HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-49 REZONE FROM SR-3 TO M-2 1 OF 2A 1_
ol v
e
n
9
,
4
A 1_
ol v
e
al
e
PIANNING COMISS1011 SU Y
Robert L. Brown
RA�'Mlrwn r.P•
104 i�anzanita, Chico, CA 95926
frame'
L
.b1�...=R.Irezenc .[xom .p.eS.tiR
- 3 to
OJECT DESCRIPTION
ION r1-1
LOCATION
on the SZortheast corner of Cohas:set Road and Thorntree.
tRvYKRa0.4M1�.'ICAGNdMM411YY0ilk Y.ITM1111NY�'Ai4��
Drive, north of Chco..
mwre.+M+woerwo+ma..raie.plavw.mws+r..r. -
48-01-17 (Portion)
iSfl t' 3 FjMCElj HUMBERIS ...,..�
SR- 3 PROJECT CONSISTENT?
GEN. M � .
'DATE A.I'FLIrNATI017�.,IVE11+
...a ..��....,......,.ms.,__...a.
Ij Tt °'R2ZONINS PLI TITGNATMFS CHYY,CRED � � � ��: �� �.. PERCENTAGE
DATA LECrAI, S)>: SCRIPT
PRE 'ARE ► OR'CHEt" ED
W. 'E fr. 3rrxCAr:CION N�OTIOM WRITTTMi PUBLISHED „,r . -.�•- ........... .•
PUIBLISIM,D
.J.I-LY J.�J .L+�A._Y Jr J.i�dM Nom' A/b9k+1AnIRl.+l%I'+WMiIVNllbhflM_TbeYw.YMh(f.
�j �WSFAFF►�� NOTICE(S)ILISHED — G C P. G. B
Dj&TE MAILT'NG LIM F E,,APS
V112E MAIL. —OUT NOTICES kNi,1�'IBER'1FITTVAI , ... MAILED �•
Dnt COMMISSION S SKIT !REPAREi3 ,,,
DATE STAFF FINDING -S FREFARE'D
EN�IIPONMEr11'd1L
CATEGORICAL
«, DATE FIS
E2,'MMINATI.ON NEGATIVE D J,ARATxC71 us4 �A'�E ADOPTIA
NE ,,�, „�,ef ;._--• -
XiD DATE _
ENV. . ljVACi, REpORID DATE CERTIF +D
CC7MMI4S1014 HEARING DATES
BOARD AMION
ADOPTED r
5447
ADOPT ORDINANCE 2270 - PUBLIC: HEARING.' ROBE itT L. BROWN, PROPOSED NEGATIVE'
DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRON14ENTAL 1APACT AND REZONE 'FROM"1SRw3` (SUBURBAN'
RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE PARCELS) TO "M-1" (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL), PROPi:Rn'
LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COHASSET ROAD AND THORNTREE DRINh8'.,
IDENTIFIED AS AP 48-01-17 (PORTION), CHICO
The bublic hearing on the Robert L Brown proposed negative declar-
Ation xegardin.c; environmental; impact and rezone from 11SR-3" (suburhAn
residential,: three ache parcels) to "M -l" (light industrial), prop�,urty
located,on the northeast corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Drive, ident
ified as AP 4,8-01-17 (portion), Chico was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director, stated this was a rezone that
is recommended by the Planning Commission. The negative declaration was
approved.
i
Hearing open to the public. Appearirng: No and
Hearing closed to the public and confined to the `Hoard.
and carr enoting motion of Supervisor 'Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley
g requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in making this decision,
and noting the previous action by the Board on September 29; 1:81 in approving
the rezone to "SR -3"; further finding that the proposed rezone conforms to
the policies, incltiding the teat and map, of the Butte County General Plan,-
ordinance
lan;Ordinance 2210 rezoning from "SR -8" (suburban residential - three acre parcels)
to "N-1 (light industrial), property located on the northeast corner oy
C°ohastdt Road and Thorntree Drive, identified as AP 48-01-17 (portion) in
Chico for Robert L. 8town was adopted and the Chairman authorized to signi
r
PUBLIC HFARING DATE SET
The faSl.o�ving public hearing dates were set •'
2. A public hearing date of i. arc i 9 1982 at 10:30 M. was set
for consideration of Robert L. Brown proposed negative declaration and rezone
from " SR -3" (suburban residential " 3 acre parcels) to "14`1 '� (light indust -ria -1),
property located on the northeast corner of Calasset Roan and Thorxttree Drive,.
identified as :AP 48-01--17 (portjon)j Chico.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES February 3, 1982
GATIVE DE(
B.
ITEM ON WHICH.
1. :'..Robert L. Brown - Rezone from 11SR-3" (Suburban Residential, 3
acre parcels) to I'M -111 (Light Industrial) property located on
the northeast corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Drive,
identified as AP 48-01-17 (portion), Chico
S-�9-Al-b2S
ms. B air read Analysis and Recommendations from Staff Findings dated
FebruOry 3, 1982.
The hearing was opened.
t'roponents Donald R. Brawn, P. 0. Box 2070 Chico, had no pertinent in-
formation to add, but said that this would appear to be a good use for the
'property,
1n response e to a y
p quer from one of the Commissioners concerning the comment
from the City of Chico that an air aviLgational easement should be granted,
Ms. Blair called their attention to a memo from staff, dated January 13
:ina previously furnished them --that a mitigation measure was adopted to
11'.Rerord an air avigational easement on all parcels," --in connection with
tentative approval, on October 12, 1981, of the map for the subject
property.
'Cpponentsio No one. The hearing was closed.
71fiere was a motion by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner'
7eeler, to4.
A. Note that, the requirements of the Calironia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in
making this decis oft—and note the previous action by the
Board of Supervisors on Septembot - 2J, 1981 in approving
the rezone to SR -34 and
Be Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies in-
cluding the text and map, of the Butte County General Plan;
and
C. Approve the rezone of 11 acres to X1-1 for A.B. 48-01.17 (portion)
(Robert L, _Brown).
