Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout039-250-030I Ir , yin a' '"H" APPENDIX (continue ). $. The &r6ject is designed soChat htiuses will be clustered ift groups of �t to minimize their, effect an theoontiftued agricultural use' of the land. P.ublir water from Durham Irrigation District,o be used for domestic use;. Underground utilities are proposed:, again sa as.no„Cb disturb agricultural use.. Paved A, roads are also proposed.,. s r •�- ;r .� IV it "The average distance between trees on the project. site is'28 £eet. Elkins and Connell (198 7) site plant=ing distances closer' than ?.4 feet between trees as undesirable and that may, result in early crowding and decreased orchard life. The eneral condition of trees in the g orchard is poor (Elizabeth lvletzger, written communication). ; rio diseases or insect infestations clqurrently affect the prcilard. 'The average ,pounds of almond meat produced per , acre from tho orchard, over the last five yeairs (Le., 1987 to 1991) is shown in Table 4.1 (Elizabeth Metzger, written communication). C rnparing the almond production figures for 'Butte County in'1990 with thea almond production figures for the Metzger orchard listed in :s. ` 'Table 4-1, it is clear that a) the aver.7ge yield per acre'from the Metzger orchard was;higher 1987, 1988, and 1991 and 'lower'in 1989 and "x990 than the average yield per acre from "Metzger almond orchards in Butte County in 1990; and b) the average value"per acre of the caxchard was ?ewer in 1987-19'41 than the average value per acre of almonds,qrchards in Butte ouimtjr in 1990, Based oil Ellkins aid Cannell (1987), the orchard is in poor production; as it averages less than 1100 pc>iznds of meats per acre. This reference also indicates: that it is generally time to replace 1:he orchard if the avenagc production is less than 1000 pounds ,of .meats/acre, .Shakin &poling,. sweeping, an pick-up are the present methods used for harvesting almonds on the project site. Ivitragen and pot- ash are used for fertilizing as required. Strip spraying, mowing, and complete spraying of the orchard floor, before harvesting are the types o£ orchard floor management used on the project site. Dormant spray, pc�gcorn spray, and blossom spray are used as weeded for shothole and brown rot (Elizabeth Ywletzger, written communication). The irrigation sr . -1m.on the project site consists, solid set pipes Hanning in an east -west direction over the Southern 100 acres. Spri iklers are situated between every, is from 4 located on the eastern borders other tree rote The uTigatioin water supplied wells of proposed S -acre lots 11, 14, 1'�, and on proprSsed 1 -acre lot S.q, 'The present imganon schedule for them, orchard is once cvery'two weekx for `12 hours, from May through July. The property owner reports straying b;y'livestock froa.i a uearby farm and trespassing byI children of riding bicycles and andallzing sprinkler heads as: the main conflicts 1 for the purposes 'between orchard production co 'the project, sit(: and adjacent land uses oven the past. few 1� Years. (Elizabeth Metzger, writteri.'comxri?inication). to so ect Site P s)grtdil-dTtl-r USS.�CIIQG�nid` �____ ' the ro'ect site include almond orchard and agricultural .grct�ltural uses adJacent to p J . residential uses' to the north and west; almond orchard, winter wheat, and agricultural residential uses to the south; and almond orchard- a kiwi .grove, vacant land, and agricultxlral residential uses to the; east.' `T6'rllims�son ,ii91 d Status" , "The protect site'is not;under a , 6 illiamson Act,con tract. Seveial pare els a��ijacent to or near the;project site are currently under a Virihia:mson pct contract (Figure 4)., Q392d25, 1 Page, �1-b k r ' TOLE 4-1 Metzger rezoning and Subdivision Project 1987 - 1991 Alwohd Pro, dii ion1 on the Project Site Average A.yerage price Revenue average Average. Utas Yield 2' Per Found Rkeive4 Cost Loss Ranch ar Per Acre Received ($) :Per Acre`($) Per Acre,($)" Per ,Acre ($) Loss 138°7 X80 1.02 999.60' 1;244.60 245.00 586:17,50', 1988 1139 `' 1.06' 1,207.34. 1;446.53 239.91 57,576.Oti 1989 1387 1.02 394.74 491.49 96.75 231210.0(1 19►90 842 0.85 7M70 10069.34 353.64 84,873.00 fl971 1,217 1,473.57 1,545.59 72.02' 17,284.80 does not includes -laxed .assets or capital overhead, living; and profit pounds 4 amo a meat Source: E� zabeth Metzger, vvriitten OrAm' nicatign r a I' i 0392`02141, J a, r � � • ' • � i ''� YY�•• /! •� .GVM � r i 1!1 �,w N� ,7 yy~' •f : � � I _ • n�rrsnrp..r• +Ir Hal • 9r �-. .n ru• 1 � • tea. t � f , I..'fgr,p+srlr� _: � yrrr r .ia •• , !.\ 1 a�. �Y+• • lB • 1 � + ' • i VV r •• +.. v rrr>•v rr+e '- I� • • G BM 164, (i � ....x.e 'L +IK3HWAY 58•.r Y ��... r.a,......_...� + • , i• rLr Ft �� l }it{x+L $Cil ;�,. .G •.. ( j{ ,• a t BM. =58 ♦ f •1 \ iso , 04 N + ' i1 ria • � • \ ,/+. i'• 0.5' p i+i i•;i YiA i •� '• •.i.� ' Y: J •'�J••.• i •• •t, V _ +.. '••;' ,•. • \ :. '•,•.:-%' `�. +153 J',~'�, ' G '. by i• + ■ r• "•''• �'7jj� D + •' •S • �brw fi�ry!�•, R�•`® TP Y •+ 7J •w i j:�s•�� •• - •• •'+• • :!i i+ :� SITE ;1 ♦ • Y ♦ • • • i' MMM i �� + SM 144 �•ir + � • • e %,,,,.•.r ,; ►s•'+11i��: •a. i.iit •Y.,,,,1•�.'� • �1 .� .i Y ./ , � . MetzgerRezoning Subdivision ,�'�ro ect ,+ � IfMWr1MMM:Y+,Mia1'.'.�M•a'Md"lr.MwM j .. pipfe 42;' a VJILLIAaiSON ACT"L.AN]llS SCALE i :24,oao NEAR PROJECT SITE 1Vlichae� Clayton &Associates t`tYN �aoa Mie 0 1.OW 2,00 3; � �� _. . sr. > .t Act _has always been to ;get the fax relief associated with being taxMp ed at an agricultural rate , -aad not at a rate for potential urban development. Since property taxes have been igniicantly reduced and leveled, there is now less econamic inci�ntive for the farmer to seek. Williamson Act " status- This situation bas created a potential for �7reater speculation in Iand; greater likelihood of applications for ase and the great pp subdividing agricultural land: into smaller' parcels. Tbis situation is compounded by two factors: the declining agriculturally based economy o' gyral communities and increasing population pressures. Specifically, the population of lifornia J expected to grow by 14 percent over the next 10 years. Marge part of this is expected to occurl in rural counties. As the concentric rings of urbanization., Fowth diatie out from the established urban centers, the pressure for conversion of agricultural . land to urban developruent increases. Expensive housing, pollution, traffic congestion, and'> crime in the cities ?all, make a strong incentive for people tor move to the country. Therefore, people are willing to drive inczeasing distances from their jobs in the city to a home in the country in order, to achieve a'higher quality of life. y 've for farmers to enter into a Williamson Act contract Btu Coun .Che reduced incenti sand the increasing pressure on rural cities and counties to revitalize their declining economies presents a real threat to-agricultureL in Butte County. Pressure for housing .:developments catering to workers in Yuba City, Marysville, and Sacramento are,,starting to appear in .the southern portion of the County. Development pressures continue to increase " on the rural lands outside of Chico, Qroville, and `Paradise. Wade Associates (1986) notes- that the agriculturaleconomy of Butte County is undergoing major changes reflecting global economic shifts and technologic innovations, and that on the focal level :these changes will. affect the viability of many, agricultural activities. For example, marginal agricultural', actiy ties will cease, or agricultural landowners may need to change to other crops or need' " supplemental sources of income to continue. Dud=A DgyIon-NeJsvn Pkm ngArer. The issue of cumulative loss of agricultural land to increasing urbanization in the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area is documented in the 17urham-Dayton-Nelson Plan :lutaster Environmental .Assessment (Wade Associa"tes 1986): The gradual canYersion: ox portions ,of the: project region to residential uses in response to employment growth in areas outside ofthe.Planning Area is also documented in the Wade Associates(1986) explains that tl�e Planning Area offers a rural setting and ;agriculturally-based lifestyle that is within very easy commuting range .of Oroville and Chico utte as well as the other urban areas in B `County: Employment opportunity growth in; these' areas:, and m the Planning Area itself will: attract people who would like to settle . rism, farms or large suburban lots., Consequently, there will be market pressure to subdivide ,portions ofthe Planning: , ca`to accomrnortate additional population. 'Phis subdivision and; changes ,in an use within the Planning ;Area are likely to, involve additional residential ,. development passibly, changes in agricultural production an`d, practices and removal of , soiln, p rime agricultural s from.pro, lic, o 0- 0.5141 ,Page 41-10 CI 77777 With regard to d) above, federal, state, and local government agencies as well as private organizations have developed programs to discourage farmers from developing their lands. T�nese programs have been; developed in response to statewide planning goals and Local Agency Formation Conimission (T.AFCo) policies to preserve and protect prime agricultural soils and premature conversion of agricultural lands to urban development: Some of the major programs' include: the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act), formation of ;land trusts, farm right to ordinances, deed disclosures, purchase of dev.,elopmet rights, transfer of development rights, open space easements, and,estate planning. ''These proVaPs are summarized below. I%rilliamsun Act Pxopertytaxes are usually assessed on the "highest and best_ use" of a parcel, which usually means intensive developwent. Accordingly, gly prior to the Williams�:)n Act, agricultural land was taxed at high levels, forcing out of business. those farmers who were unable to pay highproperty taxes The 1965 'Williamson`Act was created to alleviate this problem. The WilliaT;Lson Act allows local governments to dedgnate preserves of agricultural land and assess propertytaxes based on the actual income- roducin value of a ncultural land , a tax rate eatl `reduced front P g .L.g _ �' Y that levzed an developed properties. Local governments were given significant authority, in establish%ng guidelines for Viliamson Act contracts within their Jurisdiction. Three key variables that can be tailored to suit a county's needs are regulated at the local .level - determining eligibility requirements, establishing: contract cancellation ;policies, and establishing minimum parcel size. The Williamson Act has lost much of its effectiveness as an agricultural preservation mechanism. Un dQr Proposition 13, property taxes on agricultural, land are higher. Farmers are no'onger assessed_ at, the lower agricultural tax rate, reducing the � economic incentive far the farmer to retain agricultural lands in production: LIMd Trus Land ,trusts are formed for acquiring agricultural land and for ` permanently precluding agricultural Land from development. Land trust organizations can be either owned and maintained by localland owners or by .local government agencies. Private land trusts have several advantages over public land trusts: They can purchase development rights to agricultural land under less permitting _o restrictions and public review time requiremenits, and the coin purchaselana without having Gm e the pendliag, transaction open to public knowledge. Currently there over 'These are si7,, private land trusts operating in California. programs are playing 1 an increasingly important role. in the conservation o£ agricultural land; -night to Frxrm Odour ie4 A Right to: arni 'Ordinance is a local ordinance designed to preserve agricaltural lands by protecting fanners` from. complaints and liability claims. The ordinan&e.mak0 it more' difficult for adjacent property"ownErs to clauti that' their property rights are being infringed ` upon as a. result of agricultural ` i�perations that result in nuisance effects: i3utte County has adopted a Right to, l~'arm Urdnance.. } 0392 s az ram Ar-zz , 1 Open'q Faserraerttv,, The 1969 Open Space Easement Act allows counties to preserve land in agricultural use, Similar to the Williamson Act, this law triggers a zeassessment of property burdened by an open space easement. Once air open space easement is recorded on a particular parcel,; the parceI caIot tie developed for a minimum of 1U years. In some counties, open space easements may be perm neat. litgadott Measures that Ynvalve Imposing Fees on Developers. Mitigation measures for the. loss of agrcultuzal land and soils that involve prime imposing fees on developers Include.: a) using development impactfees to acquire development rights on existing a%pculturallands in other locations of the same jurisdictions, under the PDR or TDR programs ident`if'ied above;- and b) developing and implementing a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to fund the PDD; R and TDR programs. p oficie r crit Impterrterltation. lt�easures o f llie Draft Butte Cv E and d ee�eoafion trseneralPlan l�lemert� :"he ' . ', Natural urce Agriculture section of`the DraftEnorgy, Natural TLesources, and Recreation Oeneral Plan dement identifiies several policies Arid implementation` measures to ensure preservation of agxicultural land and continued agricziliural productivity, These policiesand unplemeriration measures incorporate some of the mitigation measures identified above. Although the M. ement has not yet been adopted, it provides some useful tools for the fiiture preservation of agricultural ;land and for evaluating:proposed residential Y ,development projects in the project area. The applicable agricultural preservation policies and implementation measures include: .4.2-1.1 ,To ensure continued. Ggdcultural productivity, the County shall establish the retention of Prime agdculttirdl lands in formable units and the protection of agrrcultural'lands frdrn develo meet atterns that threatened a .cultural liability: Implementation: a) The County shallprotect agrir, td tural lands by directing future urban devetopmer-t to areas where sufficient infrastructure' and services . exist to support urban scale developmen4 and where additional devetoprrient will not result in a significant adverse impact to age cultae1. 4.2-2 Land use' patterns may be established that allownew urban development to tacate ,outsidef the existing urban centers onty tf they do mat threaten agricultural landor result in a potential for leap frog development. y Implementation, b) The County shall make the ollowtn ".two f g fuzdings� when 7 approving agncitltural land use conversion: I) the benefits of conveitirtg agricultural tangs substantially outweigh the long-cerin be:efts of co�?nuedI. agriczzltural production; and 2) no other-non-agricultural lands are reascrcabty , available and suitable for the proposed development." t �0392U,25d,1 page 4-z- zy fi •q� �.''.'d kS r 666"' reard ' P'eris aged t�iseasas ern Rem igg . a d ` tg Ad jcacent Orchards 71e spreadof pests and diseases from almond trees remaining on the project site to new and young almond orchards adjacent to the site is a significant,impact of:the proposed' project. The proposed project includes retaining portions of the almond orchard in "strips" tanging in size from IS to 5 ,acres, in the backyards of the 1 -acre lots; ;and operating. and "strips (txaintauung these orchard as productive almond orchard for theose u of r `e p rp ,p es rvmg' a portion of the agricultural use on the site, providing visual auleriit es, and providing income for the homeowners' association (Figure2-3). In addition, it is anticipated that for itosthetics, shade, and wind -breaking, only a limited_ number of almond trees would be removed by the lot owner of each S -acre lot for. constructing the house, garage, associated buildings, and driveway,: T'he almond trees in the abandoned :orchard strips in the backyards, -lots of the 1 -acre and the almond trees remaining on each of the 5 -acre lots would pose a rsk for the spread of pests and diseases to the almond orchards on properties adjacent to the project site. Abandoned almanu orchards pose, a pest and disease risk to adjacent almond orchards' because the nuts remain unharvested. The unharvested nuts (mummy nuts) are hosts for theorchard d constitute a reservoir of `worm, iessure'ithatn pose a k tolada ent almond oant f hards,.st Pressure" P ] Larvae of the naval orange worm feed on the :nut kernels and overwinter in the nuts. The larvae hatch as moths in spring and ILI can fly up to 0.5 miles from the hatching site. The peach twig borer moth is another orchard pest of concern. Young larvae of this moth feed on the tree shoot tips in spring and'. on the nut kernels after the hulls split, and overwinter in thecrotches of 1-2 year old tree shoots. The :larvae hatch 'as moths in spring and can fly up to 0.5 miles from the hatching location.. Brown rot:and'.shothole fungus are diseases of an almond orchard that are only" � a problem in areas immediately adjacent to the disease location; therefore, they do not pose as much of a risk to adjacent almond orchards (Joe Connell, personal communication). The proposed orchard operation in conjunction with residential development on the 1 -acre lots is p.ot feasible,'from logistical and economic standpoints: Tfierefare, the potential exists ' for abandonment of these orchard strips due to the infeasibility of operating and maintaining r them: 'Typical orchard production operations are logistically and economically"feasible. only when they - are con d'aded.cuer-a large_area_at-one tune The minimum feasible size of an ilmond ' i`. orchard far hobo £armui is 10 acres JoP onnel y g ( 1, ersonal comrnumcation .' . P ) The , proposed almond orchard strips are too small for efficient operation, therefore, they are too small for profitable almond production. The steps are, too small for efficient: l' I .and operation of an imgation system and for efficient movement and m'' aneuverin�gof hari�esttnlr machinery" and equipment, especially if the strips contain iz mixture of almond varieties v, which increases the problems' in' maneuvering of the equipment: In addition, purchasing o£ Harvesting machineryby the homeowners' association would not,pe economically & i ible because harvesting machinery�is very expensive.` Hiring of custom machinery operators would not be feasible Because .these- operators do not work in: small orchard areas because these areas are difficult to work iii and are not profitable (�oe Donnell, personal communication). 1 03921125;41 �Wage X4.1-1 r7 9rlrgation Measrtres. Successful implementation of the following measur es would reduce the %gn,ificant preclusion of existing land. uses and land, use conflicts/nuisances-associated with e proposed project to levels of non -significances re". 4,54 Mitigation, Measures 4.1-1, 4.1-2, and 4.14 through 4.1-6 ,� tdf�SLSfPTr�V 19%i't�r 1^'.XLStL1Yg;;pQ1rCI6'S , A rp uires that a ro 'osed ro ect be anal ed to determine the potential conflicts with q P P p j yz 11. i opted; environmental plans and goals, of the community where it is located (Appendix G . statements that, are germane i the CEQA Guidelines).' The ;analyses of `ind' Id policy to the :proposed rezoning and subdivision project are, described below. The final cy g administering the palicies determination o£ oli consisten will be, made b ,thea' agencies adirunist policy or plans. Inconsistency of the proposed' project with. County goals, objectives, and policies is a ;significant adverse i act of the proposed project. The primary' incon;>istency of the on. of proposed project identified in the policy consistency analysis. below is the conversion. ._ .. agricultural land to non-agrcultural uses proposed by the project. This conversion conflicts vith several olicies encouraging the, preservation of agricultural production and income. p :. Bate County General Plena. The following analysis of policy consistency refers to;I e goo* objectives, and policies listed above under, the Applicable Plans and Policies portion of. the JIM, Land Use and Policy Consistency setting section (Section 4.5.1). The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Welfare goal (A) and policy (1) of the Land Use Element. Tlae proposed project involves construction. and occupancy of residential development adjacent to agricultural land, which potentially exposes residents to dust, chemical sprays, and noise generated by agricultural activities. Therefore, the proposed project does not promote the health, safety, and well-being of future residents,, The proposed project is inconsistent with lZesource Management policies 1; 3, and 4, which call for maintaining agncultural ;crop production, retaining areas in, agncultwral designatian; and preserving prime soils. Subdividing an almond orchard into'S-acre lots for residential development :is inconsistent with the intent of maintaining agricultural crop production as a major source of foal, employment, 'and incorao in the County. The orchard on the site %s currently productive, can be replanted, and, is located on prime agricutfiiral soils. The ` proposed project is not immediately adjacent to urban development and does not provide 1. a'buffer between uriian .and agricultural use Instead, the project is proposing conversion of productive, agricultural use into residential use and encroachment of residential development `onto agricultural; land, 030025 45 ' Page � 5-15 } i �,?mment on the EIR it, , and .Yie 'did not firing up' any significant environmental issues that were not addressed 'or impacts that were 4 .not addressed at that time that this document.was `prepared. Mr': hast feels °that the comments" in the March it fax relate more to the project itself. than: the EIR: : If all these comments were. to be incorporated into the EIR, they would have to be legitimate or substantial, concerns with the content of. the "EIR and potential deficiencies of the EIR. The issues which have been brought up now are not related to that .and he doesn't feel it is necessary to include the comments into the EIR: Mr. Edell said., that according to ,item 21 of the timeline, the date of completion for the Draft EIR was May 8, 1992, Mr. Last said that the 45 day review period followed that date for the adequacy and content of the EIR. The ic hearin re was a publg on the'ETR in August, 1992. To include additional information, it has to be significant or substantial; new environmentaI data or deficiencies of thedocument itself. This ;is jest more information and requests by: the applicant rather than material that should be included in the EIR. Mr. Strunk said that the applicant is of the opinion that certain deficiencies were revealed after the ,set of events that Mr: Last has referenced. There are new proposed mtigation.;ineasureg that were not in the EIR and if, in fact; they are included into the EIR, then they would haveL a significant impact on the report itself by redu`cing.the conditions of concern in the report to a''statrs of not being significantly, detrimental to the environment and to the neighboring farms and to the community. This ;is, in addition, a correction and clarification of things, that were omitted,. from, the; EIR that should 'be included as mitigation measures for the sake of properness. Mr Last said that there are a lot o£ comments, blit no "specific ,. mitigation measures are. proposed.' There has been talk about the g farm management.agreement,,but no details provided to! o Staff.' i+Ir:' Last said he: was not sure what was the ;intent of�bringing up these .issues now. ]Kr:,.Edell asked County Counsel if it is correct that the EIR is A document the committee can review, comment, onaccept or reject, and based on public comment it can'be al"tered by this committee. Neil ,McCabe'' said' that is correct: qtr."Edell asked if, by this committee' a_ , wledging< the comments , of 1Kr". Strunk in' "the; committee's. aCt on, has any alteration ''been , done that, _0d; have: 'been- `done, to'the, environmental docuinerit.` In'" other words, the`;EIR"can be certified, but based cn these comments, these new mitigations applied". TE Co UNTYbEVEWNTREBUTVIN, CO MMTTTEE MINUTES 3iARCH 22., 19''93 , 7711 i YJ''i"'Z'E COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES 1t1ARCH page Ur Strunk said he means, "approve, disapprrsve, or conditionally approve the application," 'tlr. Edell k y.id the Review corm tee,is the Advisory `DeveloFinent Agency as defined 'ire the Government. Code and does have the, authority to approve, disapprove,< or conditionally approva. any 'appl,icati d's for parce]. maps, subdivision maps or waivers of parcel m.raps or boundary 11modifications. ; Strunk said there are three "separate, se s caf time limits. for antative subdivisiod h mlp, applications j,j 'time limits under the Subdivision Map "Act 2) separate. time limits underl eche Permit Streamlining Act seGrate time limits mits° under the CEQA and CEQA Guidelines 14r. Strunk said. that the Subdivision Map Act. allows the longest' time for action --one year from the date the application is aomplete is allowed to. certify the EIA. IE the local. governinent has not; certified the EIR, then the EIP, is certified by lata, which is a "done act" and no one can change it. xir. Edell, .a ked. wheat section of what Code. is being cited,: *ter. Strunk said.he could provide that later- to Mr. Edell, iaici that he recently went to a trainin sessn.on b the' Edell � Y g Y" people" who wrote --the boob on,,., Environmental impact, Reiyorts and environmental- revi�:w. ,They did not` see any time 'limits at ,ail for adoption' of an EIR, - 4r. Last said_ that" CEQA states` that there ""is one year, in whim^h to 4` certify an EIRE obut there are- ,no sanctions by CEQA or state'' law, 'if .that is not done . �Sr: Strunk $aid he has two court cases that relate to that, which he will bring' up' later. Strunk said it is his understanding that if the. EIR is not certified ,or denied within the one year time limit, it is certified by law. It, .is a "done act" and .no one can :cha1 11nge it. Under the. Subdivision Map Acte .an, additional 45''days are allowed`for'the Advisory `Agency =ith n vihich 'they' must act cin the app kation itself. If they do not. act ori' the application' " within 'the':'' ;additional] 45: days .after the QTR has been ceLrtified. by law, thea' the application is approved bylaw: r °- YZ rt Ed.e13 .saki that the 45 days starts ;once 'the' 'EIRE certiii.ed: "He said it has riot yet been one year since the ESR has baen heard yet: Ift has "not even eXisted for, one ;year",.how 'can+ it have been` ce'rtf"a.ed by ;law for being ovear ones year? . p �� , ,y "i ! ♦y tf'Ei�•y Yt9tf C u,N"r.17`LC'Ld ,? 14.4 �► y"M� ,�{- 4°f" 4 1:'64 n l T W `A c.�- � 1d.�7' P- e. t:' r-' la -W r rH TWO. ,4-t ,A• N 4..t -rin y^ w r rN T 1=4 AMA 'N,46 r-1 e id f -G � E C: ry . N �" •• U c� J" `rq4 6 S elA&l t /Q- ' P Gr N r iG 1 ,q If 0. 7'0 e> 7'° / r-+ 4F 6 N # 'T�Tf R. �" •4 �e E s cp c oi, . ,� �, ,A ,Fj c. CvZ S r r c c. l , ..� ¢.G f cea 0-<4 '44-4 a i $'/s E�'c�.^ f'' rGA-L ►� jP A 4 s i e - ACO k -.#u t..¢Na rN r-+� kyr, �0 j s/ i a. 9 u to a. 6 P I*C-.r /- .S' 'ec-"'.?� ✓p.esc7"r t `A b 8w r> '04 e.04 r if PP crb, ICb.0 Cr"t-4---m ".s "A 11 t r �f r d� N C y .l5 r s.9 [irfl G`G' r••t E'►=a'% �u:, r• y- y P`N r i ., G '� y"r +�.► F Y.�'t- f � T'�i' �9 T' 4A, x �-- ; i'is i -s r P r t.CP77E"T:, 6 , r Yd it ,{ k c{ 1" if E N 7 ftL' Z C /t� S. 6a4t7" er- se, •' tl ( tt1 �l-ft;r� uSr� i" ,yP/'trcANrS ;.. ►N% 4:-4 � ✓3 i� ��6 rl� I'" :: �t t 7 r 6g-7^'�a�..� ti -t '�•.%9-S tr N � � ?' !f f 5 jam! lC`c�'r�� x, �' S, � � E"�I L �'$ S � ' � G N /7GI Er -4 ,�..s T /i• � ' tfNO,�"2 �va"s % + 7, i (%rfrS if �ff,ktrcfn ;�'Y it 7-777777 C A A^ � i I•. 0000000lo Eatot TM IX T r -f t ,�., • / "r"-�- Z , ra-''�': iH Fr. s=.� I d E'P�u. T . , N 'i rs cm ,p S ;u LO a 14ow-:44J t w r C iAed 1-� 7 q/' rr.a e t ✓ t> N ,e4 7'rf e /J+r r77 —Ice J'' � n.� �•e.�3+� i •, u .� �'-S S u � rf rpt b ��Trc„�lS 4 .A+►-,r�"o F�'G'r '�l r .1 p. � 3 ,, � E �r rT'�' e cr WI d-4 N N 4f, -J4 �'c,.k y r SJ � c n.+ �f *f � � I Ae*4 by 111� meb rE' EtU E.�iZ. /G/1-I-fj 61 4 hof r� �.'�• r %Gr"-.��`7 Er�� L� �'`"� c rt S. �.[! ,a.•�r j'-�! J� ,�'c� ,�}-.c= s� �s7r' �ier,�°E�IJ't'SJ.�= S �.�SS[!E•� � r�.pT'Ives.sS rw �,�?.6� .3"""�� 1 ��� 7"lF t S ' ,2. ��C�.0 ' 7'"h`G' �.� N_ S t[ L.;"'A�r<:.il rr �p.9 t f►� ?' cacP T 7"�E EJC/S T"�NG, A4,; s e. YEA �- tr T` `4s t t S Til y e0 ti b P, p� D c �.y R.t ES LAA 04 cs��l . �G AL> �.¢C C` � 2 A foreT�7"rN+ A �r �.et ccrx7r-rte �c , L .¢ i�-� S i r' ®k �' •• K ' S ' rr r /r� �.L' G u c `u.P. - e- � � � S �.' �, , E .�F "T'ffE• /`-t Ei .t ' i �/�t,f�.v:c►:9'".9- i�✓ ;�'" S ?� f t �� 5-` T'i V �-tf e. m tj a�-s el t o? f c tr ry;c p �.� c 6 �i E U ,u T" D-' �©•�:' /�%.IC- � G LI C.."'r"LJ %, cr"r i i � i, i :L.. %� �' fr S✓' .�. E�fH'LI i' 1�=F S , yL I . :4 `77 :¢i r; �' rw e.: l r G ' [ i N G S. .r . 10 Y. -G:@ t c +� 4 `r -U sem' C! 5 , toot, t r " E r LcJ r7 -r•1` i ni I W rI x, I I 1' Y 1 l .� rr..t,ry."F 7,yrs�J�r �. ! S' I¢rdA/yGtIG':a t G4 ti rf��ry rE"GY TIfc:2� woLL } ( � �"•4 /�, r3'� rN t �!? / o I r-1 f'ita'PG'� t � .;..� Y� i , � c c: w � � ti � r hJ.� r w x� ? � r4" 1' Fes. � s. � s✓.� a t� rr r s. rf.�A G o r ✓h c u c^ �: 't"[ l c�F1;: GcS� !.?� r1 f�'cr`%� � F. r zv�' yG'R.rcT 'l�'x,trycsU (r 1 t rn ter. ^ti :4 �� FL. C/i4 f' f;@L +rr: 7^r.a b %-`r e- t $. f -r � c cr SCA: tYF% 7 c0"& . � � �% FRh r 5 /fir d/3%te. zJ-14rA"�� lV6•P r.e'_! G'muft.syY N'� l�tr2h,}• SG 666' Lobo Z LSE+!J?7".�-'t1C'tick ids.!%°L Lzs',Ct L /�tsii7'Ly' rti-1ItF"p r PA 4 CIO ?^ gd't��r�fJ E L Gu i.+ry 57 rJ�'�p tIF�B,EYTC TNr*!` wis f ri Pfi' yj. -r'ews�' G e.�1.t4, /T� / / /-G: I/ (� SDG �'ir.J',, tom' x •'.. /'j J�-i', GNfDf�i 6f es �,Y}? c t � TI.r.��..y (f � 7"<f �� : %e`�°' f,t:.�-�;;r � z^ 4�� Ir r• C'<p A F S t^'c�' r-� a,t-s r -[f eQ Y tP v.rC s .9 y. "tee -r Y .t M ��-7: y rf ,,o.•�x r -r X , rr e r'- s -uta -r y .rif�E r 2reai-, r s -r-► a r c >�::, .c e- ' ax..i r.�3�r or ' tcA d d+oE: a csr rl>f5'3e/r+y=t46N h �L!..� 1.I /V [ ht �► , t-9 r� � ,E'�,i'G..4� arY' /¢ ry'v' rS F� �rf �- Com'"1'+"r�✓ �"Yl�c�N�'pi ' V .. %v Y ��.Y- f•-r "�, �� d.-1l a f A,. e^7 NTS : +' .i�l S. %y C r Z de,> S 4.4 N ► 'Ta ��°"p6'N�./r=ya �.�Pt r.'G9 �atv ,t T��TrH�= J✓�', � c9ar or bc�C,F kt/`? 7`ZaE-A9 rO—rDC�u7 P & Li c co 1'r-r,!;�-,. r , ,� a z-e r-� 7-/,¢ e- p-,r' d -'r ,,9.r✓ <t,r M A' � :3 6 {:n c. eri F t `%r�h� �'� S•9 r a r N� r r H r� �� �rc.b' r3r='.._..ry v �-'e s E T-V 71M-- . e r tf • / S:i N �+ E / Ij.e• �?wt `r y /''7� �>F T 7'ffT C"oa N7 y C<.! e� a u 7. o'' !;" r•� .�"�f',.}•.L.0 y 7 � /'�' '*�" N .f 1 P r � ,9• !'�"t � , 7'-N� ['7 � (--? .P c�9ti-+ To i'�� 5 • ,-�'`Z� Tx 6 �s � P?� � c�i 7-i.v � .� . +7 e-4.vllretA.> 444 /1 `t R.K ,r ft A,j 4 r�r note" Y.' .'4• t % % J c ,f i9 /J EJ�Trt" E'y rel "GY c.../ .�i rC: C, 'GC�'9r.L ..Y� L 1 7- r ra r..J•.• "r �� /E' F � �/r'C'e'• /..y ` L .�,! 7..� 4 ^�' ;, / N C� �` 7-`�f � L. fid 2.r tJ "l' y Vit..%•!¢ ..¢ D v e Q. C?y , ' y P �°• .�'. i2 u" 2. TG ?iter tj x P: ,la , k4, ij I 1. r w. I I ; r J� j .4 P �)A 07 7-0 q (m 7W4 7- rz A 571 1 "Oli 1 7 ;.4 r!¢ L trr-j-ro 40je &.6',ei b i o -f go taj ;P DF, i1 r'? -6 fO ji. �4-^t4jo .7 pj114 co"4 6'e 5 -J Cl L 4: 7le9r-H g 4s 't�, jr /7v L4 Old qYL j C7f 7 �1, 4 1,. ,• 4, "'"_' 77 s y YDevetiopme Mkt 'Review. Comittee Countm "Butte �. rl'Re: M' tz�'er Tentat ive Subd: �IMr.; Stxurik's'aid,, "you 'lost �ne.�"".. o 10 Edell said that ''of the 10 in the Orchard a'izehd Fisl� to the parcel s General Plan designation, predominant "'That is in the area south and West cif the green line ora the acres. +�hibit map '. Mr, Strunk said that on Criteria #1( General Plan designation was 1 not the Zoning or General not mentioned -just ;parcel. sizes ... Plan, j and General Plan are st11 involved 'g . in Mr Ede11 said. . Zonin parcel :sizes under any Zone or General Plan I, honking a` predominant ,designation, it does riot make sens& to mix High-nensity Residential Field Crop or ana Residential if there is a`i Orchard and the praprty. agricultural designation on 'r 1r. Strunk said that Criteria #1 does not refer to zoning or ,- General PIan- -3ust parcel s Lzes, 14r. Ed i? said it should have rbeen expanded to include, "In the same General Plan designation." Strunk said, "ea"cher that or make another paint off to the L side." Nir, Last said that if you also read Criteria #2 i it says that there th,� this ec are urban densities within ei errikz Y to the Du hof "vicinity"' is used and it is r. g am ptoperearea., agricultural properties in There 'are urban densities there,' with. should. be clear. between. The point'. e addressed mt., McCabe said this i s a Subject, that can bth ?- arcs] that deal w p ;findings. There are suggested fzndYngs in the record, ,the findings could be ], sizes. BasNd on evidence modified to what the committee feels is sup�ortecl lay the evidence, the revised For instance, recommendations 4a and �a Of',page 4;of 'report 1993,, deal."with thdse issues and they can staff of_march 3,. , b addressed when consider.arig fiodili s 'and making ng whatever changes itiot be„appropriate. t Mr. Strunk'-aid,that at the previous meeting he stressed the'Joint going to investigate that Farm Management Agr.sement. Staff was issue ' and. report back, which was done in the > si:af f report ,'et M O tter y sked if the Farm Adviar had wr�.tten a le Strunk a. confirm th'e information: i'son ' Mr, last said that he has met, with the he rt . are reai.sedtstafihrep ._ dt and basically,thy: issues discusserie ;Farm Advisor whip 'deals with Donnell, the maYn issues: Joe , almond orchards wrote a general letter about agrycultural conflicts i BUTTE' COTJNT�i D:VELQPMENT kEVIEW "CQMMrTTEE; MINUTES MARCH.' $, 199.3 i ii I AJ, pppOSED TO THE SUB DIVISION 0P AP 3925.3.0 48 lots located at the northWest corner of Holland Avenue and Hanlon Road. Durham,aroai " PRINT' t1AME SIGN NAME , ADDRESS COMMENT yn i7 ! C..�►, i� ��`C �t.-� / . �CZ: 7� (.�-/i�Y� f•'�R;�� t/1v7� Gll/ �I G%� ? i"� ''-- S'a G0 0.6' _,0e e "AbO�' r L AM'OPPOSED"TO THE, SO DIVISION OF -AP 3-25-30 48.1"ots located at tFie nohthWes corner of Holland Avenue and Hanlon Road. Durham area. PRINT NAME SIGN NAME ADDRESS COMMENT k J1 Tn Lm y» 1 �/�f+/gyp {//� i �}�� �' �i //J •�� �j ' "y `. l . i 1. .. 1' i �i i ti �� ✓a a G t a " s °� r. , r A .� ..i 1 f: f R ir]x � x r rvYt1p Y 15..-�r4 . I• } � 1 1 i � Y - ., .. ..w +4. ...� .. .dkp•i^� .4 +t . t AJ r 4 Y 1 r r > • r - r T - v J r . a , I ti i fi 1 r r 1 ' ', 4 4 L � � P • h Uuz l 414 OPPOSED TO THE SUB DIVISION OF. AP 39-25=30 48 lots located at the north��est'` -orner of Holland Avenue and Hanlon Road. Durham area. NAME SIGN NAME COMMENT t oo Cy— COO �' r l' �y ' AD 1, 3 4 i 1 q , i� j i !i i ` �t, 71 C l AN OPPOSED TO THE SUB DIVISION OP AP 39-25-30 48 lots located at the northwest corner of Holland gverlue and Hanlon Road. Do0aro area. PRIfa NAME SIGN NAVE ADDRESS COMMENT s. s �fernm�� ��uL ��1r%utn c • 4AT C- fYt� Ala < ve -7 7 911 t ....f2l ti vtto yr, . . ok rA • r u r t ` p Q 299 ��-� t.z Il ._ •. a.C,� k ` i 4�d1- 29e', SRI 2965 `' z9or, Y x AL ON T(tF-ES PUD `'- f uj JX UJ Xi � CJ � ff 1 Y f fr . f .•ti 4k �w r � wy1�01 •IY PR,0 ITC.LA1'R 1� Ak almond trees Jarrens 34 adpes larrens reel almond f X1. as ALMOND TEES �. i Kidd almo f trees 3� r ,AL46ND TRE'ES� A_20� rL 1566 , 4 °�►-16 F)LE Nn.C33qC53C�: ev�rTcour`r NNityjcoMisslOf�d' R, HEARING DATESr ' i APPLICANT-,EtJZA8GTR It ... 'FSG 2 UWPVER f'7ER1$ HOm ' ,FA.i AbM Itis } REO ES REZ.G N-70,`SFZ I E 15'C (NG' Z ONEP A -2a : SCALE. Nca sca�h LITER -.DEPARTMENTAL ME-MOR;ANDtJM TO: Butte County Development Review Committee FROM: Planning Director SUBJEC_"Ti Revised ,Report on Orchard. Acres (Elizabeth Metzger) for a Tentative-' Subdivision. Map on AP# 039-260-030" DATE. February 2, 1998 _ This is a proposal to subdivide 246:7 acres to create 481ots at 5 .acres each. The zoning designation. on the: property at the time of the application submittal nn June 26, 1991 was A-5. The zoning- changed to A,20 as part of the -adoption of the Durham=Dayton-Nelson Area. Plan on. February 25, 1992. At the time cif application submittal, the Land Use Plan Map of the Butte County General Plan designated approximately 181 acres as Orchard and Field Crops and approximately 66 acres as Low D."Sity Residential, The 66 acre portion was changed to Orchard and. Field Crops as part of the Durham -Dayton Nelson Plan, so that the entire property is now designated as Orchard and Field Crops; On September 3, 1991,, the applicant requested that an alternative subdivision scenario be included in. the EIR for this project: This scenario had 62,; 1 -acre tots along the eastern portion of the property. This was cotermnousvifh the boundaries of the related Rezone application to SR4., On January 12, 1993, the ,Board of Supervisors upheld the Planning Commission's denial o%the SR -1 rezone. The 5=acre subdivision rziap application wasput on hold pending the results of" the rezone application. 'This was due to:. the fact that the rezone, i£ approved, could have affected the requested subdivision and would have allowed the applicant to amend the application, to include the alternative scenari.ts of` 1 -acre lots on that portion of the property: As stated previously, the: applicant requested that 'the I -acre lot subdivision alternative. be discussed in the Ent. T116 applicant did not request that the` 5 -acre -lot sti bdivis on application be processed independently from or prior to the rezoning determination:. Since action has.now been taken, on the rezone precluding amendments to the subdivision application to :include the 1 acre 16t scenario, itis appropriate to .conclude "the processing of the original ' 5 -acre lot subdivision, map application. The applicant and "ries representative were: actively involved in incl participated in `hearings committee and public `for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson plan: Of the six General'. Plan and zoning alternatives prepared,. all but Drip recommended the subject parcel to be zoned A-20; '(;ltemative #4 lroposed a commination o£ A 5 and A 10 designafions forthis property. Alternative # 6 ;wa selected as the preferred alternative m Board of Y Su e p rrnsoxs): As indicated int a Initial Study, acid P_1:R, the S -acre subdivision is not consistent with the ;General Plan policies that uvere iri effect when. the application was summitted, `1'1ae i, . 4. ­Rv 4 % IW ' ' '-IV 4IC I ,, � . Omm ht , q L�j -do q— 0, F, - P /- ,.. .. ,G. (' ,., , '_��r�'����`u�JiN<r,1'�.l.