Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout77-47B 12"bl er ,rx.T»l . C19011OGTC HAZARD Svp- BLCMLH? r NI)L 1 The idn t' PO n i lcation of geilogic 1'MP'1,L•MENT�AT�xoN lteresdo is in the Public in- znrorm the public of g�c ltazcxrd 1' Approve and i crest« hazO rds. v traps in thispublish the haxad 2• Geolo geo, o, is the i► r plan element. Kee development capabilities, 2* ;.ormatian up to date P Cott.rider 9�'alog,iu haza,a•ds in development of hand Use, Z• betertitialq a Housing, Clrculatlan appropriate uses for high , Censor- hazard areas. Lst<ablish limits v�at•ion anti open 5pacv Elements. on the density Y and type of dove- « The risk at' landslides is Permitted in high hazard areas. greatest in areas with 3. Consider landslide potential in slopes over 15%, weak roc xoview of private development:. �' Require investigation and high rainfall,' and publio facilities Potential to gation of landslide rated d and 5 in areas present findings development. H `�. T'it= lemnval of surface an crap r.tx»1, 9 in environmental W m4`ltera_al b 4• Can�icler erasion review and subdivision review. Y rxit7 and watts potential in .� varies by slope, soil, review Of private development 9' Require investil �P Vega tilL-ion, precipitation and public facilities 1st ares Potential for ration of erosion and development;. xt is rated high And very high areas Present findings Posed development. greatest in areas of 4 Findings in environmenta,, NAP xxa»z. review and subdivision review. .granitic rock. 5. Ground surfaces can sink and ✓� C cause Significant damage in 'Protect against subsidence areas where there from grvun4-�ware,r withdrawal S. Monitor sin)ting as tensive withdrawalioseground and oil and necessary, water, oil and gas withdrawal. � subsidence Potential gas. in rev' le of -%Pr posed Withdrawals 6• Many valley areas with clay 6.�p'� �G P soils have phi{r°�l�j��l�� a high potential protect development in Valley Eor structural damage from areas with expansive sails.' Monitor shrinking soil shrinking and swelling, as trshrg and swelling necessary. Require mitigation measures Eor large develouments and major -facilities when there is a high Potential fdr damage. -----------�- rate t f�9 x Y ,l Table T11-J. PIAE HAZARD SUIS-1Mk:iN1 N'L' XNDINGS POLICY xMI.�I�CMENI'�1mxON 1. Most of the County has a 1. Make protection from f',ire 1. Consider fire hazards in all natural fire Jiazjed of hazards a consideration in sand use and zoning decisions, at least moderate severity, all planning, reyulatocy, Nvarly all of the foothill and capital .improvement environmental review, sub- division review and the pro- anti mountain areas have programs, with special concern visi.GCt of public services hazards of high or extrento for areas of "high" and severity, "extreme" fire hazard. 2. The number of fire Occurrences 2'.' Provide adequate fire pro- 2. is increasing along with the tection .services In all a eas y Present and future incxaasing numbers of visitors limits of adequate Eire pro- and residents in the Count re rection use growth and high tecti.on set;vices. Guide do- y recreation use velopment to those areas through zoning, and development review processes. H3= Residential development is occurring i3.; Limit devolopmetit where natural 3. zone high and extreme natural 11 the mountainous taro hazards Are high or extreme fire hazards areas which are area of the County where until adequate fire protection inadequatelytv natural fire hazards are is prov.idod. Protected for ty high or extreme and whe+e low residential densities only, fire protection facilities Provide no nett/ public facilities are mostly inadequte and that encourage growth in these difficult to provide. areas except those essential to public safety. d,. 'Vegetation is the critical. d. Use fuelbrakes along the 4. Require fuelbreaks where factor in fire spread. edge of developing areas and feasible within "high" and in "high" and "extreme', fire "extreme" fire h xard areas. hazard areas. S. Tire protection facilities 5, Provide odequate fire 5 Cons f �t Ire' station SNC { rte` are lacking or marginal in cons as X4.7 protsctian in all areas where required to some areas of the County. service levels are deftclent, greatest need. Proprotect,ro areas of Promote the formation of volunteer Eire companies in rural communities. 6, watersheds a reservoir: 6. Limit development in 6. Prepare zoning plans for critical watersheds leads to fires whish threaten community reservoir wahersheds, watershed areas. Consider possible water supplies, damages to watershed in environ mental review. Table rT*3. FIRt HAZARD LLMN'T (Continued) 7. Fire control. and suppression 7, insure that water supplies T. for Develop fire grand cogs standards L•oz' now development aro for individual and cortununity water ,is often restricted by ts epi fare protection systems serving new development« adequate inadequate water supplies. `� apply these standards to sub - purposes. divisions, land divisions, and use permits; Ci. Access to fires by emergency 8, Cnsura that road access for 8 Develop standards for widths, new development (a adequate grades, and curves of new roads to oquipment is often limited by passage assage and maneuvering of inadequate roads. for fire Protection purposos. 1 emergency vehicles. Require multi- ple access where feasible. 9. Develop and implement a con - 9. Eire report and response times 9. Raquire or promote the easy sistent street naming and'house are often delayed by incon- identification of streets s9.stencies and deficiencies aro developed properties, numbering system for the entire County. Require all names and 1-1 in street naming and house numbers to be clearly visible. H numbering. !-1 f N10. Hold hearings to adopt the W 1o. Some human activities And 10. Regulate as necessazy those Uniform Fire Code or modi- land uses have a high activities and uses with a fications thereof. potential for causing fires; bigb fixe potent'iai.: CO LphGVqjH( �YQV' Vic C 114? 04 Table iv -6 . NOISr, BLEMCNT rINDINOS POLICY IM['l' 1;MLN--- LA1'rON 1 Objectionable noise from trans- 1. Malstain an acceptabl& noise en 1. portation facilities and vironmr?nt in all areas of the �1 ]{-�erxutc�rrk -Nese-4(�rEd4 ee„ stationary sources can have a Catrnt. a--c"tC1"07T"CtCep f significant impact on 'public Orel' health and welfare. I(G 2. Some: aspects of transportation 2. Ohere possible, control the 2. 44ie�,,;:, State and raderal regu- related noise can be controlled sources of transportation noise la Lions for, rOducing transportation by the county, to maintain acateptabie levels. noise. Consider noise in the loca Lion and design or County roads. Locate aircraft alight paths away from developed arias where feasible, 3. Development along railroads piscovrage residential develop 3. Consider noise sources in review of and highways can cause a signi- ,Hent and other noise -sensitive zoning and subd:ivision.proposals. jN; fican{ noise problem. Activities near railroads and Locate noise sensitive uses away ' highways, from railroads and highways. N Ln 4, Development near aircraftle to oflight 4. lan for airport dovolopment 4• Locate noise -sensitive uses away andpaths subjes discourage noise-sensitfve from airports. Prepare specific futurele noise asci threatens activities near airports. Airport 2nvirons plans for Chico future airport operations. and Oroville airports, 5. Some types of recreational 51 control recreation activities 5. Place limits on the levels of activities make objectionable that have the potential to cause amplified sound a-nd the time and noise. objectionable noise. location of outdoor concerts, auto and motorcycle races, and similar noisy activities, 6. State legislation requires 6. provide 60 da noise contours 6. Develop 60 dB noise contours noise insulation of new multi around all major sources. around major sources where this family dwellings constructed within information is not presently the 60 dB noise exposure contours. available, 7. Noise problems cross city 7. Cooperate with the incorporated 7. Exchange noise contour infor- boundaries. cities to sesoive mutual noise oration. Develop compatible problems noise control programs. a. As the County grows and acti- £?i keep the Noise clement current 6. Monitor changes in noise levels. Vities. change, the noise with changing conditions. Update noise contour data. environment will also change. V Pabltb v-1, SMIC 111GOWAY RLtMENT �• butte County has many areas of Picturesque natural landscapes, 2• Official State designation of scollic highways boner -its the local scenic highways urogram and requires various County actions. 3. Scenic c6rridor boundaries should include areas visible from highways, outstanding natural, or man-made features, land where development may affect views, and feasible regulatory areas. POLICY 1, Protect valuahlo s0,011,10 areas Por an.'loyment by tors, ros,idehts and Shc�0 2, secure off 'J42 State desa:gw nation o2cenic highways adopted in this element. q,. 3. Uol,tneate scenic corridors with careful consideration of all tactors. IMPLBML7NTATIQN Develop a sya4om of scenic high- ways, as ind'c,e on ma-�, ' 2. Follow Proce(fulres 3• -mac. State criteria. Survey scenic corridors. Solicit citizen participation, prepare "Scenic Highway Report" for each Corridor: Devsalopmont of 'scenic hi hwa A iv 1�ts-of-Way has ri<lsignificant int .act oil p quality of visual Consider quality o.f visual landscape and driving ex, q,. Require planning commission landscape and driving parience in design of the annual review Of major road projects to experience. roadway and other feature,, include concern for scenic values. in the right -of -Ways 5, Numerous vehicle accessto aloe p oints scenic highways can impact 5. Control ecce,„, scenic highways 5. Utilize driver. safety and comfort, to maintain satety e:tisting access whore feasible. a roadside beauty, and quality of driving experience. Limit encroachmentand permits for :safety,.. 