Comblissiahers Wheeler, 'Renrtett;
AYES:Schraaor, Max, anii Chairman
Lambert.
FILE NO. 82-49
TO BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING
CM4:ISSION
STAFF FINDINGS - February 3, 1982
APPLICANT:
Robert Broom
OWNER:
Same.
REQUEST
A'rezone from SR -3 to M-1.
AP No
48-01-17 (portion)
SIE :
11 acres
LOCATION:
On~the northeast corner of Cohasset
Road and Thorn,tree Drive,, north of Chaco.
EXISTING ZONING:
SR -3'
ZONING HISTORY:
Zoned A"2 August 29, 1955,
Rezoned A-40 January 21 1981 by Ord-
inance 2184, Rezoned SR -3 September
29, 1981 by Ordinance 2250.
SURROUNDING ZONING:
M-1 and SR -3 to the ;north, SR -3 and
A-40 to the east, City of Chico and
S -R zoning to the south and City of
Chico airport clear zone to the west.
and southwest.
SURROUNDING LOT SIZES:
2 t 300+ acres,
SITE HISTORY:
The subject property represents
Parcel 1 of tentative parcel map
approved October 12, 1981) by the
Advisory Agency.
EXISTING LAND USE;
Open grassland; mobilehome, outbuildings,
tricks$ boat; heavy equipment, construction
materials, few head of cattleto the east.
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
Refer to Item 14-A Page 8-a of
Environmental 'Checklist.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
AgrIcul.tntal: Residential,, intorproted
to be Industrial per policies of the
Goneral Plan (refer to Pages 35y 56 and
54, of the Land Use Element) and the
existing industrial designation with
M-1 zoning to the north.
COPY
..Y
FIVE: 52-49
0 .
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Page 2
Staff Findings 2/3/82.
Section 24-114 of the Zoning Ordinance
Pages 35, 36 and 54 of the Land Use Ele--
ment, Butte County General Plan.
COMENTS RECEIVED;
City of Chico: "Grant Avigation Easement to City of Chico."
California hater Service: "It is noted that individual wells are proposed
or water supply. I water service is desired to be provided by Calif-
ornia -Mater Service Co., more detailed plans and further study of the
proposal would be necessary."
Environmental Health; "No objection to rezone from SR -3 to M-1. Any
de relopment or divisionshall. colAp) = with Chapter 20 of the ' Butte County
Code regarding sewage disposal area requirements, and requirements of
the Butte County Public Health and State Regional: Water Quality Control
Board. D:eve1•opment will be limited by sewage disposal capacity of soil"
Public Works: "Cohasset Road belongs to the City of Chico. The developer
should meet their requirements as far as access to and improvement of
Cohasset Road."
ANALYSIS
This is a proposal torezone 11 acres from SR -3 (Suburban Residential,,
3 acre minimum parcels) to lei -1 (Light Industrial), Approval of this
application would represent a southerly extension of the existing land
zoned 1,1� 1 to the north. Though the existing map of the General Plan`
does not designate the subject property as Industrial, the nearby land
to the north under the Industrial designation, along with the text of
the General Plan; indicate that the %posed rezone would be in con-
formance with its intent and purpose.
The applicant realized after t1jo property was rezoned to SR -3 that
industrialan zone would be
needed.
erect
store existingequipment andmateials4 Thet�a
ehiclesand �equipment are
presently located on property to the east. Approval of this rezone
would allow the applicant to obtain a building permit to place a
building on a portion of the 11 acres. rvfost of the trucks, heavy equip-
ment and construction materials would then berelocated within the neer
building:,
As mentiom,�,d in the memorandum with the Environmental Checklist, the
applicant, should prefer to improve the access road to a Lesser standard
And lotgth than that recommended by the City of Chico, The access road
is important for, traffic circulation to the east and north: Sltyy Park
Estates Phase 2 will particularly benefit from improvement of the access
roai as a secondary access for that project. Other properties of Mr.
E"osn to the east will also utilize the access road as a primary route:
rhe proposal would be compatible with the adjacent airport. A portion
of the clear gone of the airport borders the property on the southwest.,
potential light industrial use of the site would be more compatib
with the �Iirport than would up to 3 residences on the le
lowed by the current SR-3 zoning, property as al-
A negative Declaration regarding environmental impact is recommended
based on the initial study prepared for the rezone from A-40 to
on the subject property and adjacent land to the east. SR-3
RECOMMENDATION:
A.
Note that the requirements of the Calironia Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in
making this decision' and note the previous action by the
Board of Supervisors on September-;29, 1981 in approving
the rezone to SR-3; and
B. Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies
p, othe Butte County General
in-
cluding the text and maf Plan;
and
C. Approve the rezone of 11 acres to M-1 for A.P. 48-01-1
(Robert L. Brown). 7 (portion)
If the Commission cannot make the required findings, disapproval
the p Would be proper. If o
Pp v�i1 of
Proposed rezone i4oul
A:
Note that the requirements of CEQA have been completed and
considered in making this dec.islonx and
Bf Find that :.the
Proposed rezone does not conform to the policies
of the Butte County General, Plan; and
Ce Deny the rezone of 11 acres to f-1 for A„ p. 48-O1-17.
(Robert L. Brown). (portion)
SS/hd
Attachments; Development Plan
Location Map
Environmental Documents
cslv�x t; F. �Mx`1i e Brown
11 ttzani.ta Ave.'
0h1ca, CA 95926
klez-,— FT. 48 -of --12 F
_
}3reslau�.r
:Devin pFarms
Clea gook Ave. '! B.A-.ca Barre
San =ase, CA 95125 Compton17 ALameda St..