�Wd`�'ss �L��'r�ln :"`,....:.� +. ,,:,9fA.t,...x,.�i�':�t9�''�'.w'Yro;b"ix4'�"�.4tls'14�t'�.1:.r�vv.�eiitIIb3A':dF aeLne,NraC.,�ri.b�4.e.��1,...�it�..,��fx7 ��7f.�i'.,ui�,Aac%,x�i' .s •.:�� _PY ID(T Ursd a h1co Ent4rpr so ay,:J Janus 21�, 1993/C Record cr V TI Tax re ura , SACRAMENTO (AP) Gov', The Republicon"gov, Pett: Wilson's businesstaxbreaks posed a series of busind got a rockyreception , in the in hiA State of the Sta t ,Legislature on W edfiesday 'as 'As earlier ,this :'m6nth,"si em ly and Senate cohimiddes breaks were fiieded OV1 ed'td determine if tax tmtsw.ould jobs.','-,','.Iri - r da I sparkeconomic econi growth, Bu, � -t his proposals,1 don't think the tax structure Democratic committee is -moving (bilsinesses). out of estitilates ' wouldcost Californi-W' said one. critic, $700 mil ' Sen. about: 4,a 3 Pan Boatwright, b -Concord, as he run info opposon, fron cit, a, serves of recent tax breaks. ers wo med about. the si budget I, think it's' the permit', process billion d t deficit a and, the* attitude of people in cism: from officials wh( government. whether tat cuts play, a i 4 Le S e 4. PUBLIC NOUCE Mrs 'FJI&bcth Metzger has' aipH for a ed Tenuigvt, Subdivision p on P.N., 039- 25"30 with Butte County Department of Development Services ,at.l. County Center Drive F Oroville, California. 'i —.1he aliplication b to divide approximately 246 at= into 49 lots of approximately 7 acres each. The the Pidin. 13-16caidd a. NOtthW4St )f cotter of tinlon Road and Holland Avenue, In ' Durham, CA. An hznentd� EzN= 7 �Impact, Rdixft hu 'd prep ated fol this's i'll ca on. -Vt) e pFOject: IM p cadod shall be, deemed 'ttin lits, not approveil if, the Pem- 9 agency -Alr Ida within 60 diys, of the date of this public a0doe. DAV115, StiTnPWNtK pn g MiMetz cr IBRtHO January 21 1993 �J F N. 4' 41 40, i INTEL-DEPARTMIJNTAL MElVIORA.I-tDUM Butte County Development Review Committee i FROM, Planning Director SUBJECTr Report on Orchard Acres (Elizabeth Metzger) for a Tentative Subdivision Map on AP# 039-250-030 DATE: .lanuary, 15, 1993 This is a proposal to divide 24' acres to creat t e 48 lots at 5 acres each. The zoning athe; time of the application submittal on June 19, 1991 was A-5 'The zoning changed to A-20 as part of fhe adoption of the.,Durham-Dayton�nelson on February 25, 1992. The La Use Paan Map of the Butte County General Plan designated the land as Orchard. and Field Crops and LawDensity Residential at time of application submittal. p rty than ed to Qrc The entire Property g hard and Field Crops as part of the Durham -Dayton - Felson Plan: The applicant submitted an alteomative subdivision scenario that had 62, one - acre lots along the eastern. porion of the project: This is coterminous with a Rezone application to SR : -1. On January 12, 1993, the Board of Supervisors upheld the ,Planning ,Commission's denial of the rezone. This subdivision was put on hold pending the results Of the rezone a' lication. PP. This was due to the fact that the rezone could affect 'the ` �`equested subd�.vision. The applicant requested that the 1 acre lot subdivision alternative be cliscussc�d in the `EIR.,, The applicant did not request that the subdivision application be .processed independently from 4.or ,prior ` to the rernning determination. This would allow the applicant a chanee to revise the `subdivision a rrew' map) application (instead of filing ;for to enc , lode the 1 acre lots. The applicant and' her representative was: involved in the' planning process for the Durham-Dayton-ZK'elson;plan. Cif the -six General Plan and zoning alternatives prepared All liut one recommended the ,subjecf parcel to be zoned. A20: Alternative #4 had a cornbinatian of A-5 and A-10 designati��nsfor this' property., ;As indi4ated in th_e fnital Study and EIR, the 5 acre' subdivision is not consistent with the general Plan policies chat were in effect when the application was; 'submitted, Inc PPto formal application, within the General >Plan 'ConfcirrnaeetReport, thatl the request was not in conformance with the. Land Use Element teat policies. A►n EnVronmental Irripact'peport was prepared for the Rezone; and Subdivision requests given though the Final EIR is complete adequate, the Board .and of Supervisors did ­not ecre document: Staff Mould' also recommend that the EIR, not'be ,certified''.for fhe subdivision map, unless a decision "to approve' 'project t, the is defermtned. t 1, vIli c, IN'I`ER-L1'�'.P R,,TIVIENTAi, ,1VIlEMORA NDU11ii ` TO: M6tzger File, (7`5M on AF# 4139-250-030) FROM: Thomas' IAsf SUBJECT: EM Process . on Project TT ATE: Januaiy, 13; 1993 1, Application Submitfed: 7,22-91 2. EIR determined: 8-49-91 I Applicant responded that EIR would caves Rezone and TSM: 9-03-91 d. RFPs mailed; So Consultant selected: 1011-91 6.: Fees paid by applicant;' 10-109 1 7. Contract signed by Board EIR initi�.ted S.Daft EIIt complete: S 842 I' wMetzger-tsm\rnemo.2 i , , L' APPEND)X 1 r {, jj COUNTY r QE' BUTTE E�J'S�IRG?NN1LaF1TAL C2iECi�.LI�T -'FORM,: - iEV$LUATION OF':( ENVTRONI�iNTALMFACT Fb. Rte iNo Log No, 52-&",23-01AP No,, `l 039.250-030 Z. BACRGAOUND 1.. Name of Proponent, orchard Acres (Elizabeth m met'Lger) .Ix Add ens of proponent and, teit tesentatlYe (If applicable)a 9075 HOIIand Avenue; pUtham. CA 95938 3. Ptoledt descr'lptionx A request to subdivide a 246.7 acre parcel Into 48 flYe acre lot$, iI _ M111 ATORY FINDINGS OF ' SIG143:FICA17CE- ves aAvriE No DIS'CUSSZON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION' 1. n tM. s the protect have the potential to tlegreoe the x This ;pro osai will not s1g nifieantlyy degrade the nvlfonmerrt, p quajt Y of the environment, subs,tantlali reduce ifle habitat of a ffsh of wildlife species Y cause a fish or wlldlife p,opUlafloh to drop below, self-" sustafhln,g levels, threaten, to eft�af"nate a'plant or a`f 1ct the ranged f a - fare of endariger d plandcf ore nfmal or eliminate Important "examples of major perfods of :C41 10101a, htstorY or prehislotY7 2. tines the p�*oject have the potential to achleve short --term benef)is to 'the detriment of long-te�"rrm x - This proposal would lead to the conVefslon of active agricultural lands In a prlmarlly agricultural. dominated atea,. This project may envlrohmeht,goalO (A shor"t-term Impact wn•^the create cumulative Impacts to the agricultUraI act 1VItlet ih`the area, envlronmeht `i s_ one which occurs I'n a Y6191,1961Y brief period of time while "long-term Impacts Wilt by setting a precedent for tutor`e'requestt, This proposal could resut In tho.elimination ot;the vi:abll)ly of the prime agf1cultural endufe into the future,) soils. 3, Does the protect have Impacts Whlcti are (ndividuafly x Thls proposal; may create sever"al sub5tantiatlY'cumulatiye siomficarit � limited trot cumulatively con fderabiet' (A t' may Ilmpact on two or; more separate _resources Where impacts an pub"lte servitas and infrastructures Another slgnlflcilnt cumulative (mpact3 :that% could result with the approval, of his the impact ori each resburce;l s relativelY smaJi,. but the :of -Impacts protect is the loss .of prime agricultural lands.' There are also Where effect of the total those the eon fl`Icts Wlfh land ;use activities and policies. on environment i sCgnlC�icant,"):� 4, Does the pro(ect have environmental,ef(scts Whtch, �° x. this 'proposal Will hot have a sighl(lcant adverse' effect': on human Wfli 'cause substanita, adV.fse" effects oh humaft bein gs, betngsa either directly orthdfrecti y t T11, DETERMtNATIODI on a as.s o t s nidal evaluations flWg II'nd the proposed project CCi1lp NDT have a s 19611:11 car G'ef fed on the eriVl torament �hd ,a NgcA7lVlc DECLAR�1T.It7N wi i ( be prepared, , r%ViE (fhd that although" the proposbd project coU"Lt3 haUe a fgnlf lcant, "effect .bn ,`the 'enYl+fonment. Ahere'W11) hot be a s1 "n"Irlcant of teat' In :this " g case beca;rse the ACTICnTloN;MFAsutEs described on the attached sheet have been added^`to dhe protect,' "%!,N910AT11(6 DEC iA ATI0N 1411f be:-repated, �}�- i/WE find Che ptoposed protect"IiAY have a s;f9nlficaitt effect on tlhe ehvIronment� and an'`iyVIRCNyi�NTAI'IIhPAbi'REpoRT i5','tequlred, ^AIRQTV' C� tiUT'r ! ANNINC DEPART �E " DAT a A11gU5 V a, 1991 riy " T a s_ Reviewed by, �� , TV, ENV M6WMENTAL ,IMPACTS vrs .MAYOC b18CUSS ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUAT` - 7. EARTH. WIII the proposal result i:n stgni'ficant; a, Unstable earth conditions, or chahges in X The ;proposal will not affect sUbsur(ace earth conditions, geologic substructures? b, displacement' ction at oI.GUPtirlhB ca' x'.: lh3's proposal velli result "i n" ame tllsruptlbn, tlisplacement, of the 3otit compactlCn and over covering of the site as a result ofdevelopmentoverdoveon' of structures.,'drlveways, parRing ar,r,s, etc, However, the expected tosixes should be of ode uate size and this Impact should .be q 1 p h mirli`mal, c, Change In 'topography or ground surface x The ;proposal will not aftect topography because the 6ullding site rel W features? is nearly level. d, des tructIon, cover or mod ifIcaiton of any x The site has no unique physical (adtures. unique geology or Physical features? e increase lh,Wlnd or'watar efoslor of sol Ys, X .; The proposal'ftV cause some erosion due to,dlsruption, dlspiacement, elther on or off site? compactlon and overcoyerlhg of the slid, par lcularlY during constrUctlori phases, I, Changes In :deposition of -erosion of beach. X :' The:proposaf Wl1I not atfec't.any. watercourse, sands, or changes In sittation. deposil[on or, erosion which may rnodffy the channel of a 'river or stream or the bed:of the ocean or, arty bay, inlet or lake? � gt Loss` of prime agr'icultural(V productive " )c The land contai'rr1is Vika Ioam Which Is considered a prime agilcui'tural soils outside tlesignaled urban areas? so1L,. Thls:subdiv(sion "could rilkimateiy' dad to, (he toss or the � agrtaItUraI productivlty of the" site and may, 'create secontl 'ry P-, % cumu'IatlYe Impacts to convert W acent.lands rema'tu' Iv., h, Exposure of'poop te or properly to geologic x_ Even, though thele are no known faults w I t h I h the V1c►niiy,,ehtte hazards such as earthquakes, landslides," county Is located within a`Moderatie Earthquake Intensity zone No, ibUds Jdes, ground fallur;e of :sIml. tar. VIII cNet Of buildings to uniform building.code standards hazards? gill f,ovlde adequate protection to occupants In case 'o( soIsin] c ac IV Ly. WIII the ro pposal result iiii sUbstantlIai: a. Alr era tssioris or detdrioratlon of amblent x The proposal play affect a'ir,;gUaMy due to the eXOO-cted increase In air �gUalltyt the [lumber of. vehtcl:e trips the area: kesjdenlfal wood roves and , ,in waste burning would'; lso detertoraf;e the a')r quaiJaY. b. The, creation of objectlonable odor,`s, smoke �— X The propnsalmay'create'objectionabte"oiiors , sjnbke or tunics :during' or furnesr �'' future construction.,phase% ^butront standard mi.ti0ation meas`dres � should be adeGoaie, f'or furs, concern,, c> Alt6tatlon of air mdvemenl, Irwtsture 'or x:.. Tha VroposaI will not affect the atjnospherA. temperature; or, a'y change th ,climate, Iocal1y.or r'e'giono 3P' WATER'.', W1 [I' lid proposal resuI n ipbsit2'f'i rat: Changes, In. cur rent15«.:or the .course dr, x The p'ropo"sal W1lJ no offeet any wa_'tefcoufSO direction of Water movements In elltief marIheor tresh"WAters? sxvirontxlon.al impact!. 3 Checklist Evaluation df'.,Env�ros�imentX b. Chapges In absorption rates, drainage9 pat(erns, at the tate a>id atpount;ot surface __ Thee proposal may tesi!(k )n an increase In surface water runolfdue tot runs fli to tedueeU absorption Irom fmperylous 'sUtPaces, apI chance the drainage pattern on lite site: In However, the lot sike and ,>ptl lYpes wCfl prov(de some mltiga(lon, C, weed for off - site sittface` draiirage Impravetoetrks, Inctuding Y u"a Pon remova X Thl;t proposal may tesult in"the deed for offsite drainage ImaroVement5 chan!rGllxa;tlon or_culvett instailationt to con(rOf rUdof f , The Packk of topography may create an ofisfte.and onsite ponlCng sftualion d,, Alterations to the course or flout of Itood Waders? x Ehat needs to be addres3ed. The proposa°I WIII.n6t sign fIcantty affect anfl y ood control dhannel3 or.W;Letcourses, e., change iq the amount of surface Water In ;any water body? x.�- The proposal WI[Iryol affect any'Watercourse� f. n�sdhargd 'Into surface Waters, or In aitY a [eral[on of surface Water gl�atity,. X - The ,proposal w1 tl not s(gnlf"icant:ly affect surface Water quality, Lr InciudIng buk not limited to tempetatuee, dlssOl d oxygen or turbidity? g. oft,ruiwar the directlprt or .ra a of fIOW ground d waters? X The proposal WIII not affect the direction or fCoW Of ground Walet3. h. _ change in Rhe -quantity or 4Uallty.of ground waters, eI.t,heo through direct addlttons X Thee 1's general concernWith individual Wa[et Wei It Iocaletl on a WlthdraWa[s, or through intercepllon of an a aglitter by outs or, excavations? pafrdej pastathaltba Is Are purhem Irrigation District has indfca-ted y r oncerned with haVing individual Wells oh 1ndfvrdual pardeis s(nce the`"sheet number of Wel s could create'an indrease pote tial in dontaminatiOn to: the en ire aqulfor . n domniICantin 1 ha may need to be installed fol this prciect'. The applicant tial 1pdI aid' their desire to a;nneX Into ane Cttigation 1)tstrlrt.. . Durham I. ttedilc"batt to the amount of water, otherwi's`e available for puttGic watet� supptle3? X - The proposal WiII not fes uit in fhe (oss.of Wat,e"r `t'o water supplies pub(fc 1. Exposure of people or prcoerty to Water- relto related hazards such as fiooding? X fhe!proposal WIII not expose people [proy flootli'ng, A., 4ArIT tlrH'.: Wfll the proposal re§UIf. th antra Change 1n khe ,dtvetsity ,of sppcles, orx number of any' species of"p'lants {i,nclud(ng , The° proposal WIIl resU('t lfrlhe lass of art aimod�o"c n I.hard Which could cfeate additlona1 ® freest #hrubt; grass, crops, and .aquaCl�c plantsj? eumutatl,e impacts In .the: loss ,of other, L, agfIcut turaI oreharcIs W1thl11 the area, Th C's proposal conflicts W1th " several policies that Would encourage urblp expansion towards the least protlu'caive agflcuItural salts. 6. Reduction oi'thp"nU bets otrany,uniquG, raro or endahgered 3peCTes of pYantsi x �; The site con" dins po rage an 51 v�. In f6dUdtlon of no spedie"s of ple'nts Into'. an area of In -abarrler to the normal �, X , The ptoposaI Wilt not atfeo eX1sling plant '[j to,: rept,enlshmenk at .e.*.i!-brig speciesr. d rteductIon Cn acreage of any agrtcu��ural- x See :I em 4- cfop 4; ANIMAt Ltpt5l vfl,j) the pro o5a1 re3Ult irti p subSta lra a. change .In the d1VetsItY. of s0ec�les� or, numbers of any speotes of :animals (birds, x, The p'topoSa,I WiII not slice animal life bedaUse t e s"te.tl' h i des hot tan d animals lnciud-Ing re otiles, Kith and" Support slgntfidant;animaf e at habitat, tf s he I' b0n1hlc,organtsras Or.JAsetts)? , r v ro mental. -Ch:gt 1'*i . * Evaluati`oii of 4 Impact �nvi�ranitteinta7l b. Reductlon In the numbers.of,eny unique, ra'r'e or endangeted sppoles of a:nimaist k __ The site' cdntains n0 rare animals, rspecies of aolm�ls Into c. J oi`movementholf to the migration _ x' The proposal' WI 11 not affect exlstlog animal 1 f fe, nefmalrsi d. Delerioratfon of existing:fish, or Wildli.tc habftat7 __,, x _ The 'Ite contains no Yignlflcanl wild0 fe habitat, G. M sE. WII`1' the ptoposal resUlt'in substantial; a, increases 1n existing noise' levels? X The proposal will not result in a substantial increase 1`n not se, created on site or in the vlcintty, b. EXposure of people to severe not so. levels :t x: The proposal will not expose people to seYere noise IeJelss 7, LiCrri Ant? CLARE. INIfI the Proposal prod s ncan gotand glare? x The proposal Wilt not resUlrt In a substantial increase In fight or ,gni y� glare created on site or In the vicinity, 9, LAiD USE. Wi71 [ire ptoposal:resat l In a sub's,tanfial a tern ion at the present or, planned land use of an --. x Even` though 'Ahrs project conforms` wtth ,the; Cetje�al also ;and ion(n areat maps, this :proposal represents a signit cant a'lteiatlon to the proposed land tae:Ar--d zoning deslgnatlons for this, area. This Proposal could,,-alsa resull,In a leap frog.; development and. Increase the UrestUidto Cont Ilets' convert adtlltIona I lands. TTh'Is ptoposal also with seVeral land Use,Element polleTes of the current Cenetal planta This propo al do s,' not meet any of the: required condltionaI drI'ter'te:heeded to aIl'ow 5 adte lots, This development ptoposal touiq aisc "crea.te further pressure olf Ehe„prernature conversion oJ`ptime agrlcultura7 11ands. 9, aA`rtAAi 0EsokkcEs. Wf 1,11 the proposal tesUf t I susan�aT:� ; a� increase In the tats of use; of any +natuial' redte rtes?,, X rhe p;roposaiWi l l not a� fect any ha Ural' t�esouroes;. ” b'. Repletion of any non-tenewable t,atUralx see and sr'� res`ources2 -; --`^ �a'a Rrsk Ort tJFisET 4Y111 the ptoposal, Involve: a„ Aq ris'lr of exhloslon or refease of hazardous substances (including, out -not llmPted to, x' The proposal will not itjvol;ye the Use of hazardous ma terl6.1 aIs. not is located al l,,pe$tfcldes, che'Icals or adfa`tfon) tn;. m r 'of erose to any faclittlea Whitfl stork for U;I11ze sucp inaterfals, the event an or,: or.: upset: eonditionst b, possible In.lerterence .with arj emergency response plant or emergency evacuation plant- _k_ The ptoposal Wlil not friVo,lve lire Use of haiatdaus 'are located m rfajs.,nor 13 ;. close to any fac'ilitles Which store o't ukfllze such mated ars. iik POPULATION.. Kill .the .p.roposal' alter location„ ' distr Ut an �leifstt1 or growth tate of the human, X,�� This; oroposa1 Wouid result ln, a sl nittcant of g, terallbn 1�1 distrlbutIon!and dens popula;tiont, �, and'gtowth.rate ol:�human popu.Iatloq for rhe bUr.hamcommpn'ity;. Hbb� INo . WIII the pr.oposai affect exl,'slfna housing q create a demand for atldt.tional hoUstng? k The proposal 'cou.ld,al�tect •the exi'sti�n hour h sta irs g 1 g t Inn he Durham , area end could create a dema"h& lot additional housla,d 'tthat would coni(,[ct With: propose:0 And 091$t'hg General Plan Iand use is' sjups and :f Pot I cjes w a � t9 TRARSPCRTATICN%CVQCULATIW'. Wi.I i the - prnpo5lf a, Genera(ir000f subs,tant(.a) add(Llonal vehhal'e movement? its The proposal WiiI represent ,an iriaremental in 'Increase,In ^trallie the area, b, effects orr:cxisting parking lacfl`(ties, or demand rdr new parking? x The`proposa tviil riot attest parking because thepri+q;,} will have to comply With the,parking regUiremenls contained wi ..,.arautte ebunty Code section 24-30, sub;'staNtixf impact on exlstlti9 Iranspot faiton sys;lems? �(_ Therproposa.I' wl1I tc^sesent: ah increase ih congestion and maInt`enahce d. slgnifIcant;alt6(alIon; to present Ipaitern Is x_:• rdQUIfoments on area roads; Of 'circulation or movement of people and/dr The proposa( will not alterthe 'present pallern�of circUfatIon� In the area, goods? e. ' "' Aii�eraitlaws to 1Yaterborne, fall at al=r trarf tcf �xThe; proposal will not affect. rail"-br air trafilc, _ _t_1. Increfisa frs trattic hazards Co' moto7 Yeh.i.Cl6 , tficycltsts or p edesir(ans7 X The prcpos.af.wtll result Ih a'h Indr.66htaI increase Irt traf(,I and related traffic hazards In_ _ the a(ea, _ . t4, PUBLIC seRVICM Will the proposa;i Piave' an effect ^� ` upon,. or resu ih a need for new af. Itt.ered gdYet^tamenl serVtcesa a �� , a, Fire prr?feC;Ci6nt k The %proposal Will i testi) t inn. a Incrementa,I Increase Indem5nd for tlre;: 'The protection In the 5rea4 area. currerttly tacks a'hy pressurized Water systems whiCh a development of potential may need. .this b. PofEce prnfectioh?'; X. The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand l:br palhce ptotdCtion in police ofticets pdr•.,popula:tian the Area, rea The County cdrrently has the Irnvesl rhtfo i,n the State and Oust' s goal to Increase acceplakl :dial standatd oto a level that )s''more', c, schoa("s l' X the, proposal wlii tesult lit a igcremental 1(rcreaso in demand for school Services the area Currently "the Durham United schcot :01In bistrict Is ellhef at capacity or nearing capacity And this deVe(opment wl1'1 result l,n 'the need fot neW school facrll,ties, , d. Parks or other rec(datibna,( facif,i,ties?, X The proposal WlIIresult in a inc;remedtai:' fnctease; irr demand for ,r fl4'ti. f pa,and recreaon. acilities In ttie area... e,ain•;fenance Uf t publ I;c facf(tles, fnClutli'ng r;aads? rc The proposalWi l IresulL (,n:a lnctementa Increase t' l r n the' need 'Ibr ma1.ntenahce of roads and dthet 001,,'Ic IA0II ides Iit the atea. t. �thler govertimenta( services;? X The ptbposalwII result in a incremental Increase demarf� for alai 'in Other poveflllnentai sptvf"Ces�ln the area. 15, 1?NERCX. W'i11 ltfe PtOposal result'inr �. a, gase of subslantial amounts n( fuel br energyi x ' The proposali,Wj11 naL utifIX0 sutistaitttal fuel or energy. b'• subst'a ^tial: nc as nI a e r de a` tl u o in , m n p n eklsl.ing scufces of encrpy, ar 'the' . `� c The proposafWlll not sUbs[a(ttia(ly,`:(ncteas.e the demand fof, anefgy> d Yeiapmerrt, of new Sources require SV pt enerov,, 1 i �...��J r 6 16, L#lLrxlEs. ;WI]1 1110 proposal result In a need for, new systems, or sObslanlial alterat].Ons, to the following av Pow�' .r at natural gas? x �.� ill � of natural gas The, pro osaf. Witt not at�fecG 'IeclrlcBJ potYe[ The Oroposn Sy tr, Communications systemst X The proposal 0111 not affect communication systems. o, waiver availability? The proposa'i will not atfeet pabllc water systems. d, Sewer of septic sys'temst x The ProposalwlII have to meet the regUirements p the euate County OVlronmental Heatth Dept. VI Storm Water dralnage? X_ The proposal Will have to provlde a permanent Sol uttort for drainage. t. So►'Id was te:;and dlsposaI x Thcroposal will not arfec solid Taste disposal, ay. FKjMAY4 HEALTH,Wf I I; the proposa le result In: ar crea'tIo oany health hazard, of potential X � The,propvsO will not eate crany health hazard. hazard �eKctudlnt mental heaith)t , 6. Itposufe of people to pptentlaT kealth -X The proposai�will not expose people, to any health hazaO Nzatds? 19, AESTHETI .;, will' the proposal result` In the X The proposal wilt not result In an aesthetically ostensive Vlew o s ruct on of any scenic vista or vle0 open to the because' It i;s consis,tent wlth'surrounding development. public„ or.wtlI the proposal result In the cfeatlo'n often3_Ive,s te. open of an aestheticall Y l to the public v.lewt t9 �7 AT 1 aexi x Incremeptal Increa'e In .demand tat anderecit at ' �, qu'III.V oiopquantliVItotn In Park opJaCIlit�les,upbn recreatfional'�6pportuhitiest% �y 2U, �CUL'RX2At RESbI.RCE5. ,, a, Will,the proposa'i result iq the al'teratlon k The subject,property is located in,an area where archeotogtca.l stCet' or destrUclien of a preNtstoric of hlstortc may occur. 'It id necessary' to'pertotm a records,creck through the archaeological suet' Department of Antfiropology al calirornla SlateUplVersi,ty,,� Chico, -,In order to determine,,It slgniflcant sites, may be located on the property. Ir, so, an archaeological survey of 'the property maybe necessary b. will the proposal result In'ativerse phys(cil� k The proposal'wlil not 41 hIstorlc sl let or aesthetic effects, to a prehlstorlc tel' l iditor ob,J o his toric.qu�g,, sructure C, Does the'prbpbsal -have Yh�e Potential, to Xh ech x TI1e pro>!osai�,wlll ria.t affect "cultural' tesourdia cause a physlcaI change Would affect: uni00d ethrnl'c cullur`al vafu�s"t � d. wlil the. pr'opast<I restrlcl. 'ekistan9 X The ptoposai''wlLt noa aftectl tetCgtoUs resources. rellglous dr sacred Uses tkWMin the .. poten-tial linpact areat °' i ;" a� , 7 I fa.rimgntai l c 0CX1 sir ; VA" xPa. tinn of Envixainmerltal �mpacl~. ,. dArA sl•Itrr h_ Etdject Descrlot Ion, 5. "Visual/Scenic Qualily: Good f, type or Protect: 'Ten tatlwe.subdtv(sfon Map 2, Brief Description., A request to subdlvlde 246 acres irlo q8 (ive 6, 7. Acoustic Quallty. Good aw, lots, Al f, Quall,ty. Good 3. Location: Gn the northwest Corner of Hanlon Road and Holland Avehur, south of our ham, B7olorrfial EnviCohment• 4- Proposed Density of [)eve i.oprnenti One dwelling unit s, vegetation: An' a mond orchard With annual grasses and weeds exist on site, acf.es , per 5 _ 5. Amdunt of lmpervtous surfacing: Unknown 9, Wildlife Habitat; in;_the area, sma No sensltivd species are known to exist 11 wildlife expected In a rural area orchard 6• Access and Nearest _PubliC Roadfs) 1►ot►and nYenue Road and Manion cutturai MV -1r h-h—t ; 7• Method of sewage Olsposaf: septic tanks ;and leach field 104 Archaeo oglcal and Historical Resources in the area; High archaea�ogical 8, source or water supply: indlviduat Welii�; Pot slb.le anneXatfon to,Durham Irrigation Dlsir(Gl. �i.' serjsit)vity area. nutta county General Plan designation; CrODS Orchard and Field �. ProxlmiIV of Powe[ 'Linest Along Hanlom Road, 10, Potential (or further, land'dlvlslons and developrrient:'Mpne under exl#ting zonfng, 12. Exls"ting zontn9 A-5 TX on-site! Land use Almond orchard Bf Environmental Settinu 14- sUfrounding Area Phystca1 Fny'ironment a• Land t1SOS ,^ To the north Is an orchard, t0 the east IS orchards, to the south ls; almontl'orchatds, f. Terrain Overall the areacontainr limited resldentlal development, A:. General 7apographic.Ctiaracter: Level b. Slopes, None :on site - b. zoning: To the'south is p -tor to, the .noPth, east, and Wet is A�s. C , Elova tion: Appro!(Imately 146 feet above sea level, d. Limtting Factors: None o' G6h• Plan beflgnatlon: orchard and FIel'a crop 'to the -north, 2 SOI IS` , west and south'and Iow:derlsfty, d. Parcel Srzes: 5 io 150 plus acres.in size, a'. Types and aharacter'fstics;` Vlha loam, a brirvn Coala i e- Population: Rural' , to 3' feet thick Wi Perfneabli f tY and drafn;ige th high drgall"Ic )natter, Good are is, character o sale and Area'. vett+ uraC orchard -'lands,, for ",lrrlgatton, Gomnpn. It:'fs excel tori! Thls l$considered a high quai'ity ts� Meares"t Urban Area;.., purhatn area agCtculturaltoet.. ' ba. 4lmiitng Factors. Nona t7. ,� Relevant sphere"s,7'ot' Influence: "burhamRecreation;and parTt- DI54rict,'DUrhAm Mosquito a• Natu.fal lfazar85ot the Land gbatemen,t. and qurtjam,uni(letl SO 01 DItUlcG, , Earthquake Zone: A11 of 'Bunk Count rs i`ocated� " Wlthl'n a Moderate Earthquakd fnlensity zbrie Wtil. 18 (mproveniePCs standartls urban Brea:; No b. Erasion Potential Nene ' c. LandsIIde r'otential: Mone t�- Fire 'PeOtecti0n service: d, Fire Hazard; Urjclastifled 0, hxpansiVe soil Potent Moderate, a, Nearest Co'unly'tstat6 Pfr�© station ' s.tatlon p4$ Wflfiln one mile of site. 4. frydrology ,the b. Waller 041la6111ty; No pressurized systems a, surface watc Noire or situ b Ground Water: UnknoWli. x0• schools Ih Area: 'Durham Un►'on school i5lstrtct,, Thl`s, area has high potential subsistence urea antlrntkferate to ht h IlDraiquefaGtion. d• AnnuaigRalnralittnnrmaj}; a4°inches oerdYea r, e, Lfini`tanq FaGt,ort, None � ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Planning Department, Ea`r'th cake and Fault Activity Map 11-1 , SO] smic Safety Element, 12. Butte County Board of SUperVisors, b Oro e, CA: CH2M HT1-f�, 1977. Agricultural Preserves MaD,'establlshed Resolution No: 67-178: rovl e, CA: 2. Butte County Planning,[7epartment, Li Uefactlon Butte County P ann;ng Department, 1987, Pot `nt 1A 'Mao 11-2 Seismic Safety ej ement.. `CA: CN2M H 1977. 13. Program'. Flood= Natienal Flood insuencs orov, , Insurance Rate mapstance Federal'Emergency ' 3+ ence and Butte n tinning department, Subsidence County PI Management Agency, 1989. LLA d I Ide.Potential 'Ma 111-1.ement. orov He, CAS C. H , 1977, 14: - USES Quad Maps, Chico, photo revised 19781, p r-ev i sed 1969,. An d Ne I soh, itoto 4: Butte County Punning Department. Erosio p�ote'ntial:Ma" 1:11-2, Safet:y EI'ement. r,ovIIe', CA: '►.5. Soil 'Ma Chico .(1925 /orovIIIe -1926 states Departmen t o CH2M H <, 197T. ,.Area. united A'grlcuiture, 5. g Departme,_ EXpansiwe Solis Butte County,Planninnt Ma 111•-3, Safet element.` orOVI I le, CA; CH2M' 1 '6. So11 SUrwe " of Chico 1935 Orovi Lle H 1977. 1926 Area-, Un-te States Department of Agr ICUA tUre. 6. Butte CoUnty Planning Departmento Notsgi element Ma IV -1 =c^,cenic Hiohwav element. r3oviTfe; CA: 1'7. `;� Buti`te County Planning Department.,. Butte': CH2-�M— N f-1 1977 County F'i re P.r6teOI Ion�I.ur i sdict ionsr ac�i I=-acTl i t es Ma Butte county f I re 7: Butte County PI'anning Department. Sc�enic�H�ig wa s Department an California Depa-rtment of Ma V-1 Scenic Hi chwa Element. OroVille,.CA; Forestry, 1989. H 1 11977. 8. Butte,Count�i,Planning Departrtent. atUrai Fire Hazard classes Ma .111-4 Safet Elemen t..." Orovs e� CA: CH2M H 1977,' 9. Butte County Pi.anni'rig D,epa.rtmeri.t. Archaeolonica.j , •, P Manning, Sens<;itiV.itV Map. Oroville, CA lames "1983 10, Butte Comity Pl;annin'g Department, S` chooi.Distr'ict o.r av i I 'I e, CA. 11. Norf�hWester,n D'1str ic:t Depat tmerlt oftiV'ater Res6d'f es.Y- Chi o N lrtTamte?�Stud Mab Nitrate Concentra.t.ion n s a ow .we s, e: ReSoUl'ces A9encY, State o, Ca orn'la,> 1 R83., jyt , ' � �• a ,���JC'�1,01.♦ . •, ... � • � i •. •' .., ., •, • • •. •. •,-.•, •, .. •, «:, • • • i . • •, r?'•. r •t • i.� • � • «b...J.'{1n PROJECT DESCRII'TXON, 2.1 Project Location and Site Description .. , 4 2,1.1 3x SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASUD.ES;.IVIITIGA'1,Ia►N r NITORIG POOGM � C r • ••'• . i . �. : �'��A':: •1• :. • . A • = . -1M 4 _ •ENVIRONMETSETN I PAGAL , AND: MITIGATIONMEASURES : • .. ...: ... .... ...• . ... ; . r .. ... .44 4,1 Agriculture 42 Air Quality cl.4.24 4.3 Cultural Resources a 4,4 I�ydrology and Drainage'- +,. • ti's► ' r �Y, (r,. •, � s "'r .i>.,MY 4.5 Land Use/Policy, Consistency . , .. .. , .. .., ... . . .... . ..... 4.6 Public Services ... ... .. .� .: .. ' .. ; 4.7 Traffic and Circulation 4,3.1 4,4-1 451 4. 6' .. S. : PROJECT ALTERNATI• • • '• • • n OTECT;ALTERNATI LS .• r ♦ • .• • •. •. ,• .• r •... • r • • • • S • • r)• 5.1 . • : 55 . ,.-L 5.2 No Project -55 deduced Density Alternative :: , . , ... .. 5-2 5,4, :Project Redesign Alternaqge : F, �. �.., . ,..:� t,.)ti �::..... , .:� ,;. st r . �.. 54^ 5:5 Off -Site Alternative 5-12 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative 6. ADDITIONAL LONG-TERIYL' INIY'LWATIONS 6.1 Cuulative I mmpacts 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse I'znpacts . ..... ,. , : , , ...:.. : gru tnevahle Commitment of Resources 6.3 Si `i"icant Irreversible and Irretrievable • + + • ' . `• - . 6,4 Short -Term Versus `bong -Term. ilses ....., .. ... 6-4 6-4 6-6 $.9IBLIOGI2API3I' TED . ^PERSONS ANDORGANI�ATgON$ CONSUL .....:...::..:... . , ..', .:.:.:... • .:.-'..:. • .........:......:.. • .: , 7=1 $-] 9. LIST Or PREPARERS' .:... , ..:....;.................^ ..::'.:. •-1 APPENDICES 11 FJ ` 5d� s# �� 'j�l'Vr.; n9;} '"{Ji��r�sJ�J �169A o Tkible . 4� -� 7 s.c .,., "% 3 -Z 1987 1991 Almond Production on the P�niect'Sit� 4.1 4-2 Summary of Air Quality Data for the City of Chico, 1987 1989. 4.2-3 .. A) 43 Butte Coupty AirPollutiowCantrsti l i&siohresh'alds �� �; '` � a5, iu Emn.T .... 4-4 Estimated ,Air Pollutant Emissiori� ,:Generated -by= Froject' ! affic i,. `.�; .I, e. ". ` 4 2-16, 4 5 �� 1991 Daily Traffic Wlumes .on Local Roadways :.: .. �:'` � :. i . , z �:. 4,7-2 , x, 4-6 `> Level of Service - Roadway Capacity Relationship �v for a, Two -Lane Major Street ' h°' :Surface ., ... . ti , : ;'° 4.7=3 4-77tl.;` ;Vehicle ;trip Generation �4.7-7 .. 4-8_ Percent Pro'ect Traffic Distribution During PM Peale `Hour, ... •{'� 4.7-8 k b V w 1 `7 L , f a 'k n: 9 W n i ? I Sr q t,• ., . -' Y �` 1� uli d b., ,;�Y Ib 4y :(t ! 4 f Cnt=Emissions.Beween omparison of..Vehicula:r—Traffic Air .Polluta the Proposed.Froject and.the,Reduced Density,Alternative in:2tl(l0a ;��." S=6 ... ""Y .q 64. Traffic Volume Projections/Capacity Relationships �. ( i tl n y i Y a w „ n n, , _y, . o- a .. ro . a ++ v.r r . •. it n r e � , .r e J �� d � s {;' ° ti -u G w 4 kI , x moi} I �f I n i -7-.7.�.� r'j 7 } iS y a ll � ay rias ("{+r� da yap ffµs tXsR'r@ la. `•Y I 2-1 ProjectsLte • '�. ( r * yy T ei{ J �( 1 "n f { r ' - �� `�� •i ir. l•gy .y N�9@• �i F -LAS'. • i�i . � i9 �.���� r�♦ � �('Fl.�,�9 � e.- 2.�L�,. -2 Tentative Subdivision 14ap ,overlayed with Proposed:;Rezoinng �• + o ^:. j 3'' ._ • , 2-3 Proposed Remaining Orchard Plan �k..,., - : ;, ,... 2.1-5, 4-1 I3urham-T7ayton-nelson , anning,Area 4-2 ' Williamson Act )ands blear Project Site • 4.1-8 . 4-5 ]Existing Zoning Districts 4-4 I?urham Dayton -Nelson Plan Zoning Districts, Durham Area .: ;...... , 4.5-11 4-5 Soil Test Locations .4.6-46 -4-6 Percolation Test Locations . . ;.. 4..6-11 4-7 ' PM Peak Hour Traffic" Volumes on Local Roadways ... . 4.7-5 .:......... 5-1 Reduced Donsity Alternative ..: 5-3 ... .y "A" of, ��pI�Ii�ices Federal,and, State Standar Air Oual h' � � ds and Pnnt _ A.URBEMIS-3, .Outs PercolationTest tesults Caltrans Peak Hour, Signal and Stop Sxgn.�lirarrants r ,M x ' , r y A tk r 1 1 : I II _ � I I �haippte -4. jFnv�rcnxmental Setting, Impacts, a nd Mi#igation Measares.' .A coinPrehensive , palysis of the si�r�ificant and nonsignificant adverse' mpacts franl the proposed 6� vision ,d and1. residential development; identification of the required mitigation measures to reduce the Mgdificant'impacts fo a le�reVof non significance; and identification of the r recommended rnitig tion measures" -'t reduce"fhi niwvsrgnifie nt'ii pacts:` _. �f papte�r a5 {F�oject Alterria ryes►,;' Ar} descriptio_ n and a anal sis of t threej, alternativ :tot e , es Q osgr3 w�pro ect, N4,,SP a ive edu 13n Pi P .ly roaect� glter�n cid, sityB A.ternative,,rt and Paaect a Redesign tjt�rnative A f. �, v 1� �h�aPtgz`a 6. Adcl�tianal Long �'erm fit► plications. Discussions of . cu ulatiYe impacis'r r ,aggregate effects from the proposed^ residential develo merit at the ro ect.ste and: P> .J , ,e o xnents to the zo ect ni,Tnilar clew I p g J vicinity), .short term uses, versus long-term znaintenancey U ado enhancement of,the pnvironment,.arreversible ,environmental .clianges, anlj,d growth Ind ucmg Jnpacts; ,1 a I a d C 1 L A Y J dl Ill pp ,s4 a y. I t n e� �'rt� i�A? IJ�111F .� uJ J•�I f da ,` ,.}wfkl il. � blp �� �i5.4 ?ill a I t Ei r � �' �✓e .t zr k 1 I @Jh W3 j y yy I 4'r 03g202S: l P.bk 1:2 t T, vosio6ation of Amp tach of the issud Atom discussed in io climpacts for e ss this Ch4ptir are as 'ficant, Mass : Si Vnavoidable Txnpadts C] II.- as$: Significant;' Mitigable'linpac I Class I h Advorse,ButNSigm !Qa:Impacts Class TV':,, Beiiefiqial Impacts >r jjv Id I C, r` '� , r .�I r -: J .3 :.rt7ge 3.3 ry ,� 4)I V, 9 �P�oect��.pproval -conducted prior to County approval of file proposed rezoning and ,r subdivision applications .vr it t7. M1'1`� M +' f r• ✓ Vx „� yB�a lding Ferro t . ;conducted prior tads uan dffa building t for.'' Oil 4,00t 1 ; - „ �- �aeriii ciinstivction. t ` Prior,to Prosect Constii tfon �' Con'ductedf prior, tc� `construction` on We' {rro'ect site .r ..,_ . prole _ _ ». w or on any lot'" Durii►g,Project''Constructian - conductecY•Burin' ,construction _ g ou,the proaect_site�or on any lot r ! ill After, ]Project.Goitstruction -,conducted after construction on4the io'ec site on :or any,�lot s r "onsible The Parties res for m lemen in P P p _. t g and rnomtonng implementation of nutigation "following measures fall,into, the categorid_ snM Project Applicant Design Engineer r� & lm, Owner �tlb 4 uJ' ,Y. 'i `"•Nip C �] �Y Ajt �; .- �..� r _ , Construction. Contractor i. jkY r f 35 N f p t a7RY3`: it 1 Butte County I)epartment'"of Planning. �, q Department of Public %'Vorlks Divis' ibwof',.tn , Vlronindrit54 l4ealt�l; Air Pollution Control: Di is E m ,, , M . Butte County Sherifi?s Department Eutte County'lire/Califorzia;I�epaztiuep.t.of Chief Administrative Office FF � ++YytS nipp h 7( r p ,� rt.� .. `r `v 'h ! G✓ �. A 3 x..30 Ire r Regional Water Quality Control Board �' a hF r •{ .,,p „+t °i.1 E v''�� IC uerYlCe PrOvlder Durham 7nified School District . , Durham,Imgation, Distnct�' is . "✓ . u, "9 ',i 7 fr 3 'k.. {e °Durham; �', Recreafon4Distnct Pacific Gas &Electric Pacific Bell Telephone Private Consultant U392025.3 Pdge 3-21 , i 77-7 T t 7 b gor lozort; g, U WN AIMM'RYOFENVRONA 1EN TAL IMPACT' S&MITIGATTONMEA SURgS/ QATIONVONIT, 0 1,40 M-10 TIROG AM, CLASS I IMPACTS4SIGNIFICINT UXAVOIDABLE Patty Roponsiblo Schedule %r folejEriw6ing,& Moniltoon a :Part Responsible ' ibl cl sche6le f6t Reporu*ng' ting on ,ISSUEAREAANTA CTI MEASURE' Ulvdi Of Signifiltance After IWtigat* ion Olem 'Ong, enti for irn en jinplein n'9 Implempotation of Implementation or midgadbame idg�tibn Measure asure ieaqurd 0gagorim 41 —ALm—'eulture I=of agiadiuml land and pfime, soils No single i or combination ofeffectiveinceisure 0atIg to SigriiflicAnt. completely and directly mitigate the Permanent, I oss of agric tural land and of, rime soils to e o non- significance., Some typical mitigation measure's for the'loss of, agricultural land are designedpartially relieve the loss of agricultural land to urbanization. These r measures are, developed from three different Perspectives: modifications to ns 4, Proposed project, repjacemdnt� or protection, of existing' agn culturall , an . d, I an imposing fees clp S es on developers (as part of specific measures, or rep acing orprqtqcting existing agricultural land): A wide r of these ese hadasures exist; ho erit Or 6 es y meAses:are necess y urproject appropriate fora particular project or site 4.5 TAnd Use and Pat* cahsistena No,.Ihl 1 itigad 11 nicatUre, ;0 s are available t 2 Page 3 .4 „ "Id .., ,777 7 7777 n ro ect ,, ►lE '''OFEN RCJt'�11VIE�1�"AlL` MP'ACTS & I YTLGATION N1EAStJ ES/ GA'TION M-ON1'�'C1J�1NG' V tO+��i MA , ; 1. MASSHIMPACTS'. S'1'GNIFd`CANT.MITIGABLE :: Party Responsible foraErLforc Schedule; for; P arty'RO nsible S chedule for ng & Monitoring Monitbring & Reporting on' I'UEAREA•IIlV�ACT' s� ' MI'iCiATION MEASURE -' Level of sigfilri ance fbr it ting _ .. ActorNlitr anon Mrtr titian Measuro g g Implementing . , Mrtr scion Mea,- sure Implementadon sof implementation of g Mitigation.Measure _ Mitigation Measure # e OuA' emFssions ajparPiculwe mailer riruangprr��ect - 4,2-2 burin land clearing, earthmovin ' and i J During, g, g, construction n Non -Si gnificant Construction Contractor burin J?rn ect g1. J, B - - Butte County Dept: of Durmg;PrQ1ect on the project site, water down all areas of vehicle movement twice• per day to prevent dispersal of dust. `' Construction Pu bhG Warks - Construction. On: particularly hot days in summer, C:u when wind speeds exceed 15. mph, increase the frequency oF' watering. pave all roadways as soon as possible after construction. _ 4.2-3 Cover all s stock ile Stockpiles: of Soil sand on the construction site. ' - , Non=Significant Constr►cti4u Contractor burin ' Project g J Butte Coun De t. of P During Project g , , Construction Public Works Construction, 44-4 Prepare and implement a 'Co Construction p p ns uction Dust . Suppressions Plan, The Dust Suppression Plan shall :': N :, Non-significant, Construedt i Contractor � .