Policy 4.1.4 states, that "Right-of-way needed for new roads or expansion of existing roads shall be planned for, land uses that would preclude the timely development of such right-of-way shall be prohibited." It is necessary for the area impacted by the proposed alignment of these roadways to have additional controls placed on new development. The right-of-way requirements will need to be established indicating the alignment not precise status of the roadway. Zoning in the affected area must be coordinated in order to accommodate the intended roadway alignment. All new development proposed will require specific attention to be placed on the intended roadway alignment and all such development must be analyzed with respect to conflicts over right-of-way restrictions. It is the estimates of the City of Chico, County Public Works, BCAG, and Caltrans that these roadways will not be constructed until approximately the year 2005. When this time arrives it will be necessary to re-evaluate the environmental, fiscal, and planning impacts of the project. Comments received from the Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Health, and Caltrans all indicate that this project, when constructed, will have the potential for significant impacts as suggested here. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such, is subject to the requirements of CEQA. An Initial Study has been prepared by County staff. Based upon the a review of the Initial Study, staff has determined that the project impacts can be fully mitigated with the addition of the following mitigation measures added as conditions of approval for the project. PUBLIC NOTICE: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing occurred on 16 March 1994 in the Enterprise Record. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Application No. 94-05, subject to the following findings. FINDINGS ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■ 4 i AGENDA ITEM 1. Find that an Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) which identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have and, but provisions in the project proposal agreed to by the applicant would mitigate such effects to a point where clyarly no significant environmental effects would occur; and 2. Find that the Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and said Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and f 3. Find that the Planning Commission has approved a Resolution # , recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element indicating the proposed designation of the Highway 32 Bypass/Eaton Road realignment as an alignment not precise. , SPECIAL CONDITIONS i None. Attachments: A: Map of alternative routes B: Resolution # { i i a ■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■ 5 ApnjS.. peo � 1Aem461H ;:,- .-�•/jam- �.���;� � � '•�'•., /� �w� WA ro Nw It IN 111 I��1��;`��' , "' i�"` �. ':-:�\•�'������►�•�•• ,C''y ` `' IMIN ON !It'd i' ':�. �•:':%•. r :�.::"�,��,:�. ,��1�����•�`��� -�- .• -•Y�` w�.;.�-4'�.�.. is♦ � •11.1:����-1���i;l;l�i�,•:=`��=�:r;������,���•• • ` AV ���•;'�••�••`/%�' '•� �-ice�\,`i ��.::•:���\�I ��/, �- - - - - - _� , INIT1,121I .L�� \. R . 1111111 I 1 , =„_ �•� .111 MINI %iii.*• � `\\`\ �1�111f �.uuuu�mnit�ri \��� .�����11:1111111111111111��.�` �`lam\,� ■ � �n�,rr,uunnn.--�:; - --1111 ■\ ��� uuauununnr'�..� _ .,., 11111111111111 1`� S x -, -' 4 Z S .��, � � . ` F�� „�' a.r;.yt.. .. . ._� s y -.._ �.. I t I RESOLUTION 94- I A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING AND RECOMMENDING TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AMENDING THE CIRCULATION . ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN INDICATING THE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE HIGHWAY 32 BYPASS/EATON ROAD t REALIGNMENT I .WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Circulation Element, to indicate the proposed right-of-way. for the Highway 32 Bypass/Eaton Road Realignment as identified on Exhibit A-1, attached hereto. I WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has been studied and reveiwed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has reviewed and I i considered the contents of the environmental review study checklist (Exhibit A-2) prepared on the amnedment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality, Act; a L � WHEREAS, in granting this request, the County's intent and purpose is solely',to facilitate and control the systematic and efficient utilization of the Circulation Element in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Butte County General Plan; and 1 WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment (Exhibit A-1) together with the other applicable Elements of the Butte County General Plan does comprise an overall internally consistent whole. I I I i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, i 1. The General Plan Amendment to indicate the proposed right-of I way, as shown in Exhibit A-1 is hereby incorporated by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the General Plan Amendment described herein is hereby recommended for adoption by the Board of Supervisors, as an amendment i to the Butte County General Plan. I PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Planning Commission on i the 28th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: 1 a AYES: NOES: ABSENT: i ABSTAINED: Butte County Planning Commission I i ATTEST: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager By: — E _tom APPLICATION .FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Read and follow instructions as set forth on last page of this form. Applicant's name Bu-r-r E C ouro-rY &Ae--b of S Phone number Applicant's mailing address Z 5 C o u o T Y c E r,,T E'R D R ►v E �O R O V I L.L E Applicant's interest in property(Owner,lessee,other) .A Ga u I s►T'►o o :o F M &H T o F w A Y Owner's name and address P/A Contact person for project(if other than applicant) PLA N N ►P v D►v S%Q" M A N Ay E R Assessor's parcel number(s) Street address UNQETFRM►IJED un1TiL S ELEG-no 0 OF IZbu-r E Present General Plan designation Present Zoning REQUEST GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION A M E 1J D M sc►J T -r"o CSE N r_2 A L PI.A v J Z G►QCt,I LAT►ON ELE 1-tENT. Location,dimensions and size of area(s)to be amended AL-rERNATIvE(A)- EA-MN RD/ESPLANADE 10TERSECTIOQ To Hwy 32 VIA CA1ZMACK• t>R, f� (B.) CATON RD/FSPLANADE IN'TEQCHAO&E 00t2TH OF CA 2nnAC k De. iV HwN 32. - Z 2 .Z (C.) SIZ99ZG6I2NER Lw IuTERG4IANGE WEST TO HW`t 32 1JolziH OF MU17 CREEK. U a Applicant's reasons for amendment `rO l" P R ov F_ TRAFFIC C %2 C u LA-n o w rJ o R 11-4 a a QF7 C N I Cn R F'f W E E W 4 W`1 '32 A"D Giz q 9 . Proposed scheduling/Associated projects(formation of service district,etc.): YET 'TO BF DF-rF-1Zt-A Ia E D Anticipated incremental development (future development plans subsequent to General Plan .r. Amendment: 1i3CREASEp J2FQPF-rj-nAL DENs►-rY WIt_L 13E FPOSSIBLF �N THE FuTuRE- Existing/proposed sewage disposal method: hJ-JA Proximity of power and phone lines: N/A Distance to natural water course or storm drain: N/A FEB 0.99 1994 Water source: M/A . -. 