-moi C CA 90222
p r 48-01--'12
Box � �tmsV. McGrady
J -W- t
BOX g C \Tihew Stage W8
Chico, 95 1278 ,26 g HOrd Dr..
` Chico, CA 95926
48-10-16
Bruce M. Roe A
V ,
555
1-010 undo i d hn e c
Chico, CAR9592C R B x 2
Re 1 u CA, 60 0
� 44--01-'10 48-'I ,�
Ly of Chico 0
9
cIo -'red Dav, s ,1 . ,
� � Dan Hays, Jr.
a1 Bldg. 755 Fasturood
Chico , CA 95926 Cliff c o CA 95926
48-01-20 thru 25 48-02-.0
2�8: E..B. Langford
z,4 �1C - J - 8- M.A. 1`Tc jnu yre
�1te Ave.A Rt: 1 B '7r'
' ox
Chlcoo CA 9592E �� V' `
�, CA 95947
48-02-49 `
Fish. Ranch Investors
P-0- BOX 1448
Chico, CA 95927
Cj-
C CA r
441_04`-105 , 44-58-40
Cit � Chico. ,
Fred Da. y
tgr
.0. H , 2b ;
Chi , CA95927
Jay Dopoth Pl mmer-,
Rt. box 22 ,
Chico; CA' 9592
Gr;c e CA
9.5947 ;
Bert r4i1�llie, $xotvn ..
Dan Hays, Jr
manxanxta Avenue
Chico, CA 95926�
755 Eastwood
Chaco, CA 9'5926
4S-01-03,17,w.
AP 48-01-19
r
4?�r>ton H. treslauer
;
C. & M.A. McIntyre
Winnie W. Levin�
1010 Glen Brook Ave `
Ft. 1, Box A76
Greenville, CA 95947
n Jose, CA 95125
A-P 48-01-4
AP 48-02-02
V-D; & P.V. McGrady
Boy: 158, Nimshew 5tapn-,
t
Chico, CA 95926
P, 48-01-10
Bruce M. Roe 9
555 Rio Linda
Chico, CA 95926
,A? 48=01-15
'City 0-f Chico
'M 4
" r Fred Davis
2,%D icipal Bldg.
Ohico, CA 95926
44-01-7 & ll, 44-4-10,
.AZ' 48-1-18,47, 44.01-10
44-04-1050 44-58-40
- $.B. Langford
"S24 White Avenue
'
Chico CA 95926
�
-- -01-20 thru 23
zh Ranch Investors
D Box 1448
C7'�'co, CA 95927
A�' .48-02-49
r-_
�: �� bozo thy 'Plummer
Box 227
..o, CA 95926
j,
A' 48-019
<clrer L. Drown
Kt 1, Box 54 !
tF
r.Zenvill:c, CA 95947
B
s
AtA8 01-5
»_W Barre.
Alameda 8treet,
c=Ptonj CA 90222
�'. React
I'—S HOlvard Drive C.
Hca, CA 95926 ►_t
AS 48-01-12 �
A
F-
Q'
Q,
l
APPLICATION FOR REZONING
BUTTECOUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT; Read and follow instructions as set forth on reverse side of this form,
Applicant's Name`- Phone No,
Applicant's Mailing Address �- A
Applicant's Interest in property (Owner, Lessee, Other)
Owner's Name
Phone No.
owner's Address
Assessor's Parcel Number (s) 617 `- t
Present Zoning :.J Jj
. RRQUESTEDZQNING.
Location, dimensions and size of area (s) to be rezoned __/_/LC'L�J-716�,�
44ktg� /7
`m
A
pplicants's reasons for rezori
it
'I
I ' hereby det'are under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the instructions and that the foregoing
statements ai j true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Cr t
bated 3 C_j � 4 � Applicant's 81tjnafure
+ Project i=lls Number, L-
General Plan Designation ,o, .off e4ex r y /'� fAftt ' •�'
RequestConsisttnt?
Location Qi - W "��y` ply)
• +6T. 1v/ � � ��I f� /.sr 1 d!'W./.' 7l+r _�_� � tl I [ I ^ Y� � �� I •`.+wr�^q
r
LU V8RIPY: 'A,P. Numbor(s) _6--'Cocatian Description .
g Description of Area
-Ownership
Proof of Agency (if needed), Leal bescri Maps of Area
LU resent Zoning
LL bate Application Received -.t . y`�c� , Buite Co; Planni�tg Coat,
�.L. Receipt No.
Application Taken by'.'"�.,.� ,r
'Or 0AIlibi 00,Uj0i•4t
w
,
!N A
INSTRUCTION TO REZONING; A P ICk YS
1. If applicant is not the awnerr written authorisation l �i/.,
agency trust be'Submitted in order, for the a % g t pp ieatioo�
t o ow i n o h e rr. `
Application shall be considered void if not s, red b the owner or legala agent,
'g y
pncanti to ally sign the a
2. All items on application shall be filled in as completely as possible, If an it is no
applicable, please Indicate by the term 'NA' t
It Is
3
of
fhe property Proposed for achlregt ndclude an accurate and Complete description
Y important I
pp
zone, The appilca�ion av1JI' not be processed,
until We receive the following information about the area(s) to be rezanbtz '
a. Assessor's
b. Street add esses! number (sif available)
from the tax bills or 1lssessor's lylaitsJ,'
c. Distances and directions to named streets, bodies of water or ealtjo d5,
d. Legal description (subdivision lot numbers
fractions of ���t`'
and bearings of perimeter dimensions). r distances
e, 16 copies P rr(r with rezoning
area(s) oo'tiined (Assessor's c1nap,, subd
zoningma or other mapshowing parcels). Asian map;
4. Appiicatton must include a completed 'Appendix E-Environmentat Informat=on Form',
8, California Government Code Section 66300 at seq, requlees local zoning ordinances
be consistent with a jurisdiction's adopted general pian, County a to "
request must be supported by findings of consistency with the utteVGountyrGent e9
Plan. Applicants may request changes in General Pian deslgnat)d:is by filing an "Appli•
cation for General Plan Amendment',
6. The 'ApplicattcIn for Rezoning` is subject to public hearings a. i
Planning Comittission and $pard of Supervisors, The procedui;;-a t,r,' gaunt bac icth the
rezoning applications are stated in Chapter 24 oftheButte CouY Code, Y , on
7. Application fees as of 4o v . U
(date) bre S ,�„ � 0/0 Pi ltitF % yf
Nis may be paid in cash or by check Made payable to Treasiaier of Butte iCdttP ;+,F',
B. BrfiUre submitting a rezoning application, applicant is requested to discuss with st•. t
all Illuestions about application requirements, County procedures, consistency with t:°ie
Gen'Gral Plan, and'the provisions of existing and requested zoning classifications,
� .i
CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95926
Bu{fe Co. planning corn..