• '. Building Permit and Butte Coun 'Det f' ty p .. o ' Bldg, Permit and melude the came and tele hone number of the R During �roJect construction `on Publ,c Works . Aurmg Project • person who shall implement the. dust control Construction ' program and order increased : in P gr water g, as necessary, r to prevent transport of dust off the project site. The _Dust Suppression Plan shall include having this person on duty during holiday and Weekend per'nods when construction may not'.be in progress: J°1TI -M—Ow o air .. tmrts m a .., a • nr 4 2- . , . _f , . fm . _ & perulw I2 Redesign the protect Site Plan to exclude ` the . . Non -Si resit P o eet r J Applicant, and Pru1ect Design Butte County Dept. of Project A roval J 1?p preservation of portions of almond orchard in the a esign Engweer plannin g backyards of the proposed 1 acre lots. 43 C dWeai Re'sLyOces y Vit, 1 Caution shall be exercised whenever _dee din �' ,., p gra &„ mace aP r+e�nomd a 1 i f rrai"suurres i.e: n excess of three feetdee or under ound > P) gr Non-Sigmiica�nt Construction Contractor .` Duan +P'' g. rolect Pnvate Consultant , During Protect , .. . , . excavation for utilnry, lures or similar,faciliCies is Construction ;a ; Construction ducted• a un gr excavation excavation , . c activities un earth w}i t may tie hisxoric o ehistoric resources, ,an unmediate work sto `'withur a .35 Foot _.. - 'us } X10 meter) radi d scoVery area °of the . i , is recommended until such trine when'fhe discovery can be evaluateda�y a qualified archaeolo ' t. A certified. 9s archaeologist, shall be consulted to; examine the discove -area •and determine the areal extern ry composition;,, dultutal: affinity, and cientific :''` significance of the material.; rf , : a:9 , � ^k 1� _. 41 1 Page 3=d (1 • 77 f,l : • • , 1 r, zon ng, r •; , ', r .. RY OF EN,,VR�J�111 NT: L 1MP�A C & I - GAT11-11�i . ,1VYEA�tikt��� CLAS -911 AMen SIGNIFIt� MITIGaABL d• ' � .. ; °, „ Party 'Responisible for:Enforcir►g & Schedulefor Mgnitor n & Level —gra loe P Res gsible I 3' Po;.: , for Ln 1emet, tin SchediYle for Monitoring g i2epcititg on I SSLTE t�RBA/,TIyIPAGT S�LITIC�ATIOT�1 MEASURE Aft�erMidgation p 4; ,g Mitigation.M'�asrue' ; `^---;� Im 1 p emenung Ntti ation'A�ieastue g - Implem;entation o Mi . tigatiorl ast re n I lementaUon df p Mrugatron Measure _— 4.3 uhural 'Resnnrees (continued) 3 )N$& rbwm,, or rwwyal o +cuhuml'raourcas (continued) X1.3-2 If humanskeletal' � f i _ _ remains arc, discover on the :: Non -Si scant gn Construction Cram; Acta During Project Priyate Consultant During Project project site, halt all work and notify'the County Coroner in accordance with tate law. If the human , Construction Construction skeletal remains are identified -as Native ,A.rnerican, and are not subject to further investigation by the Coroner, the Coroner shall notify the Native • American Heritage GommissionCommission, Th � i e ;� Commcsson shall be responsible for desfgnatmg fhu most descendant" of the remains. An, mdithdlikely tial designated by the Commission, shall recommend the most: apprgpriate proceduresfor handling the remains._ 43-3 Project construction workers and all'other project P- ! related personnel shall leave. all discovered artifacts _ . Non Shwificant •' Constkludl&V , Airactor . Duruy Pro ect g Private ` ' to ,Consultant . 4 During Project undisturbed. They shall not collect any cWtural f'onstruction Cb»stru.. . resources they: discover during construction;activitiesi Record all cultural resources ideated on the site on forms ;DPR 422 (archaeological on -Significant Constitcti60W0,ttor': .. DD urmg Project Private Consultant During Picject project - sites DPR Construction Coi astructit;n and/or 523 historicalor similar. ; properties) Dims 1 t i I r i f Id ,. I it i, t•, X" I ,• �: l a t1 I I I r Page ; R '4 Mel r le z oo` &Stibdivoib- 'T t ..ing nrojec 4 RY OF ENVRONMENTALMPACTS & MITIGATION MEASVRES/ AGTION�MOMTOI TIGAIN Plko SSl SSIGNIFIC A077GABLE G" ,SS M 1 C TS ISSUE ARtA/IWACrIMMGMON MEASURE, Pl Responsible Level of can einentitig gru 81 -*fi' canoe for Inipi After Mitigation I&dgkioh Measure Scledulelor )trnpI6ndndng Mitigation Measure Plsponsibwo, for Edorcing'-a I Monitoring : Iinpletn&itAdon of Mitigation Measure' Schedule for to Moni "ritig on Implementation , ntadon of' Mitigation Measure 4A Jlvdr6loaand _Dtai:�ne � ia=q,'An surface water inwoff, and 4.44 Design construct the proposed seepage drainage: trenches On the I-acrP lots in accordance with the Butte County Subdivision Standards. Design and Non-$ignifIcant Project Applicant and, Design Engineer Project Design and Duri g- Project roject. COnstr ction Butte County Dept. of Public 'Works and Vv, f Environmental, Picj -ect Approval and DurIng Project construct the seepage draiagd trenches to contain a. Health Construction one in ten year storm recurrence interval,, be at least five, -feet above water table, and have at least five , feet of percable soil below the bottom of the trench, 4.4-1 if required by the Butte County Department of Public Work' revise the pr 'ect Tentative Subdivision Map and protect description to:nc u e construction of seepage amage trenchese�ehes on the proposed 54cte. lots. Project 'Applicant and DesignengineerDuring Protect Design esign an Project Constructi'on Butte CountyDepti, of Public:Works and Div. of Environmental Health Protect al et, PPTOV and During Project Construction ;''quire 4.4-3 If cQnstruction of seep trenches on the pro osed. a p 5 -acre, �lots is required by the Butte;.County ty a�nt 0fblic the prposed seepage drainage trenches onthe�5- acrelotsin accordance With. the Butte County VIS1 S Sign Subdivision Standard � De and construct the Nott -Si cant Pi0ject-Applicant and Design E gn ngineer d: Design an Proje d During rojec Project Construction Buttd County Dept. of Public"Works and DIV. OfE iVronMental Health Pr "ect. Approval 01 and Durin Project Construction seepage drainage trenches to contain aone in ten year storm recurrence,intetvat be.at.least f -,'feet ove any water 6tler tablejand have, at least five. f -det of P djrcable soil -Belo wth6,bbttomof,ibotcjicb,,,: 4.4-4 )�e lacethe, tem drainage' cnph' M mporaryseepage esbn the I -acre: and, 5 -acre o w II p permanent torrnw ter dr, Cifiti� s a drainage a es whdii atper'niane facilities n, community stormWater drainage system 6 main; stolr drainage'outfall ditchideniffiddin the cant Lot oners, 0 er Pr i After. OJPc Construction JjUttd County DP Dept: of PublIdVoillks and 1XV, of Environment 'al Health; PjQJec D esign and After Protect construction At a constructed 16 r Durham -Area Drainage Study ed li"O adjacent to the project site. 11111=1 re . quiremetit for, replacing temporary seepage drainage trenches witl pormament storxnw atdrdr4nage: facilities shall be . noted on the project Final Subdivision This the Fin notationai Subdi slon M an shallbe a t., en con,, on o:, approval f project. o the tatiV�;' Subdivision Uao, iktnd4for�r��'O��. sto , , f - 'I'll dam,4C i�:ate'an d:' lenient theldrinaflon of a'County ibif'�le imp 8: 1. 1." J d' ez�,� �qe Area`fol n ing mamtenance't )f public 1 ro - ad storm, ac es, sub Jec, to,a Ov storm:"' drain age� f M6 all t the Bu e,County Lacdl Agency Formation Comity scion IIAFCl, Pr Jett A ()J 4( I - , I'� , ''I Public 8 f . ..... . d , VMS an it ttdg� Permit ButteCauhty Chief A, Ini D t' o Plii�afiiqg�, ep Buildih Ift Pa a 38 : - z, , , 1 e .. ezonin* Stib-dI*I9I6i Trp e(C - umN � ZS "PJB' N-VRO'�iMENTAL IPA'�'T MZTiGA'�'I IoT MEA LjR WI TIS, TION MONITORING PROGRAM CM SS H IMRAC~S: rSTd"�1�%�'�'T�`AN�°, MITIGAPLE Party Responsible forEnforcing &. Schedule for Monitoring Party Responsible Schedule for , Monitoring Re rain on ; po g ISSUE AREAlIlviP1� CT MITIGATION MEASURE Level of Si ifimnw �► After Mitigation for im lementin ' p _ g Mitigation Measure Im' lemientan p g Mitigation Measure Iin0etnentation of 141ia anon . _ g Measure Implementation of ' ' . Mapgatton Measure rid Me and Pahcs+ Coiis€stem �'.rrtluxian of edr ng'knd us&lknd use,C'anfiicts/Nuisances 4.5 -IL Mitigation Measures 4.1=1, 4.1-2, arid, 4.1-4 throw 4.1-6 . . exxrtrit ,- . . , BFa Non -Significant Project Applicant or Lot Building Permit Butte County Chief J3uildin g Permit 4:3-3 project Tentative Subd,ivision, Map to Redesign thebdi Owner Admin. Office and e tide isionct of the ro'ect site into larger p l g De t of Planming p .' parcels which would allow -productive agricultural use .. . - to be contmued on the project situ. ion -Si rcani $u t n t e Cou ty Chief , Public Services and Butte County Chief Buildmg a?ermtt £dmAOgffice and De t. p. Buil ding Permit Admin. Office and Public Services Dept, of Planning Frrg FiatPctran Servcces - 4.6-1 ' Instahl a pressurised; water system with fire hydrants fhroUghouttho;Lproposed-L,I$ubdivision. Install fire rscz=e'iit'demand farfwe protectoz services hydrants that` meet the requirements of 'Chapter 20 - of the Butte County Code (5.00 gpn and mmimurii ._ residual pressure of 20 psi), Space the Yore hydrants ... Non -Significant ProJect Applicant or Lot Building Permit , Butte Coun Chief Buildin Permit g to Conform to the spacing established by the Owner Admin. 'Office: and Battalion Chief with jurisdiction over the project. _of.PlDept. anning No n -Significant Project Applicant or Lot Building Permit Butte County Chief Building Permit 4.64 Design the roads for the proposed subdivision to OwnerAdmin. Office and. „ r have-, .minimum turaing radius of 4q feet for fire `'- - . Dept.:of. Planning engines, in accordance with Chapter 20 of the"Butte County Code_ 4.6-3 Dexelo and.'un lenient 'a program am for payment of 1? P P P, Yn? Non,Sigmficant ProJect Applicant ProJect,Des�gu an Butte County?dept. of 1'xojeo Design $250.40 per lot to reduce the'%scat impact of ProjecfApproval Plannin and Durham g and Pro ect 3, . , ire a aratus ro constructing 'a uew Ire pp' bm for `Station f, Lt. and k'arlt�Dist. Approval PP 45 of the CDF BCFD Steve Brown written / i , ct►rres ondence .'. P ) Non -Si 'cant Pro c A li t` 'e t can J PP and ProJect. Design and Butte County Dept. of Project Design y Design Engineer Public Services Plannimg and Durham' and During 'aizce Prote�xion Services' P Rec. and Part€ Dist: PrGject Constr.. . 1"rzcrevse is demand far podree protectitrrt sce� 4.6-4 Pay a :develapment impact fee' of $360 per mgle family dwelling unit constructed on the project site to defray the cost of Sheriff's Department' facilities ` pursuant to Ordinance No. 2y49.� , Develo ' art implement a. program .f r a . ent. 0 of _ P., P � P y� M fees by a Project Applicant to fund .the hiring , of additional Sl'e ifi' De artment ' r r s p pe sonnet Fag- 3-9 r ri s , • r, ;r 1' 1 zr R�za►n�n + S,ubdt�s>to>r Pro Cit g. _ J r •, 1, F r I; ... .A,RY' EN'�T�:���1'�i'I'A�.IL;,IP��'T'S � 1V�I�T][G�eTIJOV 1 � GA7 IO"oT'MO dIT1��iIVG PR.O►CR I. Party Responsible:: :r Schedule for �AW �, 1,`�.,5 rr r,z'• a�rr��T�.�z� for,Enforcirtg & JVfonitoring & Parry Responsible . chedule for 5 Monitoring Reporting on Leuel of Si 'fi gru carice for Implementing Implementing Implementation of Implementation of SUE AREA/ NTAG'I` MITIGATION MEASURE After Wdgatson ` Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure Mitigation'Measure Mitigadbri Measure 4-61 Pdbiic SeiMi is (continued) Nori-Si6ificant Se sGtd�t'e�tivllin�►tt 0-6 Pay the current development impact fee for schools of 51.56 per square'foot of new residential devela merit. P Non -Si ' icant ,Prosect Applicant and J Project Design Butte Co Dept. of Pro ect A rov j PP al Design Engineer Planning 4.6-7` Develop and implement one or both of the following development impact fee programs for schools: 1) payment of an up -front fee on a per lot or per household basis, and 2) formation' of a special Assessment District, such: as a Dello -Roos District, ... to fund neW and upgraded; school facilities, teachers, l . Non Signil�gant Desi En ' eer and, gn gm , `Project Desi -Project 'Project ��„ J Calif. Division of Pro'ect"pesi ' J ... and $upporGstaf£ Construction Contractor Approval, and During Forestry and Fire and During Project Construction Protection Project 4.6-8 Pay the pertinent development impact fee for schools 11 ;� Construcxiori - established pursuant to implementation of; Mitigation Measure 4.6 7. 4.6-9 ; Pay, the. pertinent Assessment District fees - - established `ursuant to impIementation of Miti at op __ p g Measure 4.6-7. - _ _ on Si iearit rr ; N gnif Engineer- gn : gin Desi ri P t''' Dei oJect s gn .. Butte Cour ' De t of ty p Pro'ect Approval .- J PP Public Works and Daring :1"ar�s and ` ecieation '_ role Construction Tisrsease iei; � nrraar ' or roe sere =and n�WILt s 4.6-1Q ` f f De dicate a park on,° he protect seta of a size ifl .. ., establashedn consultattoa wild and b ` he Durham Y, .. t Non Significan Butte Colin Chief ty' Public Services and Butte Colin Chief' 'Buildin ' :Permit 8 , Recreation `,and Park District. Admin, Office and Dept. Builduig,PdrJnit Admin. Office and of Planning Dept.. o£ Planning d.6 -1J. In addition to dedicating a pazk'on the project site, design and oevelop the park site according to the speciiicatians established in consultation Nvith,'and'by, the Durham Recreation and Park Distijet - Non Significant Pr -ect A cant or Y.ot of PP Buildin Permit' g. Butte° Com Chie£ '' ty Buildin ' Permi f . g Owner' Admin. Oftice and De't, of Plannin P g 1 ., .: Non.Sl icaat: 'Butte Colin Chief Public Services ,and ButterCoun "Chief BuildingPermit : Admin:Officeand .De P Buildin Perruit g Admin. Office and , ., of Plannin g Dept. of Planning f : r Page 1.46, t, 1' Y 'P U I L A 0 - A%0t*,!r R phing, S,i bd v, et rojec I&i rilli, A, R- Y- OV EN NMENTA , MTIGATION MEASUR,.ES—. 50UM VRO LIMPACTS&I PROGRAM Part o Revonsibie,- schedule for., CSS 11 IMPACTS.-SIGNIFICA N- MITIGABLE T Enforcing & Monitoring Pa* sponsible Schedule fdr Monitoring : Reporting on, Level �6f' Sighificande 1inple0entin forimplementingI I P -in-lementation of,., lin I plemdntationlof I L9SMAREAAWPACT,' WITGATION MEA8URt AfterMtigabon Mitigadonmeasure 3 n easure gatib 'M on M tigat! Mewire Mjdg�wonMeasujv: 'nbedl 440 Public Serviggs'(conti U Xavewe:bs dmundfor Water 45 Desi and construct a, self;ton 4.6 �D t9ned water s stem No -Si i'ficant 'Project,4pplicant and :Pr ct Design, Project 0i ro Butte'lltounty D ::rqJ t. of, ed Approval t)ntfi6,pr0Jcct site and an interconnectingw . ater line ineer Dosig'n Eng' Approval, 'Public Public Works s to.the,.Durfia,m,'Irrigation E$jstritt. Include one well Services per 50 acres, nccessary Water lines, and a Water pumping system in the water'system. Turn-6ver the water system to the Irrigationat-ion Dis' trict far administration,strAt-on. management, andmaintenance'. 546 Inspect all wat lities includitig Its, 0 water system, facilities, 'we No Non -Significant Durham Irrigation During Frolect Water line water pumping; system constructed' -s, and District Construction on the,�&-t- prol Site. 4.6-17 P4yaservic-econnecddnfee iwh!6hrit2cludetinsta g Non -Si Projllt',,� ct Applicant ol'� Lot, Durih 0. 9 ct Durham I Distd' K During Project C Construction a water, meter to the Durham Irrigation District for 8 Owner Construction each residence d6riAtuct6d on the ro pject site.. P -odd. Makfaiance Develop miplament %ky,wr=e ME' demand for road Midniewwee 4.6-18," and one. or both of tfick'llowing developmentimpactfee. pr9gr s for road: Xon-S' gnificant ut :C- C e Butte oun,ty Chief ices and Public, $erv' Butte Count Chi y Chief B N' 'Pe rmit U ing m aintenance; 1) payment �of an upfront fee on a pet Admin. Office and Dept BuildingPermitAdminOfficd and, lot or per household, basis, and 2) formation, of a, 9 De Dept. . of flahning special. District, u& asa,Mbflo-Roos im. ti J 4.6 -19' development Pay the pertinent develo t"' unpactfee for road maintenance I tstabliA,ed �ursua&iobin lementafidn p ',Measure iN6*-$i�tot 'lProect.Apo tor"L4 Build Permit, , uttec", t,y Chief 80114 Pe . , ec rmi �ofMitigation 4.6-18l, ner Admin, cc -and, impti o 1plaoink 4 646 Pa' the pertinent As District fee established pursu meniation of 1 Ant to Mid anon Measure -.N -Sipificant, t It Pro A pplicalkit, 6 r Lo �,!§Wlding e i Permit in Btitte County Chief; Builq,* Permit 4.6 8 01 -ii, 6 wn r- Admin, Offitean'd D'pti' of planning , o16 d Hy 6 3 an 'D V Page M. T ptzget Rfto'"1 i6g e& Stlibdiv YRONM TAL IMPA GATION MEASURESI. SUMMARY, .0_)EN _EN CTS MITI N, RINGTROGRAM AMIGATI 0 ITO b Parry Responsible ftdole for NT MITIGABL Paity Respo Schedule for 'for Enforcing,& Monitoring,on g Monitoring g Reporting Lev of Sigifficance Level Implementing tiri for p emen g iriipleinenting Implementation of nnoe mentatidn,of !SSUE AREA/IMPACT, M111GATION MEASURP, AfterlAidgation tiptionmeasure �hdga'tion M-easure Mitigation easure mitigationmeasurc 4.4 Public Services !continued) beware rolkcilon. =4 JMT sal contwnwi2ilor, 49auufwaler and sutface water ti�& f septic tmkand dETosa! A��, 4.6-2, *thfiaWw o k, a chfwJd 1 ividual se i tank Desi ,operate, and maintai ind tic tank 1 Non ignificant - . 1 Design, per Engineer and ce Proje Approval and, 4 Butte Dept. of g erm Buildin J? it d Aft and, li,.,ach fieldAisposal system S on he project site -in 1 Lot Owner -i 1g rm. Build*fi Permit Environmental Health , an er accordance with existing 'regulations promulgated by And Dept. of Planning Construction the. Butte County Department bfjEnvlronrjent,a.1 the .direction of a registered Civil 'Health, under h , itah r Engih,61erbr registered, Sam 'Anand unde' inspection by,tbeDepartment. of Environmental Health. 4.6-22 Enforez wdstldg, regulations <regard ng. the designity" NonwSignificint Butte County Dept. �f Building 1'erjnit and oPerat1operation, andpAintenance of widlvidual,8eptic tank Enviionmental Healii I r . ect After P rPJ and6.-hfield disposal Systems.,on'the project s -it to C_.onstructioh effluent prevent'the nui;gatio,q of inadequately treated efatf to grotffidwatetl, on and off the project site. 'Ca tlamd anti Circulation is /wzards; at w;Mn 4-74 Rahd ,,Re on ,Road through �its intersection with 'in -the Non -Si -0- t Pro Apoliont, O�d Engineer Projedt Design and Protect Dbilili` Butte, County Dept.: of Public Works-, buting,Pr*4 on - Construction ic Avintle"ta, e'llminame, the Curve middle of the, intersection and to ensure adequate sight lines Construction �L to and, fioncv the, eas-i of14011 and Avenue, nt1,, and less, preferably, providp A.6w4y Al(drVdjy in nirig "at the 0 - , / intersection, plland Stop sigm HanlonF_ t ipfficanj, Pro 'dct A �, pplidarit, kid, 'Pr esign and oJeck D ! _ I Butte County unty Dept. of,., , builtig! Protect Pi 'Desig, . a nginee, - 1�� eci DurihgPr6j t Public, Works ons Construct wit, ivsraaxe inc,ftrw hawds oq.1I64=dAve 43-2 J, Design and paved pa "sate Construction As _P One side, OfHq AndAventid between the Project and ,burfiamt!aytonkigliway. Desigathe paved pathWay: alobj Hollarid Avenue: to connect to the M.ron i t age: ' 'y C, improvements Avenue re4uired'b th _ 13utto'County, Department of Public Works pUrSUan to tfi Urban e U P t6se, M. 1,o cyfor the AtirhAm-' �,Dayton-NOtonPlartifng Area. Page: X12 lop 7771 _7� t RI T'T e -41pr ezoning &,Subd' -IV U, M117G ATION M S EASUPEV'' SAT ON' ONITO,ENV-RONMENTAI;rMPAC,TS 3rRING,' WGRAM CLASS, H MRACPS.-SIGIMIC42a MITICYAB, Party Revonsibi §chedul for' or arty, osponsible 6hA- fo' for tntbrcirig & Monito nn, 9� Moni'toring & Reporting on ISSUE AREA/f MPAC T ------ MMOMONNEASURE :tevel f Significafke 011.1 After:Midga'tlo'AI for hnplebadnting Mipgaqoti Measure , I' n�p ementing Midgationmeas Measure Implementation of, Irnpleriaentadon of I mitigaii M, on easure -won Measure 41 TrAffic and eirculation'-(cofififine (cofifinue 1cofififine "n S '0 in !mac lutwi on pwiect: nqadtvffo 4.7013 Revise the proposed terna! circulation systdm:td Non'-s Icant Project.App1jeantand Project Design pg. Butte County Dept. 6 Pi'4actDatign Pill provida, curving roadways that ,pr it promote speeds, Design Desi Engineer Public Public Works hip p go d h, no sharp egree curves, and limited strain -ad segnents:., o way 4.7-4 Design and construct a paved pathway, along: the outer side of the internal loop road, of the proposed Ndn­SigmiticAnt Protect Applicant d P t I an Design Engineer -Project Design and: During Project Butte Coun Project Desi residential development. Design the paved. pathwayuring Construction" Public works and D along the internal .loop 'road to connect to the. Project sidewalk along the northernroost minor access road, -0 Construction. to the I -acre Tots. 4.15 d Design an construct all roadways. on the pr ert sit q to Countystandards. . These standards shallCounty ,ihdlude. Non-Significan t 'Design Engineer Protect Design and D Pr Butte Dept, of Pioject D. esign, widening both Holland Avenul� and, HWO,Road to Uring , oJe ct Construction Public Works and During,, 2 O -foot half, ct,,se �6n adjacent to the site; and , widths d� Project providing a minimum 12 -foot. lane on the. Construction opposite side of'thd centerline of each roadway, 4.74 Design and construct ,meandering ,pathways, rather thanrsidewalks,Malone all adjacent �n NonSigfflcant DIe. Design Engineer Butte County Dept. of . IPr Ject Design Public wor4;., g eftoM n Require all ,construction ttd,& to access,the b: project site via; a R a Hanlon Ra, d/Mi way, Road route.. Non,=Sjgrifficant ,' Butte 'County Dept. of Building P, enni and Bdttd'Cdunty.De.. t of P tiring rojeCt, an d &�sOuctidii bntr ct a or D P uring rojec, x OnstrL Works Cons tru ction C Fq9d 3413 p A, ? Q ,C ;dzker, I ezoning & SubdiN P.10*'; IJI 'OF FNV,.R, ONMENTAL, I TIGATIO MEASUR CTS &Ml—N At,", W, .,A MITIGATION MONITO 0GRAM" Partylesponsible. Scheduk for CLASS 111IMPACTS. ADVER&JA.�$ B U-T� NOT T SIGNIFICAN Moni toting Party Responsible Sohenttle for mom n Reporting on, J, L—evel of Sigm caneefcrImplementing'mpI'gpepti ng M pldineniAtIon:of Implementation of ISSUE 4AEAACT MITIGATION MEASURE' After hfldgAtionMitg�#on Measure Mi gAiloi Measure 2AitgadonMdasure Mitiganon Meastrd, Ak—QuEft h, wrpolfizpi duan - gprp)ed 1kr=e, in viiisixions qty 4.24 Properly maintain I ad, ;stnogchedkat� construction Non-Signihearit, Construction onstructi n oJec dn,Co tractor IN gPr 4 't Butte Coun During Pl�qject nte during truction activities on th6 equip. rit -d �4�bs nstru Dieoarfliaent, of'Publio 0 on C nstru­ dt project site.' 'Works' lease Rn CMISSWW of awpofluft&from kuw=ed ve*e*a&�e 4.2-5 T encourage use 6fpublic ti instead of 0 Non'iuls' nifieaa PtibiectAplicant.,and Project esiga, Non -5i ukte Coubty oe-�t. o", Proj6dt Approval :V10 1C ff vehicles,, investigate pergorml:ve:h1c] ti te:and,revort on Desigii-Engi, Engineer Planning feasibility of providing with wovi*j��bas Aervicqj W1 A, convenient • schedule and distawces between bus stops, to, the proposed residential, developindift Ji 4,1-6 Redesignthe pro'Ject'site Plan and''Teiritative, Nog- Significarif Project Applicant and Pro,Jecr Design. ,13utte CountyD.epi. of. Project Approval" Subdivision, b ap, to iidli.corl:iorate bicycle pathways and,. De�slp knginide;r lf,lanning pedestrian pathways 65 connect with the internal � roadways. and provide access to the proposed p_xk, site. ]Land Use and Polia Consistencv DL-Wb=w of, eving and planned 1wid uses our ii9project 4.5-1 Mitigation Mieasqres 4.14, 4z2, and, 4.2 3 (See , Public Services Service V, ryucre= in dernandfor telephone,.fervirw* :Nomitigation iddas'iires,arq'r'equired''or-,.recommend6d dzk:aizd Ekeinc! S e-nuat in, c sen lro ase weir 6r gas f nit, , �To!, iigati6o: measures are. required recommeAded Traffic gj4iQlrciiiki'on ��=e�, InO 00 No mitigation taf asurbs, are required ot,, recoiniften e 41 1. �Y. F,S44,' Al '2j SID& Disclosure - incorporated into the roperty deed or title to each let p wilding'erxtit - implemented as a,condtlon of, and prier to, issuance of a building pOrtiii f0t constructiorfrb ` allot_ rlor to Protect ,COrxs iructioiL..J"leineonted prior" to construction on .any, lot 1Dur ng .Project Construction - implemented during, construction On the project site or on any lot` lPixblxc Services lrlp)ezrierited to �ensuYe adequate provision of p ibllc'servlces Aber Prd'ect Coristructxon • lTl1 lena&A60tfter.const l .� ction ,on the"`project site or on P any lot The mitigation pleasure this chapter fall into the�follovv�n se s identified in g hedule categories' for monitoring: gnProJect DeA conducted duringthe design of the ro osed subdivision and g P P residential. development ;and preparations of` the .Final" Subdivision° M[ap,, prior,to fecordation of the Final Sub"cxivisfon A, Project Approvalconducted Ori or"to County approval of the: proposed rezontng.and' subdivision .applica.tiins Building Permit conducted prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on a lox Priort0 PrOjeCt CorxStruCti0l3. -Conducted FprioT t0 coistrllcti On elle ,project sites. `. or on any, lot )Unfig ProiPet Construction"- conducted'Auring constniction orvth ,project:si#e or on any lot., + AiteriPrnject .Caxistructx6 -. conducted0 a , gr:construation oil they project isi el or "oA ' any lot parties' resp'onsibler. frsr itnpXerrienting and monitonllgimplelentation ^of ritigation ores f a11_into� the followixi Cate ones meas" g g Pa'li�ectr A ljplxciint { 4 n ' �° P i n ' De " ign Es gx n� neer ' f 03920?5 4 Page 4`2 :.ai fl r - t 1 i 4 Ag CUIU6! e Aff icultural Prodyction in the Durlul n Dayton-llrelson 1'lanr2ir rea , The ro ect site is located within the Durham4), g on Nelson, Planriin Are P j yt g a, which is ;situated in the western central portion of, Butte -County.. ITh P;arir�ung Area{is comprised of approximately 135 square miles (86,900 acres) of ti f corporated `, and and is generally hound by the Sacramento River to the west, State gh,way,'99'to--the east; the Western Canal, Butte Creek, aril rthe' Butte/Glenn 'County lines to'.the `south; and_ 'the DurhamUnified and Chico Uniflen School District bounoarles" • '(Figure a '4-1). Three rural comtnunitie5 in the Planning Area -Durham, Dayton, and Nelson 'wsit isolated among vast. acreages of ;agricultural land. ;, 'rlcultural The Plannin Area is esst.ntiall a rural a re ion with very little g y g g �ry non-agricultural :industrial orcommercial activity. Agricultural lands occupy approxtiiately $3 percent of the total land area in the Planning;Area: Rice fields`are,,tlie; latgek single agricultural land use, accounting for 43 percent of the total acreage devoted :to -agriculture, r OrL:narrls occupy the, second largest amount of landarea, accounting for 33percent of the total:acreage devote dC -to agriculture, Almonds are the largest orchard product` grovtm in.the -Planning' Area, Othei orchard crops grown in the Planning Area (listed in or=der' of dec%easmg':acreage) include walnuts, lirunes, and pistachios. Other agricultural uses in the Planning Area include grain production, other than rice, pasture, field crops, fruit production ' (notably ltiwis), ` and agricultural ;processing facilities (Wade Associates 1986), Aurizam: Soil Type and tin the Dayton-1Velson Plann%:.4iea The majority ,of the Planning ,Area is made up• -of relatively recent ralluval fai�s'Sediinents deposited by streams flowing from the Cascade and Sicrra'Nevada Wu'ntatii JR.anges: The most recent sediment deposits are those of the Chico Alluvial Fanwi��hieh cover the northern portion of the Planning Ards. These alluvial deposits are moe Kt, sand, ggravel, and clays 'ers formed in ,consolidated ailtl• partially urlConSolidated covered over by humus or sandy clay topsoils, The soils lin the PlanniiiAxea include some of the most pro, ucti a soils in the orld. `The g p v w most productive soils in' the, Planning Area are ;the recent alluvial, soils identified above, most notably the soils of the Chico Alluvial P'an. These soils are generally deeps nearly,:. level, and well -drained: 'They are used far orchards, cropland, and ,pasture. Almonds and walnuts are grown. on the soils of the Chico Allu,�rial Fan, 039702 o Page 4T 1'. , r ,: ... 1 ... •. : n� ., i. a i.� .' •. ., r ! ::�4 a n -:: .. _ .. ... jL���___�. ... •'.' i .� :l =1.. is ,, a .., ( ,. ..,. .. I •.. .- Y�NrY1yu1•YII1 ... ......:.... :.. x 1 k ,r t r • GLENN'00. , 0 sUTTe CO, �4r +azo��i SITE l Lak© r t deoville . B+ORSfAO PO'ITOR1fVY U SA" �A AL �... o a 1e ' dnntri orvTon fm! pdMO t [� i� YL �.1'1��V. r ° MLLE ADA �O Ij a These defln,xans,.of iri�ne a reultural land: are;►ide1 .+ ce ted of onl fo the p g y a5 R .. n yx ,ril Act;;but'also in state andrlocal plaiuung,documents Tvvorelements of hese definitions are par,ioularlys �mpotant ;for rle`aning , prune sods associated t with dLversified : culti,�ated agric�lturei the'. Class I -ZIP soils; and, other, so, capable of gen eratit g. a groes ,palue o $2a0 per.acre or, mote. ,An economiG7definition was considered:neces"saryto account for;tlrose agriculturallands which may be'technieally flawed;!but are ,e ceptio,ially valuable x'E t �` Approximately, 142,250 acnesof "prime" Ciass.I�TL,agricultural soils',occur.xn,lautte Countyr W i16 these: soils account for 13 A erceovo£ the,total Coutity;ti�they,repres. apprQ innately h � P ,, 36,1" ercent of; all;antensive agncultu'r -1 soils Of, the soils to this' category, nearly, 60 percent are included in the Vina-Farwell association, the soil type on ' Wqh_ the!project site occurs., oT and oiz the Pro'e�t Sit + The project, site is;:located `O)in the ChiJco, Alluvial Fan, The soils on the project siteare of the Viva -Farwell association. 'These soils are d my ope, an nearly .level, floodplains of 4 recent alluvium and are basic m origin. They are:medium to moderately fine textured, well,. dzained, moderately.zexpansive and ,very productive,:."Common ,uses:.of.;these soils >are irrigated row czaps,, .orchards; .dry, gz`ains . and ;pastures .,, .Thea Vine-l~arwelL,soils of Ca abili ' 'Classes I=II Wade, Associates ,19,86 r P ( ).�� Almond Prodca &m, and Dneradgns in Butte County, Almond production was the second most valuable million dollar crop and the leading type of>>fru t acid nut acreage,.in Butte County in 1990. 'i'he 1.990 Butte_County AgTicultural Crop Report indicates that;37870 acres ofbearing ahiiond„orchardand,228 acres,of non-bearing ' almond orchard existed in Butte County in 1990. The per acre production of almonds 1990 was 890 pounds of meats per acre, for ,a value • of ,$1,82S;:per acre and a total value of $61,503,000 (Butte County Offices of Agricultural Commissioner and Weights of Measure ; Almond trees are °non-bearing during the first 3 yeairs, `Tlae ,,Tees. attain; maximum bearing potential in"1-8 years. The prime bearing years of the trees are years 8-20. The economic l.�fe .o£ the°,trees 1s 25 30; years. Several norinal..opeza"tions, and ;practices ,are necessazy for a; productive ahnond,:orchard..Mainfenance °activites are necessaryi'or a variety of reasons including protecting trees frbini iseases, ; nsec,s ,.drought; ,cold rweather , azid. a variety of othex+:factors,:that may result in a.substantial lass ,of,protiuctivity Tl a tiiriin and, frequency ; of these activities: vary and .include daily,: weekly, ,and, seasonal tasks. "Typical task's for 'L maintenance of an almond orchard. include: pruning, brus emoval and stacking,;°tree zeplaeilizing '(broadcast, zutrogen :and ;application o£.potassium sulfate° "and'zinc '. sulfate), irrigating, mowing of " weeds �froin .the orchiI rti flood, spraying of weeds with herbicides (e.g., Round-IJp; paraquat, andsimazine); ,spraying of, fungicides (e.g,, benlate " and cap,an), spraying of insecticides; winter sanitation, and harvesting 0392025.41 Page ;41-4” A a ` Theyraverage.,distahce: bet yreen trees .on the. project ,s to i 28,feet:.,°r Elkins°' ' - b. P ! andRConnell .. 09.87) sit' ;planting.distaixces closer_than24 feet'.betweeh trees as:undesirablerarid that`may resiilt in:early c'towding and .decreased, archard.yl�fe::, T":zegeneral, Condit on.o%;trees in the orchard is },poor '(Eliiabeth.�, Metzger;. writte;ru.communication)r. Noa,.diseases or .insect Infestations, currently:afecte&Thhe averagepound)ofaiodmeatproducedper6 - acre, from the orchard over the last five years (i.e., 1987 to 1991) is shown in "Table 4.1 (Elizabeth'Metzger;.writtencoinmpnication)::Cohipart the,almondproduction,,Aguresfdr ButteCounty in,`1990 with.the almond :production figures.£ar>>the lVletzger orchard listcd'itt: Table4-1, it?s' clear that a);the average yield per acre fiom.the Metzger orchard was higher io 1987, 1988. and 1991 and lower in,1989 and ;1990 than the average yield per acre;:from althond -orchards inButte County in 1990; grid b),tlie: average value,per acre of :the; Metzger arebard was lower iii 19874991 than theaverage value per acte,of almond', orchards in Butte County Tin,1990. Based on Elkins and -Connell (1987), the orchard,is in poor production, as it .averages ° , ,*.i:han 1100 pounds of meats per acre. Jbis reference also inila rtes that `xt. is generally:time to replace the orchard if the average production is less.:thart 10,00potiuds, of meats /acre. Shaking; poling, aweepi.ng, and pick-up are the presentm.ethods-u'sed. for barvesting almonds r on the: prof'ect 2s1'te: Nitrogen ,and, pot ash :are used for fertilizingias required.. Strip spraying; mow ng; .and complete spraying of- the rirchard (floor; before. ,harvesting are the : types+.of orchard floor. management used on, the projects site:., ,Dormant spray; popcorn spray,,,and .blossom spray are used as needed for shothole and,brown tot (Elizabeth Metzger, ;written communication).; The irrigation system on the project site, consists of solid set pipes running ` in. an east-vvest directio.i aver the.5outherni 100'acres..Sprinklers are: situated.bet �veen ,every . other tree row: niy ,, rigation �water.is supplied from 4 wells.loca+ed on the eastern borders of.proposed 5=acre lots` 11, 14,.1x7; and. onr pr.aposed,,I=acre lot S0.. The present imgation` ' v d is once every, two schedule for�the orchaz wveeks for.72..liours, from.�,Ma �5through July: The _Y ; property owner rep M%, straying by,Jivestock from a:nearby.farin, and_trespassing children G for the purposes of riding bicycles ;and vandalizing sprinkler heads as the M'' ami-, conflicts between orchard production on the project site ,and adjacent land uses 0rez:;the prix few j years(Elizabeth Metzger, written communication).- f3gricultural: &s AgE eent� to Project` Site` ,' Agricultural uses: adjacent .}to' the ;project; site include..almrind orchard and agricultural residential uses to the', north. and west; almond orchard .winter wheat;. and? agncultural residential uses to the south; and alin d orehardi a kiwi, grove, vacant land, and agricultural, residentiat, ises to theeast:, TViYIldY1iLTOn .QCs S�QtI�S . 'i i Therproject, site is not under a>'4?Villiamson A.ctrcontract,: Sever"al parcels. adjacent to or..npar the project site are currently�t ndet) Williamson Act contract (Figure 4=2). F w A o2025.41 Page 41 ti e. 77 7 LE 41-1 Metzger Rezoning and Sitbdi�ision Project _ 1987 - 1991 Almond Production' on the Project Site �� Average Average Price Revenue Average Average 70tal 'Vie!;d2 Per Pound Received Cost', Loss Ranch Year Per Acre Received ($) Per Acre .(4�) Per Acre ($) Per Acre ($) I oss ($)' 1987 980 1.02-9900601 1,244.60 24500 58;817.50 7988 1,139 1:06 1,207:34 1,446;53 239.91 57;576.40 198.9 387 1.02 39.74 491.49 96.7$ 23,220.00 1990' 842 0.85 715 70 1,069.34 358.64 841873-00, 1991. 1,217 121 1,473.57 7,545:59 72;02 17,284.80 does not include fixe,d',assets or capital overhead, living, and profit pounds, of almond meat . Source: Elizabeth Metzger, .written communication e, • 0392025.41 Page 4.1-? s iso ti � .a i'• •• 1( r=cam 11 • ,.• a • • • 6,M I Mi 154 • , ,••raj . , •'`` a}: i is 1,` /�� 1' ' ♦:p`i, 16. • •^. • • I � ' , t , � • Op■ pp OM1 �j''' . • •♦r `.-`��.' - j}1 ,t �,;,. � ;"• ,1aM, rya v ,� 1,� °'a • r r f; t.. , .• ' �' •• * • . C . + any ,,��•. .. ,' 1• ^153 •.:, �.� y •".ROJI•�• , ♦ r • •: • { • , , tea, O to I • • �• . •'� ' •M.• • r 31 •. :p0 . d• ., � , �• p .�, . 4�. , S1TE •` CL Mi• r ` , • 'r ` •'r♦ + •�1 it O of C , O `�/ 4144 11 i♦ '•�+4r•• • ,•• •� 7��. _.•� ..�T•i+•, e': �....�, •� , I � ,•. � . � �• .-,la +•., ' :� BM Ido lV etzger Rezoning Sulieiivison lPro,�ect �`�,wrX.wir;t•u•iw�«sw,if�w����shr.mlrvuN�x�e , Figure 4-2 sctit. i : 24,00d i?VI:LIAMS ON ACT LANDS NEAR PROJECT SITE o i,oao 2,090 s,aooMaes . 1Vlichael Clayton &Assoc a, es � .Act has always been to; get the tax relief associated with,beiti taxed.'at,�i g .- n agricultural rat sand not at a .rate :for potential i p urban. '.development Since property taxes: have been ., ignificazitiy reduc,.d and levextial 4 led,°rthere.is now less economic; incentivefar theefarmerlo s60' Williamson Act status. ;:This. situation hast cxeate, -a potentiai for :gr..eater speculation.ii hand< ute and the greater likelihood of applicat ors for subdividing ,agricultzf lazed .utto�.amallez�j parcels. This situation is compounded by two factors: the declining agriculturally blsed : conomy -of rural communities and increasing population pressures, Specifically, the population, of California, is expected to.grow by l4 pereertt over the next 10 Years. A large partof tis> growth is ,expected to occur in. nixal counties. As the :concentric rings of -urbanization: . fram radiate out the established urban centers, the pressute, for conversion of agricultural - land to urban development increases. Expensive housing,, pollution, traffic congestiori,,.and crimean the.cities all ke'a strong, in forpeople to move to-the country. Therefore;:- People are willing to drive increasing distances >`ram their jobs in the city .to a home.n the} country in order to achieve :a higher;quality of life: e Buime Carty rt}. The reduced incentive. for 'farmers to. enter, into a. Williamson, Act, contract and �-the increasing pressure. on rural cities .and counties: to revitalize :their declining economies° presents a ieal,.threat to- agriculture in !Butte County., Pressure for housing ''Marysville, developments.catering1o, workers .inaYuma` City; and. Sacramento°-are starting,td: appear in the southern portion .of the, CountyO °Development pressures continue to inerease " on the rural lands outside of Chico, Oroville, and Paradise, Wade .Associates (1986) notes ' that the agricultural economy of Butte County is undergoingmajor ;changes reflecting global . economic shifts ;and tecbnologic ,innovations, and that °on 'thee d al level hese changes will affect .the 'viability of many �agricu tural 'actfmies.