6.. The negative visual impact of Utility lines and structures 6, L°cafe end design utility can be mitigated by incotl- structures to minimize 6. Re Review the location and deign e location a spicuous siting and pleasing design. visual impuce, major lanes: Require ,.fit, least conspicuous location u„ distribution lines, as feasible and whore th,.te is 7 ,protection of scenic corridors 7a reasonable choices Is largely dependent on ` t'r°feet against development 7a. Limit local land use to that is incompatible with the natural unnecessary commercial and non-atiri�ultural. appearance oi' scenic corridors. use. Rezone A-2 areas. Clarify use permit b• provisions of S -U zone. andlocation Limit the dinsscaniec structures orridors. h Require Large lot area per dwelling unit. Require increased front set- backs. Encourage integrated, compact business areas. Rezone A-2 areas. y e _ _ Tt�1j�.is VMt. SCLNXC 111t,11WAy 1.4,LME14T (Continued) .. - Cv Rostrict Jot'at.jo11, sub eat and dr al9n of signs in sovn$d c,. Include sign rostri,a; Jolla in 5-.11 or�rx.tdrlx zona, Prepare comprehensive sign ordinance witty s"ecia,l provisions fclr scenic Wghways. c'L oantxal bark/l�mov,itlg opaarattana irl ednie anrricior d,� Re uire use permit for private earth- Moving Operations in scenic corridor, Require re-planting and landscaping where feasible. ©. 00julatc t'lln z,111110va.1 011 Vega- t"blon in a;cnnic co:rridorn. e. Aicoou.rage Clear-cutting a,n scenic: W c.orra.dora. Enforce Eire hazard Con- trols strictly in aoonic corridors. Require use permit for site Cleary a. gi£i.c;is31 Si;aee de»3ignatLOn O> �. once in aC�±nic cr�rridOrs. arsenic iaicillwayp requires de- ta"'d study and planning of scenic coexidosa pinna For each H. Survey corridors. Prepare and ad'upt hand scenic cOxri use regulations. Solan d eYelocorridors.melnt; of right-Of-way and Al, effective µconic highways 9 other p ul)lic facilities. program requires active local irlvolvemont and support. Tnu�te citisclrl Participation in the scenic --On Pai t 1 pxooram. 5. indicate routes on public maps and plans. Place "poppy" signs on adopLed routes. Encourage adver- tisi.ng by Chambers of COMmerce and otters. Seek citizen parti- cipation in all aspects of program. STATS OP CALWORNIA -TRANSPORTATION AWNCY EDMUND R. UpOWN. A, Covnrnur DEPARTM15NT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 DISTRICT 3 1', p. BOX 911. MARYSVILLE 95901 Telepho�te (916) 6,(4-4543 [a:B 17 Ti OpiOVIL1_C, CAUL. Mr. Bob Gaiser Advance Planner Butte Countuy Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Gaiser: 03-But-Var. Safety, seismic Safety, Noise and Scenic Hwy, Element of the Butte County General Plan Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed Safety, Seismic Safety, Noise and Scenic Highway Elements of the Butte County General Plan and the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed scenic highway plan shows a number of discontinuous segments of scenic routes. The Scenic Highway Committee, in general, has not encouraged the development of short segments of scenic routes. Even though some portions of a rouge may not be scenic in themselves, they should be included for overall route continuity. Small rural and mountain communities often have scenic and historic qualities that are not incompatible with the scenic highway concept. It is recommended that the proposed scenic highway plan be reviewed with an eye to developing greater scenic: route continuity and route; interconnection. A fully continuous integrated system is not required., but our understanding of the goals of the Scenic Highway Committee would encourage fewer gaps than shown in the draft plan. We have no additional comments regarding this January draft document. Very truly yours, LEO J. TROMBATORE District Director of Transportation B. E. Brockett District Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Branch B' �t I AK 0,KU 0 - F c• G.CtVE,10" Ir. '1'.> �r tri t141t r7 r'1 L !„,„ 1`ebrunry 16, 1977 `llrr„ rricettit+t; <.1, .— .-0 led Lo ovlor by Chairr:utn At ti, ().5 f'c.m., in tlrc�-Ynard c>l lttl,r.,u ir�r �a t:c+:��,, Cc�trxltp A�eltnirzir,irat�ic�r� t�ullelit� , 1859 hitt. Street, Crcrvillo, "Jcrt 1, `' ;u•,n r't �. ' I tr ;at LemIan r�:e, F p, I, vtfia7:, It! cttter, M.AElil,.rtr, T.atirrilcr..r, 1lrssc�l.ey, Witrt;ton; Coutrcixiwan Tixorn t'`.lr,�o; 2'ta�yeyr; t;> 9•t=a, C,� nvi.:l:l:t*. v L'i vi vn l+ lti`ar ra1' crett�e_ .i 1t`I�tt 1' i•er Gridley; and Councilwomau Smit`h - MUS, t1it�J'c'atxi'l,� r,�' i"6it'rtrt c,` I' Tt, vas riJ",r`od by 111', 'IMllhe, reconcled 1,3, 11rnyor gy1va, and passed that Lhe Minutes of inra'onry 19, be approvc+cl as mai,l.ed, ?aria. tatrel,cy airsLained from the voting. � Cr, 1 e t,'i ca 1;; culls Cutrw;t x?,�r t2 fi rz7'r The County Auditor sc}nds nrrt:i.oe that they have prorated the J ai7,t=,.i",)r 1911 't cc i.pt. raf r� 3L5 r:ecrsiic•s ate Poll nt°rt;; City of Biggs � ; 7U i , 59; City of Cll$.crr -. rl•1� ,,,,�;L! rity of Gridley - $1.,324,41; City ,of Orov.i.l:le M $3,79U.36; County of t,utUa '� $0,151,,69, for a tectal ui $61,353.1;7. C;-pu,tt•, 4ttd,t r. The County ,Auditor fealvLrded a stat.ergent of revenues received and #,... payrar;ii ; t ., rea r s � 0114 fpr t liex l�s?i ic,d July y 1. , 1 c37G to December emtrer 31., 1 �7�, in Izccordatace rri,th wSP.(.tAnn 1.1.22. of thc- c)a1.i.'N rAfA Adwinistr8tiver Code, Chapter 3, 'fitly 21, 'file total i ISSCrtrtrt' 7:f°Grs3L'cetre1 tit 1);lY r 1 te: `. 5a rs tl��iEr. At: t;ho January lCA(,r mooting, mayor Sylva quw'.tioned tho population figut r,the. r it'4:. of Oroville, ".s it c:cncorm; Lite 1977-78 allocation of h-325 funds tO In ry aar+;leo r .'r r, vl�l;Rs"sent Lt, tile Associ ition, Mr. Johansen stated that tr"_AG Resolution lvo, 72.6 r � :r,: f iw liasesl:r°rt i on 'N*o. 74-3, 14urch 7.11, 1974, provides. that the basis, iot: cli�ts z'#utt ,: a",+skew; it+ Ilya e.i.ticr; zrrxd c.=otrnty is to be the C,rrrptlation estimate Provi dolt 1)'" tl I-., :r ti:+i'trt rk r t :tS C' ! population Itpovarcll Unit, l!orsuan't to Chapter WK), ';`�. �l ;.`r (�i9'�r's�i. ktkr�; vt'.14v!lter i; e►rrrt�rstly provided by 1:ay i of each t: a,ell� ',.,r�:.! i . ' A tl�ttlii t'la„r�t17 tlrt; I {rP� nni�e*11i t;�hf?an of xtl]i�{?�',�` t:rn tr'a"t I t'�t1t i il,u�'c� to t'lae .°�'ratt� ont°ro'l lvi for .aulavi,nt Itxt] purporo (Droville Iwo ol.t�CtcRtl tt ].i.,ttri9a it�. lath lW) tl]r. t]t.,)it lmrlt,tt 11f�,tt�rt� ccanL'o];hlt#Led lay f'llttC +a.ai lj,�at��t< i3t; t; iia 04r, -Trot Iwovitivd a1,�M,taarly rtt, limed tarta�e, hft r ,►ta►t,�ata1acta 11111ri t'l,at: �,+1 tl�,at tl t lataltul.,a ion Land 1xl1 .cabin. f�l:,urr�ta provitictd parr; 11 Imrraid on tlit .Ihy 1, 11a76 Impart x(tit of Fin3lct, t"ritilivito si.nve data llov population i4 not avail«at+l(;- ma I, V)77 f t,a t•!ill. lacy a.]:+c`tl ror at•'ta],:tl tl�lttta-llattt3.nin for J977-78, llaytaz f;ya �:a taut rc�.1 Marti' 1]Ew 'I'to aaaal:i:,a fi ta1 v,101 tilts pc,tm ]trot onvi.tifratr Addj t ttaa��l �r o]s ]atatif��?t l�arl,i. There ww:o lio additiotual communicaLtoaa.a. I�fc,Mr. for (`hi Go, ()ti l r lea obit �� '., 1c'77 the (;lai v.0 (, tv rouracs;i.l approved rev3 r+i onS to ll]cia I'irF, !i xYrattai `Pruar,;�r�et�at•Lori Claim, The t`t:riiorted rovtoionc result from t1w rollo..atreTltxli'iicaLion to tiac Cit•y'c 1976-77 Annual Budvet rewaaxtri l sub=w►�r uea�t t a !tlTat,G's npin°oval 01 ta,e orf i.nAl olaim; no approvvta by the C1.ty d ...x .�5 rtraAtttiaa 'i];".tanCta:3y 4ar.,tl (3) st'tatulraay chan}rA,x with specific ?,) nasi c.,c� lation refrax atac �. t+s tinct ro�ltar:.al. Cna� ftat7cTlt];;—L'laC� f:ity, t, rtlt, a o c]f' thex "G1air`ci C:1i:pp€ a-" and Sb 12", + I.aatatlu rata rat t�tf t t::x ,Tcaa�u:�ry l , L�)7? i.ti l i r u of c�tla,c:� city fundi.axg sources as prLIvLously approved, The I;t'A(= Tr::nspowt.rtl.Jota 11vulr=tr (lcam]]ai.ttcat» r'ravjewod the regt%estod revis.otls and r-o�]mtr,ndad rl; proval, by PCAG, Motic,alt U was ttatxvud by Nlr. Wil,utcata, (wecilided by M~Iyor ylva, and a.tnanivitousl.y .. .. 1]aaae]od to af,J]rc]ve x•uv•irriona to t1a*: c,it°y rrfi C.i,i.ct', I:'Y 's.l)`l6-77 a1nt. as 1. 7.'a:arasporttitican Cl,aly at, approved ley the 'T`ransport,10.017 RCvIcW COMIaai.ttoe Tzt� ,1,.'�_ r; iscus.Eai.on ofhra t�]ra:r�l. ntitt-e Co ty ct, Mra wit;�tat•i asked Larry Tarool.:, from tate Planning 1),-„pa',t:riient bow much ttt%w study had rosy? MI,, Brooks Stat that it cost, al:ound .$24,000 1}ti 1Y11t: r.on, am ed that iit: saw this sttdY :is a, ta—at;lor, Of Li.durus from ava,)9.abl ft soaurcr:s within the ctn]nt:y. Ma:. ilrtankv stated Oiat it Would be most useful att ttn aaptiattc for they grgleral plan, The report also studiod the holding capacity of paradise a aid pvOvid(I_ l xtr:cOsSaly cla!a for futtt�e planla.inct matters, Mr. leit'•rtori atatticl that laeie]a:t, this fattatty foulrl be un t9 for a gc1leral plan, it N,r ould have to have additional, }o;icmrch to�ta,Rx,t�tat i t T� 1*ia . lti t?latcsr stated tl]€t't 016ris tietc°`o(f ti^rcelF, of 1,,,tnd in the. Paradise Irrigation I.)i.striet att�l :,l.t�cl V11iA tl,e rV017sall aoprca:rtlte tak?oal” mi�lae l]e� t.ir. P,ratai�s stared that they jy;ctajocit afor papulR�t,;ic�ax figurkt c,lT ; 1.,000 'int vie:;ht: to te]a years axial that there is a dtyta.t].xte vood fo itat��l:ttia�ntat���Aa r }. a .sot'aa,, c syF 'Nin. May car c;. 1v; stat (]tl kiaat t,lat> c`cal i itartaiii t.•.a„te Wat-or Board ha', been looking at l�ftl"tttia�t s."4+:..�'=T'aaaY]S; ;i4'i.r1r aaro')iol' . z Mr. l.00ilal Y i n t ed i' llti e (here 41, (? l of t f otl i h,y`oi- or four yFavi,? to p t:kti: t it F:tawn,�p diotrict but tthe lrl;tllr of propertyrs-ar+c!rts taa-re ay�1, cal:lowa.-d LO v(,trf.'. oll it. MV, ;viiCCtl tllClt (t' tl,a:+ it; i?fl,`?Itr7C1 by PVRi(i an a co-111"tnlity di,&�fptwitaent }r4 ai+ y itt t.cr�,tt.tl 1ttrLto tatlrtrtt"1�, t.1„gin ., t1. a 1) It' dtt,t; d0MutzlotIts' Mr n rtated tliilt it• �Fi ,�r,,`t ti i`t?ttG11.1�,"t•1', F;lttt`t1SilC:ttt.i": cti 04,nr rat l'laln� vlonlolita'« `i'1'►a ku,', W16del.rty��cl nIitil the next BCAG TRt ti.nt;�� x Aoft,11� r°, tit v�p l hypo t Tlw of t tzlaoa-VI Nott, has revi.oved rrco.,:jonjiclati.ons pori, au d hafa Ow report 6o thv A.w,,oci.nvion. l�it�. G�itt`.t;hti lttt fort=r'ct tllnt iiG,"ltt"t* so manly pollits di.acusnod ir�,thc rapoo: po Lain d 1"ec t i qtr to Citic,-', J L woul d it,! bwlt Vo have '010 ci.t,` qu meet: rjn(l d j.ScXjs� t hu report a.ti<l rt�pc)rt their findi.nt =y to DcAG, Mrr Rlxht (.,,�7 rugi;r)st.a(l t.11e for-ira t ion of -tie Animal Control Cotmrti,ttee, '>i,ia le up Grl �, pct°�ac�ntr�tivr��� from Hio ciLic.s, .y;ld .>`l.sa a BCA tnomlleX. �"lti,� ��otntnittce could a sti r t+:; a tit°ti. "rtt z,zi i y in l i.cengi ng fe,:I; incl procedurus; contral: E cili.ty'in the county For HIP 11,4)(11 int; of dogs; alld othuz nutbods or- prcividinl; morin v--fici.ont animal eoIAt "t,0 all ftra.t.c nwilt. hsar,al:e attc;geat ecl ltctvi.xtl a r��ttrri��tnt�; 1•� ivta frOU; Hae PF'radise Municipal Advisory C;t)ttpri.l. (MAC) hct rcpi,-esnnte(l fin thi. d;nimal Control Committee, tda:. ltic:lrtOr i.ndic0ted lie woulet also) l,il.e t,:o serve on this committee as the a•oproi,,enLiititact 1"rom BC,AG. t', i i t ont tl)o floor Clay Cant lalie:rry foul Public Worts Fltzxted oil. Februarwr 7.5, 1977, he 4sked `oe ° 13caRtrd of Sular ,:vi.F ors to rl i.z�a, nate fr from the Federal Aid S.