Uh C 91981
DESCRIPTION FOR ROBERT BROWN REZONE Orovigo
' , California
All that certain real property situate in the County of
Butte, State of California described as follows,
A portion of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 2 township 22 North, Range 1 East M.D B.&M,_
more particularly described as follows.
Beginning at the Northwest corner of said southwest Quarter
of the southwest Quarter of Section 2, said corner being
in the centerline of Cohasset Road; thence North '880451131
East 530.43 Leet; thence South 0005210511 East 1310.78 feet
to a point on the South line of said Section 2; thence along
said 'Sough line South 8900210211 West 33.56 feet to the
Southeasterly corner of that certain parcel described iii
deed from J. Patil Delaney to the City of Chino, recorded
in Book 2`249, page 6960, Butte County official Records; thence
along the Northeasterly line of said city parcel,, North
3.203812611 West 941.71 feet to a point in the cenflerline of
Cohasset Roach; thence along said centerline North 0005815411
West 507.18 feet to the point of beginning, containing
'I 11.36 acres wore or less.
Reserving therefrom for public road purposes all that
portion lying within Cohasset Road, __
PIGE
USE --O=..
w
Receipt
Y
Project
APPENDIX E
Date Filed
Environmental Information Form,
(To be completed by applicant)
GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
Name and address of developer or project sponsor: �
ne
Address of project: 4-31CS-1C�
'711 AL'
Assessor's Block Block and Lot Number e
3..
Name, address, ar.d tel hone number of person to be
contacted ,
concerning this project:
4..
Type of project., (34. e. rezoning, subdivision)
LOA
5, List and describe any other related permits and other
approvals required for this project, including those required
public
by
city;
regional, state and federal agencies: _r
,6.
Existing zoning district.
1.
Proposed use of site: 1, .��
-� ,Z
---
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
S.
Site size.`
nr i
;9.
Square footage of building; ('s),
10.
Number of floors of construction,
11.
Amount of off-street parking provided. /V
12..
Attach site development plan. �
o de
13.
Proposed scheduling,
w
M14
14,
Associated projects. _
15.
incremental development.
,Anticipated
Appendix E
page l of 3
APPENDIX E � +
15, if residential; include the number of wits, schedule of unit
sir,es, and type of household size expected" At
17 If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city
or -regionally oriented, square footage of safes area, and loading
factl.ities .�
y employment per shut,
facilities .
eroload�n�dustti�.al, indicate t pe, estimated,
19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated
employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading fat ities
and community benefits to be derived fromthe 'project,`
20, 'If the project involves a variance, conditional use or rezoning
application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is
required•
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional. sheets as
necessary) ,.
YESi�Q .
✓'" 2.1: CPia�ige in existing features of any beaches, lakes,.
or hills, or Substantial alteration of ground contours.
r/'
22 . Si ificant change ` in scenic views or v1 staS frt m
/ existing ,residential. areas or public lands or roads .
41 23. Significantly change pattern, scale or character of
general area of pro; ect .
24. Sir, a "'ficant amounts of solid waste or litter,
Change in dust, ash, smoka, f� MBS o� odors in
vicinity.
V 2b , Significant change in lake, stream or ground water
quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage
°patterns
27 . g : or vibration
Substantial change it exist' noise
levels in the vicinit
Site on filled land or on slope of percent or more:
al of ot`horardous expl osivesmaterials,
29. Use or disposal
-�
such . as toxic substances, flamznebls
Appendix. 8 page 2 of 3
YES NO
3Q Substantial change in demand for municipal services
(police, fire, water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel, consumption
(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.)
32. Relationship to part of a larger project or series
r,. of projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
33. Describe the project site as it exists before the project,
including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
Animals, and any cultural, hists��ealscenic
aofethects•structures.
Describe
any existing structures on the , and theuse
34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information
on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects.
Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.),
intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department
development (height, frontage, set -back,
stores, etc.), and scale of
rear yard, etc.) • �,a.v✓+
G
CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished
a ove and 3:H --the attached exhibits present the data and information
for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and
required
that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
p % C
Date 1 - (Signature)
For 17 1 1.
GQ• +�
100
0111
1�j '
J�O1'
Appendix 9 page 3 of 3'
APPENDIX G
NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
I, NOTICE IS I3EREBY GIVEN that the pro*ect described below has been
reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code 21100, et. seq.) and a
determination has been made that it will not have a significant
effect upon the environment.
Loi It 81-12-01-02
A, # 48-01-17 (ptn)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: 82`49
Rezone of 11 acres from SR -3 (Suburban Residential, 3 acre minimum
parcels) to M-1 (Light Industrial).
5. LOCATION OF PROJECT:
On the northeast corner of Cohasset Road and 'Thorxtree Drive,
about z mile north of Eaton Road, north of Chico.