� .For°:example, ,marginal, agricultural acts ties wsll cease or , agn .rural landowners oma need to��chan a to-other cro s or ueea y g. d' supplemental sources ,of incometo :continue, ; rP rm=Daytarr�Nelson =Pluraning Area. The issue of cumulative loss. ' f a bicultural .land ,ta increasing urbanization in the Durham,�Dayton-i+lelsort:FIannin,.Area is documented�in°the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Master Environmental Assessment. (Wade As 1986): The gradual conver5iony''of po uons;of the°project region to residential uses in 'res 'onse t'© P employment�growth °in areas outside of the Planning.Area is also: docwnaented in,the Ab Wade Associates 0986} explains :that: the Planning Area offers a rural setting ;hand ' agrieultiirally=based lifestyle that isuwrthin very easy commuting ran a �6f Oroville. and: Cliicn g aswell as tete other,urban areas in Butte County,;. Employment opportuniry.growth in these areas and in the Planhing Area 'itself will attract, people wlio would like to settle small, farms or. Iarge suburUanr lots Consequently, there will be market' pressure, to subdivide portions of,the Planning Area to accommodate additional population: This suUdvzszonand , eharrges in lands ,rise within, the; Rlannin ,Area are, 'kel ..t ' , g h y o.involve additionalreszdential ' development and;jpossibly;,changes :in agricultural production: and practices.and removal of prune agricultural soilsfrom productznn;... 03120?-S.X Page. 10 f I �] `state' ' ' Wit>z 're and to=:d :above =,.federal ° 'ar�d':local , ove - 9 g } g rnment abenciesfi.as well- as. privafe targanlzations�iiave .devdloped programs to dis,"coinage^faimers=from deveIoping'theirands-' These}prograrns)bave•',been�developed in,responsevto statewide. plannih&fgoals and I:o'cal AgencyFFormation Corumissiony(LASCo} policies to presea�re and `protect.prim agricultural toils and °premature conversion of � agri'cultural: lands to urban 'development:. Some ofs the major programs includet the' California Land, Coriservation Act (Williamson Act)', forrn'atron ., of land;tnists, right t4 -farm ordinances, deed .disclosures, purchase of,^developmentta'ights; ` transfzr of development -rights opem8pace easements; land estate planning: These programs are summarized below. >RirTlac MOnAct., Property taxes are- usually assessed on the "highest�and best.use'1"DU a parcel, which -usually ^means intensive adevel`opment; Accordingly, prior to }the Williamson F,.et; agricultural eland was .ta'Xed at,high levels; forcing out;of busin'e'ss thosefarmers who' were unable to pay high property taxes.Tl-a 1965 Williamson Act was.:created to alleviate this problem. The Williamson Act allows local governments to designate preseyes c� agr�culttrral land Sand; as'ess property fazes based 6n the" tical tifiiome-producing vahe.:of agrict5ltural land; .a tax rate greatly= reduced from that ieviedon developed properties:. Local governments . were,: given: sign*ant authority ;in establishing guidelines for; Williamson., Act.. contracts within theix` jurisdiction.. Time key variables that can be tailored to suit a county's. needs are regulated :at the local level - determinng :eligibility requirements,. establishing contract, cancellation policies; -and establishing. minimum.parcellscze. The , illiamsoii Act has lost much of its "effectiveness, ascan preservation ,agricultural rnechaiusxn: Under Proposition 13 property taxes on agricultural land are: higher, Farmers are no longer, assessed at, the 'lower .agriCultural: tax: rate, reducing the _ - gni noetic incentive for;- the armer to retain .a cultur eco a1 lands in �piro, uction 7 . and T Land trusts are formed for acquiring agricultural -land unci for perrn�anentlypzecluding agricultural{land from development. Land trust organizations ' can lie either owned' 'and maintained°.liy Local land°'owner's +or. by°:local governmient • agencies.' Private land;trusts have.:several.,advaitages,overpublic land trust ..-'$hey ca, -t` = purchase • development rights to < ,agricultural: ^ land, finder' less 'permitting restrictions and ,pubhc review time requirements, and the cari'purchase land without having to make. e pending transactiori.open to public lcnowledge.ently there .Curr are over, sixty private: an trust5.operating in California. These programs are filaying ' an increasingly important role in "the conservation of agricultural land. y td I�iglzt to �'dma rO�r lnutazce.A' Rt ffit' to Farm Ordinance is a local ordinance designed to preserve agricultural lands by prbtectxig farmers from complaints and liability claims. 'The ordinance ;make it'more difficult for adjacent property' owners to claitri F !that their property# rights at`e dieing infringed upon as .a result of ;agricultural. a ) operations that y`esiilt in nuisance effects ° :Butte County has adopted a Right to Farm . 1 Vd inaftdc' 030202S41'4It12 +' 11 open Space Easements: The; X69>O.777 pen. 5pce tEasem�,nt Act�all_owsr co.,upties o ' ^. preserve,,Jand, n agricultural; use:; Sizralar to.tho, William an Actp�this, law triggers a b„ reassessment,of.propertyhOrdened;tiy,aa open space easf,ment..(Once an open space ,easement ,is ,zecorded =on particular, parcel, ahe parcel ,cannot.be ,developed fora xnnirnum of 10 years. In some counties, oput space ea,enents maybe permanent: 110 gation Measures ;that Involve rmposing,,rFaes ,o1. n;,Dewe ope,rs. , Mitigation,�neasures for the= lass Ko£ agricultural land .and; .prime. soils° that involve” imposing fees•:on ;developers 'a)using- include: Ove dlopment impact. fees' to ,acquire nights-"on. .deyelopinent ,existing agricultural .lands zn ;other locations of . .. Chet same jurisdictions; .under 'the, fPPR "or T k p ograr.,s,identxhed above and b), developing and tm lementing a Mello Roos Community p Facilities District to l tnd, the PDR and 'TM programs Policies and Implemenudion`,lyfeaswes of the Oroft Butte County E nergy, Natural Resource and, Recreation0e1zerra1Plan Llemen4 The Agriculture•sottion of the Draft Energy, Natural �. lesources,, ,and -.Recreation General 1?lan Element , identifies several pahces and inipleinentatiosi , measures . to ensure preservation of agricultural land, continued: ,and, agncultural,productiv ty. Th esepolic�es;and implement, non�measures i cozporate some of the3mrtigation measures idend above;" Altl ough.the;Elementbas not yet been adopted;" it,.prowides.some ,useful .tools .far. the Al ttire pxcservation .of agriculturah land .and for evaluating proposed 'residential development projects •im the project 0044, Ttie applicable' agricultural preservation policies and implementation measures include: 2`-z �'a ensure..cantinued a gncultural, producttvzty.the. Countyestablish the shall _ s retentzorc,of prime agrteultutaltlands trt,farrnble_untts .and the.protecnon of agtcultural lands frP ., 4evelopment pa(terns;tllat threatened agrirultural,liabiliry.' - °« ,lin lementattonr a ,The la C P ) ounry shall p atect; agricl utur,,al nds ! by directing future 'urbart ,ddvelopmo,04to areas, where sufficient infrastructure and services exist W,'support urban scale development, arid where; additional deVedopiiiettt will ,, rtotr result in' a;significant, adverse impact,, dgrculture. 4.2-2, Land,use atternr inl bz" established t p QY hat allow new urban development to :locate 'outside of the existing urban centers,, konly : if they do "not ,threaten, ggrccultural {land or result. ui;cz potetitial for;',`leap; flog:' development., Implementation: b) The County shall make the following two findtiigs 'when approving. agricultural land' use conversion: 1) the benefits of converting .agmcultural lands. suhstantialty; outweigtia thelongter»t benefits :of ,continued ;agricultural productions _ and 2) no, outer non-agricultural lands are x, easona , yl available; arui suttalile; for the proposed; developrrzent� . l r a 032025 41 r f i t F+ Page 4 T-I4 i f -� - r..r. _.. .. .... ..... .. ..... ,. read, ri '- `a QJLU L/.S�Q�L:i� � )f1" .�BI)IQXlfdll Orcha i AQ Y , —f � I scent-'+�r+c�ards } The spread of pests and disease`s fro1.m almond .trees remainingYon:.the project site to new and young. almond orchards -adjacent to the site is a significant impact' of. the proposed project. The proposed project inclurles �zetaiiung,portioris of the:almond'orchard in "strips'; ranging in size from .1; tq ;5 acres; in the backyards of the,' I -acre ;lots; aand operating and r maintaining.these orchard strip&w productive almond orchard for. lie'purpose of'preserving p, portion of,the agrict ltural use 'on the site, providing visual,, amewties,..and praV ding income for, 'the; homeownersassociation (Fiiure 2-3). In addition; it is anticipated that for aesthetics; .shade; and . wind -breaking, only a limited number o£;;almond trees would be rdmoved. by the ,Jot owner of` each 5 -acre lot..for: constructing; the house,, garage, associated buildings, and driveway. The alimond trees In the abandoned orchard strips, in the backyards of the• 1 -acre lots and the almond trees remaining on each of the SYacre lots would pose a risk for the> spread of pests and diseases to the almond orchards on properties adjacent to the project ,site. Abandonedalmond , orchards pose ±a pest and , disease risk; to ,adjacent almond orchards_ because the nuts remain unhaz'vested. The untiaivested:nuts' (miunnmyfnuts,) are hosts for the navel orange worm, a significant orchard pest, and constitute a reservoir, of. "worm pressure" that poses a risk to:adjacent almond orchards.. Larvae of the, ziaval orange worm feed on ,tlie nut kernels Sand overwinter in the, nuts:.The larvae.hatch, as, moths in spring and can Ilk,up ".to , 0.5; smiles, from the batching site. , Tlie, rpe;;tch twig borer ,moth is another orchard pest of concern, Young larvae of this moth,fe'ed orntthe, "tree shoot tips in spring and on the nut kernels after the hulls. split, and overMnter,in the:. crotches, of 1.=2 year old tree . shoots. The larvae .hatch .as -moths ,in.spring.,and can fly up, to 0.5 miles from the hatching Location: Brown Trot and shothole fungus° are diseases, of ani almond orchard that are only a.problemnareas .immediately.adjacent to.the.dseaselocation;,therefore; they do notpo, se as much . of a risk toa adjacent 'almond .orchards (Joe. Connell,; personal communication). ' The proposed orcharsi operation ui.conjunction witih resident al.development on the 1-ac:re lots,is not!feasible from logistical aiid econoitiie standpoints Therefore; the:potential exists for abandonment of these orchard strips due to tbeinfeasibility o£ operating and maintaining „ them, Typical orchard. production operations are logistically and economically feasible only when they, are conducted over a large area at, one tune, The; minimum feas41e .size, of an almond orchardfor.hobby farming zs; IO,,acres (Loe Connell;.persanal'communication)w `The proposed almond'or ' hard strips.are foo,small for; efficient operation therefore,, they are too ` small for profitable almond production. The ,strips are too small for dficient layout; and operation of an irrigation systein;and £ar efficient movement and_ ,maneuvering of harvesting machinery and` equipment, especially if the strips contain ,;a mixture of..ahnond varieties; which' increases the problems in maneuverng', of the ,equipment In; addition, purchasing of harvestin machiue'..l ' .fhe l omeowners': assoc atiori.would!:'not. be ,economicall feasibXe g ry Y y r. k , because harvesting machinery, very expensive, Hirings of:custom machinery. .operators would not;be fess"lble because° these!,t)perators doA not'work eit , small orchard areas because these areas are difficult to ,work , in, and are not profitable (Joe a Connell, personal communication), 03,92=41 � � Page 4J40.`, Construct oni,o£ the „proposed, resident14.development ;on the project site tcould.,result in land ase conflicts; , dF'jI isances .t Ilid residents,-ftoml adjaeent orchard opotatzons :: These land' ,.,ie conflicts.and'.nuisances,iiiclttde �l,) m nuisance caplaints from residents due°sto a variety` of orchard»related :activzties,'especially;noise during,.nnowing of weeds oitlie orchard;floor in spring and.fharvesting in fall,and. dust :during.haYvesting in fall; 2) .slow-moving;.vehieles and machinery, on local road s;f} concernby residents;relatie to.:use o£.chemical3fertlizers; herbicides; fungicides, and,inseeticdes; 4 method of herbicide nti ainsecticide application; either aerial or ground spraying; and 5)potential, _flooding of resident's propertzes""frorn irrigation waters. Concern over tM ic. -chemical exposure."has, led to; the regulation o£` many .farm, chemicals, Agricultural permits, issued by the Butte ,County Agricultural 'Comnissioner limits: the. ime; area,, and means of chemical application. B.ecatise the law does not permit spray to leave a farmers'. property, 100 -foot to 250466t' perimeter buffers` are `often required to, protect- adjoin" g,dwellings, leaving considerable portions of a farm or„agricultural-land poorly protected. Inconvenience and inefficiency aside, the use of farmchemicals increases the opportunities.far nuisance ,complaints and litigation, 'parti`cularly .where..farms, encounter rural residential, ,deYelopment� fn addition, construction of the proposed residential development. on the project site_cod1d result in nuisances to owners of adjacent agricultural land. Residential development adjacent to land in orchard production often results in an increase in harassment„ ;or vandalism to orchard property from local residents in the form of loss of or damage to equipment' (especially :irrigation. systems) .or. fences:{and :climbing, -on orchard trees and pilfering of crops0oe'Connell;=personal. commuucation). Fanners report greater vandalism when residential ;development is located;twithin or -adjacent to farms: When .a. neighboring farmer runs equipment early in the morning and uses pesticides, homeowners get angry. When'horneowners trespass;..,pick crops, vandalize.=equipment; and leave litter,, the farmer is:not haPPY• _. , These types of problems have.rbecome so,sevdfOlhat.''right to farm) legislation: rias been adopted at the state and local level.. Td'' deal with this inherent conflict in land use; z implemented a Dight to Butte County has, Farm Ordinance . The County's Right to )Farm ordinance requires the szgrzing of a hold: ,harmless waiver as a condition of obtaining a buildingRpermit iii close proximity fQ`agricu, a While ""there is';some question'as tb fixe actual le al of%ct 4bamn nuisance; suits a£ this action ..the ra�ess does serve to notice g g e p future .homeowners .that they;could ,be: exposed to the by products :of agricultural activities. However, the basic weakness of the right to` .farm approach zs that it doesn't change eliminate the, irbpacts o£ farming operations on individuals -reszd ng zn o ,adjacent to sarin areas. Although this ordinance i5 designed to protect farms from unwarranted nuisance ' suits; , the,. reality of the, situation zs inevitable: 'the farmer .tires , of trying, tc ex stx with the roblern cawed b the ad ,cent ho and when :offered a good' ' ` . , —pro y j using; pace from a developer` to sizbriivide, they farmer sells hzs.land F Thus the spread o ,,urbanizatton movefurthe to perpetuate the same srenano on` the ,,ne�lt adjaeent.;farm. . 0592025.41' 4i Page 118 ly '1 G ' Y 42.�Q h M 1 4j1,5 IdNG%�; The 'ambient air quality in an area i5 a function o£ the types and amounts of pollutants enuttedinto the, atmosphere; tlie`Cliemical reactions of these pollutants- in the' atio`phere i and •the- , sicAt tocesses ` meteorolb'' affect n `their distribntioti 'dilutao and re oval p Y P gy) , € , from the area.- In this} context, local �topograpliy, wind patterns, precipitation patterns `att$ temperature are important factors to be considered in an air quality analysis. Tr.P'rh and "lunate The project'site 416swithinthe ten-county"Sacrarriento Valley Air*Basin. The Air Fusin includes the northern third of the. Central" Walley` and•is boundedby the Cascade) Mountain, TRange to'the north, North. Coast Mountain Range to `thevwest,, Sierra'Nevad' and A`Uountain Range to the east. The, San Joaquin "Walley is •south of fthe Air Basin: 11" projea site lies m a 'predominantly flat area. Warm; drysummers, aid cool, wet winters are characteristic ofIhe"Sacramento Valley Air Basin. In Butte County, annual rainfall ranges from 18 inches in the valley't6'80 inches in the elevated mountain areas. Snowfall occurs mainly in the mountains, where it averages 16 inches annually; Mosti of the precipitation -occurs during°the "months` of 1`Tovember to' April: Average annual -average temperatures in Buft& County range from.,20`16 100 ° Tn the Sacramento Valley oi` the County,. region prevailing' winds area from the south and average seven`toriine mfles'`per'hour: The Sacramento Valley Air Basin is a natural, closed basin which often experiences stable atmospheric conditions and poor air circulation. Temperature inversions (layers of cold air Orppod with warm air masses) often occur in the central portion of the Air Basin. T3uring this atmospheric Condition, air emissions are trapped near the ground, preventing vertical mixing and dilution of pollutants: Another, typical occurrence in the Air Basin is photochemical smog. When low wind speedIs occur during the predominantly hot; cloudless summer days, photochemical smog tends to,be formed from' alley air pollutants. The 'C:aliforrua Air Resources ''Board' (ARB) .hays designated Butte County as a `'non - attainment" area for state standards. -of ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (partictilate matter Mess than.l0 microns in diameter - Fido). Non -attainment refers to the fact that the, federal and/or state ambient air .quality standards are violated in, the region. iri Butte County the ozone and pNito non -attainment status are ciassified as "moderate, (Gina lacca, personal coznmumcation).. O, my the urban area, of Chico is a noarea for carbon monoxide (C(0). The entire CounI Js Arta, tainxnent area for nitrogen oxides (NC?,�) and unclassified for other air pollutants: ' 0392, t5.�12 Pdg-X I ,I 1 t } e P , �n'�a� TABLE 4-3 u'. Metzger rReebon�ng- and,SuUdi Won�Pro�ect' �. ��x `a ".,T4tte�.County AyrJPollution:,Cc ntroY'+DisEric fl �t. i r + a a ks �.i'ollutant 'Einisslon Threstr gilds oiln r s (p s/day) R })3 �'°II- ;Pollutant t' '�Y Threshold L. rt n 4 rY '� ... P, ri �' _N trogerr, Oxiiies 220 SlA oxides' Parriculate: Matterfr Carbon Monoxide 550 s Source: 06ar.Tdcca. Butte:'Countq AirgPollut on Control COMcer 4, J, JJ r , I M1 n v l' 01 �p Y r hJ9202542 Pa ( rI'herefore, ' their properties: ° dust3°resultin fr"om�$construQtion' �`` ` "P g of xe., dences west ld lie . distributed, over 'timet aril area and Would not constitute �a con°ce'rtz�ated ;source of d%st� 4 r Construction actvities`1on the. project site would'.result in elevated ;levels of fatal suspended' particulates in the air. A great percentage of this dust: would be large diameter;particulates , which settle out tapidly on nearby surfaces: 'merge diarneter.•particulatesi constitute more bi ` of soiling nuisance (by increasing. dustfall.in neighboring land uses) rthdh an' impact on li iruan health z ,Time portion�of dust> that is;finer '(Le.; PM,io)iwould :lie of: concern fcir its.°'impact onx' the health of sensitive xeoeptors, Typically, 55 percent of 'total• particulate matter is<;P1Vl lti (Califonua Air Resources Board 1982); rMe quantity, of dust emissions during construction activities would vary with the area of land disturbed, the level of,..construction�activity, the,'isilt, con ent of the °soil,' and the soil moisture. The .drier the soil, the more dust that would be generated, An approximate dust emission factor used to quantify .construction inipacts,' is 2,' tozis of'particulat6� matter per acre ;per month of construction 'activity (Bay Area Airy Quality MaliAgement District '1985):' If r+Ve assume that 3 acres of surface area would be. disturbed�atone time during constr cdi `_ l o£ the internal access Broads sof the ,proposed subdivision, the estimated emissions of total; particulate matter wbuTd `be 3:G tons, per m.onth of� con°struct on,activity ar 240 pounds peri day: ,Since~the threshold .critera fqr particulate matter used'wby the: Butte County APCD is ISO pounds/day,; generation,,of particulate matter 'from , constrttction of the 'znternl ":roads; would constitute''a•significant adverse impact of 'the proposed project_W N Several mitigation measures exist to reduce: emissions of particulate matter 1 diiringa construction activities; .One of the most common, watering of exposed surfaces, can provide up 10 a 50'percent reduc ion°kit3 lustfalt if wateringtis°,condueted tv a `daily: For projectg� Iodatedin windy areas, °ar.during particula"rIy hotbdays in'sumrner, 4dditional:waening necessary to provide adequate reduction in particulate matter emissions. n Mitigalzmn ensu .Successful implementation of, folld11king� measures would reduce the significant air quality impacts •resultir7g from particulate 'matter emissions during construction activities on the project site to levels of non significance 4:2-2 During land cleanng, earthmoving,; and -construction on the project site, water down. all, areas. 'of vehicle tmovement twtice per day' to'prevent 'dispe'r_`sal of- dust:' ;C n part culatrly hot'days in summer, or where, wind' speeds e�cceed 15 mph, icit theT frequency':o£ watering, Paine ail°"roadways aSi soon a's possible after construction:; (Construction;Contractor, During k'rolectiA onsiructioz ;Butte C'oui ty Department n Pubhc.Wonks-bating=Project Construction) 4.2-, ' Coved .all stockpiles :'o£r soil, and 'sand ,ontlae construction site, (Construction, Contractor, DuringeProject:Constii�ctiant Butte County Departnnent of Public .,or Outing Protect 7onstr ctioii) r� i 039202:5:42 Pogo' 4,2 7: i - t, r �J 11 wAtild not' exceed the APDor`5rigufcan Y1 uiipact.�tne Co untyrs',xairp�qualitji: 5wever; since ButteCotinty is "anon'atcairuirtent area for ozone and `P1vIz0 and +must maet ' t1iPfive °percent peryear, m reduction` requireent fox. iion= m attainent pollutantsr(ass4equired` California Glean Air Act), all projects. an the County must include° "r.'aviians to redL� d ce contributions to -the 'air emissions; inye.ritt�a�,� from vehicula'rtraffc.°a 11�ittg�ation A�'easrar� Successful itnplementatIiE: cif fhe: `reduce contributions to the air emissions inventoryfrorrlavehieutar traffic generated by the proposed` project: 4� 2-5 To :encourage use of public transit instead of personal vehicles, investigate and report wi :the feasibility of providing bas`service, with a convenient schedule and distances betvreen nus stops; to the.proposed residential .development, (Project Applicant and �l Desi n 'neer Project Desi Butte Coun. Lle artment, -of `Plaru in Project,, l J ty ` P k, J Approvals 9� 4.2!6 " Red esign,'the project' Site- Plan and Tentative Subdivisioin Mag to, incorporate; bicycle pathways azod pedestrian pathways to connect with the internal roadways andsovide access to the proposed i:ark site. (Project Applicant and Design Engineer, Project Design, Butte County Department of Planning, Projectt Approval) - Iri�rease rn Emrsscons of slit ;Pdibitarifs Fram R'eridential rise ;M increase in emissions of air pollutants assac ated with,residential use:,of the project site would constitute; a rian-significant adver9e unpact of the proposed project. Tfie resicential Wse of the .proposed project would be 6nly minor stationary for direct, source .of r,air pallatants 'Space and water=heating, air conditioning, and use of.lawn mowers, paints,`anc sore ants are some of the more common soarces of air pollutant emissions from residential devs'lopment.. Woad said fireplaces would also'be sour"ces of pollutant enussions, pri y dunngwinter evezungs Most likely; air pollutant'emissionsfrom the proposed95 adcltxona? residerit�al units would .rot exceed the thresholds "for air;eniissions frorri stationary sources as'deten caned by'the Butte:,County Ap 1),(220 pounds/day for.hydrocarbons rNo , and 50,; 150 pounds/day four particulate mattdt and'550 °pounds/day far CU) `Hoi �e�er, ` thd Air.'pollutaiits from area wide direct and from indi "rear sources `would be° the same -arid':: cumulatively significant. Energy"eifcienf construction and installation,and use:of appliances would z%,",duce contributions to the azr emissions inventory.. In addition, ° installationx':of appropnate vegetation would provide wind -breaking and shading opportunities or, residentla7 development and° -reduce the need -for space heating or." cooling,, 039705,2 Pdg btarrgatron Mures.. Successful Implementation of the follawing measures (required by the PCb�' would reduce contributions to the air emissions inventory". rom residential)isa ori the projeet site: - 4,2-7 install only EPA Phase II certified wood burning stoves, fireplaces, and fireplace inserts in residences constructed'E„onrthe prbiect.site � 1(Woject Applicant or' Lot` 11,' Owner, Project Construction. and CC&Rs; Butte County Department of Planning, - Project Approval' and. BuildingPermlt). �.,rt�J'. �t �; ;.k ,2-8 Use: only low-VOC (low in volatile organic compounds) coatings for painting structures constructed ;on the project. site, (Project Applicant or Lot Owner, Project f, Constructions and CC&Rs; Butte County Department ;of Planning, Project Approval and Building Permit). SuccessfoI implementation ,of,"the. following measures are recommended `to further reduce contributions to the airemissions inventory from .residential use on the project site,- far fuel burning, water ands 4.2­9 p ace heaters and pilotless -` �.2-9 Install law, emission bu Peprs ignition for as-fired a liances in residences constructs d on the protect site, (Project Applicant or; Lot Owner, 'Project Construction and CC&Rs; Butte County Department of Planning, Projectroyal` and 'Building Permit)” 4.2-10 Install high efficiency air conditioners and furnaces in residences constructed ori, the .., - project site. (Project Applicant or Lot Owner; Project Construction and"'CC 4. Butte County Department of P1arli7ing, Project Approval and B.iiilding`Permit)`. 42-I:1 Install higher rated insulation in residenosructed on the (project Applicant or Lot Owner,. Project Construction and CC&)ts; "Butte ,County -Department of P- lanning, Project Approval and Budding Permit), 1. Sa I �!� )z earse 'ift tmissio& of Air Polluiaws fro»:.9griculiacral 0perahons`;F `from An increase in enussion3 of dust and other'lair, pollutants agricultural operations adjacent to and on the' project site would, constitute an adverse significant impact of the propos1. ed project. Construction of the proposed residential deyeibpmsnt adjacent' to existing almond orchards and maintaining the backyards of the- 1-acre lots in almond orchard production would subject sensitive receptors (project residents) to emissions of air pollutants from almond orchard operation and maintenance activities conducted in close proxuiuty to the residences. several normal operations and practices are necessary for a productive ;almond orchard.. Maintenance activities are necessary fora variety'of reasons including protecting:trees froth... diseases, insects, :drought, Cold weather, and a variety o£.other factors that inay-result'.in a substantial loss of productivity. T'he tuning and frequency of these activities vary and ' `li392025.4� X'aget 4 2.71 ,.„ . w ,.fie, � 4 . CUliuralrResourees _, ;,•� . � � .�1m. Q .+ is _ `; •? ,3 ,,,; ; " isection suninanzes th6i report entitled'" Archaeblogical'Evaluation of the Prboseii Orchard AcreSnbdivision, APN. 39-25-30Near. Durham Butte Count 'liy prepared Archaeological Resource Service for evaluating the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources ons, or near'�the project site: ' o,sou nes bt the' PPoject Area Native American occupati'on of `Butts' 'County is believed 10 Piave' begun ten Twelve ' to an thousand years ago. However, little else is known. about the early archaeological h' the couniy Archaeological sites dating back, to this,-earl' y age found in the western part .of the county are most4ikelyr covered with soil as' auragwt 'Tlae of recent alluvial processes: California State Office of Historic Preservation in that more than 1,100` prehistoric archaeological sites are located throughout the col my The most recent Native -American azcbaeological sites inoButt'e County°,are,"primarily associated with the Konkow Maidu, The Yahi tribe, a branch of the Yana, are believed`to have in existed the extreme northern portion of the County, The wide variety, of Konkow Maidu artifacts and,activity°sitei•found in Butte County-,indicate the extent of their presence throughout the area., The Konko'w Maida Were seasonal hunters and gatherers:; They lived in summer the mountains during the months; $ub'sisting ori' aco_rris, pine' nuts; and other foods: I?uririg the winter they settled in large villages in tle`xvalley near the, xSaerariienfo Rrb�er and along its major tributaries (Riddell 1978). l'o ttial Iasioric`l'Zesouices 0n41ie Erb kd' Mite , � _ '`' 'ably; `to'the I f7istonc deposits in Butte Cour pro trace first ' uart r of :the nuieteenth P Y t3' P q . century. The State Office of Historic Preservation indicates that more than 600 historic sites assflciated` with tl rs period are 1' —fed "througliout the` County. i The State Office of Historic Pzes'ervatioil designatesiuildi'ngs aarid'o'ther structures greater than,45. years old as, having potential histozical significance existing structures:;located on the parcel include: processing sheds; farm equ�pmertt, and small house traders occupied by agricultural workers: These structures are located approximately in the center dihe, parcel. Tcvo``existing°residences are locatesd adjacent to theyparcel'bou'niar These,:residences include a large, two-$tory clapboard=style Home, possibly dating from'the late 19th century, located along the northwest boundary of 'the parcel;' and the residence of the property owner, Mrs: Elizabeth Metzger. The Metzger residence. is located adjacent to .Tolland Avenue along the northeastern corner of the project. The age of this .structure wa$ not ; available at.the time' this literattirre search, was conducted for,this evaluation. A, literature search of area indicated that no listed b Lthe, register .the project properties ational of U3920254.� Page' 9.3=:1 tl I ' t . Y,.M1 �,.. V P, i ,C J $'Y'. t J .1 � wf i� d k •.�.. ;�a .ill, nJM Uf��f1k�W' C lin z�fezasvo" archaeological ,ie�d ,xecoxu�aissance • of the project asite ';and ? vicinit}=i wast "Respite ; conducted, on Qctober"'14, 1991. tlie,high archaeological sensitivity •of the; -project area determined by the archival research, the, field survey did not yield any surface irldicatiozisi oi` the presence o,historc of •prehistoric,sites .or isolated, artifacts that~would :be' $tcall im acted b` ;the ,prnpased,,residential development; ;. Y _ Y:� P y 3.2 Facts and 1Llitigation Meascne ", F arae or Removal C4itfr9 Resaurices" " The site survey. -and literature search did not iridicate, the presence o£ any prehistoric ot, htstotic activity, eitherm,the form of deposits or solated.artifacts, which might b6physically' impacted,by; the- proposed,residentialdevelopment.. Since"no;surfaceorsubsurface•artifacts> or, features were identified during.ttte~;field;s�arvey, archaeological monitoring during futur development;:, operations � (grubbing . igrading, or. utility, , line. R excavation)• is ;not deemed.; necessary.o" Wever, deeply buried sites in alluvial settings could exist, Therefore, i disturbance •or �rem6v4,, of =prehistoric and hittoiie. resources_,,during. canstruction'eand.` earthmoving activities on the project site is as potentially sigiuficant thpact of the proposed,, project., Mitgation Measures Successful impleinentation Fof "the .following mitigation measures would" reduce the potentially significant disturbance oreTnoval of prehistoric and historic resources :' 1 on th&project.site to a.level of non -significance: 4:3-1 Caution shall be exercised whenever deep grading (Le.,.in excess of three feet deep) or underground excavation for Ufijj tyL lines or mW 4rfacilities is 'c'onducted. ,Iiv,thek event that underground excavation activities unearth what may be historic ooc r ;prehistoric resources an "itmediate world stop "within a 35" foot. (16,;neter) radius: of the> ,,discovery 'area ,isx :recommended . uY1ti1 =such :time wheni the disco cry: can b"ei evaluated, y, a quallfied archaeologist~ A'certi ed;archaeologtstrshall be consulte& to.exanme the.discovery area andydetermine the areal extent, coinposition;,culturaL y� affix ity� and vscientific,sigiu icance cif the..material..(Co zstructidi'ContractoriDuri I'V Project".Construction; 1PnvasowConsultant, During Project Construction) ~ �I Prehistoric resources may include; modified stone implements'"used for hunting, food processing mortars, pestles, or manos (hand stones) shellfish residues,Aand ash lenses u Histone resources may include agricultural unlemerits and tools, su.-►-tinted bottle glass fragments, ;. � transfercvar'e'ceramie sherds; aril hand tonged metal -fasteners or sunilaz Mems Special concern, should be given to: any cobble gieer than 2 fo' 3 inche5:'in diameter or more; winch ht_beaz sgnsFoi,human noditication,(ise�'batteFtng,,.pohshmgxchipped or ground edges, "or.A surfaces) asstycaated Yrith aborigmal;Na4ve,,Ain4ican occupation. `. 03 202151W ,Page 434 4.4 H cYr® aiu'I�raina e , . '� p b kY „ r , , �l ,51 a 4A aL zm ff 4711rSledrtmk `Y ab i �A 1 �'., r9t:i. ya vUJ 4 Ji �& I ry�jl l,t11 IRO ���e. Wader" cdd Gr�urtdw�er Butte County is located in tlie' SaGrame I to! River 13asiri y�atershecl, vvhieh con airs numerous streams drauiing the western slopes' of th'e Sierra Nevada aril cd' cade� `Mciii -till ta ns` an the eastern slopes of the Coast Range Mountains. Other than the Sacramento River; virtually all surface water and groundwater originate in the mountains and foothills to the east of the Planning Area. There are five basid�geamorphlc units in the °Durban; -Dayton -Nelson Planiun'Area that .structure its hydrologic system. '-'hese units °include the `Sacramento River floodplainj Butte basin, Chico Alluvial Fan, low alluvial plains, and foothills and mountains to the east. The Chico Alluvial Fait; on, whish the project szte lies, is ;made ug of very recent alluvial sedimentseposited by'Big and Little Chido Creeks and Butte Creek. It extends into the "6� ' Plannin 'Area in the north and,'- ides'a si � icant ortiori of °the oundwater rechar e g p. a.,p gr g and storage in the Planning Area: The Tong -term outlook for groundwater supplies from the Chico Alluvial Fan indicates that a shortage of groundwater should not occur. A1961 V.S. Geological Survey paper (Water-' - Supply Paper No. 1497)' indicates that the Chico Alluvial Fan has in storage approximately one million acre feet of water at elevations of 20 to 200 feet below the surface. More . recently, an unpublished California Department. of Water Resources study on groundwater in the Sacramento Valley indicates that the Chico Alluvial Fan. is' responsible for i approximately 6.5 percent of the average annual groundwater recharge of the Sacramento Valley (Wade Associates 1956). Water �icali In general, the streams of Butte County exhihit good water quality for agriculture, domestic, and industrial uses. Butte Creek, :draining the large Butte Creek canyon zaftd Cascade Mountains, experiences some sediment pollution, primarily due to the, fact that the' canyon sails are loose and rocky from past mining acid sand grovel extxacti+an. 1"he. Central Valley 'R'egion of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) established the following existing and beneficial uses for Butte Creek below Chico: agriculture (irrigation and stock viatenng), recreation (contact; canoeing, and rafting), i`reshwA er habitat' (warn! and cold water species); migration (cold water species), spawning (warm and cold water species)',; and , wildlife habitat., 039202 44 Pdge'�44 -1 'the 9 proposed project includes installing seepage trenches for stormwater drainageronthc proposed 1. acre lots; and potentially includes installing seepage trenches on the 5-acre lots,_ 7f required: by^.the �3utte County Depa��tnent of,Ptiblic Works T!he Subdivision Standards r state° that xemparary stormwater drainage=trenches twill be;permitted"orily where, ittisynot ossiblex.to connect to an ,existing p , ' rpermanenti drainage systeIn,,.or'wheretit is(a ,asiblolio.' -water construcK a permanent storm- drauiagey system from the,lan to .be rdCc►etrJpedw, to a natural drainage ,course. If temporary stormwaterdraag a trenches :are to be :constructed,, Percolation,, tests shall be conducted in ,accordance with the procedures of the County 'tests bivision. of Environmental Health; ,Tbe pereolati6n shall be°conducted at the pr'oposeci depth of the drainaget,t enches,at:enough locations,to'verify:the drainage capacityof the. soil. ,ne drainage trenches shall` be designed to scontain a .one in ten year storm recurrence interval. The bottom of the fainage trenches.shall be at least five feet. above any water. ' table, and the re ,shall be at least five feet_ of percable soil below the bottom of the `trenchk Percolation tests were conducted ;on the project site on November 18-21 by Northstar Engineering, Figure 4-6 shows'the ;percolation test locations; and Appendix C con taizis the results of the percolation tests The percolation tests have been approved by the..County Division of Environmental Health:. ,The6~ results of the tests show that the. soil on the project site is satisfactory for installing seepage ,stormwater drainage trenches (Tom Reid, :personal cozrmunication� 1 The, Butte County Dd artinent of Publicr Works rnaintai s the. stormwater .drainage infrastructure v itbin the County righVof-way of an�j affected'Countyroads.` f Rc iorwl WWa%r mciality Con�Ta1 Baarc Regiiarrements 'In,w letter to the Butte County,p wMing Department -dated October 27; 49911, "the. RWQC)3states that a stormwater drainage permit for each subdivision of 5 acres tot greater is required prior to issudfide of a building permit. However, the RWQCB has not yet developedL the standards for L the stormwater drainage; permit. The RWQCB'indicates that if A storrimvter'drainage permit is developed by the time construction of the proposed project begins, .apermit would . be xequired for construction• on e`aeh lotPof`the proposed profeot (Rick Rodriguez, personal commumcation), 4.4. Tmpcads and A iiigatiort Measure�s rI1ieF criteria; used to cleterin ne a the signi iCan&" of, hydrology and drainage impacts"`from construction of the proposed residential development`consisted` of Appendix G:of the CEQA Guidelines; expertise of the Butte'County Department of ,Nblic•,'Works;: and any increase in staff, new equipment, or vehicles needed b} the° Butte, County lDepartnt z t af''1F!ublic t Works to. °maintain currenlevels o f service J, D392025:44 Page 4.