-Item, a sactiori of the r 0I.-Ovll,le-Qui.alry 1Ri,ii1a,xy from Brush Cry l¢ to the Mount:airt '.ouge. The reason For t,hi5 pw:oposal is bec:att u they haVF3 f0tzttd a source of money Hint can now be used Oil federal 4id >;otfes. ll^ would like to have the Associatiot, p4ss a i-csolution: concurring with t-he deletion of that section fro,tt the Fedex-al Aid 5ystr:,m. s. k ' 11a7 McDottc lO stated that for years, the Ot:ovi;ll.e-Quincy Bight;ay to Frush Crte't has bean in the 'Ceclarial td Syiitrm. Last: year, when the n4tmty realigned Hit! `;YUtLm, ,i t' Vd—s VnderSt'On,.. nat: the portion,of" Oroville-Quincy z,lgl"Ictayy, 1(;c-tta,d in PZamn6 Count, v-,ts til thec-dcl ral AH Sv tr-- t, and that wa' tjh4fi it i4aS r.•,%(Iue8ted ,,o oxt end the hiihvay fror, 1"rt,k>h C`a ack to the Plutrw.s Courty l ne. Since tl c3i Plumas CourfLy bras ~ilr,L LnntovfjL�.i their portion of flim road, which f3 anot,hor x'ua:aon it n,hcrtild be deleted. Mr. Wi.tiston a:,,*Iced if Iylut)as Vwu-,tv maintained the road, Clay Castleberry, st;amd that v,2, y l.i Ltle w;ts 'actull y t:maintaitied. Ile further stated that Fl utas Corlttty has z"ilte rc-d into a 40OPO-ratia e Jr,rl!eiijeut tv improve Mica mail heLween tiltcr'y and 1tt1R'. o l:tl.e and t:hc pro t'rt,t l:il i exLend WO miles this side of Bucks Lake. by th-, �'(�tl ,tiCya� Rlle 7nl fod by Mie, ;t'h.oril- and unrini iously ra tt to =at,taz �a rr�oliati.-ita cclltr:ttrr^i.t;,.ri.tla d�ltrr dt!lc.t'on of land From the i'iwrtera Nt VATR OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCQS AGENCY �+�rr��w,� artimol, DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME I n>a r�+izrr� i�'i` l Cxr�s'� t"ai i',7c1'hr�z F k) , l y) /977 OCR Dear r e-5 v na n c r ��treor: � 1"WGv��r 'lac>._ IZ -dor wln ,Sc i<sy�x:c, �5� f+�y 0-ma tic, . I' tJl 1bW&Y5 .1 �>z �c' 6- Pic-m, "l`w'o (:,orrP,.. +1-on S /1U2Q,�2 he Ri'f)a•ykurL h hL` -G- �i.lc�r4c� f11�. F��z -l� �- fi ver t 5 rra a c-e s,rrcto r -Fo w dF- r m f r evl) yr 3 "rc�-® -h v�c.11 .Y , fwl �` � a- c � i `v�fi 4 eP �r iK I- n,yi obi e.re rash e S etc, YL O * P rO vi',A -P-6 r a 1/e�e.`�zL."Fr'c��•r c�a�'•5 j�rc�t�s'��� =(='v���,v�,�-� s��.�,�, ���td ���,.���vr. �c��- �� �- o 'rh�wk yr��, �=`r� �11�, �F����••�-ur�G"-�y! •�o �a�JNj�����z�'f�- b�x� the. �,�•�� 14, W I (" Vie. 81-.p l o� i (` C CALIF', ,,�.,t rpt 4 • El JIM �jtowoo---w �U � �� �a���� �"Nr F- { i 1111IM'11 14t111N111V 1)1,A t� &T T KY tv t;t)Tt1'rT f° K-; C C N i+tIN11`1U Fc111`1. ar'y 10, 19.., inro rm,at'itM 111 Illi, ro detail, 2. Safety p1'Iomont Mr, biz's sor 1,il-so rov I ('wod 1':-11e s11111111ary of f 11l .`v (" (uJ1 otic, Commissioner Smith said sbo folt 'tile location of t:1w soopentitiv deposits shotild bo indickated in the clement, During .Oicr discussion rog'ardi g, the fire hazard it wt s, noted tha.l P.i;radiso has a faro ha and greater: than most of tare l),tl11r1co of the couni.y, Mit that thclr,degrco of fire protection was also Iligher. 1'21:(: FSS: 9: 6 11. tYj Itii1 E'1 TNG RECONVENED: 9:43 11. M. Noise F " �llwilt 77-61-1- 549 Mr. tla.iyclr also briefly r°eviewod the summary of thf,,; element Bob 1tredenb rr,g, 2840 Mtlr 1po`1`: Avenue, Chaco, summarized a 2 -page 11t1per, presented to the Commissioners carjlurs rhe 'coat follows: "I have reviewed. the January 1977 draft of the Noise Element for the Butte County General Plan. I consider. this draft a great improvement over the one that we looRod at previously. 1 do still, have some concerns that are not different from those X e. pressed originally. ly. Ptrtge XV -21, paragr;rj.)h 5, Noise Sensitive Areas: I proposf.- that in thQ list of tho.ie things that should be considered noise SeTlsltiVe Sites 11OLtixng, both single ftwiily and multiple, be included. Nothing has a greater impact (span thr quality of our dives than the horde erivi.rotiment in tit Uch we wid our families Stpond our` bine. TO limit this noise sensitive definition to �si:tes that contain only larger aggregations of peo-i l e than ue normally find iii the, private homes does not seem reason- able. 1n the ease of hitt ie fails ily dwro11nu^,;, the aggregate of people 44_ B(!"rrtE COUNTY PLANNING Ci)MWSSION MTNtl'rf,, , Pebr, u ary 10, 1977 Would f.ar oxcecd that: already listed as being noise setas.i.t, ve, i o. 1.5 per- sons. I Cult therefore requesting ihwtt single family and multital.tt 1'ami,ly (hv011iltgs be in(.At4ded as noise sensitive s ,tee, T'... :fV���>•� l;op paraa;raph Here as in other places in the draft the reference is vacua LO Ldn 60 dB tis provldina, "a suitable noise environment inside buildings." Again, this L(In unit can, he misleading since tye usually refer to noise levers in. dBA terms, T concur that this draft element bag been consistent ill using the i'dn, but this is net the level to which people will react in tlar.iIr 110mes, in their yards, and on the --treet. In 1972 the State Legislature passed a bill that specified a 50 dBA :revel that should not be exceeded in school classrooms, libraries or mtal:ti-l�t,.j,jose rooanq, This would seem to be a reasonable level ;for homes, i think we must be very cautious that we do not delude people into thinking that the ILin 60 proposed in this draft will in fact ensure a noise level :;uff'ic,tently lots to ensure a good living environment: Page 1V-25, Table :IV -6, _Implementation No. 5 The draft says, "support state and :federal regulations for reducing transportation noise." I propose -that :in addition to this statement another be added saying that "all lair enforcement agencies within the county be instructed to enforce the State 'Vehicle Code regulations pertinent to vehicular noise both on and off the highways." _Page IV -25, Table t The implementation section of items a and 4. on this page should each contain a statement to the effect that no land will be zoned, for single' or multiple dwelling units in areas where the Ldn :level is predicted to exceed 55. An additional paragraph or section should be added to the element to the effect that any renter or buyer y • o,, any livi.n; unit will be supplied tyith information relative to the ,noise level, they can expect and tt e effect that this level will have on the quality of life if the anticipated out-of-doors level. in the area exceeds Ldn 55 If you have questions relative to these comments please get in touch W 5_ 13i1"i"l''i; C.()tlNTY PLANNING CowlIS,S'1C)N MINUTI ;l Fobrrazt.ry Vi(), 1977 with ane. IF .0 can httavi(lc clay ic�anunyt,�"atic�a. of 11014 o�rels that ttiouj41 be helpful 'tra the Co�tt�t.t s$ i an or tho Supc�rViso s as t1i(Iy cortsi; ier ti�i s l`roi 5c il.ettient, "t will lacy pleased to do so, 'Very tru'l.y your.;; Rob2rt L. Fredenbur ,f Mr. Fredenburg later recotn"lleftdecl that a noise oriel; trance be adopted rather than the adoption, of sz'% h an ordlna.nce 110 consideree. (see Pave l:V.25, TV -6 Impleinoritaticaj 7 ) Scon°i c- ZIaLL)1va 77-62-1-55f1 Mr. Gaiser hrio:fl.y reviewed the summary of this element and, acld.ccl, in response to a guest i oto front one o f 'tile Comma ssionors, that proposed Scenic highways wore already paved with tile, oxceEtion of tipper Skyway and the northern part of Qtti.ncy Road. No specific: recommendations were made: V. MISCELLANEOIt A. WERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1V'ITH REQUEST , THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE %ILEI) I. Eartram Rezone - File 75-84 - Rezone .from A-2 to C-1) R-4 and S-1 for 300 acres, more or less located on the west side of Esplanade, bet'veen Eaton Read and Shasta Avenge, Chico.`' 77-61-1-464 Counsel Siemsen' stated that the problem of the Bartram ''Rezoning was under study by the Environmental Coordinator and that de- termination regarding environmental, impact rvi.11 be made by the Board of Supervisors. In response to i question from commissioner Watters as to whether any request had boon made of the Coordinator to fxl a Negative Declaration Regarding l.nvzronmental Impact, it was stated that no direct request was made but the Bofird minutes instructed action as indicated on the agenda. -6 00 (rel RICOMI .1 VANUR ROMA $, 110r ,3 C C11100, CALIFORWA usats Fobtuaq 10, 1977 , r . Bob Qaiso r Plat -ming Department 7 County Center 11r ivo Oroville, California 05965 Dear Bob; T have reviewed the January :1077 draft of -the Noise Flomer t 1"Or Cfie Butte County. General Plan; 7, consider. thi, Arn-Pt a great imp:roventent over the one that we looked at previously. J: ,u stall have some concerns that are not different From thol expressed originally. Page 1V 21, LaragLaph 5, Noise Sensitive Areas T propose: that in the list of those things that should be considered noise sensitive sites housing, both single family and multiple, be included. Nothing has a greater impact upon the quality of our lives tlMn the home environment in which we and our fatnilies spend our tune: To limit tha:s noise sensitive definition to sites that contain only lat"ger aggregations of people than we normally !:incl in the private fortes does not seem reason- able. eason-able. In the ca.so of multiple family dwellings, the aggregate 'of people would :far exceed that already listed as being noise sensitive, Le. 15 per- sons. x cim therefore requesting that single family and multiple :family dwellings be included as noise sensitive suras. Page W-24, top pa Taph Here as in other places in the draft the reference is made to Lin 50 dB as prov;ccling "a suitable noise environment inside buildings." Again, this Ldn unit can be misleading since we usually refer to noise levels in dBA torms. T concur that :this draft clement has been consistent in using the Ldn, but this is not the level to which people will react in their homes, in them yards, and on the street, In 1972 the State Legislature passed a bill that specified a 50 dB l level that should not be exceeded in school classrooms, libraries or multi-purpose rooms: This would seem to be a' reasonable :level ,for homes. x think we must be very cautions that we do not delude people into thinking that the Ldn 60 proposed in this draft will in :facet ensure a noise Level sufficiently low to ensure a. good living enviro.. mtent Mr, Bola Galsor February 10, 1977 Y'�1�;C IV�25 "1'r�l;�,ls :CV-�i- :f,np:le:nicxtt�.utiott fdo. Tlto draft says, "SLIJaportr slate �trtd federal regtrlatIons Cor ,redgcing transportation noise." S pt*oposo that in addi "Aon to this statement