4.. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT APPLICA'NTc
Robert. L Brown
1084 Manzanita
Chico, CA 95926
5. MITIGATION MEASURES
None
6. A copy of the initial study regarding; the environmental effect
of this project is attached.
This study was:
Adopted as presented.
Adopted with changes, Specific modifications and
supporting reasons are attached:
A public hearing on this Negative Declaration was held by the
decision making body:
Blearing Body Butte County Board. of Supervisors
Date of Determination March 9, 1982
Determination:
On the basis of the initial study of environmental impact, the
information presented at hearin,gs, comments received on the
proposal and our own knowledge and independent research.;
We find the proposed project COULD NOT Have a significant
EJ effect on the environment, ana NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted
Wo .find that the project COULD have a significant effect
t. of
on, the environment but will not in this vaso because
attached mitigation measures described in item 5 above
which are by this re.ferenco made c nditlons of project
pp i i.s hereby
approval. A cotrdi.t�,ori�Li. NEGATIVE ECI�ARATION
adopted_.
,gnature
I-ii.lda Wheeler, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Title
PEAR 15 1982
APPENDIX H
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
TO: Secretary for Resources'F"
❑ 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 l
Sacramento, CA 95814 1980
County Clerk, County of Butte
25 County Center Drive CIA; NELSON, CbLnty Clark
, JACINTK
Oroville, CA 95965 gY. �....�.......��w.�.......,.�. Doputy
FROM: Planning Department
7 County 'Center Drive (Filed)
Oroville, CA 95965
SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in. Compliance with
Section 211.08 or 21152 of the Pu i of ces Co
Prod ect Title
.ezone AP 48-01-17 (ptn) Robert L. Brown
-
State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to State Clearinghouse)
Co tact Person Te1,en�� e twiber
nBettye Blair, Planning Director (916) `S3 44
Project Location On the northeast corner of Cohass€t Road and
Thorntree Drive about ' mile north of Eaton Road, north of Chi
Project Description:
Rezone of 11 acres from SR -3 (Suburban Residential, 3 acne
minimum parcels) to M-1 (Light Industrial)
ini.s :is to aavise tnat the Butte County_ Board ol. Supervisors
(Lead Agency)
has made the following determinations regarding the above-described
sJ
1. The project ❑ will have a significant effect on
the environment:
will not
2.❑An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of CFQA, and was
certified as required by Section 15085(8), 14 California
Administrative Code.
A Negative Declaration. was prepared for this project
LnsJ pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the
Negative Declaration maybe examined at the Planning
Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965.
3. ❑ ANotice of Exemption was filed indicating this project
I s exempt from environmental review:
4, A statement of Overriding Consideration ❑ was, was not,
adopted for this projects
51, Mitigation measures adopted by the Lead Agency to reduce
the impacts of the approved project are;
None
Siteph
en A. Streeter
j10%$2Senior Planner
♦ Date . T`i r1 (?
_rte
i
z
InterDepartihMn
tal Memorandum
Y TOt Butte County 1...;;y ssor �s Office
FRow Butte County Planning Mr°ba2`titl' n
Robert Le $rouln - Rezone 82-0
March 11, 1082
Pursuant to Section 65863.5 of the Government, Code echo
following parcel/*IIVXXILr c identified as 48-01-17 ortion)
teas/were
Rezone_ from I SR -3 to M-] zoning district:
Granted a variance to allow
Issued a coxiditional use Permit for
cc,: 'Property 'Owner
... ORDINANCE NO
. 2270
»; AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF TIME COL�ITY OF
BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AN "LI -11" (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24-29.
The Board of Supervisors of the 'County of Butte, State of
2 -California, under and pursuant to Chapter 24-29 of the Butte County �
to �
Code of said County DO ORDAIN as follows:
.,
SECTION 1. T1iE hereinafter describedarea sit,uated in
5
theCounty o f Butte, State of California, shall. be aid it is hereby
.
zoned as
an ' 'ri-1" (Light Industrial) District, ani such area shall
7 �be
subject
to the restrictions and restricted uses and, regulations -
a
pursuant
to Butte County Code Section 24-114. �
g
Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated
10
area of
Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows.,
11
All that certain real property situate in the. County11
of Butte, State of California described as follows:
12
A portior, of the 'SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 2 T22N,,
13
R].E, NIfDBFM, more particularly described as follows:
�
14
Beginning at the NW corner of said SW 1/4 of the SW
1/4 of SecA 2, said corner being in the centerline
15
of Cohasset Road, thence N 88° 49' 13" E 530.43 ft'.
thence S 00° 52' 0.5"" E 1310.78 f't. to a point on the ,
1B�,
S line of said Sec. 2; thence along said S line S 89° "
02' 02" SY 33.56 fti to the southeasterly corner of that
r
certain parcel described in deed from J. Paul Delane
to the city of Chico, recorded in Book 2249, Page 696,
Butte County official records,thence along the north-
_.. 26" IV
easter]. line of said cit N 3V 381
y parcel,
19�
`.cor
9e1.71 ft. topoint in the ce.nterline of Chasset
,a
thence along GtQOo 1 11
20
507.18fttothe point ofbeginning) containin 11:6
4fi
acres, more or less; north of Chico.
21
Reserving therefrom for public road 'pu'r'poses all that
22
portiyn lying witr';n Cohasset Road.
25
SFCTI0Jq 2. This Ordinance shall:'be and it is hereby
24
declared to be Vq full force and effect from and after 'thirty (30)
25'clays
of
the date of its passage, and before the expitatlon of
25
, fifteoj
(16) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be
��
-1
y
xs;b'
,.I
!i es of the members of the Board of
IIt published once with the nam t it in the Chico Enterprise, a I
2 psupervisors voting
for and agans
State 0f California.