¢3 !D I. 4,4-oZ Tf required by the Butte County Department of PublicVorlcsrtl7e,. roject p 7Centative Subdivision Map and project description to include construction of seepage cirainaga xtrenches ow e,'prof,osed S-acrev lots (Project .Applicant .and'D'esign lEngiheer; Project Designand During ProjectCb"zistruct on;, Butte.County. Depart on ` of Public Works and Division. of Environ' ental Health-, Project Approval and During Project Constrdction) 4.4.3' ;�Tf construction of seepage trenches on. the proposed: S-acre' lots is required .>y, the ,Butte Country Department; , of `Public World- ' design and construct .the proposed seepage drainage trenches on the S-acre lots in accordance with, the, Butte ,County ,Subdivision Standards. Design and - construct the seepage drainage ; .trenches : to _ ;q voritam, a in ten yeat storm recurrence interval, 9be at least! fivefeet above �afty .orie water table;; and; have at least five feet ofpercable,soihbelow4be b��tiom of the trench. (Project Applicant and Design. Engineer, Project Design and During Project '0C $utte 'County. Department,{; of. Public Worksa Division R;of and Environmental Health', Project Approval and During Project Construction}, 4,4.4 " Replace.tl a terripor�try seepage dratrgge tremches on the 1y ere and 5 ,aCre;lot with ` a ),. permanent..starm�vater drainage .factlrtres Mien a permanent communtly storm eater i' drainage systenY: - tube main, storitiwater drainage outfall ditch identified in, the is.con'structe,d'orl or adjacent,to is ' ,jharri,AreatDrain,age=Stilly, the'projject site.`I retlurerrAe»r for reJplacing temporarya' seepage: drainage trenches With: permanent 4. storinwafei •drainage facilities:shall be noted, on'the project final Subdivision Map. r r� the..F'inalSubdivisromMali .Thisnotati!on on sha'll.be a condition o£ approval of the project Teitttative Subdivision Map. (Lot 0 e'M -After Project' Constriction; Zutte C`aunty Department of FublieWorks aft& ,ivision of tnvi'ronmental Healthi Project D i After �`ro �. an eet�Constructiom t j n� !tise ir7'I3erszaizd orN encmce of .�Y b& Ratrd, Stormwuter Drama e'Fal�ki!ies AA.i:a,tteA.W m deimand dor maintenance otpublic road stormwater'draimge�ft!cilities bythe ' Butte.County L), aftment o£.Public Warks would constitute a significant adverse irnpact of tbe' liFpposed project. ,Mai tenarice, of`the public roadl storm watet drainage ini frastrut tore alo7�t Holland . A!rentie. arud al3anlon Road, by ,the;JDepartment of Public Wa.rlcs, would ,be necessary.- 'Construction of the proposed project Would increase the costs of public road stoic` n�vater drainage-main tenanceand may. ffect.the level of service for suchiIn' aintenance provided by,the, b0part hent. ; The.10, l of servicef of the Department would be Affected if, the itacrease' to art a,ofpublic road 5to'rmwater drazrnage facilities to b� maintained constrains its al> lity to maintain its: crirrerit sezvice=levc County,road. mwntenanee,is funders from gas tax revenues : a,y increase ;in the at, of roatlway,.to. be maintained is: not -necessarily matched' by";. e`iluxvalent increase ,in gas' tilt revenues. n 7 O.J920,'S:�d page�,�.5 r x .. `RIOie/,fc 4,11' rC7.iiTDl�i Z_. rISG'S The t° prole site' °is 4 ,parcel` of 246 aerOs� Flocatdd `south`'of{Durham;' at' the northwest Intersection, of Hanlon Road and Holland Avenue in Butte County, California.. The site is yt 1pCatecl iri the Durharri-Da `otr l�elson Plarinin l�iea, which is°located in the western cent g iral` , portio=n 'of Butte County (Figure 4-1)„ , The project site' is-un developed and `ei=der .agricultural use. A 34-year old almond orchard covers most` , f the site. A single -family x6sidence (on proposed 1-acre lot B-1) is located on the northeast corner :of the ,site, itonting on Holland Avenue.% "Several` areas' and; structures associated with almond hulling and"processing are located'in the middle of the orchard (onproposed 1-acre 166 22 and 23` d, on proposed' 5'-acre lot A Figure 2 'f''he predominant character of 'the project areais agricultural: Land uses .suxt6uh ng the project site are a continuation of agricultural uses and rural single family residences with ` supporting,°agricultural`£acilities. Almond production comprises the primary agricultural use in the project area. The size's of parcels surrounding the project site vary from 5-10 acres in the east to 5-150+ .acres in the west and south. AQ 50-acre parcel is located north, of the. site. To the north the project site is adjacent to Williamson Act contracted land in almond production (Figure 4-2). The Williamson Act allows landowners to contract voluntarily with the County to keep their property in agricultural or, open space uses in return for changed property tax assessments. When properties are placed under contract, 'anagreement is made to retain the .land in agricultural use dor the next ten years, These contracts are automatically ren=ewed each year until a notice o£ non-renewal is filed. The contract expires nine years after the notice of non-renew al is filed. Overall, the areas to the north, west, and south, .of the, Metzger, property contain few rural, residences. The areas to the east and northeast contain limited rural residential and single- suburban residential development. Agricultural fieldsacross Holland Avenue, to the ffamily east' of the site, ;extend north to Serviss Street, where there are single -family residences border = almond orchards. Additional single -family :residences axe located further to the, east, along; Goodspeed,Street and Midway. The residences along Serviss Street constitute;; , the southernmost urban .development of the Durham community, Beeause there is no officially established :urban l oundarfes for the community of Durham, we assumed Serviss Street to be a community boundary: It ISM that tiolland`Avenue functions a ditncler between urban development to the east and agricultural fields ,to the. west from-erviss ` Street. to saber "Street: The northeastern boundary° of the project site along. Holland 4 Veiiue, where the propose 1-acre lots 'would stazt„ is approximately 800 feet south of Servs Street: Therefore; the Metzger, property is in the general vicinity o£ urban development, Hpwever; the site is completely surrounded by agricultural field's, .including several productive fields on prime agricultural soils located between `the property az d the: 'ty urham. COInmuril Of D 032Q254 -: Page 45- j 1 yy , 'the In the evaluation:of",eonsisfent�,zone"sy,azide"the choice_ of. , most appropriate rzoiung class £icafivn.,. ,'The ,Element 'indicates that zoning "factors, shouldx£guide$decisions; ori residential densities and intensity of use for rezonfngs;" use.rperra ts+and. all,develdbihont Proposals". A-5 Zohing.Disfr . The entire Metzgerproperty is zoned A 5.. A miiuinum parcel. size bf, $ acres, has,,been:estabUshed'fw,this agr cultural,zorie; distrmtted by rightin ^ ., istnets.. nclude: ,rine single-family dwelling per parcel, accessory agricultural strucf ures housing facilities to accommodate,ernployees; "azzd 'agricultural uses.including the keeping �. Of animals.; Uses in Ar$' Districts requiring issuance :ofvse perrntts include; ;golf .coarses and country clurs; mining; quarrying, woad processing plants,; winetasting rooms; and public or quasi, ablk usesr (e g.; schools, parks and-playgrourids, , rchurches; hospitals,. and firehouses' SR -31 Zoningliisfrirt.The eastern 66 -acres of the Metzger property is proposed for rezoning to'.S_R 1. under the proposed.wprojeet ° A zinimum,lot atewof 1; acre ds: a tablisheda for this - suburban residential zone,district. Use`spermitted rby right !iri "SR=1 Distracts include: one+ single family ,dweljing per =parcel ,, accessory buildings, '.agri •ulturalr uses; and. keeping4 01 `, animals. Uses in S.R-1 Districts requiring issuance of use perrruts include: golf courses and country. clubs, sales,,tradi office, acid public or" quasi=public.usesr,such" as; churches; fureliouses hocg tats, parks. anal pIaygrounds;. schools,, and � public, utility.build rigs: A pDlicab e" Plant and ,Polis es' r In 1981,°:the Butte County Board of Supervisors°divided. the County into; sixteen Planning Areas itnd proceeded to adopt.speeific development and grow-th,gudelines and policies for each:area.L .To date; Area Plans have been completed for hire of,these-areas:'Chico,,Orovil le Paradise; Gridley -Biggs; and; °,Concave The Iaurham-Dayton-Nelson tlArea".Plan; under consideration at the tune this ;ElR:was'initated; vias adopted in February 1992: 'Therefore, the propb sed rezoning ,and subdivision` proJect`wvas evaluated. agairist"the Butte .County General Plan, which .currently.rema nsl as .the adopted" poli' y document regulating propo§edt projects gin.the ]7urham, DaytornNelson Planning Areas However; a disczisszon of theAgoals; . , 4" yt olives and landuse d p ,, ensities,.con. whed in the" Durham D'a'oai"".Nelson Area Plan are also �1 uicluded in thzs.land useeanalysis "to.provide the decision°makerskwith information regarding. the project's consistency with :future policies for'ahe area.. uit� C'oceirty°GeneralPl�m:"'Tcnterriuizewhether.arproject`rcis eazsistentfi:with an:adopted General' Plan,, "all, Elements: of the4 .General :Plan`_must ties I�onsi'dered:` Therefore, the s z ro osed= ro'ect'must be evaluated relative to: all :ip livable ; oals'•,and." ; olzczes contained° P P, P. J p g p zn tfie, "different,Elements: r ,r R� Land Use.Element.. The °1979 Land Use El.'ement was designed to.gdidie future development of land zn =Butte ;County, and to pionriote :.compatible land. uses.` Polioy. statements iri the,. tiament Are,intended'Ltb sere+as"Igu defines for consistent. ar d logical cieczsz�rsri making°arid �.p39202545 Page 4 S- ' i' n "i "aiid a e '. 1 emd'cataz of Cc�un .s oal rt e� tis function.as,..tn. � t ty g s,>pr o- , s onaaf'.the:;futur�s,A..l�st�,: of:, the goals find polialesnfticluded. in ,-tlhe,land ,Use, Element aapplicable to. , thdopropo's'e& p ajec"t ,providdd below.) (Note! �tho,.goals andapalicies are:lettered and'°numberedfarr.e8y :ireferenn .the impact analysis) . ,e .. GOALA:. General Welfare Policy: X Provide for ►tealth, afety, and well-being of the County's present: and'future residents AL: B. Orderly Development 6, .P`oli'cy: X. Encourage development in and around exbdgg, cotnrnUnities with public facilities. 4 Cresource Martagement e . , I'olictes , �.: Maintain.agricultural crop pro..duction as a=majorsource of food, employment, and in'come.: 2 Retain areas in agricultural des gnatidn.,on.. the, Land Use Map inhere` location natural . conditions, - and water k F ; availability make lands ^well suited : to .orchard and :;field .. + .crop use, 1416.considering for nfln-agricultural use;oeas where urban:. encroachment, .,has. made,..inroads: into, , d agricrtltitral areas. and� where pastocial actions Jhave. c planned areas for'Vevelopment. ; 3. Encourage urban' expansion toward the leasty', productive $OUS' I 9i�tw, `lopment betty�en, ` 4. ,. Allow rural "residential dev ,as a buffer. urban development and intensive cro land P Y 3.0 I)ennties M3°; Policy `s' 1, a Relate residential denstties'to zntenrit�u and compatibiliiy of a 3 . adjacent uses; C 4 1 , G 1 •fid „GOAL Mjv,E,. Housing, Supply and Variety - �; A I. ; ticy ,; d -B0�d rovrdb a diversity of Izous ng sites varyinze� densrl ; -039204,45 zve 4x51`6 . , 'Tbe i3g,dovolowneblit, Opeh Spa6&.Elemeint, 1977.�Op�eft,,iSp'ac,e�'Eleirient,�id6 t' 6 n ifi s the f611OW11 :policies tfiaxz,ate, app11 able e,,,Court�lshould a oW, i#Wn dev'eloprhent,,oply.,in,,:ateas,.plhygically,siiio tqdI sb6h,,us6;,2),,�tb'e,,,County��fibuld�:discourage uzban development isolated from existing development andurbkiicenters unlds& suck a: neodL can bedetermined; 3) agricultural Zones should allowl:onlyopen. space uses described'in the plan, (Open space for the preservation df-hatu'ra managed Ltesourdes, man ed, pr6dildtion-,oi, resources, outd6orredreatiori, and public and safety) and neces8aty,rdlqte.dstructures. resot.1 The Open Spade Element a6knowlekos the ,importance of agriculture to the CouftVs economy and indicates. that the conversion of agricultural land, to urban use is'irreversible ,and threatens both the productioiv,,f food, aril income froom, agricultum Tl e. 'f'ollowing 'land Ocussion on the conversion of agricultural in Butte County is included, in the Open Spade,-O&meritz Much of the growth of the cities in. the County has been at the expense of the pro4luctive tand, which economically supports those same citiev. This unfortunate growth can be explained by the level surface and permeable .soil of these areas; such 'land, is suitedtoboth-e'&Wurbanh diev qgncaltur elopment. Conversion, of agricultural land occurs when.,the urban land 'users want the land for suburban residences, or other higher uses and can Offer sufficient profits tothe property him o,subdivido�sO, owner to induce hi , t build. Hoil Mgt s, Whien t. the 1991 Housing 18lementid6ritifies the following devdiopro6rit policies'' o that ,are lapplicable to the proposed,, projectil) new, hoPsing* i construction shall be encouraged C .ruc, within I reasonable proximity uty,, t& c6rit6ts in locations Vi bI �ofeinployrnefit and shopping facilities and ',which 'respect the ' private ',congotvaltio,ri�,of,en,,tr,,gy��w e, priva , homebuilding .industry shall be, ' encourage, o grd t No priority consideration too ,developh(g' within existing,. urbanized Areas or. in location's adjacent to such areas; 2)residential, develovinent at urban, densities shall be pernitted,I- ii areas facilities andservicesd incl,udiacceIss$ sewage disposal 1: ,1with- capabflities;l water supplies, drainage facilities, fire M Protection,an police the .adequate ,ng Courty, jointly With thecitios'of'Butte Count , sbalpursuemeans of resolving drainage ' problems ,to expand Van&ihe area availablzfor rban residential ev�lopment., ONWA66`n-Elementi 'ne 19134 Circulation Element identifiesthe following poMdies'that, , We Applicable. to the sed project.' 'ect-, 1)� tbd, ttansportatidii., 8ystein 'shall be .developed in a. JbIahtior icons! tent vn-th. specified:, land J qn( use densities and estimated trip;,;generationI, capahties .and consistent ,With e,po icy 46 enc'Ou'rage deve opment...,in and -existing cities and community centers, new land divisions should.be hil&tesp onsible� for their fair. iii6de t im'provemento -d to haridle-t Share, of :the off-site road e tra tcjficr&ase� that they cause;,requirperosio-nmitigation, controlp, ans'.for pew, eve o , ftexits -.tfie,cointywill and for road dncroacbment permts,t' roejtsoil. loss, .,during' and after road d oa ;nt a V,iesj'.4) Waj6tresidential developmems Lshoul&ensure adeii'ai'circulation-yprov),. inYoreonnectingjoopsand collector street patterns, "S),dul-&-sacand dead-end bo,avoided ori streets With more' than Iweni�, units; residential deve opment shouldI 0 " ! DeVdq a' ro ant-fo m owtk haste . �vhereitz °only those lczrzds. pv P b f! P are Warto et' stingurband}h epub,ik ae' lii teada-wvseW.he4ableto:dpat"Wban densities and standards nn - a a"compact., rather than a 1 scattered development pattern. in` lertoidise6urage;urbansprawlf.,toiredt4ce,th'. xientandtost f public services, and 4o preserve .open lspd& Within'the' Planniitga ;F t 10bjectivesr 2:5 "1 . Plan: the: -papulation growth: wit�fzin the Planning Area to a Level consistent, ,with retaining df ntr" t coritmur ity, . lifestyle iutd. " r. P, ecognizi g "environmental constraints .' " Support, the continued vtabiltty ,of'agrtcttlturat productt'on Q3 the mayor so,?rce° ofincome, employment, and economic vtabtltty of °the Planning Area. ,I Policy: 1. Review, all development projects to ensure that';they prorrtptthe responsible use and stewardship of the natural resources to life.. r preserve �tlie' gitaliiyf rural a ,Utilize artd develop,- natural resources 'so as :. to protect thaw resources- and eliminate.,rezpoiure �of persons' .and property ° ta. ertvirorzrriental hazards r Policy: 1. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential o produce; frOin'encroaching ctrban uses „: k ' GaAL: D: gr and Ensure that the area's' oWtl,:rs in accordance with the desires_ needs of the cornfnunity, that future developments are safer and .healthier as human ,habitats,;,rnare�resilienIt to ileteriorattng forces, artd mure:consistent i c r, har noninusi with natural processes.-,; ObjedttvP ° w �1� 1 1 ,Promote d I growth ,nate`° rvhtch ;reflects a well-plarirteil ;and �corttrolle,, expansion of the area: aw 'Concentrates Policies a1 .: future, residentialx,uses witfzin or near the existing de0eloped communities. I .. =a 2: Control the direction and crmaunt,iaf'grgwth through th p'lan ling ;. , " , and''regtdatto�z of publac fachtzes' r' '0392054- 1392112345`, `, ' R,3 R-Q, K pp St t" EKO ,• DUNNAM:. DAYTt NWY.: :{ :/ ! Jt t 1� i t i q t 1 1 '•i ii, ;S: Li Y Ay..S it ��tl u,i.?t t t l:7 r. l..'tr S tsJ !){ ..�.?!•^•i ti t KK A-2n tJi.. �' 1 ' � b r!n Y �! .. : i t � U t •i si tK. h>%y r 1 r '! }rtrt fir ��. aj.'•, r i;7 tt � K". a. t s� y s 1 X t l ". a7-1-1 � r y �1Y� �,Y t7{:a •�y�i.'t.'•' t t< r � � L � > y ,:6•.i sNN : K S R-1 �� it �' rte. Cl b t J tZlb. iz i y/ irJ t4 •.•f sct KKKK�\�1Kr Y\ v \��\\ ��{ � t 4 W tK K4\K\KKKKKK K\YKK 3 � �+/ .f �f� Z 4�4K\ 41N KK\KK`t K• Ai tA2./4Zl 4 * i5'Y>>Y Y 4 4 KKl\\KKK\\tK\K\\ ♦K ry1• 1�\K\\K\K\K \\KK jK\l \\KKK +•Y ' 4�tv ✓ .. %' W ��ti s; �,+ 4 t :'t t it .t,:•1 .t' i SEE Rx,, R-1 INSET ire ` � SCALE; ht = 800' 4 S� A-10,pV, r vt LEGEND. fi� ark ` Oec Od & Fleldiftrops` Crazing & Open Lands - St 14AgricultwalTtesidentiitl Low° � ,..fit. `i• � D^nsi ,; �Y K\mss A _ 20 .:::�:: 1Vledium Density,Residential High Density'Residen" W A- 10 Commercial " t a Industrial o Publ3a ' NAN Metzger1 ezonYng &ubdiVI o>r>< lProje t } Figure 4-4 . SCALE. 11 =1;600.'DiJRHAM DAYTOI+T NiJLSON;]PLA1V ZONING NSMIC'�S, Dt , AM AttEA 'goo 00Z 40 eet Michael Clayt©Ti $� As �C Ates %►firts�atwn,Measii=,:Success£ul implementation o£the,£ollowing measwres w.ouldxecluce.14 ,significant:preclusion_of existing,land,uses,and,Iand use:+conflxcts/.nuisances associated,.with, the proposed project~tO�leVei of; iiion=significance• $:54Mitigationeasureg 4.1-1,. 41-2, and4.-4 through 4.1 6.: Fxxan vlC 7tS7St with Pes,a at a proposed project be p C`EQA requires that analyzed to determine the otebtial conflicts'with adopted environmental plans :and goals of the community where itis located (A.ppendixG,` of­the,_CEQA Guidelines). The analyses:of.individual:,policy,stateme.nts;that are germane to the proposed, rezoning and subdivrision, project are :described; below; The, final determination of policy, "consistency will be made by the,agencies administering_ the policies{ or plans. h,jj Inconsistenty .of' the Pro osed Project,, with County goals,.objectivesand policies w a significant adverse impact of the proposed project. The primary inconsistency. o .the{ proposed project identified in the policy consistency analysis below is the conversion. of agrculturalland;tonon=agriculturaluses proposed.by the project ;This conversion conflicts with °:several policies encouraging the preservation of agrictiltural production rand Incomer,f Ast%iQateAy general Plan: The :following analysts of .policy consistency refers .to the goalsj objectives; and.pt)licies listed above under the: Applicable Plans and Policies porton of the.' and, Uses and Policyonsislency setting section (Section 4:5."1), 'The proposed project is nsistent with, the Generat Welfare goal (A) '.anal policy (1) of the Land .Use. Element.= mco " The propose' project ''involves , construction and occupancy of resideixu develop nein adjacent to. agricultural.land,"which`potentially exposes residents to dust, chemical sprays,. ; and horse generated by agrl.cultural activities. .Tltere'forei ,the -proposed ;�projec* does; not promote. the; health, safety, °.ud well=being of future residents.- The proposed project is lncorwttent' with ;Resource Management policies 1; 3, and 4, which .,, call for nm=tauung, agricultural, crop pro,dt ction,. retaining "areas °in agricultural designation; ' anti, preserving primes soils," Subdividing tnL almond ,orchard .into 5 -acre clots for',tesidential developnient�:is Incor,.sistent with tlie.intent�,,of':maintaining agricultural crop product`ion.as a major soh ce .of food, employment, anillgoome in they. County: jhe orchaird ;on the site is' curren"tly; productive,.,,can be�replanted;'Aita��is located on_pnme za idiltural soils.:, Tbhe to proposed. project .ndt°immediately adjacent to urban`. development and :does. not praVide a buffer between urban anti a'g; icultural,tises. Instead, the.projeet is,proposing conversion of roductve agricultural use into residential use and encroachment of residential P. development.'onto agricultural lend: a 0392025 45. Page 4.15 r r V"� �'� 1., unc�rrra-l? on=l�elsora fret : 'lart.'The folio�vin ,�.nali i t Qyt g ys s o£ policy consistency refers to the ' $pals, objectives',. and policies: listedt above, under the;�Durham�Daytan-NelsonArea: Plan'' Jzortion ofthe X.arid Use and Policy Cohsisteneysetting section (Section. 4 5 1) , _ t �5 'rt d. _ .i.,xt' tv d: ' d°z1u , ay �t?iMµ ..rn• �� SJ Goat A. The"proposed`projectmay.ve.inconsisteritwith, goalA and'; policy l-of theDurham, T,aytori-Nelson Area Plan, which call for providing affordable and adequate housing within= the 'Community and for extending -public services to :vacant' areasready for .new housing tribute to, th'e goal ,of prdviding.­affordable kdd :. �scarts -The proposed projent could cont adequate housing to the area; however; it° is improbable'that the lite could be considered: a ''vacant area ready for nm housing starts'.'. "Due to ,the nature of this :goal aiid policy, �.a statement of roJ'ect conal' ten is not. included .here , P � Goal' B. 'The proposed project may be inconsistent with goal B, which calls for locating, , extending; and phasing,communityfacilities,and services to provide'for orderly . evelopirieni and econoniical use bf resources andlor orderly growth-tba does:not pesult in a significant burden' to, public services and: facilities. The proposed ;project may' be inconsistent. with; the . following related objectives and policies: t) of jective. Iii whieh calls fora rate of .' ) wth which does not exceed the County's ability to' provide °necessary public services or the:ability Of F the economy','to .si?ppo'rt growth; and 2), policies 1 and 2, whieh call �£or developing.,a program of growth phasing' wherein onlyIands which `are adjacent to urban .densities and have � ptiblic facilities. and 'serVices availablewill be able oto develop aturban densities.nand standards fostering a compact -rather than:a scattered. development p.atietO. .At, this;tinie; it is: not clear if .the proposed project will result in a significant burden to existing levels of p viafaties; ori utile servic - f ,tlie project jvill exceed the,'ability of the local: economy to "sip "ort=growth. However; tthe proposed .projeq#would be inaozisistenx with. developing a progranm'! of growth phasing because,,' . the.1project , proposes. suburban/urban , density development in an, area that is h "ot,,"adjacetit.iodxigtihg,trbaii densities. The proposed project would also be °inconsistent . 1wi19t1h fostering ':a` OmpAct development pattern,, as subdividing 24G acres o agrciilturl land 'into ;5-acre and-1 acre dots would constitute a scattered. development pattern., ; The proposed"project may be inconsistent with objectives` l� and 2,: which call for planning tbe;gopulation `gi=ovitli Nvithin'the'Planniiig Area to"a level consistent h retaining,a rural ' corinznum lifestyle; and for 'supporting the continued viability of'agricultural product on'as ' the major source of income; employment; and ;economic viability of`the Planning Area:' Goal C. 'rhe proposed pioject is.;inconsistent with npolicy ,1, which .calls -for protectiin'g productive agricultural .land from �,6ft roacliiiig urban :uses. The proposed. residential p ` / ent on; prodtctive develop mEi# Would constitute a suburban urban residential encroachm agriculturail lands. 63005.45 Paged 5-1�I ' 0 " , he,`Durhaan=Da on- elsona�'lan,recti ninesthatfuture r w i ..,._ yt g g o,thr n.exmploymeot capportunat�� , In Butte County and.:°in the Planning Area niayattractlpeople� who ,would :like to 'settle i ons Small tirms or.�xlarge- subutban,lots .,ands that there v��.11;1be-;;m rket piessureu to sulidivides Portions of the Planning P.rea tt� ta`ccommodate}additional,popliiation: Development ofather Metzger property, would°also initiate a new trend of;urban;sprawI to the- west, of Durham., Vresently, Holland Avenue defines;the urban limit of the. �ominunity.r Few, residences are; located' :west r of 1 -Tolland, A�erue,.f and:these residences are usually Sadjacent. to large;;,; productive agricultural. fields: In,,, -contrast, ::there ;are= several;: ,pockets ; of ,residential development scattered in the agricultural areas east of the Durharn community. The Lott Road de'velo �n�nt is.�a typical example of this iexisting residential deve-lo inont. IYn.19$5 , P P rezoning; of the. Trott Road area to' SR -4 allowed for, construction- of single-family hoax es.}in, lots `of appzoximately one acre initi arearsurrounde&by agricultural .fields. Throughout they /ears, ne7gbbor ng .agricultural fields were converted :to residential uses, and thee areae presently displays a development:patternthai,is neither. rural:nor:agriculturaLin,nature. The; ' "style° xc.mainm ":orchards and a ricultural�fields"are .development. . g g surrounded by suburban s: agricultural:.land is stillsubj�.ct to pressure to convert, to residential: uses, in addition, it should be noted that several policies in; the Butte County General Plan call for preservingthe Cot ims, agricultural production and incoiiie and; discouraging residential develobi ierit.on prime agricultural soils:' Therproposed-project'would not only'take,prime� agricultural land,out of production but. also increase tlterpressure, to convert ithe,agricultural, land, west of the Durham; community, fo presidential' uses � ,Since soils west of I7uzham ,aier considered prime agr'icultural' g 'cultural soils; superior; to soils located east of :the common ty,: v fa growth would be inconsistent with" General. Plan Land Use policies pertaining to directing r(,P_ urbari;.expansion=�oward the:least pxoductWe.rso ls.. The propdsed project would setwa;.precedent far; creating 5 -acre residential parcels west of Durham ° in areas that are .designated .for ° Okchard and Field' Craps and used :primarily afor large parcel agricultural production The'project Lias Elie �poteiitial =to°los"terr a:development, pattern similar to the urban sprawl evidenced in the Lott Road area east of the .Durham CI ommunity: Yt could foster population growth and construction of'zdditional:liomes "on the agLicultural .Iands west of the community,, therefore,. the growth inducing impacts that; m' y result -from approval nand construction, of the IVfetzger project are. considered significant. These unpacts 'are unavoidable if.. the ,project isapproved, acid °cannot be ;mitigated: J , Batton 143'�casure�' ^ :hlo mit anon measures^. area available Mffi' g ' I ^ ^ s r r n i r 0392025.45. 'Page, 019 - 1 Currentlytike CDF BCFD has bath 'automatic and mutual / a ani agre,�ments vrit�.:�rari�us fire, departments throughout the County. The CDF/BCFD has automatic aid agreements with ' both the Paradise and Orouille Fire Departments anal with the El' Medio Fire,Yrotectxon, District located in the Oroville area,, The CDF/BCFD has a mutual aid agreement with the City of` Chico Fire Department and is working toward an automatic aid agreement bety�e the two departments. Furthermore, the CDF/BCFD provides emergency services to the cities;�of Biggs and ,Gridley throughcontractual;agreement;, 2. The ;CDP'/BCFD has. spt �,ians for improving ,and modernizing existing facilities and ' general plans, for constructing, new;tire :stations;; :Currently theCDF/BCFD plans to hue; additional. firefigliters., Plans foripprohasmg new;e.quipment are established'uriderits ,1V[obile` ea uai`gment � Howe�er� f Station,.45p the CDF BCFuI� uz�rentment � h'lapinpurchasing n . tyP , q P / D y as no pians �ew��mesof for hang. aaditioal. rirefighters or purchasing additional, _in next year's; budget. 'To � M40e. impacts,on: fire protection se tapes from cumulative development- in the project' areas the CVF/BC FD plans to construct a »ew apparatus room to house the, fire apparatus at Station 45. Butte, Co j*,e SStrdurdr. The proposed ;Metzger Rezoning and .Subdivision Project is a Class 3 subdivision pursuant to the Butte County Fire. Dep artment,standardafor_: water, supply (Butte County Board of Supervisors 1991b). These subdivision classes are based X011 proximity, of an existing ,pressurized; water system, type, of proposed use, tat' nurnber, The acreage, ai d,lot , Bvtw Couu.ty, Subdivision Sta dards'state that a pre ssur ed community water system is regUired' for_ a Class, 3 subdivision'.. °A pressurized w_atex .system. ` is defined.,as,.any public, locally foamed. or i private,.water service jurisdiction having, watez capable of `adequately supplying £ire liydrant5., The Subdivision Standards include.generAl requiremenis for hydrant spacing; hydrant size, .and fire .flow requreinerrts; iatid stat ek that j the specific location of _,ire hydrants to be installed in, a.subdivision will be ;determined ,by the Butte .County Fixe Department in consultation with the Froje, Applicant In a letter to lJarthstar >cngineering dated, September 4, 1991, the CDF/BCFD) states thatagreement was made with the Project Applicant to provide pressurized water in the proposed ' subdivision;: ,and -. that, the locations of the dire hydrants; must: be ,approved by tl?e CDF/BCFD . The CDF/, BCFD indicates ;thattif pa ,pressurized water system is not installed yn the` ,pihoposad subdivision, the, CDF/BCFD. ,:would require. installatian . of ;'residenfilal spriiders andpermanent water storage facilities ,(WilliaRedding, written communication): ; o_&e Protection Services c The,Butte `Coun Sheriff's De artment , ra ;ide.,. ty p P v _ pol ce protection sernces to; the ,entire orated Cciunty (a 1,670 square,.mue area) .The sherisff , Department operated 5' 'POH st400nskin the County one each in Oroville, Chico, lviagalia; Gridley; and i eggs. Police protection service for,the ptopctstte antd`Durltazn;Dayton=Nelson"Planning Are4 provided -by the, .Shet! Department fram the Chico Station at 47.Q East park Street ,',The Butte County ;Board 0, Supervisors bias consolidated 10 part-time deputy positions originally '. assigned toy various communities within the County (one o , °whi included 3urhamt this 0392025.46_P.a e�� ,6-2 g. 4 aid: pursuant to the atd�nance is due ___>�....,,,..r....,...'..,.r.�,..�,.,, paid p ue and payable upon the issuance of the building pearr_ut ®. . - fcrY, new construction;: Pursuant to the ' ordinance and ,, as a 'condition of approval of e,a twitatiye subdivision map, a° final' subdivision map must contain a notation with,,regard: to t�:e1 'imposition ° of the development impact: fees4or Sheriff's Department facilities k _ , ' cis The project vicinity is served by the. Durham Unified School 'Distrid..:Three schools ,are. Jocated within the School District: Durham Elementary School; Durham Intermediate- School, and, .D►urham. High School. `Durham Elementary School is ;lo.cated at .9421 Putney.- utneyDrive Driveand :serves the kindergarten through fifth grades; (K 5), The Elementary School is currently overcrowded -,it was designed for 524 students and has a current enrollment, of 600 students, It is 30 years oldP and in generally good -,condition. I=i[owever, several, inprovements. are necessary yta° bring the school up tocurrent acceptable; standards: Autham"1fttermedi.ate SchooL;zs loc`ted at9416 Putney -Drive an6,serythrough es grades.six' eight: '(6-8). The Intermediate ° School, is currently, overcrowded. " it 'was designed f6r."128 students and has `�a current enrollment of 260 students: The Intermediate School " less: than 10:years old and in excellerit>: condition. -Durham .High School °is ;located ° at 9455 !'utriey ` Drive and serves grades nine through twelve (9-12). The High School currently has capacity for additional. students -7 t� was .designed; for, 429:, students and;has a current enrollment of 286 The High; School i studen ts:. was constructed' t1hree phases. , The oldest ,facilities, approximately 25 years- old.:All. facilites,;of the fHigh School are in good, condition: " The. -School District currently .houses students<in portable. classrooms at the Elementary School and Intermediate °School; At, the Elementary School; five portable, classrooms are used to' house students,. and 'additional :portable; facilities axe used for =office space and a Intermediate ° faculty doom. At, the School;, five ,portable classrooms° are used to. house Students'. 'am The School Dis"trio artici ates in the State School Buldi:i Pro In this to am the P P g gr P gr methodology; u"sed to project, school, enrollm6fits i wbased "on. °the, °cohort. survival method, (current °enrollment projections''ind tate that by 1996-97, the K-5 grade ° entollment,w 11 be 7.45, students, the 6-8; grade enrollment vwill. d th6'9m.1Z grade ,enrollment will be. 129° _students r (Donald . Mcltilelis, written „cOmiriiirt cation) These znrollmeiit projectioris`;are fiased.on t`he currentrate Of"growth n the°project vicizuty and would increase if they proposed :or other residential development projects, were approved. , The school, facilities are used.; on a,regular basis for community recreation. The .Durnain ' Recreation and Park District` has a point. Use Agreement with the School District ,which' allows the Recreation arid':Park Distnetto.:US school fa cilit es,as a second:priority after the ' School Distnctwo two. mwtt use rooms; and 'classrooms gyms, available to the'tecreation.and: Park b� trtet foirectE° p g Recreation auanal ro` rams. The 0392023 46 Fage 46=4 lessons, swim team,, aqua 'aerobics, and lap swiminino:Youth programs ;of the {Recreation and Park District! include is' occer,.,flag football,.basketball, .axil tee ball Adulttprograms1of " the Recreation and Park District include volleyball, softball; basketball, aerobics, ;cooking, - and dance classes. The District is currently, in negotiations with the Durham Unified School ` ,District- for,':`a revision of the Joint .U5e.Agieement associated With;the school District plans, ` for,expanding..its school facilities: = r` The Recreatioiiand Park -District is,cirre ritly.understaffed dsa"Yisting facilities.are not an adocluatei to meet the existing demands for recreational services (James Murphy, written communication). As the ,population within the District increases, public safe4y cdncerris increase, Police stations are not present within the Recreation and Park District; therefore, the, District staff provide public safety %n the.parks. Law�enfoicementproblerns�lie primarily- in, the areas of trespassing and vandalisrn. Currently the District has m6 plans4br park acquisitionor development: Water Sutsnly 'gatian District provides water-service :to,the;pr��jeet area and vicnuty b`ut The Durham)trn does riot pflq qq e water'service to the project site. Its-bbun Airies�encompass. the.Town of Durham north to Durham=Dayton Highway,'soutl`i;.to.5ezciissStreet (approximately IOOO.feet llandsvenue eas '. north of tie eastern br�undaxyof the project site. on Ho t to.�Midwa and y,, . `` west. to Burdick Road. The project site would .neeu,to,be anxiexcd ,ta the; District,uL order , , for the District to supply water, to the proposed residential development::: ` Watet from the : f rrigat on 1 District is -supplied =by wells ThE District indicates that ;it°than adequate, reserves, as groundwater :has been .steady. at 40=50 feet since 1948 'During r' periods of irrigation; iii. surrounding orchards; drawdown °in the. groundwaterr:level is approximately 1036et: Groundwater Irecharge,.following drawdown.,is instant: Records; of total water demand onan annual, peak month, peak °day, or.peak hour basis are: not available from the Irrigation.District. 'Currently the.�lirigation'District has�adequate,,gta:ff and. rest►urce''s� to *providd vvat6i,,td its sere M& area, (Jerry1Mb rison, wffltdv communication). The Irrigation; District has ,plans to expAndf' its s�:rvice., ,area .byx annexing 4,contiguoiis deveYop _ p J ( �" ):. , anent rq'ects': (,Jerry., Morrison, written commuzucation According,to the Durha ri-Dayton.NelsoiiPlanning Area Master Environmental Assessment t (Wadey Associate's 1586), the supply of," groundwaterin,the project area i"s good. The Iv1EA ; states thai'.the long=term outlook for' groundwater supplies' from .the Chico.Alluvial .Fan; do which the Irrigation District. and project site are located, is ,that shdrtage�.of groundwater, should not occur." 