another be added saying that "all :Law onforcomont agencies within the county be instructed to enforce the State Vehicle Code 'reguls-xtlons pertinent to vehicular noise both on and off the highways.'' .page IV -25 'fable IV -6: The implementation section of items 3 and 4 on this page should each coni:i viii a Statement to the effect that no land tti-Jl be zoned for single of multiple dwelling units in areas where the 1,dn level, is predicted to exceed 55. An additional paragraph or section should be added to the element to the effect: that any renter or buyer of any living urtit will be supplied wttli information relative to the noise level they cart ex'17ect and the effect that this level: will have on the quality of life if the anticipated out -of -floors level. in the area exceeds hdn 55` If you have questions relative to these comments please get in touch with ]"a. If I can provide any demonstration of noise levels that would be helpful to the Commission or the Supervisors as they consider this Noise Element, x will be pleased to do so. Very truly yours riobbrt L u rt L. 1~redenbut^g .. R 7 UMT L, 71hEi11sMBURG $so eYrlrttOOLD AVONUR /t0tl M $1 /lox f.f$-c 0111Co, cAGtt'Q RI-ei 05"s Pebrugtry 10, 1.077 Mr, "Bob Cai ser Planning Depax tmont 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 05065 .Dear Bob: I :have reviewed the January 1077 draft of� the Noise Element -tor the Butte County General Plan. I considor.. this draft a great improvement over the one that we Looked at previously. I do still have some concerns that a.ro not different ;From those I expressed originally. Page IV -21, paragraph 5, Noise Sensitive Areas: I propose that in the list of those thing', that should be considered noise sensitive sites housing, both single family and multiple, be included. Nothing has a greeter impact upon; the quality of our lives than the home environment in which. we and our families spend• our tbno, To limit this noise sensitive definition to sites that contain only larger aggregations of people than we normally :fain in the private horses does not seem reason- able. Iii the case of multiple family dwellings, the aggregate of people would far exceed that already listed as being noise sensitive, i.e. 15 per- sons. I am therefore requesting that single family and multiple family dwelli.nas be inM lusted as noise sensitive sites. Page IV -24, top paragx°ash; Here as in other places in the draft the reference is made to Ldn 60 dB as provid "a suitable noise environment inside buildings." Again, this Lan unii misleading since we usually refer to noise levels in dEA terms. that this draft element has been consistent in using the cin people homes, L br, t the level to whicheo le r�:i.71 xe�.ct in their hoer in their yaj.:. , "ad on the street. In 1:972 the State Legislature passed a bill that specifier) a 50 dBA level that should not be exceeded in school; classrooms, libraries or multi-purpose rooms. This would seem to be a reasonable level - or homes. I think we must be very cautious that we do not delude people into thinking that the i°'dn. 60 proposed in this draft rIll in tact ensure a noise level suFfIcientl), IOW to ensure a .;od li.ving: environment. r ff Vii''Bob Calsor Februat'y 10, 1971 Page Pa re IV-25 Table ,,Implementation No. 3: The draft says, '"s►.rpport state and. federal regulations for xoduc.i.ng t -,msportat on noise."I -,r,'O aose that in addition to -this statement another be added saying that "al.l, late enforcement agencies within the coL ty be instructed to enforce the State 'Vehicle Code regulations pertinent to vehicular noise both on and off the highways." Pa�IV-25, Table IV-6 The implementation section of items s wul 4 on this page should. each contain a statement to the effect that no land will be zoned icor single or multiple dwelling units in areas where the bdn level is predicted to exceed 55 An additional paragraph or section should be added to the element to the effect that any tenter or buyer of any living unit will be supplied with information, relative to the noise level they can. expect and the effect that this level will have on the ciunl.i.ty of life if the anticipated out-of-doors level in the area exceeds 1.d. 55. If you have questions relative to these comments please get in touch with rte. If I can provide any demonst atioi-i of noise levels that would be helpful to the Commission or the Supervisors as they consider this Noise Element, I will be pleased to do so Very truly yours, Robert ' L. predenbur CWCO, CALIFORNIA Mit Februttry 10, 1977 Ur. Bob Gaiser Planning .Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 05965 Dear Bob I have reviewed 'the January 1977 draft of the Noise illement for the Butte County General Plan. I consider.,this draft a great improvement over the one that we looked at previously. i do still have some concerns that are not different from, those I expressed originally. 1 Page IV-21, paragraph 5, Noise Sensitive Areas: I propose that in the list of those 'things that should be considered noise sensitive sites housing, both single family and mul't1 le, be included: Nothing has a greater impact upon the duality of our lives than the home environment in, which we and our families spend our time. To Limit this noise sensitive definition to sites that contain only larger aggregations of people than we normally find in the private homes clods not seem reason- able . In the case of multiple family dwellings, the aggregate of people would .Ear exceed that already listed as being noise sensitive, i.e. 15 per- sons. 'X am therefore requesting that single family and multiple family dwellings be included as noise sensitive sites. Page IV-24, top paragraph: Here as in other places in the draft the reference is made to LCin 60 dB as providi.na "a suitable noise environment inside buildings." Again, this Ldn unit can be misleading since we usually refer to noise levels in dB-,\ terms;. I concur that this draft element has been consistent in. using the Lam, but this is not the level to which people will react in"their homes, in their yards, and on the street. In :1972 the State Legislature passed a bill that specified a 50 dBA level that should not be exceeded in school classrooms, libraries or multi-purpose rooms. This ~Mould seem to be a reasonable level for homes. I think we must be very cautiousthat we do not delude people into thanking that the i'd�i 60 proposed in this draft will in fact ensure a noise level suflwic.i,ontly low to ensure a good living env ,ironnmrit; Mr. Bob Caiser Fabruaiy 10, 1977 Page Page: [Y-25, "tab:Le IV -6, Uiplementation No. a, "Vile draft sEtys, "support state and federal regulations For reducing transportation noisb." Z propose that in addition to this statement another be added saying -that "all law enforcement agencies within the county be instructed to enforce -the State Vehicle Code regulations partinent to vehicular noise both on and off the highways." Pie `CV -25, Table IV -6t Uie implementation section of items 3 and 4 on this page should each contain a statement to the effect that no land will be zoned :for single or multiple dwelling units in areas where the Ltd level is predicted to exceed 55 An additional paragraph or section should be added to the clement to the effect that any renter or buyer of any living unit will be supplied with information relative to the noise level they can expect and th(, effect that this :Level will have on the duality of life if the anticipated out -of --doors level in the area exceeds Ldn 554 if you have questions relative to these continents please get in touch ��ith late. If l can provide any demonstration of noise levels that would be helpful to the Commission or the Supervisors as they consider this Noire Element, Z will be pleased to do so. Very truly yours Robert L. Fredenburg BUTTE COUNTv PL NNTNC COMMISSION ;AGEN1 A - 1761krrxary 1.0, 1977 T . P1,14IDG; 01' AL'L)iGIANC;1 11. ROLL CHAT: collimissiMiers Caraenzamd, Gil.hertp L� Clem, Moore, Smith, ` hel t li, Watters, Watson ,and Cliai.rxnan i-laiiford, TTT. APPROVAL OF MINUTES for 4To.mrary 27 :1977 TV. PUBLIC HEA.RTNGS A. REZONE 1. Lt R.E. Cherry, ETAL - Rezone from A-2 (General) to TM -40 (Timber -Mountain, 40 acre lots) property located along both sides of Little Chico Creek, 1%2 mile east of State ,Hwy. 32, at ten mile house, described as; A portion of Sections 1 and 12 of T 22N R 2`E MDB&M Section 25 and 36 of T 23N R2E h1DB&Pi andSections 30 and 31 of T 23N R3E MDB&M more particularly described as: Beginning at the NE corner of Section l T 22N R2E MDB&M South to the SE corner of said Section 1 also being the NE corner of Section ,12 T 2211 R2E; thence westerly along the north line of I said Section 12 1336.51 ft; thence southerly, Parallel with the eastline of ,said Section 12, 1347.53 ft; thence westerly parallel with the nort'' line of said Section 12,, 1294.46 ft, thence S68058' 08" W, 1718.56 ft, thence N290 26' 4311 W, 1731.61 ft; thence N 310 16' 08" E, 568.51 ft; thence N270 54' 2.3" E, 1199.06 ft, Thence N050 47' 20" W, 371.68 ft; thence 'N300 34' 28" W, 307 ft.; thence N340 40' 170 E, 711.17 ft; thence northerly 2567.29 ft to a point on the north line of said Section l located 4074.64 ft. westerly of the NE corr►er of said, Section 1 thence easterly to the SW corner of the SE a, of the SW of Sec 36.,T23N R2E MDB&M; thence northerly, parallel with the west 'line of said Section 36 to a pointy on the east -west centerline of said Sect'io,n 36 thence east to the center of said Section 36; thence north- easterly to the NE corner of said Section 36; thence northerly to the NW corner of Suction 30 T 23N [,3E MDB&M; thence south- easterly to the center of said Section 30; thence southerly, to the center of Section 31 T 23N R3E MDB&M; thence south-westerly to the NE corner of Section 1 T 22N RZE MDB&1i and the true point of beginning, Also The N-1-2 of the SE4-i and the SES of the SES of Section 25 T 23N R28 MOB&M. A All containing 1573 acres, more or less, northeast of Chicoi n D(RIrOTO" R 9F" i'LAMNING 7 CQ(JNTY-MTV' DRIVE ..OROVILLe, CALIFORNIA 95965 Toloohonc 534.460E TO ALL CONCl.11NED Attached is a draft of the Safety, Seismic Safety, Noise, and Scenic H." ghways elements of the Butte County General 'Plain and the required Environmental, Tmpact Report. The document Inas prepared by the Butte 'County planni iii 'Dopgrtment and the firm. of C112'1 Hill dor consideration by the 1)1,anning Commission and the Roarcl of Simervisors. The Planning Commission will. h-)ld ,.r hli.c; hearings on these