Pub of in the County of Butte' r
3 ',,newspaper p exvsor of the
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Sup I
4 � dy a of
State of California, an the,h march
5 County of Butte,
i
b the following vote
1982, Y
_ 1
Saraceaii and Chairman taheeler
7 AYES' '
Su��erviaors �oyan► Moseley,
8 NOES: ,
g
ABSENT'
•
;;ane
tone
10 NOT VOTING'
ldanc
I
11 HILD WEE LERirman r
Butte'County Board of Supervisors
12 CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk -Recorder
13 ATTEST-
and Ex-off,cia Clerk the Board
14
B
15 y -_!21
xs
17
18
19
2Q
2]:
22
FIL.h Nu
COUNTY PLANNINGOTi1viISSION
TO:
BUTTE FT1VDTrIGS - Pebruary 3, 195-•
STAFF
Robert Brown
.kPPLICANT6 Same
O1NER
A rezone from SR -3 to M�1'
REQUEST: 48_Cl1-17 (poxta.on)
Ap No. 11 acres
corner of Cohasset ,
SIZE: On the northeast north of Chaco.
Road
and Thorntree Drive,
LOCATION:
SR- S
August 29 19557981 0-rd�-
EXISTING ZONING: Zoned A-2 Aug 21� 1_bY
A_40 January Septembez
Rezoi1ea218d, Rezoned Sp_
ZONING HISTORY: finance by Ordinance 2250.
29, 19 $1
to the 'north, SR-� and
and SR`^ C t)r of Chico °
A- 4 0 to the east uth ,and C't" 'est
SURROUNDING xONTNG • to the sv zoi1E, to
S -P, zoning to
clear
Chico airp
and south"st.
2 to 300* acres.
SIZES: erty represents
StiRROUNDING LUT The subj Det pxOp at map -
Parcel 1 of tentative 1981, by the
SITE HISTORY approves October 12>
Advisory Agency-
mdbilehomes outbuildings
Open grasslands equipment, const':
oat, heavy tale to the east°n'
frocks :.b f0,1 lead of ca
EXIS'I`TNG LAND USEnaterials
Refer to Rein 14Ai
page 8..a of
USE Ck ck1, st
Env�.xanmental _
SURROUND` 14G LAND intexp the
Lural .R05 idential reted
AgTicul olicies of
PES GNAT7ON to be ]:r�dusatrial perp pages 35, "6 and
GENERAL I'vAN ri (refer to and the
Genera
of.trial designation faith
54 er the Lancs Use dement
e�lsting Inc1t.1s
et,,I ;,on. 11 to the north
.. Staff Findings 2/3/82
FILE: 82-49
Page 2
Section 24-114 of the Zoning Ordinance;
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:, Pages 3S, 36 and 54 of the Land Use Bib -
meat, 'Butte CoLInty General Plan.
i
CM-1ENTS RECEIVED: of Chico it
Cit of Chico; "Grant Avigation Easement to City
Calif..
Y ►�It is noted that individual wells are Proposed
rovided by
California Water 5ervz.ce:desirec is
of the
or water supply'• I water scr� ailed plan's and urtPer study
ornia •Nater Service Co., more d
proposal would be necessary."
,, T Any
Health: Igo objection to rezone from SR -.3 to A4�l-te Couttty
Environmental Hea with Chapter 20 of the But
shall comply and requirements of
development or davisaon uireme,ona Control
Code regarding selvage disposal area reCl conal Water Quality
the Butte County
Public Health and Statsewage disposal capacity of. soil.
Board. Development will be limited by The developer
public Works: ',Calla.sset Road belongs to the City of Chico.
should meet th
eir requirements as far as access to and improvement oa
Cohasset Road."
ANALYSIS: Suburban Residential.)
rezone 11 acres- from SR' -3 (Suburban
of this
This is a proposal sal to,� to �i_1 (Light Industrial) . land
acre minimum poi cels)
existing map of the General Plan
cation would represent a southerly extension of the exa.stxng 1,anr1
apple the nears)
zoned M-1 to the north. Thought ro property as Industrial,
along with the text of
does not designate the sizb ect p p _
Indicate that the proposed rezone would be in con -
to the north under, the desagnat�on,
the General Plan,. a.n -aose.
fo,,rmance with its intent and puri was rezoned to SR -3 that
The l icant realized after the property t, in m o are
app .
o erect
an industrial sone would le needed,in ordTlletvehicles aand �eq��p to
store existing equipment and materia s. Approval of this rezone
ert to the east. erm�t to place a
presently located of ipan royObtain a building p heavy equal''"
would allow the app
ortion of the ll arses. t�-iost of the. txlacks'
an n p ctioa materials rstould the"' bee].ocated within
the new
building ,
menu and tonstru
bLiil6ing. the,
mentioned in the mertoranduM with the Environmental Checklist;
As menta
` nt would prefer to improve the, acc��sd�o�aico.� Thes�ccessnroad
applicant the, City
and length than that recommended t, t Slay Park
. c circulati0ft to ,the east and nmen.t, e access
I important for traffic v benet-it f?'omOtlzeropropert�es�}of Mr
as a seconclar access for t
roa r that prof ramar route.
Estates Phase 2 tivi�l pa,r to cu
l3ro`�n to the east Will also ut��-i%e the access roan as a p Y
would be coinpat'i'hl,e ��"�-t]Y the adjacent airport: A portion
The proposal the sirport with
the property an the southwe$t
of the clear zone of
e
pTLE : 32-49 Page 3 Staff Fndin_qs 2./3/8'2
Potential light industrial use of the site would be more compatible
with the airport than would up to 3 residences on the property as al-
lowed by the current SR-3 zoning.
A negative Declaration regarding environmental impact is recommended
based on the :initial study prepared for the rezone from A-40 to SR,-3
on the subject property ,and adjacent land to the east.