1 14- Proximity of water for fire fighting purposes(hydrants,ponds,etc.): N/A Will excavation or grading be necessary? Cubic yards(estimate): NIA List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city,regional,State and Federal agencies: CALT RAP5 PP 2MCITY OF C"ir-n APPQD\/AL FOQ CEN F_ 2AL PLAN CO WSISZ-F r.1Gy• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Identify potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment. What project design features or special conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are proposed to alleviate potential environmental impacts? LOSS OF A(5e%CuLTU2AL LAND , 'DFSTRUCTIDN OF 12ESi6FP11AI_ lAomFS1-TFS M ,nc'Aiiom MCASUPCS z ~ WILL RE IMoTIL ED AGrFQ QMtfE SELL C'f10N• a w Z ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING d' U Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, a plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, A4 and the use of the structures. a A&2ICLAL-fVRAL LA0D Of?CNAPp COOPS RESIPF_N-nAl_ . OPEP- SPACE• Goop COILS UO gLOPE MrALM-irDAM PRESENT . LOW- QEOS1Ty �O Describe the surrounding properties,including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one- family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback,rear yard,etc.). SAME 2 r INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1. If applicant is not the owner, written authorization by the owner or other proof of agency must be submitted in order for the applicant to legally sign the application. Applications 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-should be marked not applicable by the term "N/A". 3. It is very important that the application include an accurate and complete description of the property proposed for amendment. The application will not be processed until we receive the following information about the area(s)to be amended. a.Assessor's parcel number(s)(from the tax bills or Assessor's Maps). b. Street addresses(if available). c. Distances and directions to named streets,bodies of water or railroads. d. Legal description (subdivision lot numbers, fractions of sections or distances and bearings of perimeter dimensions). e. copies of map with area(s) outlined (Assessor's map, subdivision map, zoning map or other map showing parcels)and a reproducible master of the map. 4. Because the California Government Code requires that local general plans be integrated and internally consistent, amendments to the Land Use Plan Map(s) of the Butte County General Plan must be consistent with written policies and standards contained in the adopted elements of the plan. 5. The "Application for General Plan Amendment" is subject to public hearings and approval by both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 6. Application fees as of AFB X94 (date)are$ 2043. 00 Fees may be paid in cash or by check made payable to "Treasurer of Butte County". 7. Before submitting the application, applicant is requested to discuss with staff all questions about application requirements, County procedures, site designation criteria and policy considerations. 8. Applicant is requested to be as complete as possible in staring the reasons for the application and encouraged to discuss in writing the proposal's conformance with the policies and criteria of the Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan. s 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. DatedJAN 2 51994 Applicant's signature �MNL,M, Dated Property owner's signature Project file number Request:General Plan Amendment to Location and size of parcel(s): a z 0 w Verify: UA.P.Number(s) Location Description Ownership Legal Description of Area O Proof of Agency(if needed) Maps of Area and Reproducible Master Present Zoning and General Plan Designation Date of Application Received $ Receipt No. Application taken by 3 t f I 94-22 Protection of future right-of-way for proposed State Route 32 bypass and enhanced right-of-way for Eaton Road , from State Route 99 to Cohasset Road - action requested - DIRECT THAT .IN FUTURE LAND USE DECISIONS, THE NECESSARY I RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES BETWEEN STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 32 AND COHASSET ROAD AS IDENTIFIED IN i -THE FINAL HIGHWAY 32/EATON ROAD ALIGNMENT STUDY BE PROTECTED. '(978) 94-22 MOTION: I MOVE TO REFER THIS ITEM TO DEVELOPMENT 4 SERVICES STAFF (REVIEW! MODIFICATIONS TO THE�—� OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND TO CIRCULATION ELEMENT . 1 PREPARE ANY NECESSARY ENVIROpNMENING I DOCUMENTATION, AND WITH THE COMMISSIONIIS RECOMMENDATION, RETURN TO THE , BOARD.) S Mi VOTE: _ 1 Y _2 `Y 3 Y ' 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) T i 1 BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - January 25, 1994 l' I Department of Develop Ser s FOLLOW-UPS r i Board of Supervisors Meeting , January 25, 1994 ITEM NO. 3.09 General Plan Amendments - the Board is limited to no more than four amendments to each element of the General Plan per year. Approve tentative schedule for General Plan Amendment hearings (Land Use Element. ) Approved. 3.11 Approve conveyance of Development Rights and Open Area Easement (homesite) pursuant to Use Permit No. 93-28, condition no. 2, Alba B. Houseman and Teresa G. Houseman. Approved. y 3.22 Development Services - Board authorization is requested to delete the purchase of a new vehicle approved in the 1993-94 final budget ($17,000) for the Land Development Division, make the necessary repairs on vehicle no. 18435 (estimated at $7,000) , and transfer the balance of the. fixed asset appropriation to special t maintenance for counter and building modifications. Approved. (Whewl ) I 4.04Protection of future right-of-way for proposed State Route 32 'bypass and enhanced right-of-way for Eaton Road from State Route �991to Cohasset Road. Direct that in future land use decisions, l 4the necessary right-of-way for the recommended alternatives between State Highway Route 32 and Cohasset Road as identified in the final Highway 32/Eaton Road alignment study be protected. Board received report and referred to Development Services. Board emphasized need for public input. Supervisor McLaughlin concerned about impact of widening Eaton Road on area residents, wants alternatives studied. Next step will be for County and City 'staff to meet to identify procedural steps/regulations affecting .selection of general road alignment. Then schedule for amendment of circulation element before Planning Commission and Board. Stu �p�• C� G ,arid Barry to lead, coordinate with Public Works. Relate road 0ff alternatives to view General Plan for Chico and North Chico le ? Specific Plan. 4.05 Adopt revised Nitrate Action Plan Sections IV (3) (b) (2) and IV (4) (c) (2) to delete the requirement for the installation of sewer mains for future use whenever development is to be served by septic tank systems for one acre or larger single family , residential development in accordance with the State Prohibition Order. Approved. Planning to coordinate with Tom Reid to ensure everyone understands changes. I 5.02 Marvin Crites, consideration of an appeal of condition no. 1 (Provide two-way traversable access RS-8-LD-IV to each parcel from a county maintained road or state highway. ) on tentative parcel map (negative declaration with environmental mitigations recommended) , AP 11-10-80 and 87, creating two parcels and modifying the boundaries of three parcels, property located on the south side of Coyote Way, approximately 900 feet northeasterly of its intersection with Stilson Canyon Road, Chico area. Continued to February 8, 1994 at 10:30 a.m. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGN%-T PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 2 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 1 u (916) 355-7020 March 3, 1994 9 actment Mr. Stephen Lucas Q�anni�►9® Planning Department 7 County Center Drive M Oroville, California 95965 j ��pV1�le+ ae►(� fi1A Dear Mr. Lucas: o , The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) has reviewed the Highway 32/E4ton Road Alignment Study inlNorthwest Chico which describes three alignment alternatives. jExtending westerly from" Cohasset Road to Highway 32, the study area includes residential, industrial, agricultural and grazing lands*, some of which harbor significant wetlands and populations of sensitive species populations . Alternative A is recommended by DFG11because it is the biologically superior alternative. Biological impacts would be virtually nil, thus no costly mitigation% measures would be required. . 1 .Alternatives . B and C would both cause the following significant biological impacts which would require substantial mitigation efforts : 1 . Vernal wetlands would be threaten'ied by direct loss, fragmentation, and watershed pollution. Impact avoidance would be required because any vernal wetland loss would be significant (a 70 percent statewide loss -has occurred) and because artificially created vernal wetlands have proven to be biologically nonfunctional ) 2 . Butte County meadowfoam (BCM) Liml'nanthes floccosa californica, would be threatened by watershed pollution, and possibly by fragmentation and direct loss. Impact avoidance would be required because nearly all local populations have been or are threatened by other land uses . Botanical surveys would bellrequired for any route, or route portion,' not previously ''surveyed for BCM and other sensitive plant species . j 3 . Bridges across Sycamore, Mud, and Sheep Hollow Creeks would potentially impact the bed, bank and channel of each creek and associated wetlands. Water quality and aquatic life would be threatened by road runoff pollution, and the impact would extend downstream toIBig Chico Creek and the Sacramento River. ; l J Vr" (Z• ' JJ Mr. Stephen Lucas , March 3, 1994 Page Two 4 . A number of sensitive animal species, invertebrate and vertebrate, may occur locally. A complete zoological survey may be necessary to determine if sensitive species are present, and, depending on species requirements, mitigation criteria would have to be established. Consequently, either alternative route may have to be . realigned to avoid impacts . Special construction features may need to be incorporated in road design to avoid watershed pollution and fragmentation impacts. The applicant should be advised that work within the 100- ' year flood plain, consisting of but not limited to diversion or' obstruction of the natural flow or changes in the channel, bed,, or bank of any river, stream, lake, or vernal wetland will require notification to the DFG as required by Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq. The notification (with fee) , and subsequent agreement, must be completed prior to in_tiating any such work. Notification to the DFG should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency. The agreement process should not be used in lieu of specific mitigation measures to be included as conditions of project approval by the lead agency . Any activity resulting in loss of habitat, decreased reproductive success, or other negative effects on population levels of State-listed endangered or threatened species may be construed as "take" by the DFG. Take of a threatened or endangered species may be allowed after consultation with the DFG (Fish and Game Code 2081 ) . This process would require a f management plan entered into by the project proponent and the DFG that would require formalized mitigation to reduce the significance of the impact. Similar Federal Endangered Species' Act sections apply for Federally-listed species. This project will have an impact to fish and/or wildlife habitat. Assessment of fees under Public Resources Code Section 21089 and as defined by Fish and Game Code Section 711 . 4 is necessary . Fees are payable by the project applicant upon i filing of the Notice of Determination by the lead agency. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21092 and 21092 . 2, the DFG requests written notification of proposed actions and pending decisions regarding this project. Written notifications should be directed to this office. i i � • i i . � `. ,.. � � ., r.. .. _ .sem - w i ... Mr. Stephen Lucas March 3, 1994 Page Three If the DFG can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Ron Bertram, Senior Biologist, at (916) 355-7010 or Mr. Dave Zezulak, Acting Environmental Services Supervisor, at (916) 355-7030 . Sincerely, L. Ryan Broddrick Regional Manager cc: Mr. Ron Bertram Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California Mr. Dave Zezulak Department of Fish and Game Rancho Cordova, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION LOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 P.O.BOX 911 � MARYSVILLE,CA 95901 TDD Telephone(916)741-4509 FAX(916)741-5346 Telephone(916)741-4539 March 11, 1994 FBUT008 03-BUT-32 PM 3.7/10.2 SR 32 Bypass, General Plan Circulation Element Application, GPA94-05 Mr. Larry Painter,Planning Technician Planning Commission, Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Painter: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced document. COMMENTS: The three alternatives identified in the Highway 32/Eaton Road Alignment Study will be I included in the State Routes (SR) 32 and 99 Transportation Concept Report(TCR) updates. The City of Chico should closely coordinate with Caltrans in the selection, development, design and construction of this new route. If this is done,the route should meet Caltrans standards and the Route Adoption phase will be easier and quicker. All new State Routes must be adopted and approved by the California Transportation Commission. If you have any questions, please contact Terri Pencovic,Inter Governmental Review/ CEQA Coordinator, at(916) 741-4199. Sincerely, E.A. "LIB" HARAUGHTY Chief, Planning Branch B cc: i`Wn Clark,Butte County Association of Governments I Planning Department MAR 15 1994 Orovlllo, aiitornla INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Planning Danartment MAR 8 199+ TO: Craig Erickson; Planning Dept . Orovilie,%.0-- uinia FROM: Vance Severin, Environmental Health SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment for Circulation Amendment (Highway 32 Bypass, Chico) DATE: March 2 , 1994 Environmental Health areas of concern: 1. Provide a permanent solution to drainage. 