documents on February i.11th and 1"t'. at 7:3n p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Room County Administration Bw,llding, 1559 R1.rO Street, oroville. The hoard of Supervisors w.11.1 consider the clements and Environ- mental Report- at public hearint~s in the first half of search tease raview the draFt for errors a>Zci; omtssion,s and carefully consider the pronosed oolici.es and implementation strategies. :x'I comments should be directed, in writing if possible, to the nlanni.ng Commis ,lon, the Boa.rcl of Supervisors, or the Planning Dooartment. nw.re tions and requests for additional dmfts shnuld be directed to Bob Gasser, Planning Department, 7 County Cc,,.ter' Drive, Qroti*ill.e (91:6-534-4601) UU 8 F,IE8TS REGULARLY ON THE FIRST FOUR THURSDAYS OF EACH MONTH BI!TT C011'.' TY P LA1'1 ' 1.11f1 Cil'ltl I S$ Ir' ,{ Vl�"'TES Fehrvarit :;, 1 X 7 7 bftlei fn Chi ca 'i T) City Counci1 Chambers 5t1 l PLE'Ari� OF ALLErIA"C I. Q()LL :ALL: Present; Commissionors Caren %ind, rri1hert, Smith, Thebach, Watson, and Watters PbsP.nt; Commissioners Le Clerc, "oore, and Chairman Hanford Also Present: Bob Gaiser Planni`no Dept,_, Bracy Blandin P, Dick Ivey CH2M Hill, Richard Wilson - Chico City Plannina, "ay Hall -, Cook °; Assoc. "lack Kohlbush Charley Harvey, Honest Savano Devere Pace, Barbara Copeland, and Jim "li ckel son III PUN—IC HEARI'VIS ON NEW GENERAL PLAN ELEr"Cj;l'S A'110 DP.AFT VI CMINE11TAL VIPAC.T REPORT 77-59-1-000 "off ^a ser oresented the back«round of these elerents, i.e., State � r,�rir" eats, exte;�sinnf injunction, hiring a consultant, nreraaratinn, `^'.arinn schpdules, lie then presented the mans, find -nos, and nolici;as r-alated to earthouake faults;, around shaki'no,the Alnuist-Priolo "' ecic l S trrtiies 7onP, and thn 1 iauefaction potential ,rad Slandin discussed the nossible im`nacts resulting from imolemdn- to"ien of the nal i cies ar000sed in the Sei smic Safety El emen t and aasih3a alternatives, �33) "wri ';ickelson asked how far hack the earthquake record went and how faults were located, �a t'a11 .3;kPd f'or e.e a i I s on d e s i n n of structures to avoid dalane d .;ab wiser said the report on "'E,arthouake Hazards ir, "ortheastern "ali `orni,a" by Bill` 'luyton of Chico State orovided rruc;h, history on _Mrthexa� �s and darlane.. "I'l 1 6a i. 1,"I Y P A 41 "a'! Ser oresented mans, findirins and nolio.iris related ;to tht1 he 1oni� hazards of nrourid subsidence, erosion, landslides and dx�ilnsive sails and the ncssible imhact;s Drad nIandin said that iMolementation of pronosed policies micaht increase development costs, (938 Jack Kohl hush asked if around water Pollution were included in this element. (Answer was "no",� (066) Bob Gaiser exnlair.ed the maonina of natural fire hazard classes: He also explained the findin(ts policies and imnlementation Propoaed in this sub --element 77-59-1 -1 51 end, 77_ 59 -) -rinn - PECESa - ("_7p) Irad Blandin ex lainod the findinrss and nraoosals of the :!oise E1erTMent He des ri"ed common types or noise comnaints and common noise sources. 'licl Ivev stated that the hest protection anainst noise vias distance and that nlantinos and berms were only minimally effective. Commis nto sner Smith Oointed out that sensitivity to noise varied from persoenforced,P Commissioner asked how noise regulations would bo (495 A iser discussed the 'oronosed noise ordinance Rich Vilson said there's been very 1 i the Problem with the city of Dhico's no'SO ordinance because there have been very fear comm ai nts . tJ7� "av Nall asked for a definition of 'noise -Sensitive uses. Commis+sinner !Watsonsaid that crowded oeou'le were more u'ntioht. Pay ti(Ill asked if Policy t43 conflicted with fincino "F, miser reoliod that policy 416 did not encourage aoartmen is near railroads ` and hi phvays but required insulation for anar�tments, lust -2- 17,UITTE C')1,,1%TY PWINMr,, 9P'UTT'S - Februarl/ 3, 1977 01190) nick. lv'" said the a)(Irket encouraged ar)artments "lonn hirthwa s 1, railroadc, ,,,here sinole-family y nd Honest . savaqo $a .nily homes Would not be built and SW. Id that usifln complaints as an I)rob'l ems is wrona indicator of noise because Peonle don't complain because they don't know who to COMolain to. Gaiser said that publir-17.inn of this element and a noise ordinance might 'lead to more noise COMPlaints, (7,95) Gaiser said that the Scenic Hirihw'aYs element concerned something Positive 1,,!0 Wished to preserve . rather than something we Wished to avoid, such as natural hazards, fires or noise.He then presented the findingsand Policies Proposed in the Scec Highwayselement. (033) muck Harvey Wondered if tj h 4 e element could Include proposals fc)r bic,vcle, nedestrian and equestrian trails. Dick Ivey said that 'trails could be included in the circulation or land use elements. Pay Ball asked i'r local streets could be desionated as scenic hiqhways, t,aiser said OrIvate roads and local streets were not appropriate candidates for desiination, 77-51-2-147 e nd 77-f0-1-o)c ramenlziqd felt That JOPM ent controls on sceniccorridors in acricultural areas might restrict ar;r1culturaj uses Gaiser reolied that agricultural accessory structures would not bo affected, (109) Commissioner Watson felt that setback reoui I rements should be flexible enough to allow development of Properties. bay Hall asked If 'there Were any Priorities or schedul ina on desi nnation If scenic hiahway8. Gaiser said there would he no benefits front del avi nr desinriation, but that develonment controls woold r)robably be in stanes . initiated (274), Ray Hall asked if setbacks t-,Iould be the same for all Scenic hiahways, %1EETVIr-, ADJOUqIFD ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Project Notification and Review Syst ,, Office of the Governor (916) 445.0613 PROJECT; Butte County General Plan Elements B.I.R. State Clearinghouse Number (SCHj„ .,,;770] x,226 ,......... ....... ........ I. , >♦...... ♦........ Please use the State Clearinghouse Number on future correspondence with this office and with agencies approving or reviewing your project. Date Received: 12$177 :....................... ..... .... :. Date Review Period Ends:.. 3 1/ 7 7 . , . ..., .........., This card does not verify compliance with preapplicat on andior bovironmental document review requirements, A letter containing the State's comments or a letter confirming no State. comments will be forwarded to you after the review is complete, Please contact the Clearinghouse immediately if you do not receive the letter by the end of the review period, ilfii COUNTY ft"4%13 ZP', 107 UPR 2 ReV. 2/16 State of California BUTTE COUNTY PLANI'll eln CCSTMISSI ON MINUTES - .lanusary 31, 1 n77` (Meet'no held in Veterans Hall, Paradise, rA 77-55-1-495 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II, R04L CA,LLoo Presents Commissioners Camenxind, W th, Matters, and 'Chairman Hanford Ahsentt Commissioners Qilhert, Lo C1erc, 'loose, Thebach,-.and Matson Also Present: dim Lawson, Bett!/e B"Iair, Larr,v Brooks, and Bob raiser - County Planninti slept,, Brad Ill andi n - NI?" Ili 11 , 5unervi sor Lemke, and, Dim Skjelstad - Chico Enterprise Pecord I I . PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NEW GENERAL PLAN ELITHrMTS AND CnAI T ENVIPIONME dTAL IMPACT REPORT Chairman Hanford asked members of the audience to nick un copies of the drafts, ( 507 Ed Falkenstein asked t-ihich other five elements 1 -Gere not heino discussed toninht. Chairman Danford exnlained that these elements 1were the sub,iect of the suit by the City of Chico and the intervention by the Attorney General. Jim Lawson described all the required elements, Lawson explained Government Code reouirements for local general Plans, and that adoption of these four new elements would complete the Butte County General Plan. (509 Bob raiser presented the history of state requirements for these elements and of the preparation Process in Butte County. He said the County had hired the firm of C1112M Hill in nctober to develop these elements and that preparation had: taken lonner than planned: raiser stated that this hearincr was the first of ,four scheduled Commission heari ncIs on the elements. The Board of Sunervi sons would then consider` them at public heari ncas in March. Cai ser said , that all ' of these elements would affect land use and tonina'and the nroposod revision of the General Plan„ (801) Caiser said that Seismic Safetj,i was a countywido concern since the August 1, 1075 earthquake and that CIM4 Hill had uncovered a vari etv of new information. rai ser explained. the maty on Earthpuake, and Fault Activity and said that of all the faults shown, only the Cleveland Hill fault east of rroville has shown recent movement, railer said that the BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING (nIVISSION X11 MJTE5 w January 31, 1977 3 major seismic hazard in the (,aunty was around shaking from nuakes both inside and outside the County. (925) raiser read and ex,lained the findings, proposed policies and implementation of the Seismic Safety element. rd Falkenstein asked if Se-.ismic hazards had been considered in the desion of nroville dare. raiser replied that they had, In answer to another question by 11r. Fal kenstein,riaiser stated that there were no knovin faults close to ragalia or Paradise reservoirs. (011) Brad Blandin described the scoot of the necessary aeolonic investicia- tions. raiser explained the danners of linuefaction during earthquakes. Cd Falkenstein asked if seismic hazards had been considered in con- struction of the new Paradise library. 77-55.1.159 (end of side 1 77-55-2-000 raiser described the Snecial Studies lone desinnatod by the state alone the Cleveland Lull fault and diners Ranch Road, and explained that aeolooic`renorts would be required for any development in the ,zone. raiser stated that data on the relationship between L.a fie rrovi l l e and earthouakes was too speculative to serve as a base for County nolicies (154) Gaiser presented the f'indirnns and proposals of the reolonic Hazard_ section of the Safety Element, The potential for landslides and erosion is both highest in mountain areas with steep slones and hinh rainfall. Ground subsidence is a possibility in valley areas of withdrawal of pas, oil,`and water, but none has yet been observed in Butte County, Commissioner Smith asked where DWR pr000sed to nut deep wells; _raiser explained the proposal as hest he could, chairman Hanford asked if it was possible to predict subsidence in an FIR for a proposed with- drawal ' controls for andslidesoand serosion shouldbemore specific, andked if data from .the recent soil -vegetation survey should be used. raiser said that landslide potential in Paradise was low, but hinh to the oast. (53i Gaiser said that the highest erosion notential was in mountain areas with granite soils and steep soils. Commissioner Hanford discussed the erosion problems resulting from site clearance for vineyards in the Forest Ranch area, from timber harvesting, and other human activities. raiser explained the proposed nolicies on neolonic hazards and their incorporation into land use plans. 