RECOW4ENDATIONs
A. Note that the regal-rements of the Calironia Environmental
Qual t�� Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in
making this decision•, and note the previous action by the
Board of Supervisors or� September 29, 1981 in approving
the rezone to SR-3'; and
B Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies, in-
cluding the tent and map; of the. Butte County General Plan;
and
C. Approve the rezone of 11 acres to M-1 for A.P. 48-01-17 (portion)
('Robert L. Brown).
If the Commission cannot make the required findings, disapproval of
the proposed rezone would be proper. If so;
A. Note that the renuirem nts of CEQA have been completed and
considered in making this _decision; and
B, Find that the proposed rezone does not conform to the policies
of the Butte County General Plan; and
C Deny the rezone of 11 acres to M-1 for A. p. 48-01-17 (portion)
(Robert L. BrOWA)
SS/hd
Attachments; Development Plan
.Location Map
Environmental Documents
�' BIZ ���''+��+���(�'� • K-� w, 9 ^ ..
_—..- rt7� fifty �•r;. � u' .
_ - tie 0, Un
--- - LAND OF NATURAL WBALTH AND BEAUTY
c AIAK A. NELSON
COUNTY CLERK -= RECORDER
ADJA NISTRATION FBUILOING,=tAtd 4f 2'99 - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
Wephondt 5344551 25 County Center
A=isuntCounty Clark, Jicea Lindquist 534,4551 Drive
Assistant Clark; board of Suwvlsors. Cathy Pitts 534.4371
sslstOnt Registrar of Voters, Eleanor Backer 534.4761
A=4stant Recordar, Gwen Farland 534.4641
March 10, 1932
Robert L4 Brojan
1084 Manzanita
Chico, Ca, 95925
Re;i Rezone File 82-49
Dear, bIr. Brown:,
At the regular Meeting of t3.e Butte County Ifnard of Supervisors
held March 9, 1982, Ordinance No. 2270 Was adopted which r0-
zones from IISR-311 (Suburban Residontial 3 acre parcels) to
IW-1'' (Light Industrial) that property located on the northeast
corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Drive, identified as
AP 48-01-17 (portion), Chico,
S.b.ouldo'u have any } questions, please feel free to contact. this:
office.
Sincerely,
CLARI; A. NELSON
County Clerk-Recorder and Ex=officio
Clerk of the Butte County Board of
Supervisors
By
sSMaiit Clerk fo tie Boar
/lr
Inter -Depart
° I emnrandum
rb: Board of Supervisors ;rM
FROM, Planning
5UBJECTt Robert L. Brown Rezone on AP 48-01-11
(portion) suggested motion
DATE; March 3, 1982
xf your intent is to approve this rezone the suggested motion is
as follows:
A. Note that the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed and considered in
making this decision, and note the previous action by the
Board on September 29, 1981 inapprovingthe rezone to SR -3
and
B. .Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies, in-
cluding the text and map, of the Butte County
and General Plan;
G. Adopt an ordinance rezoning AP 48-01-17 (portion) for Robert
L. Brown, from SR -3 to M -i Light Industrial),
Applicant: Robert L. Brown, 1084 Manzanita., Chico, Ca. 95926
Owner: Same
Request: Rezone from SR -3 to M-1
Location: on the NE corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Dr., N of
Chico,
Date Action Requested: 12/1/81
Number of Parcels; 1
Acreage 11.36 acres
Planning Commission Findings: Note that the regUireinents of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been completed
and considered in making this decision; and note the previous action
by the Board on 9/29/81 in approving the rezone to SR -'3; and rind
That the proposed rezone conforms to the policies, 'Including the
ex- an map, o e utte County General Plan; an,
Plannizig Commission Action: Recommend to the Board of Supervisors
to approve the rezone and adopt an ordinance rezoning AP 4841-17
(portion) for Robert L4 Brown from 8R-3 to M-1. _
Vote 5-d
F
LANA QF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
.�� CLARK A. NELSON
COUNTY CLERK — RECORDER
0"p ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, d=WM - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
Tefephono 534.4551 25 County Center
Drive
ur' s�s�nt County Clok, Niece Lindquist 534.4551
xs"art t Clerk, hood of Supervisors, Cathy Pitts 534.4371
;ss"twa Registrar 9r Voters, Eleanor Backer 534.4761
seazaot Recorder, dVven Perland 534-4691
February 10, 1.982
Robert. L. Brown
1084 Manzanita
Chico, Ca. 95926
Re: Rezone File 82-49
Dear ' it . Brown
At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors
held February 9, 1982, a Public hearing date was set for March
9, 1982 at 10:30 a.m, to consider your request for rezoning from
1ISR-3t1 (Suburban Residential - 5 acre parcels) to 1IM-111 (Light
Industrial) , property located on. the _northeast corner ofCohasset_
Road and Thorntree Drive, identified as AP 48-01-17 (portion),
Chico.
The meeting will be held in the Board of Superviosrsr Room,
County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oros>ille,
California.
should you have any questions regarding this matter, please con-
tact this office.
Sincerely,
CLARK A NELSON
County Clerk-R0Cbrder and Ex-officio
Clerk of the Butte County Board of
8uperv:8ors
B
y Ass scant C .e"] �kEo t-6 BHrr
/lr
EAILTH A '- 3EAUTY
I PLANNING COMINISS'iON
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 5344601
February 4, 1982
Mr. Robert L. Brown
1084 Manzanita
Chico, Cay
95926
Re: File No. 82-49
Dear Mr. Brown:
The planning Commission, at their meeting on February 3,
1982, recommended for approval your request for a rezone
" (Light Industrial
from "SR -3" (Suburban Residential 3 acre
�Y 1 parcels) t0
corner of Cohasset Road )aPrOPeiorntreertv atted on the de northeast
Dre,as a portion of AP 48-01=17, Chico, n.tfiea
A report of this action Will be made to the Board oe
Supervisors on February 0 at which time they wjll '
Public hearing clato Yeta
ob wall sbe notified of that date.