'Wade Associates (1986)' further document: "A 1961 USOS paper (Water Supply Paper Ncr: 1497);i cates, that the :'Chico Alluval;Fan has iii storage'.approariiniately one million acre `:feet o£ water of elevations' of 20 to .20Qr;feet below 'the surface More recently; an unpublished Calif ornia Department of Water; ReSourcesastudy on'groundvrater in, the ,Sacramento Valley indicates' that `the: Chico. Alluvial Fait is .responsible for approximately 6: percent of the aveiage,a. nual•°groundwater.recharge.., .tile Sacramento Valley,ll,E'i, 0392025.46 Par"�; 46.6 extension of4spry ce from an exasting,water system, the subdivider hall, pnornta filing the P�zial �t►tydirrsi�� map, fi�rnish the Department of Env��onmental Health:..wiilz ax statement; prom them. er. purveyor stating that tlie:purveyor es willing;and abler tq supply water to-,�the subdivision, aIort with: anv vrereauisites Idenfifieda�l7vfi-the `avater,6urvevorr;lButterCounty U `rb .w Seiv e-�'•The. osed ro ect;includes sewa a dis osal' �g p P ., , p J g p. _through;a septi" tankand�leacbfielii + disposal:system ; eptiG tankgene`rally.consists of a concrete tankWith,a baffled inlet and. outlex : A,s wastes enter fhe:tan ,,-,, the heavy%Psolids. begiiiTto, settlerto �thel 6bttom.:andhthek lighter ihaterials , siich asa grease and? oil; flriat to the, to :s: The remainin Ii uid material# P g q f ihen flows; to'lJbe leach field:. The.,Ieachfield consists�ofvorforated paxallel lines°set#lint ',In gravel --filled trenches. the; leach::field, the ,effluent :is.released, xoi percolate ntok`the:soil where, a combination: of physical, chemical, and..biological reactioiststabilize and -remove pathogens grrdin the effluent. Fydntuallyi the effluent' ,eaches the gr'oundWater. table,'after being treated+ by the sail. The :septic #tank/leach field system' works wellxwhen it is used of low densities"where soil, slope, mid "groundwater conditions. are favor able ­.adequate xoom) cant be;,provided for.the leach. field, and sufficient distance can. be maintained between the, I.eac>z field and pofable water wells; The success`of this method of sewage disposal depends:' more on. providing adequate soil leaching' capacity than on any :other single factors The general criteria for suitability of a site for installing' a coxaventional septic tank and each " field disposal system, are a minmum of 5 feet of soil between, the bottom of a 4 -foot deep Y minimum leach dine ttench,, and the underlying rock or, groundwateraable (:e:, a. minimum of 9 feet of suitable. soil), soil percolation rates between i_ and 60 minutes fper inch; and slopes Aof �30,� percent or less. The maximum "slope of 30 li�uJcent is based on maintaining a 15 -foot horizontal separation between the; bottom of a 4 -foot deep leach line trench •andT,the•, 1 ` adjacent, slope. Soils with percolation rates exceeding 60 minutes per inch are easily sealed during construction orate easily plugged with or,gaiuc matter which can ;cause'se tic•; 'stem' failure. 1liiinimurn setbacks have been established by local agencies for the siting of each fields from wells, streams or drainages, lakes or reservoirs; cut or fill slopes,'. and prope�rtyr lines. The required size of a;leach field depends on the amount of sewage to be disposed, ground slope, anddsoil percolation rate:jj Sludge w disposal w in � the . area. is provided �by tlie, Deal Road )Landfill Company (described . above). The existing .sewage disposal ponds at ,therlVeal Road I.,,aiidfill and Sewag& Plant are at capacity and soon will be closed. The County Department ,of Public Works is currently planning to increase the areal.o€'tile land Tb adding , -a 20 -acre, are4Ao thewest? „ the'. landfill :; l�Tew sewage 'disposal pdnds °will be constructed on this news property to replacethe'.close'dponds...�� Butte; CdivayrSadnisio�' Stair W& The •Butte :County Subdivision 5taziddrdt',state that"J L a public or conimunity sewer service is not provided, individual sewage disposal:systems may be permitted, provided that the proposed subdivision In the criteria set Forth in Appendix":I �(I3uttebnty,19.9b;): 'I`he, Sub"divisian Standards °alsor indicate that yvheri, ; individual sewage:disposaT.systems 'are proposed; the subdviclert shallf:have:' ' ercoladontests P ' and soil depth •studies conduced under t#ie direction o% a registered; civil engineer, licensed ]arid surveyors or'registeredr Envirbiiiental I+ie'alth Specialist. and shall submit test: data,to the County Department of Environmental Health for approvali o��zazs a6 ..edge 464 ; s � . - .. LS1/1• Wim..... 1 ,4. --;n- — -- .." -- --d —d O f � .l AOrry R7JLQ'.1 ,fG. LL. ( r" 45:7t>:kil(a.o. ❑ p 1 r(a /r? 'j J lLUH6L1 f(%CN.iYlI,L' J/!n!! 1Y�f/ib r. urrrr<, Laxarr�r� n�iiR J,S % �l I I 4 f •'; com-4 9 s «:... ?+• .::r 1' p +`_ .. 1. %M�t'Cr! (!Yrl/G jgt ror! 19•iw t. Q/. �;. 1-3B 3. B� R.�:C /pi lQ'J h7•:JdG JJ•.t�. l*- 17 f ) nx�clr, /•ra J7id1L r:r! iJ'JJ Z -g glN.ilJ1=/(Kce `MNtc!lA,lA o,tA .M1tCK . .. —Al o o,� ,.� t9; /(�: /� J� JA /,�,. /./: i�: =yam. � �� MlYlAt' A �n � cjcj /AG�1 in /(Y:.; JAG :Q! • O J.tb e JAG UI I JA6 ✓=��•+yRQC(f�%Lf�y'A'�.�1�CrA�%` Sv IA: Jf.0 Ls l /'9 Jr t • '. 3J ~JAG :oI Jt!�% Jrx �'• �,` t: t Jr re t tJ > , o i i fJ • rfI�' p.e 'Ott /Ylr1 irc`rE ilJ r9 !R'i/e?%LY` Jt f]L O i�G i " io al I a� p JFr2;�J l✓' �:1�. _rq .. hrtac ar((c 1 JL L."�i� Q' rrCArra .,rrxrnt Quu•#i .�i>;i '.. �' � � I Bi 1 A, ■°�+I Ni �eiOKUfMTOP"� �•r'r••"'+rr --- u rM ■ !rl-{inb gwxe iu: na+r` .' _ He�iw�e��iNa �: LiCX4VA71' xrirJvit� ma tL(,YGEO' .- :: _. Metzger Rezoning v�sari b n Pro eet �' Figure 4 5 SQiI,'z'EST LQCMIONS " $� aso Fel c Michael Clayton;&.Associates _,` t .°. p . 0 j r_ p Q-� 2 , !�/ itY/ IXiP L rutrnl}Je JJrA�J r« �.', � .I I I, r YL JU aGtJx ? 1CutJu`e Y /JiGvui�IK lriJk fr/aily 1 ° JnL' :vci1, I uyJ/YE:I fdJ'7N�/r//,Iffl//.�. / 4 1 '.r S,A� jrr SJ"A'+. .s•,fG, �� C i JrtS C. crgtru lri.J�ra.•up z rJrso �.4v.+ Ay - - - - •i 1 `tY0 laV LYg1yJ % Jixt»Ys t R1 I�® 1 3 ®�l� ue /1 r o ;$ df1 L J• el b. R.*u /Ot la'! hJ•Jl G lrfk ZO p I Z. Z i 19 Z✓ Z �, >> 1 I T nG 4W. -1 [n , 4"fall* , zo JiYIJGlA1 !q3 1-4 Gdf 7d t7' f Jrr Srr, 3J•S 7rJG' s.4• 9JIG j G3 1 rin,'1cri,Yii"G/i.lo I I � B _. _ I I s ne Qler/9YG7 /�ftQ• ANIId'D /A, lA [: lA� .r�aux i/,>tes r p, �e uta iiA: i.K 1 rJlo• ra /Jx is l�- f>> �t! 1'J D D O sx �! t✓ >x rd 1I J /.0 /A4 /JIG Q,, L:,:ti /A: ♦7 d /JA. r�� pl 17JiL /Jl: l�•% /iA%: IAG 1 %i4i °( ILSi}r 3A ,� L3♦��/1(e%pfi�jrfd� .�ifl/!li �!` %%/L� [�JF�Lr�� j�I�FJZ�y !rl ° 1Q /Air %Jt r I I J I.RG�I<nH ✓w SII 1 rr�G (° �., / p�>L�, l,eC' i-rQ i♦rzie rU lee p, .Ip�/e of 1° �' . 1 , 1°''ice' rLr, !.'1e .2Ccr l;K .O ° /' o'i °i �d .� r pi �° (yyY�.IV�• l.�.e /RR�'rl�r'r9 J2�c�//Q�'GIr` G[/J .� (✓��/�Jl ' j % ,z/�i', at t0 1(j /.x:< tf t /'vG ° 1 f/ 1° jA: !^ / pl pd J ,1t7i1U p if.'.L°y,/ l✓„.,�•�•.��, az i Ill, . ��n ra :•, [Tr/dJUY�.m•�xrt lv.%srr �j' I IBIT'7fA' 1.`M. tap as ral RIN caoco�uweTi tax . ■,• t�i�+r s gwie Jp r}r7slt - �MOIRR YfHWO ui: <YNA?r .Nx'(CJti.W {e p; ,r�YYEp � ,• r, 1l auger lUzoning `ivadiioI Project Ngure 4-6 scAt,i rl :300 PER.COLATI4N TEST LOCAVONS 0 156".300 450 Feet/ 1V11chael Cla` t6n BzASSociates gave. Wherefore, many historically agriculturally-based coirimunites are' facui > coif backs y _...... .. ' difficult economic times, and in some case bankruptcy. City and county goverzunerits in California- are restricted .1a a'set l�percent pxope ty tai based :on Y"roposiponAI T ' erefore, 'by they;are limited the: -,amount.of ;revenue that can,>b'e generated through ,property taxes,. Fiarther,.,Uttle support,is :available�fromti,the..fitate or federal golVernnients. Therefore; governments with; a decliningagriculturally-based °economymust look elsewhere to revitahLec ;, municipal -finances (Simpson;and-Jung 1990).; Z'he easiest and most raad'ly"Available source of .,money is obtained: through new .housing. development. Specifically, revenue is obtained in the form of building permits sales taxes, users taxes'increased asses s-d land values, and the f% multiplier octs of :neWmoney cmiztg< d<; Into an area. However, itis well documented that housing, by` itself, is a short-term'bnancial > beridit and a long-term economic expense, to local government. In the long-term,' housing cumulatively costs more in, services .and, infrastructureathanr vigenerates. 'The hope of,a: jurisdiction' that bases its economy on housing; is that the increased population, will attract new retail operations, new industries, .and new jobs,,a111,of.wl ich will stimulate the economy and tiring in the longterm reveinueneeded by local, governments (Simpson and ;Tung .199,0) -Tbe.Countyis in -the process of.establishingd�velopment impact fees to �niitigate,/the�impact; Of development on facilities requirements .However; the need °£or. new facilities is uot,the only, impact of new, development ,�htew development,'also increases demands for.services which may not be fully funded, by the resultant revenues that are actually distributed�to the, County. It :has been the experience of the Administrative Office that, in terms of County'- revenud, population growth) only .exacerbafes the `problem of maintaining admini'strativ`e service levels ,(Anthony'St, Amant, written communication):, r fth: �dy,�pi�. ea,s/-��nei (N. i x.. The signifeance 6riteria usedr to ,determine sign ficant� mpacts to public services consisted ofg 1) increase instaff °needed..by a any public.se`rvice provider to. maint'ain.current levels of service, 2) 'any need `,by a,-publfdzseM.c6,,pr-ovide-rIor-u­pgrading of ;e�c%stang .farilitres." , systems; 3) any need by;a pub] 6 se, ice provider £or constructing, anew fac hties or Systemsi and 4 by any need a- gt blic' service' pravir3er for: purchasing new equipment or.; vehicles;: 7r;t a Fne lftiecr vn1Senrices Construction and occupancy 'ofthe propased .residential development would result. iri an " increase in demand for fire protection services: This; increase in servicetdemand,would constitute a; significant impact of the proposed project. Although tjhe CD CF currently has adequate resources t, provide fire protection services 'fo 're`sidents `of.the Durham= Dayton-Nelsoi% Planning Area,. the: dem4nd; for-"fhie' cprotection-'services ,as:, a result-tof additi'onah ,de'velopment in recent' years has constrained ,its ability:.to'' maintain ;its, current set ulcer level. =The CDF/BCM. indieates,4hat the, additional demand° fors .fire protection services as 'a result of ,the p;~opose'd ,project would, fitrthex< constraan J the 'ability o' the Department d maintain xts °current level of service..The impact of"tie proposed protect on ;d392023.d6 Pa 4 �lflt9wion::tlMeasur�s.,°Successful irpplementation of�the; followinghrrceasures would reduce they ;significant impacts to .the Butte County,,Sheriff s,.Departni6nt,;and to, police protection r>eevel of tion�significance , i . 4#64 Pay AdO,61oprndnt impact,fee of $360. per,single',family dwelling. constructed onl t` the project site to defray, the cost of Sheriffs 'Departrrient facilities pursuant to Ordinance No. 2949.; iProje.ct Applicant or Lot Owner, Building Permit; Butte , County Chief Administrative °Office and Planning; Devdrtrneri Building..Peinut};;` 4.6 5 Develop and implei hent a program_ for payment of impact.fees by a:Project Applicant, to find the.hiring of additional Sheriff s Department personnel: (ButtesCounty,Chief" Administrative Officer and Department of Planning, Public Services and Building Permit; Butte County Chief Administrative Office and Department ;of Planning;, building Permit u si �r-hoo�r, + An increase in ,student enrollment assocated..unth :theproposed ;residential development' would'consntute a sign ficaxit,impact of the proposed project.; The'School Districtunidicate5 that due to' the limited number of new housing -units constructed within the School.District 3n recent. years, it is difficult to accurately determine- a student generation rate for new. residential, development 'in .the project area. Therefore,,,.thex School District uses, the` ! folloWing state standard ratios: to calculate: student. generation; .0:4 students in gradesK:6 per household g 04 students in.grades:7-8 per household:and 0;2 students in rade5>9-12 pet household: Using these ratios, approximately'67 new students, for grades K-12 would be generated by the proposed residential development; In a letter to the Butte County Planning Comniission.daidd March22;1991, the,School.District_estimated that the proposed project at' completion would .generate a. rrunimum of 5075 school-age children: :, VdhileY.there i�.-et�*rently rooriz for:aclditional.students�at 'th`e High; School,, the Elementary School.and ! terniediate: School curr'ently exceed capacity and are; 6vercrovrded ; 4Therefore, enrollment of additional students at either the Elementary or Intermediate+:Schools would sult in a si cant impact an these schools: ;.tion and occupancy of the ro reproposed. residential development would require constructing never school. facilities, and may, rgq hiring of additional teachers and teachers aides at the Elementary School and Intermediate School Donald h'..Neus, rxrtten communication) - sn a March .1991 letter to the „Butte County Planiung,� Cornrnission, the School District: indicated that the increase in student enrollment assaciatedwith..the proposed project-would:ene cess it ate the following resources:, 2 3 classro;orns, 2-3 :teachers,, �2-3: classroom �ai�es, .custodial., andFinaintenance tirime and ; textbooks,: supplies; 'anci,.furn tore:°:1'h°e. letter also indtc�ated, that'the,aincrease,in student eprollmentwould'also require=administzative; clerical, library; and cafeteria 8taff:' W Nile the 4-` increase in student enrollraent ,associated Ywith the 'proposed project may :not sre. wire q ' additional support stA6. '*n particular, it would a(dd, to the need,foradditional suppoz7t 'residential in the: futures 'The cumulative impacts? of similar development projects ain the 0924��:G Pa-e,��:6-j . .� 1 M �G x . .. yr .Y W r .. N ". Y. ^ H( V .$, UI h C.N &•_ I ', F 1:5 .Y ryryJJ Construction.and occupancy of the _proposed residential development would result in an t,ncrease �in, demand for recreational 5erviees, And, facilities: � Phis increase- in sery cvAeinand would 'constitute !a} significant impact of the proposed prUject; "'.Although n'creased ata revenues will aid the Recreation and Park p'D strict.°.in (meeting lincreased staf x and rnaintenance needs, money for capital growth is in short supply. The District's problems lie is its : inability. to , raise funds from. new developments that' increase the .demand fora= more parkland , and °facilities.. Each additional individual added for t%Z, .Servic6 .area of 'the Recreation..and (Park District impactsits ability to provxde'adequate Y�zho:;;ams and facilities: Construction and occupancy of the proposed project would require, adding additi'onal,cluties, to staff and fridingroozn in. existingfacilities for.more or larger programs:, TheR.ecreation. and .Park District estimates that the proposed project would' increase its population base by 300 to 400,residents; severely`impacting. the a is ing,facilities. and staff abilities to serve° the District. The RecreationandPark Distnct.:n sfees to provide, .arkst'and-recreational fa'cilities;and P services to,DiStritt residents associated.with l existing and.increasing;xesidentialdevelopment: ` _ The .District is in the process of developing a -Parks and Recreation Master. Elan, which ,i5 necessary before an ordinance pursuant to the Quimby Act can be adopted for the County. The Quimby Act- would enAble,developing standards ,.for. levying' ;oi impact fees: on hew residential'developinent, for�'provid ng parks and. recreational'facilities and services,, Un 41L the. Rdereation. ='Element of the I County ^ General Plan is 'adopted and the Earles and Recreation Master Plan is completed, the Countycannot adopt a Quimby Act ordinance. Consequently, through= the Master Parks and RecreationTlan the District hopes to Identify funding sources'to assist them; in meeting their resporisiibillti6s wiff respe t to creating, new Parks -and facilities ,and developing recreational programs,,! :Thee funding sources may include development, impact, fees and negotiation w th= contractors.' iDedication 5 acre' park o,n the ,proj1"not of a-�� ect site wou fficient to reduce the si ' cant m acts to the Recreation an d'`Park'bistrictl o(a Level of gzuf p � non=significance: ItIS unlMown, at this point in the District's planning process, whether the size and location of the "park tsite would be sufficient to `meet the current. and future demands for trecr'eatonal services and facilities'associated with the proposed =residential development Although the audit on al'property,taices generated'by, the'proposede residential d'e�relopmeiit would�help to fund maintenance of the park- they may not be sufficient to fund full and.pernianent park maintenance. Furthermore, the additional property taxes would not be "sufficient to 'fund ,. develbpment o£ the park and raay, loot be sufficient to f and ataf£"toYadminster+ recreational' ro' ams'at 'the ark James lviu h ersona16,, mmunicatio P t rp ys p) ' r �9in, Won Measures Successful implementation of one of the following m ttgafion'measure . scenarios would reduce he, significant, impacts to, the Durham Recreation and Park District and o parks and - eational,services associated with the proposed project toy a level of non -significance: ° 0392025.46 Fade " 6-17 'is elo went rev_entin tse isrict with regard to the ro used residential devrxxgation ]Qtn proliferation of private wells.. The proposed project would ultimately benefit the Irrigation District by:providinb}it;wtth the`gTowth netided..to`providemor-e:waterrservtIce" ,; nnexatian of the,project kteato..,the Durham;Irrigation Districtwould be x quiredin or, ,fQr the District to supply water Ifo tP a proposed residentiat developmeriv I£,,ahhexation of the project site to the Durham Irrigation District is not approved by the Butte County Local Agency; Formation- Commission (LAI, �' Y), A 6 ,,proposed water. supply for :did Tesidehtial P P ( P JTh the eoseci,e oar3 0£ Sit ervisorswould decide wllettier to anprove:: 'f ro ro5 ct -with, R P P P P J h a private water.stipply. It noted that clevelopirig privato wells to serve the: residential development would have, ramifications `relative to the _minimum °lot size required .and the` :acceptable .locations of underground seepage drainage trenches and septic tank and leach field disposal' systems, li' _d9Itdion,Me.asw0. Successful. implementation of the following measures would, reduce the significant impacts to the Durham Irrigation District and to water'supply associafe�l with the level proposed project to a of non -significances: 4.645 Design, and construct .,a; .self-contained water; systemFon jthe project .sten and an '° to the..Durham Irrigation, District... Include mterconneatirtg ?Lrater..line. g one well _per, SQ acnes,• necessary, water lines,, and a. water pumping system. m ,,the: eater . system. Tura-over.the.water system. to ;the IrngationDistrict for admirttstration; management; and maintenance. '(Project -Applicant and Design .Engineer, project ,Design, Project Approval,,,, and Public Services;;Butte:,County Department. of Public,Works, Project AFProval)`' F . 4,6716 Ins ect all water system facilities, including wells, water lines, and water pumping, system, constructed ,on the protect site. (Durham Irrigation District, During Project Construction) x , 44411 Pay as service connection fee, iwriich''includes-installing, a water meter, to the Durham I; Irri 'anon :Distract fore: each .residence° .eonstrueted,,on t`he,` ro e g p j ct szte , . < (Project During Pro ect.Constructiom. Durham Irri anon Dis tact, J ' g, ioConstructian) Dunin Protecicant F g ` Road Maintmau!a; ; An ' crease rn demands fooad lnafntenanco�b' the:Butte 'Court De artf64n of,,I?ubl�c ri Y P Works`would,,constitute. a significant ad verse., impact of the proposed project If'the To w- of the proposed resdentia development: are eonstructed.;to `CountyMstandards ,and the ri is -of wa for the Yaadwa s are.de`d cated tow. the`Coun" sri Fee,Sim le; th6roadway s g Y Y tY p Y would be accepted, into ;tile :County mdiiitained .Mileage program and be; mainta ne, the County Department of public+Works. Construction of the proposed project would increase the costs `of road' maintenance and, may" affect ;fhe .level, of ;service= for roads rnaintenanee prpvded by the Department of Public Works Tlae.level of service of the Department would 0392025.46 Page 4.G-19 , 'k?e ' 11�Ek i-, esi � k-�: x�� a �, , axr ���� '��� ..;. tike : , �� a> �� v A Wi#eriquality�,for�groundwaier,in°the, eastern portidn_of iheiSacra»zento;Y` aquifer basin is considered to be excellent, The'„grouodwaterzontaih:s:low total?° Nry as °.r dissolved solids (TDS), primarily due to the character of the drainage through volcctrzic'rack matenalrof liigli}erosionrresistcance: Flowever, portrons of the Chrca ° __�s .f urbanized:,area' have,,„shown si o .concentration in shallow`wells.::.°T,here has... aIlso,,,�-bee ,,, receht r concern° ;relating; to;.ther -accumulation `,of .�rritrates F,ty groundwater, of Chico. No ,definite cause for the contamination has been pinpointed; but, suggested causes Jnclude...:.3j extensive°'use of sepdcdleach freldi ' sysierrrs in Unincorporated areas': Regional '6WaterQuality,:: Controf Zoard ;Requirements: ” jn, a °loftier to, the Butte, ° County Planning Department dated October 21;.199.1,. the Central Valley,' on of the i Regional Water Quality Control Board states that a septage disposal plan .must b6, prepared by the project applicant- and reviewed and approved by the RWQCB. In addition, the proposed project tnust�,beapprove&by,, the, RWQCB: ,.According.,to"the ;RVi�QCB, -the J�Project Applicant will,Ue,required;.to submit a septage disposal Wan;once,�the new sewage disposal' ponds at the N6a1. Road Uridfi1f and Sewage PlanVhave been coristoked (Rick. Rodriguez; _ personal "communication). M, Me Successful implementation:af,the-followingmeasuresxwouldreduce the° otentiall sf nx }cant .contafnination-:of groundwater"and surface,water associated'witli the f tlure`of 961066,gank=and'leachfield disposal systems on.the':project sito� o °a-level of non-' significance: 4,6-21 Design, operates and maintain individual septic tank and leach field disposal systems on the project site in accordance with existing'regulat ons promulgated by the Butte, County Departniontof.Enviraftipontal Health, under the direction of a registered .. gin g tarian and under inspectiO4 by, t ie Department Civil En eer or re stered Sam Environmental Health: (Design Engineer and Lot Owner, Project Approval and 'Building ,Pernnit� E, Butte° County, Departmen"t of En�tironmental Health.> and epartznent.of .fanning, .Building �Perm�.t and After.',Project.Construction). 4464241 nrorcer °e cisting;; regulations <sregarding the d`e`sign, ;operations and maintenance iof individual'septw.tank and Jeachfield disposal .systems, on the .project aite< o prevent ,, the migration of 'inadegtrately.treated. effluent to°,groundwater on and of£'rthe project site: b (Butte County Departzrient of Environmental Health; Building;Permit andYAfter Project CdriStruction)� Te4phone Service` An increase °tn'.'cieniand. for'uteleplipne: service would constitute .a :'non-Sgnifieaiit- adverse impact of :the `prciposeci proleet<because Pacific Bdll Telephone .Company would be able to provide telephone service toy the_ new. residential-�de�elopment. 'However, °:Pacific Bell, indicates that the existing burned cable along the, north side of.Hanlon Road would not be sufficient to accommodate the proposed' residential, development and will need to Ue 0392025,.d�' Page'4 �=2� y ty ,1 Nrf n ft tr , , ` ,, .'i.P ��y.,�# k F `Z t."' .S' �Y r r 1—;t'' 'u.t �� firaj�ic and �Cr - .. � ,l Gail1(66,L(it1 O Aegiowt ?Tortation Network <, ran:riV Regional access, to' the area of the 'ro'ect''site' is' rovicl��i l,A rTi`e ID�rh ...` ,,'"�` ., p J p ani Dayton`Highway and Midway Road. Durham -Dayton Highway is a two-lane roadway passing through central Durham that extends east to a oonnection with State Highway 99 and4 t t " J 1" nnection' with Dayton Road in the community of ;Dayton. Midway Road; �s a two-lane roadway passing.through central'Durham that eitends north to'the Cityoi` Chico and south to ,State Higlway162: Both roadways are now operating' atService (LOS) A conditions, based'on traffic volumes suppliedyby,theButte County Public Works Department and listed' in liable 4-5; and ° t,n roadway capacities - contained in the Butte. County ' General Plali Circulation Element (Butte County Department of Planning 19$4a)' and listed in Table °4.6. According to 'Policy 4.1.2 0£ Gthe Butte .Crrunty ;Circulation . , eme i`t., 'L(3S 'B operation is desirable, while IAS C'operation is the poorest tolerableoil County roadways: P Loci71'Tanspbit aoneiWo° DLrp ct access to the project site is provided by Holland Avenue''and Hanlon Road. '14 Ilaftff Aveoue is a two-lane,rural roadway running along the eastern site boundary, extending north froim, a Tee ' in�tersectionl with Hanlon Road. foo sligFitl}► ", than aa' rrule' to a 'Tee intersection With Durham=Dayton Highway. 1t is`controlled by a stop I Isign at both Iocations. Holland Avenue has a width of 21-22 feet adjacent to,the project site, it maintains this width for the majt,tirity of its" length but narrows by 2-4 feet near Durham-vDayton Highway. Residential development lines both sides of the northern one-half mile of the roadway. Open. parcels and orchards line :the portion of theroadway adjacent to the project site:' Tl,e roadway lacks centerline striping and is lined by grass and/or dirt and shoulders in .gravel most locations, The posted speed, limit is 25miles per hour (rnph); although observed vehicle speeds `a djacent to the' project site .ranged from 30 to 45 mph. Hanlon Road is a two-lane rural roadway, that runs along the southern project boundary. 'w'here It extends west from. Midway Raad, it is controlled by a stop sign, for one mile before curving to the soutch (at a sharp 90' degree fuzrt) at the southwest corner of the site. Hanlon Road has a 20-foc:* width adjacent 'to and east of the" project site. Hanlon Road has no , centerline. stuping ��r posted speed limits, although observed vehicle speeds ranged from 40. to 50'mph. The roasdway rs lined by wide grass .and dirt shoulwrs. ,Hwdon Roari%Wa lar t Avcni4e ntersectian. Bcith roadways have single lane approaches 'to this intersection, i Iowever,, Hanlon Road'traverses , minor ''S" cure through and to each side of the intersectiozi (on "the east side of the intersec}ion Hanlon Road is aligned further Q392 25.47 P40 4. _I t, y4 i �eliFia44C , Metz r`RbrHO. amid "Subdivisiah"�Projedt 1991 .Daily, TrafiicrVolurrAes� on 1oca! Road►days_' a_Dally.Two-Wav` 7Et6adAverage way _ Traffic g: Durltain-Slayton HigWay Bast of Midw ly Road � 3,947 West of Midway Road �4;066 +West: ofRoblo Road East. of`Dayton Road 1,659 Mdway;;Road South of Faber Road 2,289 South oi3iirlan?rJ�ayton.Highwayys:a; 4,011 North of Durhasn:Dayto ,911 South of White Road 979 RollandAvenue North of Manion Raad 352 nl",,,gin R'oad ; Vest off` Rolland Avenue ' P 39S Ournoell Road i South ot-Taman Road 212 d Goodspeed Road South of Florida ,- 60�" Sources ' Buttf,t County Department of P, Worka (5tuai-t Edell; personal conilnutnication) 0392112�,�47 Page 9"7,2 1 , r77, MCefter�Rezonxn"g ';a if( Subdivisiciin �1' ojec6 Leyel:,of,Sea`vice , y RoadwayCapaityJRelations liip` for a 'JLwQ-Lane Nijor SurfaSt ace re'1 t Percent of `Street Can acih' Annual _YfAvera a Day>y_B'raffi6z LEVEL A (60} a 9,600 LEVEL B (70} , a_ LEVEL C (80} 12 800 LEVEL E ( 00} ` `16OQOr.:.�„' two-lane co k mmuriiy s"treets withrn"lllurham projected t� have laver 'by capacities EiR frame cru§ultant ' t F: a µ,; hoaxpeak. capacity Projected to be 10 percent of this value by Eft traffic CO F15ul Ant Source; 1984 Butte County General Plan yi H r'�' 4 v Y.3^lLVL«1.77 I , rb 31 12 225 Q 28 DURHAM-DAYTON MGHWAY - 145' S5 205 imLM G 31 3 o 185 is ' IM 34 tIM 21 190 205 60 35 f a o 10 j GO 35 z HANLON ROAR 35 RAN ON ROAD WEND r Yeax2010Tota1*' 40 35 ` 30Im 'ct , Pro�ectYncrem n (O Q I'M �Wmotei 1991(Rxisting) "Eaciades cxisfin � pra}ecc & other dnticpared �otv#t� B !; 75 ; 60 Or ,exr �r a G�uP Metzler Rezoning &ubiiiyision. Yojet lb Figure 4-7 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFYC V OLtT1V1ES ON,LOCAL ROADWAYS Michaol Claytolz &Associates I !i �� ,� . . /j n✓ll:/41'/ Jl p; �� "• "a� S�.w ,;",'r�. tir`, a-��. 4',� � ri,�; � "'�' s,, �...��-`�'�A�r.�S��£��'4Yr'��� 1 i, .r 4y �t��� ��t:� ��,�, metzger Rezoning and �$ubdiwSsYons�ProJeets� „PV1f,Peak lHour. Xny,x NO Use °.. ,Units 1, .. Rated Volume ;hate, Vold nne ,';" .Rate, IV,olume ^' Single -9.55 94 9,0,0 :65 62 :36 ;. 34 >�y r�aJ t�sper" singte-airily` ,dv�relhng �uriut s Source; fistitufe of. Transpo{rtationEngineers h '-1t'¢� T 1, w a ' r it n , f I 3 1 5 , iy iJ �"ya �Y ,r. It �.�`.e f �1,� �f. {� -�'� �,• t:� �, t{ �f1 �5y � I i f 111 yl � )5 039f'(125:4i Page .4,7=7 �Y i r would be"expected to'increase from .3 up to 9 `VPS=T." PM peak'ltourh'traffic volumes"along 'Hanlon Road just east :of the2 site' would be expected to increase from 40 up to 75 VPi3. J'M peak hour traffic wolurrxe increases along Midway Road would range from 9 VPH south of Durham:up to 43 VPH north of Durham. PM peak hour traffic volume increases along Durham -Dayton Highway,,Would r`ahge I from .1Q VF>Hi,West ;oi ,Dulrham to 9 VPH east of 'Durham and 45 VPH between Holland Avenue and Midway Road within central Durham. Mitigation Measr No mitgationrneasures are recoYznmended or required: %ase in Tra.,� Fla ds at Hanlon Road folkwd .AvenueIntersection increases in traffic hazards at the Hanlon Road%Holland Avenue' intersection due to a) increased traffic associated with the residential development, b) :existing:curvature QYHanlon Road through the intersection, and. c) potentially limited sight lines to/from the east when' trees in the adjacent orchard bear leaves would constitute a significant adverse,impact of the proposed project. However; increases in project traffic at other local intersections would result in.advase but non-significant operational impacts at three,locations: Midway/Hanlon Road, Durham -Dayton :Highway/Holland Avenue, and Midway/Durharn-Dayton Highway. Project traffic increases atthe Midway/Hanlon Road and Durham -Dayton Highway/Holland Avenue intersections would not meet warrants for providing signals (Caltrans Peak Hour Signal. Warrant. #11- see Appendix D), al -Way stop 'signs Peak Hour Signal (Caltrans Warrant #11 =see Appendix D)� or left turn lanes (California Highway Research Board 1985) on the high speed intersection approaches. Traffic volume increases at the all -way stop Midway/Dut"harn-Dayton Highway intersection for ' would not meet warrants providing signals.,_ M1arion Measures: Successful implementation of the following, measures ,would reduce the significant increase in traffic hazards at the Hanlorf load/Holland, Avenu6, ritersection. due ' to increased traffic associated'. with the proposed project to a level of noxi -significance: 4.7-1 Realign Hanlon Road through its intersection with Holland Avenue to eliminate the curve in the middle of the intersection and to ensu o.adequate sight lines to and from Holland Avenue: the east of Alternatively; and less preferably, provide: all -way stop signing at the 'Holland/.Hanlon intersection. (Project'App, licant and Project Engineer, Project Design and During Project Construction, Btte County Department of Public'WorksDuring 1?roj;ect Construction), Increase iW.rani: Hazards bn''Holla�rd Avenue ,Increases in traffic hazards to pedestrians on HollandAvenue due to increased traffic . associated with the residential development would constitute a,significant adverse impact of the proposed protect: Increases' in traffic associated with the residential development would result in significant a, Oty impacts far these children and teenagers walking to' .and .s,. fiom'the Durham Elementary School, Durham Intermediate School, and Durhamiigh D392D25.4T Page 4L,71!9 " S Durin Project Const' dfion;i 7Butte .Cour N De artnrent ;of�;Public Works Pro`ect g J tY P J iJ Design andnDuz .ng.ProJecf Canstruction)K tr 1. r. ��?..-5; Resign ,and, construct all, roadways on .the,, project, site toy County.standards .),, j e standards shall include widenuing both .]holland ,f+►odnue and, Hanlon Roacl to 20fcsot r, half section vindths adjacent to the site, and providing'`a minimum 12-foot travel lane on,the.o . osite�side o£, the�centerline,.a£ each rbadway.; Desi n En veers Pt9 ect PP Y ( g €i J . _ Desgn-,and During ProjectConstruction;;Butte :County Department of Publtc,Vorks;,' Project Design-and During .Project Construction),, . 4,74 Design ar d.construct meandering pathways, r4tl er.than sidewalks, along all rbadwdys Adjacent 16 the' project site. (D;esign, J✓ngirteer,, 1?roJect ,Design;, Butte, ,County Department of Planning, Project 'esign) : hgrease btT>atrds;During,Constntctrori: increases in traffic hazards;, to pedestrians dire- to .construction traffic:, for' the,. residential development would constitute a significant adverse impact of the. proposed .project. Construction traffic, particularly trucks, travelling along HollandAvenue could result in sigraficantisafetyconccrns for school children/teenagers and other pedestrans,vtrallting;alang Holland Avenue, due to the lack of off-street walkways along this; roadway, M" ' atioii,Measures ,Siuccessful im lemeritation of the followin i measuxE:s�would xeduee the , P g signicant'trafc hazards to edestrans associated with ro'ect constructttn traffic to. a, 16V _ p i P J of non-significance.; f s the pro ect. site via. 4"7-7 Requireall.constructiorirtrarfic to acres J a PTanlon Road/,Midway = 96 ad router (Butte; County, Department.,of, Public Works,, and.-.Construction .Coi traetox,:. Building... Permit , and During yProject Construction; Butte County of Public Works Dur"'tn J;"ro'ect ConStructio 'Departmentg J n ISI P a ,6020254 Page 4 I1 Ss confics and niai541ces a ociated with the-'>roxiri,sty of agricultural production to residential development wQAd not z�ccur; and;7) a J!ris fof'productivity of adjacent'aimond orchards would not occur' In add�4ion secondary 1�t�nvetron and loss of agricultural land adjacent td the project site and:ncix;ementttofadd,ioriali,trowth in .the Durham community would e less lil ely; at' least `until other ':szzYiilaz 'de eve- projects in `th"e `p"r`oject "arell are` proposed, approved, and constnicted. Under the No Project Alter, ative, an increase: in ,surface water runoff on the project site` _ would not occur; and increakes in.emissions or:a r aollutants ;and particulate matter ,during .; project construction, from inc;,+,.'c,ased vehiculiq affz,z, and =from residential use ofthe?rolect site would not occur. � Under the No Project Alternative, increaser demands for fire protection seirvtices, _ police protectiozi sezVices, �ckro oS facilities and sth:adezt enrollznerit, x ecreatiI onal services and . facilities,, , and, general C qty,adniniStxativ6i not occurTherei;ore; �th� California.;Department ,of`prErStry and 1"zre Pt)tietion/Butte County 1~ue Departz?nent, t Butte County Sheriff s Department;. Durham. Ur tfie °,��chool District, Durham k2ecreatibn,' District, Butte County Department:of 1,ubl c -'nrks,.° nd Butte County Chief Administrative Qffice, would, be better; able• =.to ane ritl in ;their err` ;nt• service levels .at: least: utitil other;' similar development.prajects in the proertrea;al proposed,' appro�ed,;Vand catlstructed, Xn,addztton? an increase>in traffic hpards a the lEiat�.l an: Road/Holland Avenue intersectton,,� M and an jncreasd. in traffic hazards to ��ede,mtF saris an 1, ollandAyenue y ,cold not,opmr tinder, die N6 Project, Alternative. j 3Rdrare ,a DewiV Alae-natr';trP 4z Reduced The Density A,.lternative co*zststs, oial: ;nroposed,prolect.:wzilzout the application for rezoning. Therefore; this alternative coi+,$1` 08 of the,subdzvzszon applicationto the 13 .6 �'' County Department pf Planning, which znv+,j� e0� as �eqi est €or subdivtszon,;of;, the entire ,:46, acres into 48 S, acre lots (Ftgure5-1), $4dz"4sion,Of the parcel zs proposed ztz thrice phases r Phase 1 znc Ludes develo p a��d.33-48 ,:Phase 2 includes'tdeyellop neat meat,of lots 1 ,26 , . . „te,� 1 6 ±and l3 p�ncat , , ••; 18 . Phase _ � `3 includes dev„ o ` , t �l of lots, 11;18, 2' 29� •and 30-3.� Stu g . , family rdetached housesk,are proposed for;c.�nstntction on the;lots; Forty seven (�E7) singe ; fa- n Y; detached l ousel m old dbe. constn cted on Ahe �prolect ;gitq, Eis •t a exz.�tit ga house bfi ` ^ lot 4$ would remazn..Izi addition, the existing almogt, huller and its' associate In . • on'lot 36 vyill be removed. tach, base of the ro .osed• .ro e`ctwould be deuel ed rode e A tl based an economic PPP P. 1.�,�. PP..,, Q Y, � demand tJndeveloped.land not,tnvolved. n a;phast would.,remain,in,agricultural; usefunttl ' it ts, developed, 'When a phase is beingr develapeld� ,zoadways �r�o lld be, graded and th y ' goad vay iznpravementsvvill°b; .constructed; however„no.gr-a ng of xemoval of t.,:ion the lots would be candizcted When an individual. bf uz sold). trees would be removed for N .. •039.?02S;S Page S2, ; I tY0 s. aesthetics; shade; -and. wuxd breaking Tie area .o£c3remaming a;lmmnd' orchard"on' °eaclx lo{ . would be too•small for�full-tune;commerc al almond,production'o'..�econgmucal part=timewor'- hobby. almond: pro'ductioix.: r Tlxerefore� it �ss'anticipated that thealmond> t�'ees ?'on each lot would be abandoned .and. pose a' risk. for the �spxead of pests (especially(the naval orange worm, and' twiglborez'=moth) and ,:diseases fo the almond: orchards ori._properties adjacent to !the project 7site;,, Since productive almond orchards on th '"S, ere lots is not:proposed and; not`. f easible,, the Reduced DensityAlternative-would still be inconsistent with County ;policies° encouraging preser'ation•of agricultural Production and 'income. As indicated in the Und'U'se�section' "- of the EIR,, AWS ;zoning °is' neither consistent with development criteria -for lands designated for Orchard and `Field Crops'nor consistent zoning,tor Low'. Density Residential, lands... Under the;Reduced aDemity�Alterrrative,,'there would:still be 'market pre'ssure'to subdivide portions, of theP-lannirig Area to accommodate additional, popuia- on,, It is anticipated that the Reduced :17enszty lternative tivould also .result :zn se'condary conversion -and loss of '' agricultural land' adjaceixt to 'the project sPte and have gener"algrowth-inducing impacts ori theslagnculturaT?rlands west of the'Durham cornmunity. Similar ,to ,the proposed project; subdivide}g the`�v�etz er ro er into 5 -acre arcels.v✓ould otentiall affect the9 roductivi g P P tY P P Y P tY of, adjacent agricultural.. lands --,as!, it bec6mds• snore.= difficult . to continue.:comrriercial. .agricultural operations; surrounding land` owners;maybe mfluericed or°encouraged to request 1 rezoning and subdividing of:theirparcels for!similar developrnent,'.All nxtigaton�measures required to mitigate agriculture and land use impacts under the proposed project would also lie required under the'Reduced Density Alternative; � iJnderuthe=Reduced Density Altema ive, the.project site would be subdivitled.irnto fewer lots, and fewer residences would be constructed on 4tl e' site's Therefore, the-rdsidential i development w01d -generate fewver vehicle- trips 'and .less. mobile Source 'air emissions (iridirect`t air qua ty` impacts) and -have 'less intensive res den "tial 'use and generate less stationary source air emissions (direct air quality Ympacts) 'than uridera the proposed prolect:, ,Under'the. Reduced Density; Alternative; � ndireet, air duality impacts firoiri vehicle emissxous in the year 2000 `a touId be appro mately 60 percent lower than under4the proposed kpxoject (Table 5=1) Direct sa�r.