2 . Meet Regional Water Quality Control Board Stormwater Permit requirements, as applicable. 3 . Evaluate potential impact of Stormwater and potential hazardous material spill run-off to surface waterways . Storm drainage systems may rapidly transport pollutants to surface waterways . Mitigate impacts as necessary. 4. If the proposed general plan amendment provides for significant rezoning, development pressure may increase. Areas affected by possible rezoning may not have public sewer available and may not be suitable for substantial development on individual septic systems . VS/gl/GPA32 GENERAL SERVICES Development services DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING AUG 19 1993 CITYorCHICO Fourth and Wall Streets NC.1872 P.O.Box 3420 Oroville,California Chico,CA 95927 (916)895-4873 ATSS459-4873 Aug. 13, 1993 BUTTE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BILL FARRELL, DIRECTOR 7 COUNTY CENTER DR OROVILLE CA 95965 Subject: State Highway Route 32/Eaton Rd. Alignment Sturdy In cooperation with the Butte County Association of Governments, the City of Chico retained the firm of Heritage Partners to prepare a preliminary planning study of the following two circulation corridors in the north part of Chico: A bypass route connecting the existing State Highway Route 32 to State Highway Route 99 approximately from Muir Ave. to Eaton Rd. A re-alignment or widening.of Eaton Rd. from State Highway Route 99 to Cohasset Rd. with a connection to the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport. . A detailed memorandurn from the City of Chico Director of Public Works to the City Council is attached with a copy of the study for your information. Should you have any comments or questions, please call me at 916-895-4876. Sinc ely, r Ly R cEnespy ransportation Coordinator cc CM GSD DPW f City of Chico CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 13, 1993 FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FILE: ID MEMO/ i i SUBJECT: HIGHWAY 321EATON ROAD ALIGNMENT STUDY MESSAGE I - Back round: i . As part of the 1992.93 Overall Work Program, the City retained Heritage Partners to evaluate alternatives for two circulation corridors in the north Chico area; the State Highway Route 32 (SHR 32) bypass from existing SHR 32 to SHIT 99, and Eaton Rd. from SHR 99 to Cohasset Rd. This planning level analysis examines the location, constriction cost, overall economic and environmental issues of suggested alternatives. A copy of the plan is attachad to this memo for your information. Copies of)the plan are'also being distributed to the Butte County Association of Governments, Butte County Departments of Public Works, Planning and Administration, Caltrans District 3, the Chamber of Commerce, Southern Pacific Rail Road, and the Butte County Library. Copies of the plan will also be made available to the public. Plan Summary: { Two circulation corridors were examined: A bypass route constructed to state expressway standards from existing SHR 32 north of Muir Ave. to SHR 99 that is intended to accommodate through traffic and help reduce congestion on SHR 32 through the urban area. A re-alignment or expansion of Eaton Rd. from SHR 99 to Cohasset Rd. with a connection to the Chico Municipal Airport on the west side. Three alternatives are identified in the plan on overlays and aeriEl photographs for each corridor and evaluated with regard to the following: Environmental effects of each alternative. Mitigation measures required for environmental Effects. Planning implications of each alternative including potential for growth inducement. Design constraints. Location and requirements for major intersections. Right of way requirements. Cost estimates. MEMORANDUM August 13, 1993 . Page 2 Plan Recommendations: SHR 32 Bypass The recommended Alternative "B" for the SHR 32 bypass has significantly less impact on residential areas than the other two alternatives. There is an impact on, existing commercial uses near the Esplanade. This alternative also has the lowest overall cost. The existing interchange at Eaton Rd. and SHR 99 would be retained but upgraded to 4 lanes. The total estimated right of way and construction cost estimate is $16,000,000. Eaton Rd. The recommended Alternative "A" for Eaton Rd. has the least environmental impact.especially on the wetlands areas in proximity to Chico Municipal Airport. The alternative retains existing infrastructure and widens the road to 4 lanes and does not provide an alternative access to the west side of the Chico Municipal Airport. This alternative has significantly lower cost with a total estimated right of way and construction cost of $3,385,000. Staff Recommendations: Eaton Rd. The project indicated as Alternative "A" should be incorporated into the Chico Urban Area 20 Year Transportation Plan. This will update cost estimates and alert developers where`right of way will be required. Since this street is currently in the County, a request should be forwarded to the Butte County Board of Supervisors to do the same. SHR 32 Bypass This project should be included on a future agenda for the Intergovernmental Committee to discuss specific future actions. The meeting should also include representatives from Caltrans, BCAG;and the Southern Pacific Rail Road. Josep Robe?t Nunes ire or of Public Works JRN:lm:sb cc: CM Desk Caltrans Dist. 3 GSD City Council (7) Butte Co. DPW Planning Dir. City Clerk (2) Butte Co. Comm. Dev. Comm. Dev. News Media Butte Co. Admin. ACM BCAG Chamber of Commerce 1 V OFFICE OF Thr CITY MANAGER Devefopmerrt Servicei 196 E.Firth Street D E C .f 5 1993 + CITYosCHICO P.O.Box 3420 INC.187Z Chico,CA 95927 Orovffle,California (916)895-4800 ~ Fax (916)895-4825 _ ATSS 459-4800 ` PS-65-27/Chrono December 7, 1993 f Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ' I Dear Board Members: The City and County cooperated together with the. Butte County Association of Governments to complete the Highway 32/Eaton Road Alignment Study. Copies of this report were previously transmitted to each of the Board Members. The Alignment. Study has been transmitted to the California Department