2- r BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING C{1MMTSSxnfl MJNU"TES - January 31, 1577 (795) Gaiser presented Map 111-4 and explained State Forestr.v's natural fire hazard classification system based on mapping of slopes, tvpe of veaetation and climato. Paradise has a naturally hinh hazard, but was shown as "Hazard Varies with Veoetation Density and Type" because the veoetation has been so modified by urban development. Ed Falkenstein pointed out the possibility of a firs; stortinn in one of the canyons and spreadinc into Paradise. Chairman Hanford discussed the Concow fire and the hinh natural hazard in Paradise, (961 Brad Blandin explained some of the relationships between fire hazards, development, and fire protection, raiser presented and explained the findings and proposals. The presentation focused on definition of adequate fire protection, structural vs, non-structvral fire protection, and local, state, and federal responsibilities. (end of 77-55.2-163) break 77-56-1-000 thru 149is blank - did not push record button. 77-56-2 is also blank for same reason? Pindinos and proposals for Noise Element were presented and explained. Members of the audience expressed concern about noise from traffic and motorcycles in Paradise 77-57-1-000 Bob (;wiser presented the Scenic Highways Element. Policies focus on control 1 r'nq development in areas visible from rural hi ahways . Ed Falkenstein discussed development al ono :Pentz-rlaoal is Hi chway and asked about state desionation of scenic hinhways. (507) Chairman Hanford introduced Warren Humbert and Hoe Ral'ken of the Paradise Municipal Advisory Cotoci'l and Suoervisor Leake. Bob Aaiser asked people wishinn`comnlete drafts to sign a list. IV. ADJOURNIEN1 Meeting ended (541 I''ra.sc j.la iianfurd, Chairman, w3 r BUTTE COUNTY PLAPiNPIR GOTiISSIn`N MINUTES - -lanuary 31, lq'77 Weati' no hold in Veterans Pall, Paradise, r A ) I PLEGE Or ALLEGIANCE IT. ROLL CALL: Present. Commissioners Camenzind, Smith, Watters and Chairman llanford Absent: Commissioners rilhert, Le Glerc 'loose, Thebach;•and Matson Also Present:. Jim Lavjsnn, llettve Plair, Larry Brooks, and Bob Gasser - County Plannino hepta, Brad Blandin CI1211 Hill, Supervisor Lemke, and slim Sk.jelstad - Chico Enterprise Pecord III. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NEW GENERAL PLAN ELF11NITS AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL If-iPACT REPORT Chairman Hanford asked members of the audience to pick on copies of the drafts, (Sa7) Ed Falkenstein asked which other five elements 1,1ere not hei na discussed toniglit. Chairman Hanford exnlained that these elements +;sere the sublect of the suit by the Cit.Y of Chico and the intervention by the Attorney General, Jim Lawson described all the reaui:red elements. Lawson explained Government Cede renuirements for local general olans and that adoption of these four new elements would complete the Butte County General Plan: (599) Bob gaiser presented the history of state requirements for these elements and of the preparation process in Butte Count,v. He said the County had hired the firm of CHN Hill in October to develop these elements and that nrenaration had taken lonrler than planned, eaiser stated that this hearina eras the first of four scheduled Commission hearings on the elements. The Board of Sunervi-sort 1,iould then consider them at public hearings in March. riai ser said_ that all of these elements would affect land use and zonino and the pro -posed revision of the general Plan. ( Bpi Gainer said that Seismic Safety vias a countywide concern since the August 1, 1975 earthquake and that CHP11 Hill had uncovered a variety of new information, rai ser exol ai n-qd the man on Earthquake and Fault Activity and said that of all the faults shown, only the Cleveland Hill fault east of nroville has shown recent movernen't, riaiser said that the rl y BUTTE COMITY Pk..11Nh INVI' MANISSION M MUTCS - January 51, 1977 major seismic hazard in the County was around shaking from quakes both inside and outside the County. (!925) raiser read and explained the findings, proposed policies and Implementation of the Seismic Safety elemont, rd Falkenstein asked if Seismic hazards had been cori dered in the des i on of nrovi l l a dam, raiser replied that they had In ansi,ter to another ouestion i)v Mr. Pal kenstein,Gaise'r stated that there were no known fatal is close to "ladalia or Paradise reservoirs. (Oil Urad Blandin described the scone of the necessary neolonic inves'tiaa- tions. Raiser explained the dancers of linuefaction during earthquakes, Ed Falkenstein asked if seismic hazards had been considered in con- struction,of the new Paradise library. 77-55-1-1a4 (end of side 1) 77-55-2-000 Gaiser described the Special Studies lone designated by the state alono the Cleveland Hill fault and diners Manch Road, and explained that peolooic reports would be reau red for any development in the zone. Raiser stated that data on the relationship between Lalre nroville and earthquakes was too speculative to serve as a base for County policies. ('164) raiser presented the findings and proposals of the Geologic Hazard section of the Safety Element. The potential' for landslides and erosion is both highest in mountain areas Gtith steep slones and high rainfall. ground subsidence is a possibility in valley areas of withdrawal of qas, oil," and grater, but none has yet been observed in Butte County. Commissioner Smith asked where DDR Proposed to put` deep wells; raiser explained the proposal as best he could Chairman Hanford asked if it was possible to predict subsidence in an FIR for a proposed with- drawal . ith-drawal'. Commissioner Smith felt that the proposed controls for landslides and erosion should be more specific, and asked if data from the recent soil-vecetation survey should be used, raiser said' that landslide aotential in Paradise was low) but hioh totheea.st. (531} Caiser said that the highest erosion `notential was in mountain areas with granite soils :and steep soils Commissioner Hanford discussed the erosion problems, resul ti no from site clearance for vineyards in the Forest Ranch area, from 'timber harvesting, and other human' activities. Caiser explained the proposed policies on aeol;ogic hazards and their incorporation into land use plans. -2- , • BLUTTECCUN""v PANNING Ct1MMISSIMf4 MINUTi.S 31, 1077 (795) raiser presented reap III -4 and explained State F"orestr,y"s natural fire hazard classification system based on mapnino of slopes, tvpe of veaotation and climate, Paradise has a naturally :;i oh hazard, but was shown as "Hazard Varies with Vegetation Density and Type" because the yecretation has been so modified by urban development. Ed Falkenstein pointed out the possibility of a fire startinn in one of the canyons and spreading into Paradise. Chairman Hanfotrd di scu sed the C:onc°ow fire and the high natural hazard in Paradise. (961 Brad Blandin explained `some of the relationships between fire hazards, development, and fire protection, raiser presented and explained the findinos and proposals. The presentation focused on definition of adequate fire protection, structural vs, non-structural fire protection, and local, state, and federal responsibilities. (end of 77-55.2-163) -break 77-56-1-000 thru 140 is blank - did not push record button. 77-56-2 is also blank - for same reason? Findinos and proposals for Noise Element were presented ate explained Members of the audience exoressed concern about no -Ise from 4raffic and motorcycles in Paradise, 77_57-1-000 Bob Gai:ser presented the Scenic Hiah'ways Element. Policies focus on controllYnq development in areas visible from rural hiahways Ed Falkenstein discussed development along Pentz-flaaalia Hi0way and asked about state designation of scenic highways, (507) Chairman' Hanford introduced Marren thimbert and floe' Pal'ken of the Paradise Municipal Advisory Council and Sunervi sor Lemke. Bob G`aiser asked people w1shinn comoleto crafts to sign a list. IV.. ADJOURI'MENT lieetinn ended (541 ) Prisci l.la Hanford, Chairman -3 CITY OF CHIU*- CHICO MUNICIPAL CENTER - RE IATION FORM 1,1; Cow rlo"'jRq coe4 421 Main Street JAA� "'1'8 7977 5ICTION i - RESERVATION INFO FACILITY REQUESTED: L Council Chamber :1 Conference Room I L7 Conference Room 2 DATES) OF USE: 'Thursday, February 3, 1977 HOURS: 7t00 - 114*,00 P.M. EVENT OR PURPOSE: _ Meeting EXPECTED ATTENDANCE: 100 - �i:CTION II --WITIONTL iERVICES--ADDITIONAL NEEDED l Sound system (describe) Same as for Council Tables (number & arrangement) L Chairs (number & arrangement)__TWo extra chairs at Councj ambles Lj Other (describe) Zj Use of food/beverage (describe) SECTION !II - PPLICANT IMF WATI01'! REQUESTER/ORGANIZATION; Butte County Planning_ Commission ADDRESS/TELEPHONE NUMBER: 7_County Center Drive, Oroville, CA NAME OF PERSON! RESPONSIBLE: Bob Gaiser ADDRESS/TELEPHONE NUMBER 534-4601 SECTION IV CONFIRMATION DATE REC'D:12-30-76 DATE APPROVED;: 1-27-77 By Title City Clerk 1 Requester(regulations-reverse side) CITY CLERK'S OFFICE' 2 City Clerk 180 East 5th Street 3 Custodian 916-343-4401 Ext. 245 4 Police Dept. Chico, Ca. 95926 5 Finance(if costs -see reverse) r S_- N - REGULATIUNS 1. No smoking is allowed in the Council Chamber or Conference Rooms and must be con- fined to hallways, foyer and restrooms. 2. No dogs, cats or other animals are allowed in the building, except seeing -eye docs. 3 Those attending event may use Municipal Parking Lot after 5:00 P.M.,on weekdays, or at any time on weekends or City holidays. 4 No alcoholic beverages are allowed in the building. 5. Non-alcoholic beverages and/or food are allowed when special arrangements therefor have been made with and approved by the City Clerk. A deposit of $7.00in advance shall be made with the City Clerk to cove), the cost,. of additional custodial time required for cleanup. It is requested that uneaten food be wrapped in paper or plastic and placed in wastebaskets. Any cups with liquid inside should be left on the tables for removal by custodians and not placed in wastebaskets. Do.not use cups for ashtrays. The requesting organization is responsible for furnishing all its own food, beverages, coffeepots, napkins, containers, etc,. 