- emissions f from wood buming} :Moves; fireplaces,; paints: and household', appliances would also be reduced Airgdality impaets duringp oje.ct�constr rtion, could not be substantially reduced;since roadway.construction, the constiuchon-activiE"that, 'generatesxhe 'm'a;yt dust, Vouldostill .riccur }Y Since the 5=acre `lots would not contain productive almond orchard (see the Agriculture and Land above); ;the Reduced i7ensrty Alternative would result xn less air quality; Use section impacts; associated sw th almond production3, to future residents 'on the projec. ,site'In additions' as. the density `of residences would be` lower=and 'the larger •size of the Iots' rouid' buffet xesiderts 'from agricultural land; the dust and cfeiinical spraying., {, tend ,to adjacent as920415. itssaciated. with almond production o'n adjacei,tcreels would be less of a nuisance to P residents I-i'owever, all mitigation measures regi.�ired to mitigate air quality impactsunder tkl'e proposed priject would also be`required'undEr`the Reduced Densify Altezxiativer ' ural sortrces , ° Under the Reduced DeMitY, Alterziatzve .yim acts ttlo-cultur P al ,resources would remain 10A same asunder the proposed project, as earthmoving :andgrading for constructing houses, a` garages, driveways; .and roadways on the project site would, still occur. - .. Fi'clrolrry . and Drainage Under the Reduced Densi hAlternative, ,m acts to hydrology, and drainage would be less than under' the proposed project. � Development of the, proposed project would affect the existing drainage patterns icon the project site and result in' an increase, in. surface water �r runoff rates on and from the site. However, the Reduced Density Alternative includes construction, of less houses,.and associated structures than under the proposed project. � Therefore, ;under the Reduced Density Alternative, less impervious surface .area would' be placed on the project :site and there -would be a 8 alley increase in surface,water runoff an .and from the site. However; all mitigation measures required to mitigate .drainage impacts under the pxoposed projectwould alsobe required under the. Reduced Density Alternative. Public Sen�= 'rider the Reduced Densityalternative;increases in thee,demands.,for .fire protection services; police protection `services, school facilities and student enrollment, recreational' services and facilities, and general County adrriinistrativ_ eservices Would be lower thdh under, the proposed project. Therefore; the California Department:. of Forestzy °and Fire' Protection/Butte County Fire Department, Butte County Sheriffs' Department; Durham Un*d School.L`i strici ;Durham ,Recreation" and Falk !District,, Butte County .Deliartment of Public Works, and Butte CountyChief Administrative Qffice would beic, better. to —abXe maintain their current sezvzce levels, at least until other development projects in the project 'However;'all' area'are pr""oposed, approve,. and' construci'ed� mitigation.n easures'required to mitigate public services impacts' wider thepropose& project would also he required under the Reduced Dezrsity Alternative, Trcaf j5c arra! Cinculatian ' Reduced Under the Density Alternative, the ro"ect site would be divided into fewer lots p J and fewer residences would be, constructed on the site: Therefore; the residential development would gezterate fewer vehicle trips than under the proposed Project. -In e'r tl,e Reduced Density Alternative, vehicle trips (450 daily tufa-rimy trips, with 31 inbound and ' 17 outbound PM peak.hour trips would be 50 perceixt less than under the proposed project: '7�AIl intersections and locafions� that. would have significant increases, in trafficor traffic 0392�,�s5 gage �7 s t. ft ZY deptiks�tudies andpercolab,ori�tests conduct ed�on,:the.ptojectts tein�November j991(Thom )Reid ,Fpersonal,.eommu,mcata'ari). %.ldlld h a, 'n z 4', 4 "lYis project alternative assists the County by providing ;a project option relative to preserving prime;agricultural-soils and agricultural landsfor,consideration during the project; approval process. under the Project Redesign Alternative, impacts to agriculture would he less than under the prop osed; project..Only a small portion'(13 ,,percent} of, the project.site would be converted from ,azo agricultural use to a residendaL use; and the Metzger ,almond, orchard vyould remain asx a viable, co, mmercially productive unit Therefore, the permanent,., irreversible, less, o£ pnrne ,agricultural soils; and land i in almolid orchard production would, still be significant, but ofa $maller:.magntude compared to; the same. type of ,agricultural. impacts under the proposed project, The toss 64rii;ie agricultural,soils� d,agricultural land "is -is the only.signi cant unavoidable: impact,o£ the proposed project., .The Project Redesign Alternative, provides the°Cauntywath a more, deirahie enviroiunental trade -off by allou►}ng ,.comer loss of prime agricultural sails: and lass.,o€ agricultural land,, but preserving : nore,'Of these .resources than under .,thei, d proposed project.,,, IhI J Under the Project Redesign Alternative, the frequency and significance of land use conflicts and .nuisances associated ,with the ,proxunity° af' agricultural production . to residentral developwent would decrease,.: These land use conflicts and,nuisances; such as noise'fram, - harvesting'tmachipery, :du st..during;kbarvesting, c�YerdriftJrom. spraying_ of pesticides, .and. vandalism to.orehard property would still' occur because residential developrn it,Would exist adjacent to almond, orchard production .on; the, same�;site:,, <However, the =, Ilcentration of; residential;;d_ 'I meitt an a eF area under :the' P�;ojeet Redesign Alternative, compared to ' the dispersion of residential.,cie elopment over,the ,entire site, under the pro�!os,e, project; would de the likelihood of these land conflicts and; nuisances. Furthermore; the provston'.of a buffer :area betweed the' residential development,"and reiriiainng. almond ' oirchard .Would ,assist in- 'reducing ,the frequency and significance o£ laird; ,us , conflicts/nuisances. As, all almond trees in ;tlie ,area;;of the residential ;;development and. " within the; btrfer, area .would be removed undere this :alternative, there would,. b-0:4 abandoned alinand trees on.,tlie< project ::site to, pose `aa pest and disease risk :ta, adj'acent almond orchar, s, Cruder the PrdJeet Redesign„ A1tern46V;e,. there would stall fie market ,pressure. to subdivide. portion: of the'lanning Area to accommodate addit10nal population at w, the proposed. project, this project alternative; could:' result m scoindary conversion and', loss af' agricultural lands west of the Durharit community. As the Project Redesign,-A ernative + me number of„single-fairuly (homes as undez the proposed eludes, cans.ru90. g the sa ` pro7ecta it cotitld also ;potentially affect t>e prodtctivxty of 'adjacent agricultulra, lands; as ,ii becomes inose diffacitlt to 'continue ,c'onimercial , agricultural. operations, $urrounding under;the�p ,Opbsbd project because' concentrating the .residences.would:thct te"constructung` ° A smaller area of roadway surface However, because the impervi. us suface aa: reunder;this Project altemafive would be concentrated in one one location; the surface_water ,runoff would b :concentrated u� ,one, axea of" the :project `site:. Therefote; the. underground jse'epage trenches swould'need to be, of, a greater'" capacity: to, handy' the )increased ;caneentratiou of surface' water runoff: Mitigation measures 4.4-1, 4.4-4, and 4;4-5 required tozxutigate drainage impacts under the proposed project would also be required under the Project edesigri Alternative. Under the .Project Redesign Alternative, impacts, to public) services would remain the same ounder the proposed project because' the same, number, of single=family residonces wault be,:comtructed on the.°project site ;;andtheuresidential d'evelopment:wauld generate the same demand for fire protection services; poli're 'protection, services, school facilities and student enrollment,;,recr+eational. services.3and:facilities; and general: County administrative services. AL11 a itigation measures, required, to, mitigate . public` servicer>impacts .under the proposed :proj,ect would also, be required .under thw. Project Redesign Altern, tive ; e Dir srxl r S Pursuant to the concerns regarding the accumulation of°nitrates inn tlie'igroundwater u!ith" the Chico urbanized area associat e& with failures an of septic tank d leach field disp;�sal .. systems, .the 9WQCB.bas taken the position; that .any,residential. development in the_Chico �. urbanized areas with .a density of .less than ] visit per ;acre.'and on,the,septac tank and:leach. field disposal system, 'would pose: the risk >of ,mti'ate <contaniinaton of groundwater:.-'I'he RWQCB does not approve such projects in tits ChiCO., banized area; and ;has recently= extended this position to areas outside of the Chico urbanized area, including the Durham `rhe; area, RWQCB may not approve the Project Redesign Alternative becauseit' proposes a residential development density, of less than 1 unit per acre on the septic tank and leach; field disposal system.,: All�nwigation. measures required to mitigate, impacts :related°fo sewage disposal °,under the`propased, protect.°would :also Y.,zequireci :under ?'the PraJect . edesign.Alternative. . �. y r `ra C, and.. Ci rrlatimn Cinder the Protect lc2ede5ign Alternative; impacts to trafiic would remaui the sarins„asiunder ; the proposed protect; :because tkie same number of single farm y residences would be i,' constructed on the project site,, and.the residential'}c'evel`opinent.would generate the :'same number of vehicle tops., owev r ;the impacts to ;circulatigrt IcoWd ,change depending on the Length, configurati�u, aria 'design .of,:the access roads to' nisi -through fhe clustered residential .development 1Vlitigation measures 4X 1 '4 72, 4 7 4; q':7 5, -and 4=7=6'requireii ' tprni agate traffic and c�ictilation-ii0pacts cinder tfte ro ossa: ro`ee ' P J t woul P P d also be re aired q ands r .the Project Redesign: Alternativev. ' : `0,392Q2S.5 ' Page S=.�7 ,t” r�7 K `Phe Metzger Rezoning and, Subdivision prpjectund.other proposed devcloprnent projects wotdfiave a significant crznulatiye`impacton agr.icultiure and ;land use, as they wauid cont xiiute to the cumulatiWe encroachment of residential development on agricultural latid loss.`o£ agricultural .land, an"d_1ass, of-,prime,<o is mt:the .Durham-Dayton-Nelson= Planning Area and Butte Count . The cumulative y dative conversion, of agricultural land to residential use is si rutica.nt because it is irreversible and agricultural land is, a limited resource. Constructing houses on the 246-acre Metzger property, 184-acre `IVM'orris` een.es� Rezoning Project property,} and 10-acre 81asingame, Rezoning, .Project pro-)erty would represent a xrnajor iricrementzn'the;cuiriiilativeloss'`af orchard} lard an p �ime soils in;the Plaiming'Aiea aid 1#iitte County: Constructing (laouseg' and commercial.,` levelopmen.t` on the 772 acre anclio Esquon Partners .Protect property would i epresett an., increment' in the class o£ 'agricultural' land, in grain "production.' The conversion of .agncuitural land to residential use associated wrtfi thedevelopment projects would be cumulatively sigzufiaant inM"'terms rof growth, inducement 'and 'arid use t change. T e continued encroachriient of.residentiaf`'& elbpment, on' ag%ciilftziif land on I; the fringes of the Durham urban area would result in a ,significant cl ange :in the rural ' character df the arE�a��,axid would ri�present a significa"tit increase in pope atiop. fluid gro4hh " . 'the c ,mm&il ` Asc` res dezrtial kdevelo anent occurs ' 'thea `ricultiYral arcels' around g P Durham�P°Elie existing rural quality ofthe a ea would el'azige: addon;al'vehicula.r traffic and ,associated I` ,noise'°`aud° air emussions 'woulc occur, and; the area would take on a subu'r1ian, �''atlier than an agricultural wxi'aracfer. Consideringthe existing`pori»attainmentstatus o,.f Butt'e County relative't'o'e ,tate ambient' air qualit��'standards; the cumulattve airemissions iroin the proposO. development projects another projects in Butte' County°and the Ndr`th Sacramento vall� y Air`Basia'v�oiild Have a significant cumulative. impact on au quality. As mentioned in Sr-ction 4 2 (Air Quality, Butte' County° is require'dt'undvr'the Cafiforiu'a Clean Air Act''to re W, air` polluttint , X t if, ,' em�is`sions yearly bX S percent' of the 19II'" `air pollutant levels: 'the IVlezger Re7onirig and Subdivision Pro'ect,'aii rhe otfier pTopa'sed'"development protects vbouir';contribute to.'the exacerbation of eitisting air quality conditions in` the Planning Area and ltitte''CQiinty;, `The 'proposed development pi�alects would contribute top the ° cumulative increase in imp ervioiYs'surface area and assrciated increase in surface water ritrioff rates in the Planning ` J Ares: i 0392o�s 6 , , i 1} Durham -Dayton Highway ,(Uldway Road to west of Holland Avenudk,l deii to 4 lanes with, left turn .lan6s at intersections 2} Durham-i7►ayton Highway (i;as4 of lvlidway Road); waden to 6 lanes with left 'turn lanes at ;intersections. 1 'ust ad s' uth of Du ham Da ton Hi hwa� • widen to 41�nes 3) Midway IRo o r y, .. g_ .. y , 4) Durham IDayton Highwayjivaidway LRoa signalize„< when warranted , ,Highway/ioiland Avenue: signalize when waranted Durham -Da ton r 6) ]Holland Avenue (South of Durham -Dayton Highway):provide pavemerit of 36 to 40 -foot idth, 'provide walkways along both sides 6.2 Significant Unavo"le .adverse Irrapacis , As stated. ft CEQA (Section 15126 [b]); significant unavoidable adverse impacts are'th-Ose impacts that ;cannot be mitigated , to a, level 'of "non -significance with imposing,' an' alternative design or�movirng a proposed 'project;,to another-",lfjcatioti The significant unavoidable adverse ,impa= re-st lring from ;the proposed .project are 'the , pear` arieiit, I!� irreversible loss sof 246 acres of agricultu al land,in almond orchard vroduction; loss, of,246' acres,of. prime agncultura. `soils; and `commitment o£ the project site to residential use; The r e, residential dwellings, commerciaa= conversion of =agricultural soils to urban uses . , indi strial uses, streets and roads; etc.) it '-an iiTevers ble zprocess: Qii.ce =laiid is cornrrutted to urban development; 't is virtually impossible to return the resources -,Io,a condition that . perrxiits the pioduction of food -anti ftber ,No mitigation measures are available to reduce these signficant`impacts of the proposed Metzger'`Rezoning aiid 'Subdivision Project to 'a level of nail -significance These impacts are discussed in Section 4.1 '(Agriculture) 'and Section,.4" (Laud Use' and Policy Consistency} of this �CIl2 and are identified as ,Class I impacts hi the , Impact Summary TablesIC: 6.3 ` S gn( antdi e►�ei zble avid Irretr evabXe -6th ozena d ir2esaurcd As stated in I:EQA (Section 15126 tf]), irreversible changes are related to the use or long teim commitment o£ n'onrenev;rable resaiirces” duringy the life of a pi6jo6t CEQA r'equir6 an analyst's of lite justification of uses of nonrenewable resources w'Nch maybe irreversible during the initial And continued phases of, a project, since a large cornmi.tment o`f siicll reOurceiisi makes renewal or,nonuse thereafter unlikely; and an ;analysis whichI describes irreversibis damage that can result from"drivironmental accidents associated with a°project.) r _ 'Tho' significant 4fteversitile -and irretnevable commitment of re9ourCe9 , resuYting from the' proposed project are, the permanent, irreversible loss of 246 tacres of 'agrtciiltural land, in almond oreliard producJon, `'loss of 246. acres° of prime agzicultural soils; and ,commitment of the project site to: residential use: The °conversion of agricultural sons to urban uses (e.g:, 0,�92(i�S,b Page G-�, 1 5 I Ni S 1) I Fy 11 T i 5 I 3 ® ,: esi+deiifial, dwellings `commercial=ndustrisil Lises,Streets anti roads efc is erre"v" r } e sable Pros>ess. Once land is cornpUtted to urban development, it .is virtually impossible to, retuM the resources to a condltiohh that permits. the,POduction of food and fiber. The proposed` I ��ro�eci would also,require the expendittr� C�£ nanrenewaliie energyand materials in the -. p�� construction, maantenance,.andl,occu an'�,y o�futur residences_tiand associated roadways. txstification for "this irreversible commitment ; and use of these nonrenewable resources w .includes consumer demand; ar hausrng iii, the Durham Dayton-Nelson;Plazuung area and " xevenue for the `Project Applicank,, `e" 6.4 . Shoal Terms Versus Z.mtrgo=T Uses t✓BQA ($eetion'15126' [e]) requiresa cliscusR of the relationship between the short-teizc uses of the environment and its long-term productivity, including `an evaluation of impacts which narrow the range of beneficial uses of the, environment. The relationship, between: Short-term uses of man's environment and themaintenance and enhanceffient :of ldng-tdriri' ' productivity is often one of trade-offs or balab' ng of social,. economic, and environmental' impacts over time. In some cases, a relatively short-term benefitmay have adverse 101mulative effects, with. the possibility, of burdening future generat 6hs and economies Vifi unwarranted soc"W ""d environmental. costs. 'Long-term benefits also occur at the ,expense' of short-teim: dislocations. Decns ons that influence the balancing of such impacts 'for this are the responsibility of the Butte County Planning project Commission and Waf& of - upervisors as paYt of.their policy. making a' regulatory functions. The short-term impacts of theproposed project include: 'increase in traffic'' and "traffic hazards, increase: in noise, increase in emission of air pollutants and particulate matter", and energy consumption during construction on the project site. 'TheYong-team impacts .of the include: ® . proposed project conversion of agricultural land andprime soils to residential use;, permanent loss of agricultural land and,' ;soils; preclusion of agricultural) use' of the ;' Project site; increase in the potential for land use incompatibility (nuisances and°lan&,ase ,... confii±�ts) between residential and agricultural uses; Increase in emission o£ air pollutants` . associiited with residential use; increase in surface water runoff rates; increase` in demand dor public services (i.e. fire protection services,' police protection service's, school facilities - and student enrollment, recreational services and facilities, and meal ' Coitni ' g administrative services -inducement of rowth in the Plannini7 _ °ty )g „Ares;, and increase in vehicular trafficon ,local ,roadways.' The long-team benefit of tho proposed project would be to, provide additional housing in the IDurham-Dayton-Nelson )')among Area. k r' I f%�92025:6 . Page 6-6 I i o e #, i ..i, tt i " F : 6-t k _ B n S Ia d fil w t - R T,=R,�'':P N-0 JRA l iA ��J1.Ull �,�J[ '� 1.�:^, ` ,qa( i8 a -Qi / Aa j� i ;.f lilt Efx d' iA 5 l Qy 7Srown4 Steve County'FirewVard"en,ButteCounty ue`Iyepartment/Cali£om Department Forestry Fire of aria] .Protection i:ozu ell,, Joe. ..Farm Advisor,_ University' of Cal fornia,Cooperativei Ektension, 3utte Cc- ,snty Ede1I, Stuart`' Asst"start Director; .Buffe' Coun*y; Department of Public VV6rkS Facca, Gina Air .Pollution Control Officer, Butte County Air ' .Pollution Control l7istrct. Grey; Mick "'Sheriff=Coroner,'Bute'Caunty Sherifi?s I>epartment Hariseii; `Gary ' ` . ' �'raffic :Engineer, °1C ttelson &Associates Koa, Dr. Mak-oto , Coordinator, Northeast Information Center; California Archaeological Inventory, Departmeni; of Anthropology, California State University; Chico Las .Thomas t, Associate Planner B !Butte, County Departik6rit, of Planning McElroy, Ronald Deputy Director, Butte County Departrin.E>nt of Public Works McNelis, Donald Superintendent, 'Durham Unified Schaal Llistrict Metzger, Liza loth Project Amilicarit ma M5014 Orryi Secretaryto Board of. ,Directors, ,Durham Irriga{uoia District' w Murphy, James " District Manager, Diurharia Recreation an,d Park District Ntsrnian,, mane, Deputr� �r Foll�,tion Officer,, Butte' County Air Pollution Control Dastnct, M Nyland'er, comes. Assistant Sheriff, ButteCounty Sheriff s D'epar, meat , „ 03910517 1?dge. 711, ;S 1V li ']tfied� rig; �lill�anr , Bat#alio� Cku,�- ? B"utte County Fire. Dej�artment jCal,ifornia Department cif Forestry% and Protectiiin ,Fire t �i '`f �� rA: r}' �'"$� a✓rj k` J.d �{ P•`4{ >~'1 �4 �. Ike(, Th&4s x � , {�Jxrectoi, 1 ultet County ivisitin of iEnvir nmental. 'Health, >> H �uDepartment of Public Health: afar 'Alley, Harvie Agricaltural Cornznzssianer, $utte County Office of the Agricullura� ,Commissionerx Rodn -ez, R1ck Pro ect:n "neer Northstar'1✓n'' neeri 3 l �' , , y g ng Severin% Uanca X'`rogram,: anager, Butte County Department< of Public Healtli St Amat,,anthony Administrative Analyst, Butte. County Chief Administrative office Stearns, `reffry New Business° Representati�te; Pa,cific Gas &Electric Comipany rf Strunk, :Da epresdntatiye,for Pro eO A l cant pp Yamada, Elaine Northern Business!Unit Representative Pacific Bell , lephone Company �I ,p-.,� I,. �tt: ai "'t 1 r+ 6 _}� J: r✓J 1. ,�F�.:_ �J,��c '6P� xJP I, •rf �Fld-_ t ��'@ `k'� `t 9 J kj 0° j: 1.) r ,N yF (�� try�� f1 4 �1ff fa • [ )�N r � \ V .� � N'� fi y T1 •Y r 1 r�i e , i 0392025.7` Pdgei7�2 r r 4' c'. Butte; Cou 2ty,"mDepartn ent of Plarzrrrng 19$ b; ,butte County General 1an, Housing Element; Bice county; DepartmentjofPlanning. 19£S7. Butte Count' "Enviro y nnrental Review Process, r Butte County, .Department of Plmuring September 1988. 1)utham-Dayton-Nelson Planning _ Ara'lantung ,Alternatives; Butte County, Department of Planning. 1989. Butte County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter Ni, Butte County Code. Butte Courtly, .13eputrinettt of Plannrrcg:, ; 1991'a. Butte? County .General ;P1an;,' dousing; Element Butte County, Department of Planning 1991b Durham -Dayton Nelson Planaung Area Draft Environmental, :impact Report Appendices. BrtttE,Coun a artmrat of Plannrzg,n, August 8, 1991c. Ertvuonmental. Checklist,Torm ry,Ap.., - Evaluation of .Environmental Impact. j Butte County,. Deptrrtment. o Public, Warks 1,991 ,, 4tter, of 9,',c er 9, 1.99:1.) from Bill Cheff to Thomas Last re: Road Construction and Drainage Requirements,, No: Date Co m rovement Stai►dards Butte County, Department of Public Warks. N w Y un X x n �l , Drainage Section 10 and Appendix 1V. Butte County Fire'D' artment. 1991a. Butte County Fire Department Water Requirements for, Developers4%iNel „N,umbex 39=2a X30! r Butte Coun Fire De artment. 1991b. Letter 'of Se tember 4 1991 from William B. �' P P ' gin ' g g of Fire> Protection Services; by Redding to Northstar: En eenn re,,,,, Nliti anon :. Providing Pxessunzed, `W"a'ter to the Subdivision , Butte County Fire Department. No `Date. Uni,t'Personnel and Equipment; ; Buttea Coun ces o .A cultural Camrttrssron'er,and Weights and Measures;1987, - 199 ty Butte County Agricultural Crop Report; Batt e County'Offices of Agricultural Cor?imissioner and Weigits=.aaid,Measures: ;1991. ' 1990 Butte CoUTO Agncultural.,Crop R port. , i F ,Butte Cattnty,Planncng,, Comtrlrs�ron. ,1Q.91a, Letter of March 19,,19„91 from Larry Painter . IJN to ,tlie Butte County Fire D.epartnient' re: Project Review and "Enrnraiunental, Evaluation, 639295-6 Pvg"e &- ��-- l�r�rlram. Ll n�fie�a,Sciidal District 1991'ai '3T fitter of N aiOly22,,;1991;`from�DanaldfG:SMcNeal§� td?Urry=?a�irite re: Notiterofxf�reparatioiiti r�oim'ent}}syt{,' P', F7 •r•1.F D14rham bxifia School District. 1991b. Letter of August 26 1991 from Donald 61, 'McN(elis'to'Rick'A6'driguez ze- � lRotmatioW6f''Mello-Roos..�D' triet_� t, )Drham Vnifced :School District. 1991c. Letter of .october 14,, 1991 from, Donald C. "MoNfelis'`to'Tomemast`xe, L'`flee°of-Preparatio�i Metrics, Incorporated, 197,9, B�itte Coun Nonattairunent Plana ` ,Crlkinc, n " anil J: 'Cbnriel� '1,987. `" Guidelinev t'oi3Orchard Evaluation for' Potential',Bi vers: ., �..,�rronds+ iJmversit ,of California Coo erative Exterisiont Bubnty:a Robert 1.9mArea--'Drtth 'ilrainageSudy . Heritage Partners: 19914. Proposed Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area (Portion) Alternatives 5 map: He►ztage Tartne�`s. 1991b. "`Proposed :Dur1?am-Dayton Nelson` Planning 'Ares °(Portiian)4. Alternatives 6 map. lttstitute of'Transpdrtativri Erigznera:y 1991: Trip Generation; Sth edition:' Michael Clayton & Associates. 1991. Butte County General Plan Energy, Natural Resa%rces+and Reeatxan Flemertt. 1+Toabstor Engineering:" "=1991. ;;;L'etter, oft A �gusti 12; 1991 +from` °Feick Rodriguez to Thomas Last re: Clarification of Mitgable;lmpacts Nortfutar. Engineering 19914. Letter of August 13.,1991 from Rick Rodriguez to. the Butte Coucity, .FJepart hent°'of'!PuULc"Worl.s re " fComme`nts artd `Correspondence :'£oru Orohard Acres Subdivision:, l ortlfstar"Engtne'enn 1991b' , better', of Ai3gust x22, 1991„from. RiciC `Rodriguez to the '' ;Durhairi: Unified S.cho_o1 District r`e Agreemen`t to D'e`irelog'.a Mello=Ro'os Distne#. Narthstar ngcne rcng 1991c Letter o£°'August 22; 1991 from Rlc1 3 odriguez to the Durham ivi rrigation At pct'eAfibi of D,e- Mo'bment'to t ie Durhamirrigation F of Au` st 22 1991 from Rick 11%rthstar Engineering 1991d. Letter gu , Rodriguez to the i8utte , County Shet'zff's Deartmezlt `re;' +{Execu'ton of” a Sheri£f's'Deparfinent:``Mitigaizau Agreement and':Subsedu6nt'P'ayment of Pees o39zos s {{ �. F , �1 Z to pf ,Califa aic�� eSzgzu l Mate y�rzOyl Control Bo rrcl�.i�Centra! Valley . egri®n r ?r 991 ,f r,:'; T;:etxx o October 2,,991 >:zopn;Rztald,tiS h,,lD.ykstxa to;xTZmas,Last, re. Nnt€ce of " Preparation Cozrints'. -, *m 'bf �, QW&O O T :l?q&nal, 4 eater Quality-,, CbnM,,l� Board;, Central': Pralley on o"r k �..�Date, c � Infoa7natAon ;I�eeds� fory�,VaSte Disposal, fxom i:and� i��evelopments r a$a�f� �Yade AS'sociates 1986. Durham ia�tert-Nelson Plannin Area lO�Saster Environmental .. :.. ".i ,! Sit +8', "J < � tt i.. 8 t -!, r f ,1,'a ✓, a k, , „f�' �a .mar r t �, ti reit, it kN'tCt Tl . y '?''' �� 1 �,Yt • -i. a r ,k i_ 1; ! ?z1? a'" 'h.�i v ,t u t t '`pts ,�"� ' .?`�.1! ,` ��t. ,J ' 3, ,P.4a t r:•r�t'u � .e � rry° t f ' q�r�4.� ' �. P`x t �t :-'�' , ✓i��" h.a ;� , t :k iS u t � * v t r i s,r fir u4 rs ' Y" �.,px 1 i�'" 43,. vp h� Yg �'�` ��•"x ,� -�15�. W , �t yy s stlr:rtA�l ik y� F � �� :3ti y6 X3' .� i�7 « it �' a R,t tpppti •r. Fps � �F,¢t'�'t� ` 'p �i ';'�I� I� +35 � �t`tr ``::i,'', y .4 r�J �Ay,+ll a. 1k "•", t �,, yy fir' n Y �,•.'tnt 1 r ii 'x t � %,I r ,'rG -Ir ti '� � �� t f r 1, :039205;:8 1°a �G .. ., , : int of Pr le,rs w tan Cg g ciates l:,isa Posternak; project"Manager Marucia Brto Project -Planner .Anne Clemons, Project Planner /izil IJean'rojec°t .�idministration'' D.ebb e, Silverman; Vipjecr Graphics Crane Th aWortaidon Groin Mark: Crane Tffic En eer idf 1 { (1392025.9 Page 04 W", 'r—v".- J 1111t0"j) MT Mrs jzj" -Mmy� . Ann Y--Pn M s 4i Q -y"s, OWN 0 jQqjx a I r'v x0s 4, ko IVA Map y,q ly AT - 4. -v 14 uts "I AT qQQW1010 I regjq Von' it' 13 SA SIC . W 4 ix�f;�', 7Wf5l WA -19 14-0 A JAI-, tt, Jay Kf�ry4, -41 TO, ry so, 10 sty rh- old. %1�- x 4, ,jI lop" law ka M,E M Zl- . y i C6inpAtisori: of Federal grid State Air qualify Standards Follufant pederal Standards 5tafe Averaging Time n, kPrimary, Secondary. ` Standard Objective „. r �4 s •.'' ! - �-huur.. 0.12 ppm Same O.AO ppm, To prevent eye 240µg/m3 �� 2W jag/m3 irritation, breathing' « ' diffeulti�s Carbon Monoxide 8-hour 9:3 ppm Sam11 o ., . 9;O ppm To prevent , Z hour 10 % �� 35 ppm Same 10 Mg/m3 20 ppm: :car boxy hemoglobin levels greater than 2°Io. 40mg/ixtI z3lig/m3: trageri D16ide Annual 0,(1S ppm: Same To prevent tiealih. J� ns, and improve 1-hour' fI:2$ppm> visibilty 470 Sulfur Z i<•Xide Annual 0.43 To prevent increase , 24-haul µg/m3. . , 0.14ppm" - , 0. ppm in respiratory disease, plant damage &odor._ 36514/3 131 m / 3 : 0S ppm m ?, 1310 1-hour �R - Q.25,ppm r Sulfates �" ' 24 hoar s'Ta improve `v`isibitity aricl prevent health effects: Particulate' Annual Mean ;. Zpg/ m3 60µg/ �� 30µg/m3*J To improvevisibility arid -hour average ,;260µg/m3 -0-lig%n? 50µg/m3* nt health. effects. ' Visibility ;Fteducing'par cle State Standaidi One observation: in sufficient amount to reduce the prevailing v%bility to Less than ten rules when the relative humidity is less than 70�l0. Lead e 30 day Catendar quarter - 43 /3 ' Samet !$m 15µg/m3 _ To prevent health problem's fIy., ogen'sulfide" 1-hour 0.03 p`pm Taprevent odor 4299 M3 problems, Vinyl Chloride . (Chloroethene) 0,010 ppm To prevent Health 24-hour ;- Y 26µg/m3 problems. TWO particulate tte ten nucrons or lass in size , 'rs •il` .i i �� �rp qq w 9; . PWO100t Name metzger Date 02--0 1-�1992, 9YI ,j I t - AndlY ys s Year Teeature 1 6a r EM'AC7 VERSION EMFAC7D ...�1,88 , a y .YPPTri :Rate p Size TotTrips; Days Op. singe P4mily, Hauling ` 9 5/tJrtit 38 -Residential Home -Work Home -Shop Home-Gthr xp! :r�gth 13.0 Commerciale: Work Nqn-Work 4.0 st:' eta Cold' ' . 0 .'0 ?J a. 0 i`0 0. 0 ' .POOd5 45.0 0.0 45 o:o 0'. 0 Feer "rpt Tri 27.3 P 2 Z 1 51.5 35, 35 ;i Veh1C�,� F7 ectmi.x it e Percent" fi'�!ype L2 r , tided 9516ad Y Autos 72.,8 ed Diesel;. Ll4ht ,Duty Trucks F; r ' 7 4 2. 7 ,3 Medium' Duty Truck.O� 4 .,3 .21 95.0 2.8 .k 94.7 aea Duty Trudk� 3'.9 29.8 �eaVY bUty Trucks 3.9 70.3 N/A N/A N/A t�t¢n;Cycles :. 0.'9 10 0.0 N/p; N/A, 'ect E Prod, missions"A" in` LbjDa . ` y 'Uhlt Type ., Tp'C Co x, -le pat iy " Hausa ng n� NX 3` 7 29- 7.�s 1.0.Z � Project Ema.ssions Report an ,:Xb/Day Unit Type �"UEL USE � x Single'amily as ng .SO -X 121. A 1.1 , I a Protect ?Jame Metzger Date 02-63-,10§2 analysis,Rear fiemperatuxe 2,00 = 60 EMS"AC7 VERSIbN : HMFAd7D :..11/88 Uns Type: Trap Rate Size Tot 'Tri'Days Op, SaiaFamily Housing 9.5 Unit / - 95 90.3 Resid,rtaal commercial Home -Work Home-Shop Home--Other Work 1VAn-Work Trip, Ler yth 13.0 4.06: 0 0 .;Q 0.0 StartFjd Ccr 3 3 A;, p '" ,pp a .'i St•�:i 30.0 .0 00.0 t Twice �E.ed 45 45 45 35 35 ,Percent Trip 2li3 21.2 Cahxcle-'Fleetmix veldclo "Type Percent; Type Leaded Unleade d Diesel Wi 'Light Duty Autos 72. 0.2` 9"7.3 2.5 Light Dusty Trucks 14.3 0.6 96.8 2j,6 f Miedium Ditty Trucks C, 3 2.0 98 : 0 0.0 heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 18..0, 82.0 N/A [ Heavy Duty Trucks 3.9 N/A; N/A 100.:;0 = i atorcyclo 0 9 100.0 N/A N/A, Project Emissions Report in Lb/Day' bnit`- Type . TOG CO NOx Single Fami.1 y Housing 9.8 52.6 23.7 ; Project Emil"cions Repast xh Tb/ Unit Type FUEL, 'USE PM10, SOx single Fatily iiousin�g 2.2 , 'p� c r r u , y �} - � d w �jr �r r tl.. r � � � �' ax rY ist a* 3 r �'S rha r. ✓ '+ r a ki �7 W 9.. 1 r t� �� 4 "• 1K1 1 +�i l a h � i p t� S 7 A ! r 1 li �N d1 r� n✓' ","'VC J4 y,.rad d s tr yn ,- aay tau p 4W." IV t r t rr o y a :� r. :,a• i n r �6 i f t 7. r +r 4f t 4f l l r! t L r� i 4 All L r' f i i a , vv iJ r{ r P Y aJ d a d h N r ip j'; Pt r i r dCy i h t r 5 xfh x rv. y J ti P, 5 1 i #� v i x r F f .� C b N (• I C w l -' Y f : w r Y ,y f� � '� � d ,� A� n p _. Y` r 1• > t a I + r x� � t ,�.� i r a ., ; n e � 7.S� Y✓ W{r iJj,. 4 6J i g i '! . � � it 1 � %) L.Y"1 ? � r k y�"p 4� 8 6 � Y, 4 y y ' � kt �Y✓ o b � + ! � � . 04"Q4 tt,]�1 "'1� t��. �11r r i(�%r/1)♦('I�, yti 'y . J'{ d Y i l .4 t GI Rkyl i tt .1 6 l �5V yy 4't ��4 rt j M Y "I Yn Y Y k T 4 Sr P s i Yrr r t,d d l� 4 -n 9,t p a'' rl.ir - y y f r Oil } 0 Q 9.1,A x' +� p r r a �? d r r r .r V r r f t K1 6 i d rhi. �r � �H } k I klf v yt it. r rk i+, i j1811 rt r ( �r ;, r i !` fro r r r kIl ra r 1 Woman— My ^ y ';? • r rjw a i i i 9 M "ol a y S r X �, s w d s ♦ rY mI I k�T. �r M(if � '�1 � c ]y Wr { r 4 5` d f dr f r:� 1 1 1 Y N *'Y' r u rt r ,� r Y r irY Alio i�'SI•-�., S {J p a 9r rr ,r , w ?' 4 p a i •'i ''t°''J Y W� � t.r i i :x a u� 1 5 d ,Y i c ��i,.�''^••;+".:+.._. e..� �, � I u r i � J � I Pr. 4 �d1 di � Y t b �d pp N-00 8T NG I NE J06 NO3. } ,i� L� h LESS' THAN 10°1c 20% GREATER- THA1`J 'c'0 % x _. _-(CIRC(:E CHOICE THAT APPL,I'ES ) �C31L LOG .. '�, .. � 3; S.4l'Li' DE-;S",C JP TIOPV 4 w l�vA LV A+`- '5 DEPTH TO-B"OTTOKOFt�bLE=- GRO.UND WATE'Rl(a _ `. r A5. t� `�ROUtilb d±Ai, a R %APER !✓/QI.JS STRdi'UJt9 OVER (Cktt, CH`t 'iCE THAT APPLIE$I, : F SEEPAGE DATA EdvA; TIME, DEPTH Rl:MSARKS ' f t111TERVALD R OP UEPAG'O RATS �INC11E5 IN 12HRS,). LAGKHOE Of'ERAT4R 7; awub 'T� t.� `• z. �. NSPCTED BY r�,�t1'sir.. iy - { °y :; p(�, /%- 7 1Df � G4 SIGNED tY �.r■��1. .R42:�`H'i!er�ef-YFu'I�`5'�iJ��I e DAT E JbB Nbr-° � LOPE LESS THAN 10.%� 10 % - 20%�, GREATERi' THAN 2U � ,' lr (CIRCL'E , CHOICE T4AT,APPLIES SOIL LO'SOIL DESCkIPT'ION .. - -: .... 4��L�G��iI c C 5 ' r 9 _ DEPTH TO f3QTTOM:OE HOI:EY" `"; GROUND WATER-:Ia, 50 L" `, OEP'Tf� . ,4 BO, E G� ll/VD' {�i�.AT `E.q QR ./m V/,OU.S a 'ST/�A lUM ; d- , I I' 'x � � 3� �� 4„ 5, � 7 ` T 9� 9� f 2�' OVE R' f 2` " `. C� ( CIRCLE `CHOICE' :THAT APPLIES) '' D SEEPAGE DATA' Tlmt DEPTH REMA�_K 1 , CNTERVAL; :NRS.,' : -DRO? . �� S'EtE AGE RATE iNCAES'IN HRS) ( 12 1 BA.CKNOE OPERAVA-' ;, '1 �: `L� !`�'t r 11 11�5�?E "TED,.,1„ _I -&—L '� ON SIGNED -aLCG Z N Q, - �i TIME DEP-1 REMARKS:'` u: �r'�.0$rST fti,9..A GOhGd�.�t��,RTNQ!` _ S,EEPAG,E.�. RATS �9n ,r. ATE' CA— BACKHOE pPER�1TOR i ' J �4" ' j '' TEST .,P/ .�A40. t"ESSL17HAW 10% 10 % 20% U"4` GREATER' THAN 20i"/a i E.CQRDER'.. �� yyr (CIRCLE ,CHOICE THAT :APPLIES) SOIL LOG =,,:'SOM DESCRIPTION (a /IA' N,`/,✓1 1 k�'�L..O ,'4�DI� I SIGNED ' } 9. N. t t , 5 f „. 10 - I2. DEPTH I 8.0TT.OM,aFHQL.E`d GROU,N'p';WATEa Q ' i SU/L"'; faE"f?TH BQi �'' GF'DUN®, AT�"R 0 /M PE 'T ,. -At F -�� ��_,�• � 4`- 5' r 5� =.7,' � rT,,_ 9' � 9'k' -I, 2', OVER 12 � , ( CIRCLE,;"CHOICE, THATAPPLIE ' SEEPAGE DATA TIME DEP-1 REMARKS:'` u: iNTERUAL H,RSt `p ROP,: _ S,EEPAG,E.�. RATS r iNTERUAL H,RSt `p ROP,: _ S,EEPAG,E.�. RATS CA— BACKHOE pPER�1TOR i ' J �4" ' j '' i E.CQRDER'.. �� yyr ol x{ a r n ,.4 a (a /IA' N,`/,✓1 1 k�'�L..O ,'4�DI� I SIGNED } 9. N. t t , _ ,y FiTIHST ,�0 NO 45 1 P , .. r .� 'LESS'THAN IQd ' 10' BLOPE"' (% — 20%� t ': GREATER TH�1N.20 „ .... &RCI E .-CROU .THAT APPLIES l SOGL LOGS"OQL .DESCRIPTION 1 P. - 7' --- r 10 > I ,, DEPTH TO BOTTOM Or--NOL"E,; GRO,UND;WATER Q PEP A9OW GROt/NP WAAER:C YRP8R V 0115-36755W TZIN ( CIRCLi= C31O(CE' t AT APPLIES)': ' SEEPAGE DATA I TIME DE RTH REMARfCSr ..t� . v.... ,.,.. nw _.._. _. _ . _ . L t1+1TIrRVAt. IRS =DROP t -SEEP 4GE RATE ' 1 '� �I (ij�fCHES IN 12 NRS.) BACKH©E:OP.ERA70�' S..:?�' •,I.i'TC:�`..,' , REC0 ER 1ri/5 4r 3 uta l�tSPECTED > UIV,11 sI,,�•'� .B1lP� ,l.i' s SIGNED R,,C. E, 1V O..,r n . J.O8 N0 � 1' i `LESS THAN IO,%;',` oo w a LL.OPE."..< : ���....� 10 /o - 20 /� ;,'s GREATER ; THAN 20 /o �` C5gC.LE CHOICE THAT,.?P'IE5 )' .SOIL. LOG 501;L� DESCRIPTION IFF q a. 10 I! DEPTH TO SOTT0mr F(,OLE,: ;..a �% �. GROUNDS WATER SD✓G llH ;DEP ABOW�GROU,Nl7 WATER,, OR /NlP�'R VlOC%� _ ;STRATUM �--O —1 I 2' �-2-'— a' 3�'= 4' 4' 5' S' 7 ' 7 ,9 , 9. 12 0v l2 r ;E.-.�H4ICE-TiiAT'APpLIES) ' SEEPAOtE DATA TtMir DEPT: REMAR�fS° � NTERV'AL HRS; R :DROP' ,�SEEPAGE ' (fNCHES IN 12 HRS). 13ACKH0E OPE`RATOR3.-,1 '``� C O �7 'N►` 1,R;rw ;.�, �K RECORDER tNSP.lGTED By.' �"�-U►.�1`� r SiNED , R.G� Er N-O, ' ilk r 1H RIZ G I d"AT'C "w © JOB NOa ry �LOPE�•� ` 10. R= N. 20 LES S: TN AN 10°10 % - 20% GREATETHA (CIRCLE 'CHOICE THAT'.APPLIES) SOIL LOG SOIL..:' DESCRIPTION .4 Vy: G 0—Wo t 8 ` IO , 11 12 DEP`I~H TOB TTO(VI OFCHOLE GR0`.UNY WATER" :Q` SO%L'fG5PITH "BDt%UND 'GASP `OR. j%MPER�/,p(1S=,`STRwTU/f93 0 I ��. 2• �� 3• � • ���,�_�� ��. 5� 5�� , 7' 7'- 9�= 9' 12� :OVER: 12' �.. ti ( CIRCLE CHOICE, lHAT APPLIES ) SPACE DATA TIME' DEPTH REMARKS I INTERVAL'; "' HRS' DRO ' S:EEPAG;'.E _ ( INCHES IN12 HRS.i BACKHOE' OP.E_�A7C�R.. ...;�'' '7"7 INSPECTED Y."•i, SIGNED. i, ' N 0� �a AOR Rl Iol EENGI�l����;t��!��� aPTA DATE JOB N0• 7" �h' vo h ' �� ?t 0 LOPE ' LESS Tf�AN Id%, Flo /6 al h GREATER THAN'20'%� {` ( jCIRCLE .:CHOICE THAT .APPLIES ) SOIL LOG, ' Solt DESCRIPTION .re .� 4. _._ ... n v i �I r j P ar. DEPTH to 80 HOLE„ G'ROUNDiWATE.R TOIL" : 'Di°TH' Ago 6'E .G'ROUNO l%f�.4T�')'%F'ERVIOU,S"G STR,ATU/d9` ( CIR,CLE,;^'CHOKE THAT':APP�IES'? , ,SEEPAGE DATA �^ TIME DEPTH REM' A"RKS ) I' a 1e1 ) 4 INTERVAL �R�. ' ' DROP SEEPAGh 'RATE { !INCHES IN 12. HRS, BACKHOE OPERAi`f�, ti� 'tb'� IiVSPEGT''D'BY�F�: Off) 19r� ) SIGNED RAE, Nd. w® v-1278 ,y sr c y � .MI � j(f�y� y■/\}�� y/�.'.�ay. N /�►}(j`y''S(yA ry .1f��J O��l;<R,.�rl..��i�y,d\I'N'i���f -'T A' Ai.,��•I.dYY�Jk \.,ii".��t$ , > ATE NO: 1 .•'-,P JOB 1 AE. lid'/i1/VO,�1 !TSSS.., THAN 10°Jo 10% ` 20% „" GREATER THAN (CIFtCL CHOICE THAI APPLIES ) SNCL LOG k = SOIL DESCRIPTION >; c�.vaaM f, r RE D I ' , _ DEPTH TO COTTON OF HOLE:= WgTE_ GROUND % R . ./%O,ST�4fBO Pt �N '!Qr.FORE, "T SIDt/Lf D__. ( CIRCLE OHOICEE THAT AP 5EEPAdE DATA i a T(ME DEPTH REMARKS ' l" INTERVAL" DRQ.P `� , SEEgG:t- A (INCHES LN NRS:) ,. ,�12 8ACKH'oE 0PERAT0R I'NS P CTD eY ,,,4 r �. SIGNED :' �;, R,'. E� IV 0, S r c ,r,, t ?��'�t��MY�i�( a7i V y.� M v! , 4 FV it�� . 40"a N O s �L I TEST Na aA J; OPE" �L.ESS "THAN 10% °.'10 % - 20% GR'EAf ER THAN 20% g ' KIOtLE 'iCHOIC5 TL E:S } s- L -DE7TISCRIPTION fi i` 2' 5. p I 1 OEPTH TO BOTTOM OF HOLE Cps .. GROUND WATER; DC7'/L _ r0 PiH" dBOC/Er' R'OIIND'd%f Q7" R"mOffVUPERU 0 /Si','S+1"R,4Tl 0VE"R"t;p I C CIRCI`,;E' 0401C-E HAT APPLIES S E.EPAG E DAI A �`fCMEDEPTH �" DROP - �� S,EE, . U'NTERVAL ,,.. .. ' .• HRS ` „ ", P GSE'' > f A RATE (! INCHES IN 19 HR5. ) € ACKH4F �x1„ , 1�..�` ,OPERATIJ.R , EGORDER' LA .. _ .. --y-yr .. ,..rte , , ,..•' - ,.. ., IN SPECT t'D � F r, f� C I� I EE 7,1" � P�(a�� „. . lr-6z JOB ,J ✓. pry m^a IN 45 "Loot. ' LE5SGRE/1TER: THAN 20% :- (CIRCLE 'CHOICE f0 APPLIES ) uSo1L LOG' SOIL D�S�RIPTION �„ 6 ; 10 DEPTH TO BOTTOM`OF'NQ'LE= '` G R 0 ND WATER Qa , c I n 1-YI/ � s 11 S. RgTllrb/ AT�'R ak ra�P�`,�1/IQl1 AYO'Ve 'Gr�01lND W g .. - . ��I I, 2,'' (;2, 3' , i" �; 4, �: �. 5` 7° 7•. 9'_ 912OVER 12` i (CIRCL`'E CHOICE ?HATtAPPLd SE�IPAGE DATA 1 T1NIDEPI'H REt1�A�2KS��' I� . z. . SrTRVAL HRS `'Rl3QP' �� SEPAG`E`.RA'i'E. a OevcHSIN izRs:) t�,F"+OIKHOE OPERATl R .- C }';,'C01 6E 1' aPE: T ED `'8k•'ON SIGN EQ, {1"Rio I it + 0 9 1 1-10 DATE; II -7= 4 r J 08 N0: AS -91 TEST ` P rl L.,OPE 1 EaS THAN 10.%` F10 %'720%A GREATER` THAN 20`'>/a 9iT {CIFiCLF. •(HOrGE� THAT APPLIES) IL L0ll�; x- SO'I`L ESCNIPTION . . .. 3 _ 3 8 tor_ p k: - - EPYI " TQl �QTTroM OF Hf LE s G f��JUI D WATE,R 'E "DE T 8 Gr4C7C i JD AER. SJR. ,/!i%ff E'Ri/ 0L STk'�4TlJ�G1F . 4, -5 ( 1l�CL'F C # IG THAI` APPLIEsf. tPAG E DATA IE DEPTR REMAARICS" ,. r• - i ... G�Ti1lAl�.�_. HRS: t -ROP,' : SL�EpAGE. �O iO + ' .RST .R ., Lai ReT3` ;iI�EC�t"p. BYE`"IJ `.. _ .. , i WR,WF I': f ,or.r4��IjG'�Y . 