of Transportation for their review prior to initiating the next steps in the Alignment Study. I am writing on behalf of the City Council to request that in future land use decisions, the necessary right of way for the recommended alternatives between State , Highway Route 32 and Cohasset Road be protected. We have appreciated County staff's and the Board's cooperation in this comprehensive planning effort, and ! recognize that the development of the new roadway will probably occur over a decade or more. As you are aware, it is critical to the future of the area that the integrity of the recommended alignment be maintained. Thank you very much for your cooperation. , Sincere i 4 Thomas J. Lando City Manager a TJL:ps cc: City Council Heritage Partners Cussick Avenue Neighborhood Council OROVII t T S Sates Co rm m, -t t'e a D-tC 081993 ChAif W-m STraTlvC 4 '(�icer Peau C) ^^ `"""Wo'ORS Dt�ec're�- D��e.tePn•w•JtServ�ce c9 Made Prl m Recycled Paper !L-ice-53 � Cussick Area Neighborhood Council December 13, 1993 Development Service._. Board of Supervisors DEC 2 1 1993 County of Butte Orovllle,cellfomla 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Board Members: We note that the Chico City Manager has requested that your Board take the necessary actions to protect the future right of way of the proposed SR 32 bypass and an enhanced right of way for Eaton Road from SR 99 to Cohasset Road. The Cussick Area Neighborhood Council fully supports this request. As the Board is aware, virtually all the land this right of way would traverse is at this point in unincorporated territory.' This makes it highly desirable that the Board in a timely manner adopt a firm policy requiring all affected departments of the County to maintain the integrity of the engineered right of way. Implicit in such action is the assumption that all cooperating agencies will expedite precise right of way alignment studies and official adoption of approved project maps. Although the City Manager in his letter to the Board estimates an extended time table for this project, we tend to believe traffic demands will make an earlier implementation date extremely desirable. Hopefully by such time the State and local economy will permit funding this project. The Neighborhood Council is convinced that East Avenue and its critical intersections will experience levels of service (LOS) well below level C being considered in the current general plan studies. ; Thank you for your cooperation. # Sincerely 61, e. A.R. Schoenfeldd,/ Chairman Executive Committee # PC: Executive Committee I City Council City Manager Heritage Partners 11 Q 11FPR1` C.A DEQ 14.1993 OF cl)PPa�s��s L�. ; C��� �sSweS �om M ►��eE � k rr% ►h►5 ira--n v Of ricer �(oPo 'bit f G rh ('— be v e( e I W Krt ��ru i[ e,.S'. li �Z- a6A3) i GPA: Butte County, 94-05 t COUNTY OF BUTTE { INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND A. Applicant and/or Project Name: Butte County Board of Supervisors B. Project No. : 9405 C. Address of Applicant and Representative : 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 D. Project Description and Location: This project is a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Circulation Element of the Butte County General Plan. This GPA,is intended to amend the Circulation Element with respect to the future transportation needs of the Chico Urban Area. The GPA will specifically detail the changes that will be required in the Circulation Element in order to maintain consistency within the element and with the General Plan revision process as it evolves. This Initial Study will isolate the potential impacts of this GPA and not the potential impacts related to the actual roadway construction. i II. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: i a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? No X Response: The proposal will not affect subsurface earth conditions. Mitigation: None required. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? No X Response: This GPA will not relate to any changes in soil characteristics. Mitigation: None required. i c. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any surface features. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division Environmental Review ■ 1 i GPA: Butte County, 94-05 d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any geologic features. Mitigation: None required. e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? No X Response: This GPA will not cause any soil related impacts. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any processes of erosion. Mitigation: None required. g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? No X Response: This GPA will not directly cause any loss of agricultural land, however, the roadway when constructed will remove a substantial amount of agricultural land out of production permanently. Mitigation: None required. h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? No X Response: This GPA will not result in any seismic safety concerns. Mitigation: None required. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air qualit'J9 No X Response: The GPA will not affect air quality although the roadway will result in increased auto emissions. Mitigation: None required. b. The creation of objectionable odors? No X Response: This GPA will not create objectionable odors, smoke or fumes. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division Enviranmental Review ■ 2 i' GPA: Butte County, 94-05 c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? No X Response: This GPA will not affect the local or regional climate. Mitigation: None required. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction or water movements, in fresh waters? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any watercourse or the direction and movement of any such watercourses. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on-site or into any water body? No X Response: This GPA will not directly affect any drainage patterns,however,the roadway when constructed will cause substantial drainage concerns that will require mitigation. Mitigation: None required. c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert installation? No X Response: See response #No 3 (c). Mitigation: None required. d. Alternations to the course or flow of flood waters? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any water courses or floodways. Mitigation: None required. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration or surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?. No X Response: This GPA will not affect any surface water. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 3 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 f. Alteration of the direction of rate of flow of ground waters? No X Response: This GPA will not affect the direction or flow of ground waters. Mitigation: None required. h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? No X Response: This GPA will not directly affect any aquifer. Mitigation: None required. L Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? No X Response: This GPA will not result in any substantial reduction in public water supplies. Mitigation: None required. j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No X Response: This GPA will not expose people or property to flooding. Mitigation: None required. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any biodiversity issues. Mitigation: None required. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any biodiversity issues, however, when the proposed roadway is constructed, this issue will require further study. Department of Fish and Game has indicated significant concern in relation to this issue and would require substantial mitigations to reduce potential impacts. Mitigation: None required. ii p, ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 4 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? No X Response: This GPA will not affect the biodiversity of the area. Mitigation: None required. d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? No X Response: This GPA will not directly result in any loss of agricultural acreage, although it will set in motion the eventual construction of the proposed roadways. This construction will require the removal from production of agricultural land permanently. Mitigation: None required. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: . a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, reptiles, fish, shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? No X Response: This GPA will not result in a substantial change in animal habitat. Mitigation: None required. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any rare or endangered species. Mitigation: None required c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any animal populations. Mitigation: None required. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? No X Response: This GPA does involve the endangerment of any wildlife or habitat. The eventual roadway will potentially cause some disruptions to the current habitat and the Department of Fish and Game has indicated the area may contain vernal pools and meadowfoam. These issues will need to be addressed when the actual roadway is constructed. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division Environmental Review • 5 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increases in existing noise levels? No X Response: This GPA will not result in a substantial increase in noise created on-site or in the vicinity. Mitigation: None required. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No X Response: This GPA will not expose people to severe noise levels. Mitigation: None required. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? No X Response: This GPA will not result in a substantial increase in light or glare created on site or in the vicinity. Mitigation: None required. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area? Maybe X Response: This GPA will create a permanent designation of the proposed roadways in the Circulation Element. The majority of the area proposed for these roadways is currently zoned agricultural and will continue to be utilized in this manner until the project is actually constructed. The new roadways will have the potential to become a defacto boundary for urban expansion in the future growth of north Chico. However, any urban expansion of this type would be restricted by the current General Plan designation, current zoning and the presence of the "greenline" that separates urban and agricultural uses. Any and all of these actions would require staff analysis and approval of the Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors. Mitigation: None required. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? No X Response: The proposal will not affect any natural resources. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? Maybe X Response: This GPA will ultimately designate the path of the new roadways through agricultural land. The construction of the roadways will permanently remove this land from agricultural uses, although theoretically, the land would not be lost altogether. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 6 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 Mitigation: None required. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? No X Response: This GPA will not involve the use of hazardous materials, nor is Dated close to any facilities which store or utilize such materials. Mitigation: None required. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? No X Response: This GPA will not affect any emergency services. Mitigation: None required. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Maybe X Response: See response #8. Mitigation: None required. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? No X Response: This GPA will not significantly affect housing demand. Mitigation: None required. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Maybe X Response: This GPA will designate the path of the new roadways proposed in the north Chico area. The resulting impact on traffic circulation will be additional vehicular traffic in an area that is now agricultural land. This GPA will not directly involve the actual impacts of the proposed roadways when constructed, it is only intended to alter the long term objectives of a coordinated Circulation Element. At such time these roadways are constructed, this impact will require strict growth controls in conjunction with design standards that will minimize the potential for increased congestion in the area. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 7 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect parking. Mitigation: None required. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation services? Maybe X Response: This GPA will designate the routes of the proposed roadways and the eventual construction of these roadways will have a definite impact on the transportation system in the Chico area. The new roadways are intended to alleviate the current congestion problems on Highway 32 as it passes through Chico. These alterations to the circulation of traffic will, however, not be realized until the proposed construction is actually initiated. Mitigation: None required. d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Maybe X Response: See response #13(c). Mitigation: None required. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect rail or air traffic. Mitigation: None required. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No X Response: This GPA will not result in traffic related hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. Mitigation: None required. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire Protection? No X Response: This GPA will not have any affect on fire protection services. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 8 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 b. Police protection? No X Response: This GPA will not affect police services. Mitigation: None required. c. Schools? No X Response: This GPA will have no affect on school services. Mitigation: None required. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not result in any increase to demand for park and recreation facilities. Mitigation: None required. e. Maintenance of public facilities including roads? Maybe X Response: This GPA will not directly involve any additional costs for public facilities. The eventual construction of the proposed roadways will require an undefined financial commitment by the County,however, the majority of the funding for these roadways will originate with the City of Chico and other state and federal funds. Mitigation: None required. f. Other governmental services? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not result in any increases in demand for other governmental services. Mitigation: None required. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not utilize substantial fuel or energy. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not substantially increase the demand for energy. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 9 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect electrical power or natural gas distribution systems. Mitigation: None required. b. Communication systems? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect communication systems. Mitigation: None required. c. Water? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect public water systems. Mitigation: None required. d. Sewer or septic tanks? No Response: This GPA proposal will not affect sewage disposal systems. Mitigation: None required. c. Storm water drainage? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect storm water drainage. Mitigation: None required. d. Solid waste and disposal? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect solid waste disposal. Mitigation: None required. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not create any health hazard. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 10 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 Mitigation: None required. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not expose people to any health hazard. Mitigation: None required. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any sc-3nic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Maybe X Response: This GPA will not directly cause any alteration to the existing viewshed, however, the eventual construction of the proposed roadways will permanently alter the agricultural landscape. This alteration may be perceived to be offensive to some members of the community. Mitigation: None required. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not result in an impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities in the area. Mitigation: None required. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Maybe X Response: This GPA will not directly affect the use of the land, however, the eventual construction of the proposed roadways will cause considerable disruption of the earth. This would be a significant impact considering the project location is in the Mud Creek drainage system which is a high archaeological sensitivity area. Before any construction could be initiated, a detailed survey of the area will need to be conducted. Mitigation: None required. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to the prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect historic sites. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review . 11 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Maybe X Response: This GPA has the potential to create an alternative land use in a overwhelmingly agricultural area. The increased growth potential for urban expansion may be detrimental to the agricultural heritage of the area. At present, the General Plan and zoning controls in this area will prevent this type of urban expansion from occurring. Mitigation: None required. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No X Response: This GPA proposal will not affect religious resources. Mitigation: None required.® ■ Butte County Planning Division Environmental Review . 12 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 Ill. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No X Response: As discussed in Section II of this document, this project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure will into the future.) No X Response: The project, as discussed in Section II of this Initial Study, will not result in short-term benefits of the expense of impacting long-term environmental goals. 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) No X Response: This proposal will not have a significant cumulative impact on the environment. 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No X Response: As discussed in Section II of this Initial Study, this proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on human beings. IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD HAVE a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be.prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 22 March 1994 Prepared by: Stephen Lucas, Planner Reviewed by: Pou�- Paula Leasure, Principal Planner ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 13 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division Enviror..mental Review ■ 15 GPA: Butte County, 94-05 DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element 2: Proposed Density of Development: n/a 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: n/a 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): n/a 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: n/a 6. Source of Water Supply: n/a 7. Proximity of Power Lines: n/a 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: n/a B. Environmental Setting 1. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Valley floor b. Slopes: 0-2% c. Elevation: 110 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: none 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Vina loam, prime soils b. Limiting Factors: none 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Low c. Landslide Potential: Low d. Fire Hazard: Low e. Expansive Soil Potential: Low 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Mud Creek drainage b. Ground Water: Abundant valley aquifers. c. Drainage Characteristics: Moderate d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 20-30 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: n/a 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Good. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Agricultural and urban landscapes. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Small birds and animals common to valley grasslands. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High Sensitivity area. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Orchard & Field Crops, Agricultural-Residential, Commercial. 12. Existing Zoning: A40, A20, A5, ARMH, SR1, M1, M2, C2, C1, LI, PUD. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: Agricultural, residential, commercial, industrial. 14. Surrounding Area: ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 16 �� GPA: Butte County, 94-05 a. Land Uses: see above b. Zoning: see above c. Gen. Plan Designation: see above d. Parcel Sizes: .25 acres - 160 acres 15. Character of Site and Area: Agricultural, residential 16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Chico 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: Chico 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: n/a b. Water Availability: n/a 20. School Districts: n/a ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activtr Map 11-1. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1. Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map: Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Mar). Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Mar), established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. Chico 15' series. 15. Soil Map. Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map, Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 17 I FILE NO: / / az:: APPLICANT: gVTTiz CourJT-1 MOAN 0-V SUfz,,p-g-\/lsc>t?S OWNER: N �A ( YA 1-1 b U � REQUEST: A),-EtJT�im>r Q t' TO T'HCa. nuiTC Gou IQTll C7-GQl&2A l_.. Pt-al'i G1 t>_CuLpT!OQ AP NO: SIZE: \ f LOCATION: A►-�C�ZtJ{�T'l�� �A;) &R 60 2�/ AIT�SPLANN � IN i E2S�Cf t(�� O HWH VIA GgD.�nA Gf�; B�E AT01•f ���f SIPi.AN AP 1� R1 i+�P�1e:it ISb Q114 Com'-GA 2rnfACr- tD rD . -TO HWH 'Sp- Lc ST2911G-R2NfifL L.M . 1JE.ST To �jw2jj 3"Z. (Wpnml 6 - moo e-QLay. - EXISTING ZONING: -TA2-i ooS ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: VAC2-1©y SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: C-t?-d'S ,AG b2�s L17 �A7''l APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: . I f rTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMI :ON 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 538-7601 TO: DATE: February 10, 1994 RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION General Plan Amendment for Circulation Element. File No. 94-05 Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project• Amendment to the Butte County General Plan Circulation Element. Location: Alternative (A) Eaton Rd/Esplanade intersection to Hwy.32 via Carmack. (B) Eaton Rd/Esplanade interchange north of Carmack Dr. to Hwy. 32. (C) SR 99/Garner Ln. interchange west to Hwy. 32 north of Mud Creek. We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Larry Pa' er Planning Technician Comments: Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR COMMENTS �9�;►3,COS Ci 2GUt.._ATth:� GL.G1"`C��' Ar�E1J�1wG.Y�e � x SEWERS County Public Works Richvale Sanitary District County Environmental Health L.O.A.P.U.D. County Building Division Skansen Subdivision (CSA #21) City of Biggs Stirling City Sewer Main. Dist. ?C City of Chico Thermalito Irrigation District City of Gridley Butte Water District City of Oroville Town of Paradise IRRIGATION WATER Planning Department Biggs-W. Gridley Water District Z{ State Transportation Department Butte Water District Durham Irrigation District DOMESTIC WATER OWID Butte Water District Paradise Irrigation District �G California Water Service Co. Richvale Irrigation District Del Oro Water Co. Table Mountain Irrigation OWID District Thermalito Irrigation District Thermalito Irrigation District Other DRAINAGE DISTRICT UTILITIES �C PG&E North (Chico) PG&E South (Oroville) y� Pacific Bell RECLAMATION DISTRICT Chambers Cable Viacom TV Cable FIRE PROTECTION OTHER COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS E1 Medio Fire Protection Dist. Paradise Pines Architectural County Fire Department/CDF Control Committee Butte County Farm Bureau MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Community Association: Durham, Oroville or Butte County Lime Saddle Community Service POLICE PROTECTION District State Highway Patrol Butte County Air Pollution County Sheriff Control District Butte Environmental Council SCHOOL DISTRICT RECREATION FACILITIES Chico Area Recreation District Durham Area Rec. & Park District Feather River Rec. & Park District Paradise Rec. & Park District Richvale Rec. & Park District State Parks & Rec. Department RESOURCE MANAGEMENT State Water Resources Department U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management Butte County Mining Committee State Department of Fish & Game California Native plant Society State Div. Forestry - attention: Craig Carter Regional Water Quality Control Board ' r9 ' •, DSS7-<-S i I INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM February 14, 1994 TO: BILL CHEFF, DIRECTOR PUBLIC WORKS FROM: C�/ J' ' 44_j_� MARY ANNE HOUX// �� J �y�j� RE: HIGHWAY 32 EXTENSION( I have had some calls from interested citizens who have expressed concern about the location of the Highway 32 extension. I will be asking those who express such a concern to write to you. _ ' In this one instance, the pro ?sed road runs straight through their property at Catherine a and Bay. These citizens have been farming the land, have placed a well on it , and p l ann e'd- t o buil d a-lrom'e--there--i rr--the-near f u tor-e.. In discussions you are having with the City of Chico, could consideration, please, be given to placing this road extension her to the North? Thanks for whatever yau-camr-do- Q LUe maoh/ ��- VA_ �Al Y v BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION s� OF 7 County Center Drive Planning Department Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 538-7601 FEB 1 994 TO: Public Works DATE: February 10, 1994 Orovllle,California RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION General Plan Amendment for Circulation Element. File No. 94-05 Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: Amendment to the Butte County General Plan Circulation Element. Location: Alternative (A) Eaton Rd/Esplanade intersection to Hwy.32 via Carmack. (B) Eaton Rd/Esplanade interchange north of Carmack Dr. to Hwy. 32. (C) SR 99/Garner Ln. interchange west to Ewy. 32 north of Mud Creek. , We are making an assessment -of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report - (EIR) . Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed ' that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Larry Pa' er Planning Technician Comments: Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No -ouNTY OF BUTTE � 1kFEB 14 1994 ` -and Development'Sec. f a .t t i � ► Azfl''Ct;f�U��ai IN42 t�",`1ItUj osb3� 0