6: Whenever children participate in or accompany parents or adults to any function in the building, it shall be the responsibility of such adults or the person making the reservation to not allow children to move throughout the building without supervision. 7. Reservations approved for Saturdays, Sundays or holidays when custodians are not normally on duty, will require payment in advance for overtime custodial help at the rate of $7.00 per hour. 8 Plat of building attached for new users., SECTION VT - COMPUTATION OF COSTS, IF ANY 1. Use of food/beverage $ 7.00 Overtime custodial costs;, Setup hours @ $7.00/hr. To be paid in- advance of use. Actual Use hours @ $7.00/hr. = $ Check payable to City of'Chico. c/o City Clerk's Office Cleanup - hours @ $7.00/hr. = $ P. 0. Box ,3420 Chico, Ca. 95927 Total $ r NOTICE OF COMPLETION FILED (oma Draft Environmental xrr►p�wt Revort;) JAN 2 s 1977, CLQ +� N.u"'. 1, �;�l�fYc CI k nE po' .,isiBLE AG NCY: ,� by :n, _ � Du l DEPARTPdEN'I , �`., � v Coullt:�-. of Butte R1 a :na n: PJ99aE T,..xZ xt4: T;rITTE COUNTY. GENERAL PLAIN RLB� iEWI'S. Seismic. Safety, Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways ADDRL'S5: CITY.: COUNTY 7 ,County.Center Drivf-3 OrovilleBtztte CONTACT PERSON: ARRA CODE. PHONE: LAWREINICE J- LAWSON Planning Director 915 539-4501 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE, AND BENEFICIARIES:' Pro osgd General . Plan 5 ions T%i Lings, nolicies and implemene t at?on conc:erning sei.smi.c h-za'rds,,_ geologic hazards, fire hazard noise probleins, and, scenic urs .— PROJECT LOCATION ClTj t PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY: Co�inty-Wide. Butte TIME PERIOD PRO'V'IDED FOR REVIEW- 30 -day review period requested. _ Review period begins: 1/31/7 Re•,ri.ew period ends i 3/2/77 ADnV-ESS WHERE COPY OF DRAFT EIR IS AVAILABLE Environmental Revi pLa D--tpart<�tAnl-, 7 County Coater Drive; O,roville, CA 95965 C� Appendix J -- Rage 1 a!~ ay January 27, 1977 State Clearinghouse At tii : Mr., William G, Kirkham Division Chic. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento # Calif, 95514 Tie: Butte County Gonerai Plan Elements Dear Nr, Kirkham: Butte County hereby requests a sbortoned revi.eu period for State review of the Lnvironiftexi Lal I na7.ict Report c�:, t iv, Safety, Seismic Sa. f aty, Noise, and, scelli Hi,'ways Elements to the ri'ewnera.l Plan, We are requesting a rQVieW 1101-iod Of thirty (3") Ia.ys. This request is being made pursua,it to ralic-nrz i .1r�°inistrat vc; Ct�+;�.o Thank you for your cons ideration, and should you have a.ny questions please feel free to contact me* Sincerely, J • T,;y U"SON {LA�+��1"ZE+NCE tlA'�EC 011 !!../A� PLA <.1 .4io kir ,yy L�.J L/1�'eCl. '. WL 1 O I { Tv. coomrry Ptd.".7n' gaxwSsmx, MBLIC Noticc is har4by given by theButte County Planning Comm ission that public hearings ui,ll ba held at these locations regarding the following: Safet a.nd Seismic Safety Elcment Scc!ay k:Ieme:nt an oase"-Element 6_11 -fie Uttu .Aunt ene:ral. Plan, and Dratt hnv ronme j!ta "act 2 o_rt S ro— esse elements '...t.ri..iw4.+++YnwMa.w.a-... �.•..-. • .a.�..ww. Paradises Monday - January 31, 1977 - 7:30 P.m. Veterans Memorial fall, northeast corner Skyway 4 Elliott Road, 6550 Skyway Chico. 1 Thursday - February 3, 1977 - 7:30 is m. City Council Chambers, 421 Main Street Oroville: Thursday - February 10, 1977 7;30 p.m,. Thursday - February 17, 1977 - 7:3a p.m. County Administration Bldg.;, Board of Super- visors Room, 1859 Bird Street The above mentioned Elements and Environmental Impact Reports' are on file and available for public viewing at the Butte Co1.mtyy Planning Department, 7 County Penter Drive, Oroville, California. Environmentaaj. Impact Reports are also available at college and county libraries.. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LAWRENCE J. LAWSON DIRECTOR OE PLANNING Ta be published in Paradise Post, Friday, January 21, 1977. Chico Enterprise Record, Saturday, January 22, 1977.` Orovill.e Meptury, Saturday, January 22, 1977. 0 Y «V ►$ MY Or 4° #�t ,► OrFMC OF THC CITY PLANNCR-P, W. nPX 04200 9,5926 TCLMSHUNC (016) 340.4401 ArT914 5.1013 P. M. X40-"/MP1 TO Bob fiaiqer, Butte County Planninq Dept, Pi3flM City of Chico Pl anninq Dept. RE Preliminary draft of a Noise Ordinanod for the Butte County General flan Januar- 10, 191! In response to your memo datod December 20, 19761 this offico has completed review of the Draft Noiso Element and herewith submits the following comments relative to specific sub-sectionz contained therein. PAGE " �, C IlLM ARF" (a) It is om, understrandino that fro ewa,y noise cmntours must be expressed in. tho pdn or CINK before the detormination is mark, wl,nther or not the frea,.,,,w is d ",Yia,'lor noise problem", Thare should also lie a lana-ranf.pe prediction of not 5e contours for lands adjacent to the freeway, (h) TrIlp f itico ;44unicirjal 'lirpxort probably do4orvufurther r;fiscussion since Air goat has reroutod the approaches and tal,,e-offs and said rerouting is now over Izin1 designated for low density residential development, The report indicates that ComPlaigts nOW raCeivod relative to {thee Air '.fest operation comes from this type of "noise sensitive" dev.olopmpnt (.i , single family residential ),. (c) 9e assume that °"fiqure l," noted on the bottoms of ; aqo� 6 refers to the large fold, -,,,d i -,Ian. Tha -follovinyl cn;nmien•ts are pertinent to said map: 1. The Continental Nut Processing and sh'ipip in"p plant located on The Esplanade should be shown ,as well as present and l onq•»ter>,i noise levels. 2, ,foise contours and longi range predictions are nn) shown for the Diamond Match, Ccmnany in southwest Chico The scatt r";ad morc.,rcial ai'd industri"41 d'eifelop3r1 mt ',".iithin aunty A-1", zoi'ind areas which ma,,, parozr." nt serious or Poten�tiall'V sen-ling+s "noise source" ,froh1ems sihpald be addressed viithin the element.. Ty't2 r1lutk"e "ounty Fiirnrounds at Iri'iloy is pot BJP ir"enti'fi,id on 1:h2 r,111hject riao, ff 'CoUX��" i'I,dtYsr'iut Gtlhr, • r�• JAN 1 3 7977 61 19;x? Pg, ry G 0 Ta' Bob Gaiser, Butte County Planning Dept, RE: Preliminary Draft of a Noise Ordinance It is suggested a more appropriate scale be used for Figure 1 to nrovi'de clearer detail, PAGE 7 The criteria to establish streets where noise guidelines are to be applied should include traffic 'projections,, It is suggested the Chico Area Transportation Study by D, Jackson Faustman be used to supply data for projections within the Chico i co We further suggest that "high speed" and "low speed" highway be defined, pAl__.7 The noise contours for the Chico Municipal Airport do not include 60 db or show long-range trends as required by State mandate, been Projected based on previous Air West flight schedules (all eflightsours beforev1Ob00 P,M ) and do not take into consideration the air tanker operations during fire season. We suggest the consultant review a letter from F, dated December- 1, 1975.(see attached), Said letter has implicationslf'oraac resultantiland use plans with regard to noise element data, "pear" levels in addition to other noise measuSpecific land use plans should consider rements, PAGE 19 - SENSITIVE AREA DESIGNATION School sites within the City, but adjacent to County unincorporated areas, must be identified as noise sensitive areas (per Government Code) and consequently should have noise exposure determined by monitoring PAGE 35 The recommendation fornoresidential development within 55 CNEL supports the need. to determine present and future 55 CNE[, contours, PAGE43 To implement Policy b, a noise map should be developed indicating those areas for all types of residential yards; This policy may be impractical when'considerin the implications. g h full John P, Hoole, City Planner CM Info/CP' 2454 a A-BCPC-1 JB:pb By;'Jer 'Bose Tanning �Techn�ia n Attachment•- DEPARTMENT� i'RAi NrDERAL AVIATIO WM1NI QEC 11975 Mr. John P • Hoole City Planner City of Chico P. 0. Box 3420 Chico, CA 95926 RTATION TION SAN I.�T,WCISCO AIIU'OR!1::DISTRI 831 Kitten Road Burlingame, California 9401.0 aE CI E94 -0V5 k � y y4 `t+n- ��t7 rtl��N�s�rn�h�\q Dear Mr. Hoole: Subject: Proposed Chaco General Plan --Aviation Noise Element Thank you for the opportunity to,eomment on the Proposed General Plan for the City of Chico. As you noted in your letter of October 21, 1:975; consideration of the soci•o-economic impacts of the Chico Municipal Airport is an important element of the local, comprehensive planning process; and we strongly concur. As you know, transportation facilities profoundly influence the pattern of land uses within a community both because of the access function which such facilities provide and because of the significant external effects which often accompany them. Chico Municipal Airport is car- tainly no exception to this theory. Regarding these external effects, noise is perhaps the subject of greatest public concern. The following discussion will address noise modeling methodology in general, and will include specific comments related to the Chico General Plan airport noise sub element in particular. As it pertains to aviation noise,, the CNEL noise methodology described by your General. Plan consultant was developed for the CALTRANS Division, of Aeronautics in the formulation of the California Noise Law. This law specifies a noise impact boundary, related to an airport, within which no incompatible land uses may occur. Such incompatible uses include single-family dwellings, mobile home parks and schools of standard construction. For Chico Municipal Airport this noise impact boundary is the '70 CNEL contour linei Effective January 1, 1986, the noise impact boundary for this airport will become 65 CNEL. t, Thus the 65 CNEL contour which your consultant has discussed on pages 11.2, i52 and 153 of the tent has no statutory basis upon which to define an aviation -related noise p':ob,l.em.. I A rE B 16 1977 O~OVILLe. 10AI Ir, Page 2 Actual application of the CNEL methodology can be a fairly complex process, as your consultant has suggested, justifying the ixiti'oduction of certain simplifying assumptions. Such assumptions, when intelligently applied, will not sacrifice the interpretational value which application of the procedure can afford. Unfortunately, details concerning aircraft mix and primary .flight paths utilized at C,eico Municipal Airport are not available and thus our comments will be based upon limited information. Our review of the "proposed revulsions to the Chico Preliminary General. Plan,' dated October 8, 1975, has revealed two basic weaknesses`; i 1. Technical, inadequacy of the CM-, analysis performed. 