1 �. . ` p DATE!,:- ,109 NO� �3 ��OPE 'LESS'THAN 10,% 10'"/0 20°/n `"" t:" GREATER' THAN 207'7/.75" (CIRCLE C,NO1,CE THAT 'A0 "IES) SOIL La'G r az f r. f -15 6 .9" is p r DEPTH TO B4OTTOWOF HOLE;t , GROUND WATE`R'. Qa h Y` SD/L G''P7"/,A OVA GROUND `WATER �:OR'a1408RW, US�,STR�JTUJN`h; —� a O -I (� �.2, 2 37 4.' 71 7' 9� 9�" ;12` x`'' OVER i2" �'' (CIRCO E. ;CHgICE "T;HO9 APPLIES)a, , ■ "}. S�EEPAG�E g q DATA TIME�T'TW REMARKS°� tR �.� MTER��kc' �_�:",HRS,, PROP SEEPAGE (INCHES iN (2,1-10S, BACKHOE' OP'RATz OR. (� ('' (� `� A \ Er. V' if E1 ;1 )) (yam J� ae'Lli,`� I NSPETED 11 yy �,� i1 ie t d2, f BY„ Via'7'..OfV f SIGNED. E. NO , y , 4 �r �..,,Y F* {rA�+ {{ N �. A M N O R�fT C SlMENq/ �} �, �uY h Ysrt tf J08 N0' IATs 'VO SLbp W ' LESS+ - AN 10'/0 : Ip %I 20�/0� .: n G'RE'ATER'.. THAN 20 _ �RCLEt. CHOICE THAT APl:'t I SOIL. LOG ``` '`; "°{c,SOIL_ DESCRIPTION: >I Y .5 r 6 _ q 3 ,. -.. - DEPTH TO B-,OTTOM`.OFHOLE . F %� "`.' GROUND eWATER ,® ; ~TiY°�Y�TER xiOR /r1AP�'R l/1.4'U, Y STiS'ATU�i 27� 3.' 12�' :, OVfrR 12 , i CIRCLE:.CHQl,CE ES)' DATA w SEEPAGE k`P 't IiN,i✓ DEPTH" REMARKS: INTERVAL I i,RSn' ° DROP _._�t ;° SEFAG.E, RATE t 1NCHE5 IN12 HRS•) r _ BACKHOE OPRAT�JR r n{".;C/'1>7 Ra Y' r RECORDER I,I�SPEC.TEI »BYE s SIGNED R. O. E. N 0, IdI EER���,�� i DATA °F JOB N0: rEsr I©Or.,NO. , c iE :`;, •. LESS THA17•10 % — 20% ' - GREATER : THAN 20 E /o (,CIRCLE CHOICE THAT ApplIE5 j SQII.. LOG q, SpfL D58CRiPTION -3 Z 6AM 1 7a�w�r 1r i2 ROUVDWA?�.GJERT-TdBOTTQV;RQ SOIL 'P'7H A.B4OC/C wA -E Rr OR /MPERt//,OU,S I ' . !� :GROUND . „S75�?A7"U 1:2, CIE, (SHo;CE 7HQT APPLIES) , �;I�C>J SEEPAGE DAT/ IMF, DEPTH REMARKS" ,rY {NTE:f3VAL. " ��ft . DROP S.EPAG��E RATE R,S� , BACKHOE OPEf ATQF�, F�'L7 �✓1�'T k� F'ECOkOER'� m - ..... r.. I �tSPCTD .BY`at/7"' r l9 3 i� yl f° SIGNED:� • a «0 E 3zr. , a, � R « N4 A.R:{M I7I. �T"C i rb w DATE `.qq! vo LOPE LESS°..,THAN I©% 10 GR EATER'PTWAN 2d•% % , d • , ;(CIRCLENott, TWAT `APPLIES } .,r SOIL LOG r �d °SOIL. DES:C,RIPTION r : t , 9 , [2 DEPTH 1"0 15' T N'OF HOLEf. GROUND 1NA` �. _ ,� 'Pr `t�iMi'E SOIL OEPTf ',48a�F' m-OP81ND, V.4T QR 'V 0 (. L�•.., 2� �` 2 3 ( CiRGL:E CHOICE, THAT .APPLI,ES?,• DATA SE&AO''E RE TIME DEPTl hi(AFtKS a x SEE( INTER - • _.. •,., 'HRS; " DROP PAGE.: nR T ^ INCHES IN 'i2 HRS,) BACKHOE,Ir, OPERATC?.x RECQRDER : 7/L,L C.T.°EjgL J NSPECT fib= �Yl8� ".�1'/ O N._ //� " ,19 N0 1� n• _,_ � ,, •�� a : � ,. . _ ... , _ I: } �, , • 'IYjr ��g/1 / r) � F' � p M F 4 is I n a }■�({+�a s �� i •j.. I 4 ��Y ' � ''P ui('f,3�7tGq�4t�QR5gC43tIR'bis$(,1�1�i(��gy�u�1C}lIC4'{iCA:„9�9'2�S51G�8''34�;�k60Q hGH i�S' ; ,`R�5A'N'N RS ?";5URV Y.4R5, x. ww doh, NO. , I M1.` 1 r frill r, F ) "+r h 7P •. t,� PER' ►�L X41: C�tf� � .t �,{ � PRELIMI /��t�Y �y ,�I�tGT Y. �h�iT1'-L; Nole dram efer ..�I Hale .depth : ,Depth to 6 mal.Cer . ' . •Soil descrp'tionr Co1,��`.._.. ,; .Ocf©„r'�;prganic..covr..r: Location of test ` see attached _plot /other, ' Test performed by c7Z:> A .i PRESOAKING DATA Dote...,19$L-1 Depth bf, Wat&r Depth of Wofer �. , �':�; Time Leve! Rerq in 1 ,. Levei° f /. ter Fill ._ -Remarks. - ,I I ' I�'�ERCOLA ION DATA � �, �41 Dofe� ' 0 _ ��� .,193•. Depth dt presoak remaining '' t V. Deptfl 4' Dater De pth of Wote� `Rema[n w Level a� Level' of ter Frit ti r _ t I .. � r r/ , n 7 7 nterval n Drop �' rtr+a Vol rote iF�' mirr/'n r/ * YyY Y S. �V .rt �.� : �w' • �y�'Rf, _ t�";4� _ayn r. K Y�(+�ajt�� � •`,� 1�, r ' fr � e+ + � tr � J5^ �+,'�� y /� � NNtst ;.ti - C4JNf�QFtS�Ci3UR7� SUt1'E�1d,RWHid�3y"C71J�S9'2659161��'t fw r ENGI'�J" ry�RS' f. 'C^ANWERSfrV� U�RV�YO:'RS, h o f Water De hof 6:�ate r t a5 a- e�ve1' remain Pf j5y- lM1 NAE?Y D ATA'.:.. ,idle diameter 4.:! ' "Hole ,depth . depth to .;6'�md��ker �"`-`.�' soli ,description,," ..Color. _ . ,; Odor~......::: 'Org,anic, -covar x ; 'tes,f.. m l�a�atfon' •of see' attached :Ten ,performed ,by: e PR -SOlAKING DATA `` r f�o'tew1C�'Za i�7, { f; p _,t98 Depth of Water Depth of Water r ' rim e' L:ev.ei fzemair? Level.After Ffl%, Remarks','. NOT + , I V tt r. JL r. PERGOLATION 98 Y w *L• y ff presoak remaining h o f Water De hof 6:�ate r t a5 a- e�ve1' remain L-eyeFAiter Fr 11 ,w ��Remarks �"•> x ; m NOT + , I V tt Droll .`�� Peraoairorr` rte m a i n. nr' . Z� �'�` ' +�/•. rt s r,,:• + , w, , .t � i Fry, Y.f � a s,. ryt i; s...r:�Jt..� :�'b. + -�r N-'. 4l4 � R... ,. � :fes ,4 °n # F �1 V vr�'�. �Y � � •• d ��F. .:,:� ,da + h'SO N, 1�1 K�d, �f'� J a fi' w: sy fit � a x r p P :�;.• ,u,rY� �tGQO i l�$I��B9� A lVl�V,4RS, lr l~t�6i'iNRS: PL?AN'IVRS=� r'SC1R •• 'Fi 11� n � Job No ' 4 .. iYf •.Y.. .1n• s r ,., tr�✓�O V.i h x6 1+�.��'� y n:} F e��m , gpr�r q U �T1�f r.Q TE .. ' .� Y it y V wPE_ . .0 . v, , P fNARY QATA.. �r _lfe�refer�._. Hate , depth .Sa�5crrplion; Cofor __��___-_�.' Odom;.H Orga nic; .cvvor- .'. �.r�f�on •of tes � see • a tfgched Jat / other � u l '4 " '« ° , ; y performed ,by i r PRS S JAKING DATA a Date 19a2/1 Depfh of Water Depth of WOO 'Tim, e LevenRemotn L:i`M.After Fill Remarks, ' Citi / G vt/•�/` ' %�.5a7 nZ u x PFRC 'CAVO DATA •'M �at^ ♦/� — �� F l yV } fleptn tyf presoak remain Mg" "^ wrf's jilt st Deptho t Water Tina: Leve °Remain ' ; De pthof WOW,, r'L'eVe�r Af ter: Fill �0. u' Remarksi 1�,� .rr � r s� i � � 4 (r v 8 l� �s•�: interval" min Drop . r �i "Pel (aO�Uflo%1' i1ItP.m!lV,lh ♦ ' 3 ° F F P a y, � r r. E �1/O �M�• vA f i � A f' } Y a r., � ♦(+ 4 c" +1 d" `v 1 !r ° 5 t v $ t!- ;w r F s e e ��;. �a + c � r t, i w11C'. '�11 ` v � l�i � y ��r r r S:S .� ty ✓• v'd r t e r to, IN lz �:� yfi r r.., z rP «5 i,�s l 1`, ♦x ham � Y h'. � i !• -F I# N � I Cyd I _ "� f �^ �f r f x t.':'{ y * 1. I y da 1 a I w ! '", �� «.. I d; , 7 •+!'�. �I'� �•, A Rr a 1� vaJ)":', ; �f l� t '� s s ;rr'+ ,d �� � r � ' v "• kda � 91 r 4 e t, 11^vl ..1 r 1 � + '"Cer„� v q } t � r w ,Stt 1I �pj y'� °rj 5 �1��15' � a� 1I�p c !S�!f, AII�'+ �f� �j� 1�x .C. rwa k IN:i f � + t > �+i 4J>•F a f 5X3 �,' x e�J � '' � .r. ,C-1 dIMarxs dd�` aXc hour Sagr ar a op ,Sag parr n�� 77-1,7,k.7 7 a, I7j r i rr "F 2n ,III lF„l-,i'v till- �I1 ,!1't ki k..'`s��'V �Jr ., 41 .H` rl—, VI ! X71 Nib .t;yj TRAFFIC "'A4A%JUAI. k� SII. I , t 7.�i ;t7� flan, Policy : rid Location for'Indrvisluai Sign ,. . rublicity throe ra ugh thdio .and press is highly de F 1/Y WN1e enaed'n SCOP signs are installed andespeeially, 30 &fogad. �d ' 'M to sere: o lene�s ° When it is"'-' ncessa;y to change the,�r location. ' ' Aby;:o' the conditions a � ,following may. warrant (ni' cv6iln6(e in 2436' and ”;:t:es) four-way stop sign installation: , 1, Where traffic signals ar& warranted and the, . iieed is IUr9ent, the four-way stop is; an,intearfrn, # measure that can be installed quickly tocontrol R , „ traffic while arrangements ,are beim; inade for the signal installation: e'1✓ z An accident problem, as indicated by five or The Rl sign shall be used on publlc roads -'erected more reported accidents of,a type susceptible, of W$, .:stop is requiied, Stop signs shall be correction by "a four-way stop installation in,a rsnr r� ithe left and right side of one-way,ro, wa jos 12 month period. Types;of accidents susceptible i 3rJ feet or more in width. Stop signs shall of correction include night angle and left turn � 2x installed at signalized In collisions. was warr`anting'STOP signs are 3 1Viinirnuzn' volume warrants . the less important road at its `intersection ' a. The total vehicular volume entering the in- �ax0i a main road where application of the ,nor- tersection from all approaches must average =-A ;aright of way ;rule is unduly hazardous as at least 500 vehicles per hour for any eight e,16 ed by accidents _susceptible of correc{3 STOP sign's: hours of an avers a da d b: "Thecombine vehicular pedestrian vol-' ,ti�a':by 2. Oa ;a. county road or city street at its intersec- ume from the minor ;street or highway must zrixis vvith a state'higliway. - average' at least 200 units per hour for the ' +'4 e intersection of two main highways The sanne eight hours with an raverage delay to a traffic to be sta ed' de rids o .a ' :;7-Y PP Pe. P- ' minor street dehicular traffiic of at least 30 vehicle during µ ��c1i speeds, volumes, and turning move- econds per the madam irrit5.A •, a street entering a legally established' hour. c., When the 85=percentile approach spe�'ai ;of' ' ough highway or street. - ., < _: -. _. the major'street traffic exceeds AOmires per C9xi a minor street where the safe approach hour, the minimum vehicular volume war.. ' a-` � to the intersection is less yr khan 10 mile,. peri " rands 70 percent of the above regL�irements. A 'four way, stop sign installation is a use trafgc 1i sT+®P sign is nota "cure-all"and. is nota silbst=n4rorneasure when other available means of con- e Trft tither traffic control, devices. Many times the 'trot are not adequate. It should not, be used unless the need fr�r a STOP sign can be el' -.''V if .the s5ght _ iricreased aolurrie of,traffic on the iritersectirig, r ads is about , ual and, is undesirable love-voluime intersections: s it iiy rerrJoving obs, nzctions. ..—at " i stallatioii of S'L'OP signs at locations where When STOP'signs are placed on all entering legs tkiey, are' unezpecire, or where approach speeds are hi t could be avoided if possible because they ibiy, of,an intersection,, each STOP sign; may be supple- mented by a separate plate mounted below it w kh wire accidents'* however; if there is no `alterna- thie message " 3 WAY' ; ''4 -WAY"; etc. The supple-, five to a. STOP' signthe ,an advance Code' Wl'7 rental plate shall have white letters on aired back -- Sl"C�l' MiiEAD sign and. appropriate pavement should be in con�unctiori wrth k, ground.' ' Location E, eet in lthe ,standard- position,, the u n»kisigs placed ;, right or left at or near the entrance to an intersection orA arty location necessary to coritxol traffic within as iriteiseciion. I i 4 i r HA.RAbiiYAY—:c✓ixOZ%V"Lt OIL�iIS i tli {jig 405 4, 1nfif'CN��Gl` Des (b) Priv a ,to Road Izhtersecfiors -laimn cor-; �. v° i ilddP'b .► ner night dIptAAce shalt be stopping sights disto ode; tail gi�►e�n nig' Fable 20l.11 t 40$4t ►"sight Distance meusared��am° s S. oot e ' e he , ht on 7r! �r , w,� triva�te� roadto r a. 4.2S -font tie�iject .Stopping Sight Distance. See index r hei t on tlhe mai or maid, Set back is a 0I,,I for Minimum stopping s,ht distance rd- Minimum of 15,.feetm as for Iiblic , the sae yp vi iPr t$r ` rood connccuons. �'oh' Sig1't Utstctatce. (c) Urban Driveways=-Cornir ,sight disi .hxxce t�biic P�aa;3 Iixterseetions -F�t unsignuized requirements under (b) above da not 'Abpiy � b1tc road iaitersecuobtis (see index 405,1) to urian drvearays: a.ibstantiah; r clear line of tight should be ' i,gh p) Decision 0@11tDistance. ,At int ersecfion� . . axtairxf,ncd between the driver of a vehicXe ' where ttae ,State sign,route tains or crosses wAtting at the cross road and the driver of other State route the' decision sight distance , AA approaching vehicle in the right lane ofvalues asriven in Table 405 iB sho�zld be u end E, the main' w '•: S ht' distanee .values��, In :'com utin` .and. Measuring : decision 1 P g >; given- in Table`405:1A should he used- a distanca• the 35 fact eye height aihd the 0,5 txnsignalized public road intersections,: i On ' foot or ect height should be used. the abject,i'; .2 -lane highwaysi these values allow,=14, /2 being .,located on the side of the intersection# _ seconds for the; drtvert on the crossroad .tri nearest thea roaehin driver turn left .while. tie.. ai�piroachixxg y_ehicIe the assumed dpsign of the Che applicatiozi of the various sight°dista�ace travels. at .oped;d requirez iients for the different types :of intersec - `= =.Un highway. On mutt Sane hgglhWays� a . 71/2 ;second criterion for the outside slave,", tions is summarized in Table 405:10. ,normaliy will ,provide increased" sight dis- y.a�M /� N (< {rine to the 3nside'lanes �' 'to mm2perxs.�te' for 1- ablO' �4 s1 A ` nger distance traveled 'aY tkxe�°'lei= the' to th rniug vehicle C onsideratta5x�t--slriaulti be 4 down � . Corner Si ht' Dig an0d , y 7-1/2 Second Criteria) on 396 i than and i�igerrtlan 1 _ grad steeper anile (see lndi )(iii'somie cases the cost to obtaix' ? 1 /:�; sec= Design"Sptea ; Comer Sight", (mph) Distance (ft) and corner t distances m��. sigh y'be cxcest stve. High costs might include right of `avay. building removal; eactensiye, eaccavatlan^, �thr , 30 ... . .. r : 330 40 . :exxvironmental costs such as tree remvvaa, .. , .. ..... .440 50 ..... .... 550. avoidance o£ wetlands. ,'historic:' and ar- , SO . . `. 660 chaeol hgidal, sites. Yn sde eases, a leasear'' , 'tie' 70 : , .• ??Cl valve or: orn.er' sight duty rih uria�r I 11i used; 'but tMe rainimtunn vahlue shall be the a;to�ppiri� 'sight distance given sin ` �� `abXe, 10f from 1'a�la._405i :Derision Si ht ®istar�ce x xneas3iired Sid4oat� dye weight on #axe minor soaid foot abject height an` the major road.' for tlhe dh the besign Speed Decision Sight bistance Set:back driver crossroad (mph) (ft) shaall i e a'm ntanum Of"I feet"from edge' r `off the ` tiavexed ways. 'Set back ass taMes - feet to the stop bar, 1 -foot. for ilie width of r. 450' 40 600 t �3 %et from front bumpers five stop bar,; and .:. , ... 4 50 ....... :.. .. . . 750 to driver. If fixe .:tots bar is more than 6 feet . from the traveled way. additional a b*;ance, 66 should: be considlered. :C( I'll C J '�� I � +' n � .4 } 1 �a} e f ul Wiim.��yr �l���� ^Y►' Ali' rf 1 ' y t ,i `` � V I 1 asp S IN c ?J s F now; `o � d d) -.. } 1poll , �7 f 4 i f r Aron AS y 1 v 1 ! t. + •rr 1� t 1 1 xt 1 r ,p ct 1 ''a i 1, vri 00 df yy S 1 1 } , a r [�q'/�+jy�7�� J y /�",� ii�i� t.Y&r 1 J 1 ; � L •T.; pS .��'J g -�yiy� � iJ bout �Y 9i 4,� 1{ 1 AF h +j,riy. �t�„,��r y1 � �plirl�7ft&i5r Vr plu, .M. �� t u°i . r S <� u t ,k rl all ): '1, I '- NlV t 1 > ! 7 t' !1. + 1 �,t 17 a4: 1 i Y .r kid' A� ti r F ,'pcd bbl r -1 1�# s ��p11yy�y� t��yye ": 1 ��yr (� t/•sV�gp +��ni, him, C�*6 With now E 7s „� fy �' ! ? u r rl AI 1 *6 11 1 n i x y r tl p Ila 4S! S '"Y rt rw a �, 11 o Nirz !t a`1 r� r t` P Irr re - t J -fAn joW. 1 f 41 T 4 't S h+l r Ir (;' t f Itis 1 I s t1� r 1( ,faYV,t .A,.�sca�t�anlwrh� A 1 i: 1 �Y a 1A W81��(d�■��YL(Ai�'1111'�3 ai M, 1,. t ry +! 6u t i F{,� ✓' }+ ,i 1. ra )1 U t, 1yk1 S U `7- fe {z ti t 3 � � ,r '. 1 I C t h 1 i� ,} +w • ! '�h a fi1� + S ':' 1 1 �, 'rk I . t .�'. I `I � on 1 r �l ny 1 1 ry ? I. . �1� ,"TVA -�Q ip yn� nye, LUimf/Li, C 4M 1„�_ f8 I by ,�,,„rt. j, 1 ., u +� ^� 1 >• *r! 1t” �#�4 'y. , Tble,o c6nt6, is E Yn'trodttctio 2. Comments'Receive,d on the D-tafti 2' E 966 peroses to Comments Ft4ceived on the Draft EIR . A 'IGist. of Preparers , ... . � . � 35 I i i i I ot,' 4' r Wr Q UedwiDYl' ;r a '. J itc lxinaf Environmental Impact Rc orC I~inal EIR for the Me cr Rczoiun ... . . p C Siikichvasion Pxo�ect p ._ and consists i wo volomesi Vatume I contain the Draft Enviromnent'al Impact Report (Draft EIlt) issued on May �3 1992; "`Aluuou II contains"'c.�nzments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period and the responses to t�tbSe comments. This doetiment is Volume If of the -IR. All comment letters and all public hearing ; �wmments have been responded to ;in good faith to provide a full disclosure document to CEQA pursuant. fioidelines, as amcnded. �•p" i ' , .. } f fI , ,_ • F I I I r xIC1 Mei t iger Pezq*j wd Subdiru�ia Projcrt 1 IntmCiiiawe Ia ,0 . f. F ." rseriFUaNrt ''I+FfTB wrC30N; a.---v.►nor N1kaAL WATER`'OUALITY CONTROL QOARnt-- `L VALLEY REGION W d dA. /���AOE NiATERSHr:Q BRANCH oFFIGE: e G 117.1; CA 16f 224.4845 y. �l 10 'June 1592 � State Clearinghouse 1.00 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 E� METZGER REZONE & TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (SCH #91103023), BUTTE COUNTY We have 'reviewed the subject project notice. The following are our ca�ments 0 �.5ufficient information must be provided by the applicants to :enable evaluation A.1 of the t:reatmet, and disposal` options in relation to conditions in the area; such as local ground and'surface water hydrology and soil types an;d depths. Potential impacts which must be addressed, include potential contamination of, aground and slr'r,face waters, protection of public health, -generation of vectors- or nuisance conditions such as odors, and short-term impacts'during construction such as accelerated erosion. In order for Regional Soard staff to comment further on the proposed projects., A„2 ,please submit the information required in the Regional Board's "Information Nee;is for Waste Disposal from'Land Developments": After this information has been supplied we willdetermine it's adequacy., Some percolation data and soil analysis data were, submitted w_itr the notice of completion; but the data is not adequate i accordance twith current County testing requirement . In accordance O th discussions with the `Project. Oevelopet: on 22 May 1992, A. �- alternate plan, is being proposed which will result,in a net density of a'pproximately one dwelling unit per acre;: W. have no objection 'to such a proposal. The`StatE 'tater Rkesources Contro'1`6oard is in the process of prgmulgatincg regulations for stormwater permits.; These regulatAons will apply to any '`•4 facility with more than five acres under'd,evelopmeh"t The Deyelop,r s'hoyld . contact this office to deter'mi'ne the necessity of a stormwater permit before any construction begins._, If you have any ggestions,'please co.n.tact me at (916) 22,E-4858 or the above address P� Ronald 5. Oykstr.a, p.E,, 5t4f f Eng'i ri RSDtch ;Tom Reid,`Butt, ounty,Department of Environmental Health,:OroY lle .4 i d 9"t �_!'' '.� e,w a, TJ .4�. _Q., LI a,? w.a t �, 1 1'ti :*'z I r i`Ie:M<>.RANr.>UM 1; A,* 1 1'd 1.3"1 lFtA" 1 V COIF 1F 1 CIE TO: Tom Last, Planning Department W X`rbM: T'!ny St. _mart, I dmini�trat ve Analyst paterAugust 26, 199.2 subs; Metzger Rezonin ;'and Subdivihion Pro'ect Environmental 3m act 5 7 P Report(Draft), May 8, 1992 dtaft A at)-'- in the Metzger EIR, t is;�office express>ed conce`rn B.1 ire 'December 1991 aver the potential fiscal impact on day-to-day county Operations of the proposed rezoning and subdivision pioject. The concern has (been addressed to an extent in the draft EIR, but none :of the data lessen our 1,'he c'tlginal concern. draft ETR i� .not full=y responsive to our request that it 'Identify various alternatives for mitigating significant impacts on a broad range of county service. The draft EIR does offe.el m&tigation, for 'future polide and .fire facilities'` in the to 01 impact fees, and it proposes an impact fee to fund hiring additionaP Sheriff. 'Departcnent personnel; however, this office is unable to identify any ,provision of law that would; allow use of iripact "fees for tu, nding' salaries._ Totally unaddressed is the concern expressed in the second becember 1991 letter: paragraph .of our Generally; We find that environmental impact reports acknowled'oe impacts on"police , servicas and :6,re protection, but that the mitigation measures do. riot 'fully redress ` e potanti� l shortfall iri, funding foe° day-to-day operations. Development"also Gan be ekpeeted to add increments of financial stress 'to a much beoalder,array,bf. county services, such as, the courts and other eldmenEs° of: the criminal', ativPnile, :and civil justice, systoms; r vil disaster, veterans services and ha115; public guardian; libraries, public health; mental health, road ,maintenance, transportation; traffic control, elections; oler,k�rec'orde:; social servides, assessor, treasurer-tax.collertor, farm and home adVi-or; arid.,all. of the administrative, personnel, legal, and financial activities necessary to ,support these services and functions. It is now empirically' clear that residential growth is a benefit in the unincorporated ,areas o£ Sutte County. County population has ,grown steadily over the pias cdecadewhile the county's" financial condition has just as stead:l' saorrc.ned, TiiP draft EtR falls to "make . the 'case that the. pr"oposed' -twill benefit rather than further burder! tile, county's already straine d £inancaal condition, ec:" Star ,,Bro'w'n; .Assistant Chief P,dministraEive AOfficer , � r+ F gyp, • �, �� �I { ' Mak "�" +k�k!✓WadiW R �.� *, a�"' �s� ,`.tMe�^j� y AP ro t +,'� y q I 3rd Oxd sentence. Choi age' °f to" "of" before "the larxdfll". `paragra�nhi If you should have any further questions, phase contact this office:, Sincerely; B.Ai XirGher. -Diedetor, Planning Division ; ..Y Thomas Senior Planner' ]BAK=' ALIJlo a { - "d '.. , w t. ✓, s'S .t r :'.,^ r,. {"'I,Y�..r`# -. I '. j t,Y Y �. 6'., .ry M.t t� _.0 .. } 1. t: , I Y C1%1� n 1 I r � I � Y � dA I �. ij i,l r e� -t I P d4. 26 FM7.789 ; FIB6 r r i Q maintained by a professional farmer.;-7, hz said the applicant paid for an archeological survey and there is no problem.; Page'3-8, i•Z,vdrologic and drainage, 4.4.5, he said it talks E•$ abd t,a CSS form "fit riance of public road and stormA drainage faciliiie'S., He said; the goads ar'e 'goi'ng Lobe private roads. o3e said, . the road s` 'a.hd leachlines, s.ltaulci bz �`in a C5A. ' Page =9, he''said the, eanamzrnts Qn' the,ri'ght„hand side ,should b`e, on. the .next page,; 4-6A 2 recommendations; one pttyme>1t ,ofof -Ar sheriff, E'9 ,tha .5366 unpl'ementation.of impact,, fees to ser up a mello-.coos districti. 11, skid the Shenrf„has EA 0 , Do desire to set up a ;dello-RAos District: He said,,the , Sh tiff's otttce,..docs not an feesdribbling in. Commissioner :Nelson said this does not make sense that the ShPnft Office would not 'I vrant ongoing fees coming in. ryrr. Strunk said regia, *gig Pa 3.10, 4'-5, schools, thore� are four recemmend,atiors ,,loo t E• 1 impact fees, ' He said 'since- this ,report Was prepared the school district has app xoYe an impact fee. grogram 'hat they are .,imp'lemen'ting on new ., esidoncesy . He said yc 9 should be` deleted, He said it should 'say "that the applicant and the school district corrie to ' agreement of the impact fee under terms that are> acceptable to the school . district, and that the agreement.;,be n ade ;and Finalized -prior ; to.:A recording o£ the final map". He said he ;spoke to the School Superintendent Aird the Superintendent .said "this would b't acceptable.;.-Section 4=6:10,.& 1}, he. saitl,athe, park distract sold hfm,,,tl1at they have enough -pa<k `'sites already and dol not ;need , neW pane s}tes. He said tl�,e bark E.12 district is, proposing, an impact fee., he suggested the. warding of "Develop rrient ^and is iplem ntation of an unpa'ct fee, program according to the justified''taeans of the Par s ai d Recreaiion -,D strict) 'And;•payznent of the, impact..fee; with agreement, of payment to be determined . nd ageeed to prior to 'reeordiug the final map; Page ?-1.1,' water esupply, he said he agreed with the dis rias.; 4.6-18, 19, 2Q, he Said regarding road 11 -water ked about earlier: maintenances the y,ques ,ioa or gas, to c .ins tai , Commissioner Matson- said; thM problem rs tkae gas taY is not distributed correctly: ivlr, Strtark said tf impact fees are implemerued they should spell out the fee, it should E.13 be'`made'clear ;,.. 1 . I'- , f .he "ro ect s Comrrussioner Nelson s..td the fee should be determined at the time oy p J E.14 develooment, He said a fee this. year may not be appropriate or sufi"icient 10 years from Aow E . Ivlr: Strur:k'sad oil.. Page,,,; :-12;•7�� T3rban 1;'cil, he did 'rot see the 1130,licies E.15 1.Deserve in the rR, .Page 3.13 4;7-G Pathways: I e said the par -'�3 strict � s 'not interested in E.1 paihways along the outside or lineal parkway Page 3 1�;x' 4=1 he said on the''1E.17 .c6'tructIf"Aion equipment chedk, thAV should irisorto','requir' g snnog check%." , He noted that -all''bf hisl':eornments 'd"ddrdss': pro C! for 1��and 5'� acre ,pargel.�, �Ie�sard lie wrll� submit written comments*ori ,fhe consultaritis redesxgri; ternativeplan,, Fic 'discussed traffic, .Page E�1$ 5-4 he said in prov merits` will 6e expensive, He 'asked that Fubitc 'VC!orks'°look at reasoriabtz cttridittons an, reasonable, fees ,1=Ie Said .regarding~ the re design alternative, would' stili b'e under agricultural there would be 'houses on 15-209of the land and"8% produciiaat Hc' said there would> be, some loss of agricultural land, f-ie said 85%`of this property wriuld remain under a Williamson Act Contract. rub. <92 �d�2i PM 8Orft tq,-, p�Ga?lhrTtfG , ���: 9 93°8. 7785f' Randy hici,aughltn, Durham, sacci he wast tn:xopposxtiotl to seeing this parcel beJtng. used .E•19' for 'development to the °middle. °ot prime agncultUT'. land. , ., He said, this would set a Priecedentin:the area for'tother,-peoplav,116 want to puG9a stnlxll percentage ofhousing Jit ,die-heartof agricultural land. i=ie,'discusseci, the problems wi th f.�rrxi equipment, spraying of clops, and' dust. °He said lie' tivould hope,the,Commtssign would stick to: the A -201 ailoP ted iii the D2:N1 plan.' l^ . - n -Sh , a5 a alnst "dickie L.�. hoe said 5 acre parcels da :not work in a faun commtuu , w g E.�O �t[te''projec: , (gen KLmmelshue said she was Oticerned �hzth larming practll:ces impacting residences, E.21 and liunipg the farmer`. :She. also' said 'there, are Oroblzmsi with spraying and dusty; discussed the., Heise proble,nxs during harvesting, .She said the children would .be riding t eixpikes` in` sine ^street-+xihicb,would bea hazard,`. Shz,iWas.against,the�pro�ect., rM A . ewri C6rnrntsst ,on.. r %Telsort� •wanted to leave this h ' a open; to, hear from the farmers'.'that F f h' tin could ndt oe here at this time {'iecanse owes g, Staff said they have °letters on the4 EIR acid; with;'the comments today the `ETR ;is ,pretty; . rrtuch done. Staff said the future comrnents� will be :regardtng tY e,'rezone ,Staff suggested the°'EI 'portion of 'thp'he ruig'be-clostO: -- - ` Cot tntiss oner L-atnbert asked` that the 'Commission alts-receiyecnpi_es of: IVir Strunk's. comments or the alternative. design: ; �' vn 'd co'ect. Commissioner Ne, son chscussed: a naw E7R being regt.ted for a re-desto a g__ J 1� Con�missloner Lynch said tins present EL�Z does nat ac;Jc ass rise altertattvei' He suci'this sect. EIR foetuses on the 7 and 5 acre pros, Staff said the EIA doe's. discuss the re -design alternative to a general sense Staf£ said a chars a to the'„ a l cation to this new alternative tna take a new , '.or at, Ieast a $ PP , EI> y en�riarunentai GValtia`ton r Struri}. Said this 1IR covers the rezone application to SR 1 and the TI'M applcat�oi, Stiff said;" If a rzeyY application cc�'ries i"rt for the redesign alternative it,°w.uulci be ,like 'a Hely, a' licatsan: brand, PP, Nir+ Strunk said' re application isnot n'eces"sary� iHe`-satd the ;ETR :covers, the re' design' y , alt rnatt�'eJ Ise said,`with, either project the' impacts would re cin the same, tic said j there would be'S'Same-IIumber ofM houses ;ftth' the. sauce impacts asonl for 6b.'I *' F loner'- dmmis"stop v y cans�ertng a rezone Cara►►��a L ra e.t asked if the C 'n "QLAJfrItlti 9 g'e 7 88 Ph�B 8 i Staff said this Is correct. Staffsaid the E1R also covers the T'51M' project that will not U come before the.Co.tnzniss on. i Commissioner :1'_aml%zrt said the Coiunu cion is not looking at a PUD, just a rezone to SR=1 for 66acres., ataff said this is correct, Mr._ Strum; :said the ori�ietal a lcation which he'subtntte pp ( d to the Commission) was for R-1 zonizlg. He said staff suggest the aR-1 zoning and the consultant has suggested anothe"r alte�3tive.. fIe said if the County warns the re-design alternative' he Wo'ald re- do hisapplication_ Staff indicated the copy of the application presented to the Commission by Mr. Strunk is .not valid. It: was amendedand neva was evaluated' or commented upon by staff or ,. . of ietally stag tea to the Com x fission. `ting, ' Commissioner INJsrn said' a lot of the infQrmati`on in tlhe EIR is on Zzarves He wanted to =ow what the normal; proEt is for orchard in the; area to compare ,the profit lost of this orchard , wo. . Ms; Posteaak 'said in. preparing the Mg7 icutural Section of the EiR she took . just the value of,this orchara She said the production figures are for this site Only, and these ngures are compared to the County ayerages. Mrs. l�arris said the ;farm has been ossiy mismanaged ancithat is the rzason for the Eat: profit loss. She saidthe question is iVhet.her the Commission is going ,to allow mare prime agx ctutural land it this County to be developed; and lost. Commissioner Xdlson explained the EZR process. �t tivas move d by Cosnrnlssiriner. Lambert, seconded by C"ommssionz' Lynch,. 'and , unanimpttslq CaT:ied LO Cotltirlue 'Il',e EIR hearing portion closed and, the Rezone portion open to. October 2�, �992.;at S:QO" ";a.m. fr ,.i 7 Cr'-try}+ 1 Ann rig on r pan &X992VI I ..{�j,�l° r I ! T.� ,•'`•� 3 u:^,. IJ,� In �rro dpar� 1NernaoraMaw oro�fiid, t� r � r� � � }h x ppt4 r1 <yr.ri b {l''�� r e ,. +. • ,.;•r, w++n, aw pppp .{tt♦�y) I 4ti 1 ! L �1•°, d+ t��♦ Ivil ,i iGe 1, '4r y �/0 r P����jQ'+11'4 C$Or '. . t Be;,,,vi,,;� ^��, 1 ' ttye K-t cbp-r y �'Q, ! i r Yy .jll�pp `x.M� ' Eq 'Lt °f,Jxx I• r F�. ' ,"y 3'•._S i, ,. °.~ i y' ..1 Fy,E ,I.{T,t rx war, �t Y, Works Q`il.l: = C1iikff Dix�6W cif PubUc JUN 9 1992 �. w 4 �O r cz:' l tzger Reno and,� Sub vi. ion Project Etit Qr 11r� ti:;�ii�ttlla ._ " !r 447Fl ame 15y92 I hF:J�r�a �} • 1 T�;• rk: We have completed out review of the above-noted proposed,,EI12. It 3.s Fl ' noted that: the long term implications contained in Chapter b have not made their Way to the summary in Chapter 3. Of specific-concern,. are the massive f tme coati construction projects recommended in mitigation.° -6-1: on pages 6-3" arid"66'-4.. It would appear that we should either require the necessary, construction as''p�r of each, development er a pro rata share toward this const ruction,£each development, _ Michael' C1and'Associates 'should be required to make their. FZ recommendations regardir�:g the ;most equitable and realisi;tc approach for our review at&,,approva?. If you should have any questions please contact this offit:e.. IF CaC:a`h William,Chef x Attach. Director of ;l?ub] is ,Works _ �1 i •Y 1 1�1 1 ' hO CT '''~ • DONALD C, NMCNELIS, District Supez-intenderi , ► P,O. BOX 300 tOOIAP CALIF`ORNLA 9593$ (916) $95-4675 FAX (916) 895-4642 �.. BOAR]] OF 'I'ItUg= chard L Anaiemn „ Ruby o. T;Claatmelshue. Michael G. McDonatd' -- Edwin E. Rynta M Anthony Sauces Plannlno department' June 9m JUN' 51,192 ttrere3 s. ,r x'04 „ Thomas Last, Senior Plarulet Beate 'C'ou ttv PTanriinu Departrt:ent 7 County Center Drive"" a bioville, CA 95965 Dear Tom:` �- 'hank you for forwarding ';a copy of the draft ETR on the 1Vletzger, rezoning And subdivision' project. I have reviewed the report and it appears to generally reflect the issues of impact for the. Durham Unified. School District., Specifcally, I would offer the,following owrng comments regardin the draft EIR 1 for Holland 1. concur with the need a paved, pathway along one side of 1 Avenue between the project site and Durham Dayton Highway as discussed. on page .3 1.2: Vfost of the children in the project area would walk or, ride hikes to school,, and as such, need,a safe means of getting to school.', ?, It was d%fficult' to track some the n£orrtation on page -11). T don't :2 understand why the California Division of Forestry and,.Fire Protection, and' Department of Public .Works, arc the responsible parties listed rela't'ive to cc110"0�• Js-lin-q�f ''•-a 3. Effectrv%e Tuiy la, 19,9?, the development impact fees will be $1.65 per square foot far new residential development (page 4. Distrid"t staff has updated the student generation figures for the district. They are;; ,tin fact, slightly lower based on the; ne�v census data than those stated' '4 on Mage 4.6-15: Rather thin,0per house, we `would expect this project to generate, 0.64 students per house orapproximately 61 students for the project: 5. The development 'impact fire to' fully mitigate 'the results ofnew, development, is $9,584 per residential unit. This includes the $1.65 per square toot. " ELFMENI"ARY SCH66L xInm M iAT- E 8CHtlnL . Wall scHOOL BARBAitA J..toHr!isro N sTEPHEIt I lit .USC1 JAMFS I).' GWl'N RINCTPAt. PRINCYPAL 1 } �1 i s ' ueilto the planning axil development tnterreIt 'ships involved 'With the 02NArea anti °that Gerierl lie J Glancing of c mpetingL land uses `su'cl as a, cul'tural'`vez �i "-:r"esrde'ind 4 fie POIaxt Amendrrientsx rezones, subdivision approvals and subsequent�trban4developtnen k u:►t include additional criteria of.development.7(rXn addtti.on, consideatt�on,of various; le.�,nents of the county's policies, plans and standards must' occuro ensure�`proper ' e end that urban reser toolicies have been } � .�elopmenc of the area. Itis to his , ;c,,omrnended. The plans and policies that are necessary ua this' context are"the �.' ��all4wing; 1. A water plan for the area. which establishes the service area and the size, standards; location, and phasing of treat' ent facilities and lines to service: theL area,, This plan should be based on the desired landpattern for future growth, the costs of initial service, and the continue&operation coststo the south Paradise area. f2. A park and open.space plan tharldentifiesrlocations and standards for park and recreation areas to serve tune gro i,'and n'acural open spade, areas e that are robe pi eserved ' w 3. An. environmental plan that identities critical arews �that should be i protected from development if applicable. A street and transporta'don plan that, indicates thi location, capacity, and i nature of the sv�tem anal off-site-traportation zzapacts'; 5, Health ,department standards for control of septi, systems, and water, well!;i Areas where wells and septic systems are not etrrussibl p e' should be identified. 6. A fiscal plan that identifies. the. proportion of co.s of public facilities anti services that is to be reimburse.d';from new subd�vdsions. 1 indicates 7. A capital ;iffiprovements plan/program that where and e'n physical improvements are to� be made, the size Opt:these improvements, and how they will be '=financed. 4 All of the above items are elements of the planning process w�i;ich should be required by the county 'of any ;given. General Plan Amendment, rezone, oi4k bdivision, propdsal irr the DZN area to create ,a Icoherent commu-nty. deveropment. Stich= a requirement would ;prevent the marginal developments from occurrin;; which mpu e conflicts beiween. tlxe residenualiand agricultural land uses of the area' Currently, ninny subdivisions in tine - �. I321`l area;iocpur at the ^one plus acre size to circumvent the county subdivision ordinance rtadewallcs..for developments of less than'; Which11 1t res paved.'xoads, curbs, gutters, and; one acre Soiling higher standards for development would alsoprevent prernanire developments from taking place Grid preserving the ag-lands uritl such time,the maflcet �a ' J 'rF i Development standards of the county utziiz�ed'n'o"rherurbanr'aredsbr�� e' developrrt'euts less than one (1) acre slab"b" utilzed'o'r�all irestdz`nt"a1���w�'�i6w de�relopmen within e UrbanReerealA�ry " ''he followingy41cy' appites oniy. to the properties described: r d4.i .AH SR � zoned properties that are located �iinmed ately)"'°ndrth °south,f lfth&�vest of the ,Durhtun -School be considered for lugher density (R1 standards)development once M ,can itbe, a' ove mennonei� serytces are adequately laddressed'. `IMe--County' i hall"'supFort lens ty-traz�swrs within this, ea,to encourage more cost effective and E, dent yla-. p as an! anterum measure items( such as regional sewage disposal can be .developments .until -.addressed, ne 'remaining lands �in such a piopos4 :wotiicl rhaye plannedlyd'ads�:and lot , sizes; but shall rern�ain undeveloped and in agricultural production until a sewer sys�tetn asstabIished..: Appiopnate on-sie sewage dasposal sitandards'shall be the ultinzare! detertuui factoay;of the. actual develop7eii; densities:= ' r � rn d v I e, e' 1 !F I. 1 1 _{4z'` t g r + I n b rict„ � Reereat oUnci tXq�oafSe to Comment GY o i+: �, ,� a comment Noted. Pagsaa"6�1 i fhrotighA.6=18 of theDraft,EIR identify the unpacts of the proposed project��on " �4great oval sernces and facilitie5,4and identify mitigation meastues;to rcdt#ce significant im acts:to: the burham p " #1, creation and Park District, and c parks ;and= recreatipp" l gt ry ce$ I0: level.,,of -significance These ,non ` Mitigation measures are presented in.the,form of tWopiitigatian scenarios Scenario licalls,for dedicatizig a pharke' 4ri ft,projectsite and developing the park in consultation vsnth the Durham Recreation anti ;Park District. L`Cllalip 2 Calls for devetoping and.irrtplementing fee programs kp,fund,pa kland acgwsitioii, park deyelopmenl . r. and ma nteniance, .recreational faciq construction and maintenance, and; recreat onal programsand .services 'wiithin'tf ie'l istrict.' Therefore, acWrding,to the comment,,mitif;adon seep rio,2 would be,.niore apppropriate for " r redilcia, iaiipacts to t1hek District and foi parks and, recreational services `fDlarham Jn�ed Schacil Dis4rict' Y Respon5e to Comment H.1 r comment Noted. r r Itegpoh.se to Comment H Z F; , Refer to Response, to,',Commopt C,3,; E' r response to Comment H3 g t Dn page 4.6-16 of the.Draft EIR, ihUdgation Measure 4;6'6, change "dev.elopment impact fee of $156 per l 1 $quare foot of new development" to read "develbpizicnt impact fee for'schools of U.65 -,-per: ot squid foof.pow— . y residential development".. Revise'Mitigatiow easure 4.b•6 on page 3.10 of'the Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Draft EIR in the 'same manner. sponse to Comment H.4 7�n page 4.6-15 of the Draft EIR, in the second paragrap},.+reptare thetthud"aud,fo'urtly.sentences with the '611 wing two sentence's. '"Thee School District°; uses the ratio of b.6�# students; per household to calculate student generation: Using. this ratio, approximately 67 new "students for grades iC-12 Would tie generated by'the,. proposed , ' residea6al development', r Response to `Commerii` FLS' �,r.'�� P� r 4t y �A Un page 4 t`r-1G•of ihc'CSraft EIR, m Miti&tion Measure 4.6-$,.'change,E'.P.Ay the pertinent development uripact fee for'schools dstablishrd pu suant'to impl - entation b Mitigation Measure 461 to read "Pay.the pertinent, tip=front fee for` schools 'of $9,584 per "resliidi tial uii C;"i'This'up-front feer.inclttdes fhe. cieyolgpment iimp.ict,fec .; per square foot of new residential development identified m Mitigation Mea ure, 46.6. • RCvise MitigattO�i, 1 Measure. 4,6-8 on page 3;10 of the lviitigation ,Monitoring Program ;in the Draft EIR in 'the same :manner;, i. 'I`irtt and Lynn Barris Re4Drtnse'to.Ctimment C1111 t c c comment Noted, 11 J 07)= Me ipent'- in# co,;" vuan, Pv)em �. , 32 [tegwnw to Cotumenta Kemtmd on Lhe' Dmft F�Fi