2. An absence of discussion addressing future impacts related to a growing facility and its interaction with a growing community. Additionally, we must take exception with your consultant's statement of general compatibility between residential development in northeast Chico and aircraft operations from the Municipal Airport. Specifically, we question the validity of discussion in paragraph 2, page 113, of the PGP wherein the consultant states,' lilt is proposed that low density residential development be per- mitted in northeast Chico, ...., in light of three considerations: ...; b) the fact that this area falls outside of the estimated 65 CNEL contour line, indicating that the overall noise exposure is within normally acceptablelimits; and e) .. to minimize the indoor noise levels, and consequently any annoyance due to the few noisy flights which occur each day." In actuality, the CNEL noise impact boundary does not establish the maximum geographical extent of objectionable noise impacts associated with airport operations. The noise impact boundary simply defines an area of "statutory" incompatibility £or certain types of land uses. Thus,, no presumption of acceptability should be inferred ;for all areas outside the noise impact boundary. FEB,;.7 ?011tL1.. CALIF. 0t,� v Page 3` The Chico Municipal Airport Community presents a ation which graphically upholds this concept. During the fay. and winter months, Municipal Airport sees significant trAining activity conducted in large, propeller -driven aircraft which are used for di-spensing fire retardant chemicals during the forest fire season. These aircraft operate fully loaded and routinely overfly the currently undeveloped area northeast of Chico at relatively low altitudes. Under such; conditions, these aircraft generate sound levels which represent a s;gniiicant potential annoyance to persons who might be living in the areas over which the aircraft fly. The application and strict inter- pretation of a CNEL analysis would not identify this potential, problem. Any decision to allow residential development to occur in the presently undeveloped area, northeast of Chico should, therefore, consider the future role of Municipal Airport in serving these chemical bomber aircraft. The noise impact boundary for 1975 operations at Chico Municipal Airport is misleading, furthermore, in that it does not reflect potential noise impacts associated with future aviation growth. Hardly more than a year ago, scheduled airline service at Chico, provided by Hughes•Aimest, consisted of but a half dozen or so operations using the .small, V-27 prop jet aircraft. Today Chico is served with eight operations per day of the larger and substantially noisier DC 9-10 and DC 9-30 jet aircraft. Obviously, natural growth in airline service associated with your growing community could easily enlarge the CNGL, noise impact boundary and could substantially affect the ambient noise environment within the northeast portion of Chico referred to in the above quotation: Vie strongly suggest that any land use planning decisions based upon recommendations of the General Plan take into account the prospect and implications of future growth at Municipal Airport within the 20 -year planning horizon. Furthermore, referring to Map 9A of the October 8, 1975, consultant memorandum, we find an absence of factual input data to support actual delineation of the CN)L contours presented. The VAA has considerable experience in the field of aviation noise analysis and interpretation, and the highly empirical approach.employed by yot.-, consultant is curious and unrealistically approximate for an air carrier airport facility. To assist you in establishing the current geographical extent of the noise impact boundary for Chico Municipal Airport we will forward CNEL contours for your use under separate cover., The forthcoming contours will be the output of a sophisticated computer modeling procedure and < 6 J977 )�70Vr[.LE, CALIF, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MrNUTES - MARCH 1, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING - NEW GCNERAi. PLAN ELEMENTS (Tapedl,y Planning Department) (000) Chairman Richter said that changes to the draft recommended by the Pianni g Commission by a Committee of Richter, Lemke, and others, and by Richter individually, are all be -Fore the Board. Richter sunnested the Board ask the Planning Commission to meet Thursday to consider all proposed changes. Lemke so moved and Madigan seconded. Counsel Blackstock said the Board could not make any final decisions until the environmental review period was over and the EIR finalized, (146) Supervisor Winston felt that recommendations made by a Supervisors sub -committee before public hearings were improper. Chairman Richter said that the Committee's examination of the elements more than fulfilled the Supervisors' responsibilities. Winston questioned the propriety of inviting other people to the sub- committee meeting. Richter said that writing recommendations down before hearings, facilitated consideration of the elements. (477) Motion passed by voice vote; Winston abstained (495) The first speaker was Frank Stewart, land manager for Diamond International in Red Bluff. He asked for clarification of Implementation III -4. He asked if loggino activities would be included in uniform fire code regulations (III -10). (696) fie was concerned about the implementation of Policies V -7.d. and V -7.e . He said existing legislation controlled loogina activities along public roads. Supervisor Richter believed that specific recommendations for land use controls in Scenic corridors should be deleted, (800) Russ Croninger of Ringel & Associates of Chico passed out copies of Rule No. 15 of the Public Utilities Commission concerning overhead extension of utility lines to subdivisions or developments near scenic highways. He said he wanted the Board to know that under grounding would be required for parcel maps along many miles of highways in the County. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - MARCH 1, 1977 PUBLIC HEARING NEW GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (872) Clay Castleberry said that PG&E advised him that unde►•cirpundin(i was required for parcel maps and subdivisions along scenic highways, but not for anricultural uses on existinn Parcels. (912) Supervisor Lemke asked for a map of existing scenic highways in the County. (939 Jerry Everhard referred to the draft as "bureaucratic crap" read Clarifying and objectionable portions of the Scenic Highways Element and especially objected to text discussion of business dispersal along scenic highways. He said adoption of these proposals would build a fence around this County and that this kind of language is a "Disneyland production in the realm of realism'". (026) Chairman Richter agreed that the Scenic Highways text was almost wild and in need of drastic revision. Mr. EVerhard said that adoption of the proposed language would pit a noose around the County's neck. (060) Devere Pace, representino the Butte County Farm Bureau, said that the restrictions along the proposed scenic highways in the valley would be detrimental to farm people because they wouldn't be able to use any of their land in the scenic corridor. Flee also asked that farm noises be excluded from the Noise Element (108) Jim Ladd objected to the Seismic Element stating there was only one active fault in the County, while 'treating many faults as active., He said that the landslide potential presented in the Geologic Hazard portion of the Safety Element was exa0erated greatly.. (Side 2 000) He advisedthe Board to consider scenic highways very carefully. He objected to the statements in the: fire hazard sub -element that vast areas of the County lacked fire protection and that fire hazards were extreme; in some parts of the Oounty. He felt that adoption of the Uniform Eire Code would benefit no one. -2- BBARD 05 SUPERVISORS MINUTE'S - MARCH 1, 1917 PUBLIC HEARING - NEW GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (269) Chairman Richter closed the hearing for today and continued the hearing until 1;00 Tuesday, March 8. In answer to a question by Supervisor Richter, Counsel Blackstock said that the Planning Commission must review all changes before final hoard approval (341 ) Supervisor Winston suggested that Counsel ask the Attorney General for a nominal extension of the March 15 deadline to permit adequate consideration of the elements. Chairman Richterfelt that the Board should act by March 15 if at all possible, and should continue their consideration as long as necessary to meet that deadline. Board members requested Blackstock to ask the Attorney General if an extension were possible. (469) Supervisor Lemke requested that Policy III -10 be modified by addina the phrase "excepting uses regulated by the Forest Practices Act". Chairman Richter said Board members should transmit their comments to the Planning Commission. (556) Supervisor Lemke said that the existino Scenic Highway zone must be drastically revised to 'fulfill the objectives of the proposed Scenic .Highways Element_. (640) Chairman Richter asked if five votes were required for the Commission -to take action on Board recommendations, and expressed concern that some Commissioners would be absent Thursday night, perhaps preventing Commission action and thus Board action. (695) Counsel Blackstock reported that the Attorney General's office assured him` on the phone that they would grant a request by the Poard for a nominal time extension. Blackstock then discussed the need for an emergency ordinance to permit Planning Commission action by a majority of those present. Supervisor Lemke discussed the timing of changes in Commissioo membership, (783) Chairman Richter_ advised against any delays so that we would have a week before March 15 to finalize the EIR. -3- " f� f � osl • hLe o; 04`4 a •—�--~ p4HCQ('2.. ��'�.ISGcr�LS r AP4 os�•3 ,a,c 9•o---- c:r i&,) a P' Pa rce ( I vNba�Trot�.o:tr7 r� �j�QSI•'��{'iQ•oOG�Q--� `'=`� }?�iCe� 3) Lot -Az X S�tSj r A F-LIL o• o01. o Pe-U—CmI i; 1o.; C t,C �P :O- p. 040 R a X1':1... ..� fI 1 ts, 1'9, 30 --=---� Phi PekMee� G, '--t o ru �e eoH- i Ns hcCic( a.�.,s2r�, ac t, r