Should you 'have any ques-tions, please reel free to
contact our office;
Sincerely,
Bettye Blair
Ad Director of Planning
•...w+t yr. ^ suite count
-_ LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH At+'r) B(AUTY
PLANNING GOWn'.1ISSION'
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE .- OROVILL8, CALIFORNIA 95968
PHONEi 534.441;01
January 26, 1982
Mr. Robert L. Brown
1084 Mantanita
Chico, ca.
95926
Re Rile No 82-49
'Dear Mr. Rro 4n:
Enclosed is a copj► of Staff Rrndings Concerning your
application for a rezone from "SR-3" (Suburban Resi-
dential - 5 acre parcels) to_,"M-1" (Light Industrial)
property located on the northeast corner of Coh,set
Road and Thorntree Drive, identified as a port:iu11 of
AP ^Q-01-17, Chico.
A public hearing on this matter by the Planning Com-
Mission has been set for February 3, 1982, at tl ;air
regular meeting. This meeting; will be held in the
Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center ))rive, `
Oroville, and is scheduled to begin at 7:30 P. M,
Should you have any questions; please feel free to
contact aur office.
Sincerely,
Bettye tlair
Director of Planning
%hd
roc.
82-49
Log # 81-12-01-02
Intel, -De artbie ttiFF.7 lemorandum
ny. t, d ita
ro: Planning ;Commission
FROW Stephen A. Streeter, Planning
WSJ Er—r Rezone ;From SR -3 to M-1 for Robert L. Brown, AP, 48-01-17 (ptn)
OATS; January 13, 1982
This project is a rezone of eleven acres :from SR -3 (Suburban
Residential, 3 acre minimum parcels) to M-1 (Light Industrial).
. The property is. Located on the northeast corner of Cohasset
Road and Thorntree Drive, about h mile north of Baton Road,
north of Chico.
-The attached initial study was prepared for a rezone of the
property to 8R-3. A Negative Declaration regarding environmental
impact was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 29,
1981 as part of the approval of the rezone to SR"3. The same
finding is recommended for this subsequent action on a portion
of the same property.
Supplemental Comments.
1. Approval of the rezone would extend the 'M-1 zoning in
the area further to the south. There is presently M-1
zon-ing on the frontage property along Cohasset Road to
the north of the project site,
2. Two mitigations were adopted as part of the Tentative
Parcel Map. The subject property represents parcel 1
of the parcel map receiving tentative approval on
October 120 1981 from the Advisory Agency. The two
mitigations are:
2) Sho�rd An areasair subject toonal inundation�onon all. parcels:
final
map.
The City of Chico commented that an air avigational easement
should be granted: This condition, placed on the parcel map,
will be reiterated for the current rezone a:pp lication,
3. One point of contention between the applicant and the City
of Chico is the road easement (Thorntree Drive) extending'
east to the property from Cohasset Road.; The applicant
formerly owned the clear zone area for the Chico Municipal
Airport which is adjacent to the project site. A separate
50 foot wide road easement exists to the south of and
parallel to Thorntree Drive: As indicated in the attached
letter relating to the pal°cel map, the City of Chico
re�luests that the applicant utilize the existing 50 foot
wide easement plus 10 feet of the existing 60 foot wide
easement represented by Thorntree Drive (the southerly
10 feet), The pavement of the road section to a width
of 32 feet is required Pram Cohasset Road to the
easterly portion of t)1e property (up to. the southeast
corner of the proper't'Y owned by hIr. Brown and the
Langfords). Dir. Brown would prefer to only pave that
portion. between Cohasset Road and the southorly POint
of the property to be rezoned: Resolution of this
matter will need to occur between the Butte County
he City o� Chico Public
public Works Department and t
jjorks Department.
PP vicinity to
apply for similar zoning, 4. Approval of this rezone could potential) :induce other+
properties in the vice y Y
However, the frontage properties (from a depth of
approximately 300 to 600 feet) have been rezoned to
M- for the 3/4 mile of property ;fronting Cohasset Road
to the north of the project site. To and
sewage disposal constraints north. mthemaliitleast and north.
development on other propertieto
Lands to the south and immediately west would be subject
to the 'planning process of: the City 01 Chico.
5. ,An, earlier comment by the City of ChIcessntthe
to native
parcel map as worthy of note.
ery
is to ,,e from the road easement on the southerly part or
r direct access is to be allowed onto
the property; no othe
Cohasset Road.
6 Certain ri-1 (Light Industrial) uses of potentiOl environ-
mental significance require the :securing of a Use permit
Refer to page 83 of the Zoning 0,edinance. Ntitigation
measures/conditions of approval would be part of such a
discretionary permit.
cct Robert L. Brown
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VO M
(To:be completed by Lead Agency)
EP,D Log #81-06-02,04
I. TiACKGROUND` ,
► Plann.ng File
#81140 ;
1. Name. of Propoftenf^ Robert L. Brown_
2. Addrea s and Phone Num er ot Proponent;
1084 Manzani„ta Ave,
Chico; CA 95926
,3i Date of Checklist Submitted
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
”
5. Name of Proposal, if appliFabla Rezone rom'A-
to. SK --2
AP 48-01-l7,2_0_j2l,22,23_
11. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are
required
on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. earth. Will the proposal result in significant,
a, Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures'?
b, Disruptions, displacements, com-
paction or overcovering f the soil?
w
c, Change in topography or ground sur..
'
face relief-fea tures o�; removal of
C•
to soil.?
p
d. Destruction covering or modifica-
tion of any unique geologic or
physical features?
e. Increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either: on or off the site?
f, Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach hands, or changes in silta-
tion, deposition or erosion, which
may modify the channel of a river or
stream or t;ha bed of the ocear4 or
any bay ► inlet or lqlce?
g. Loss of prime agriculturally pro=-
is Outside designated
�rbanvareas?
Appendix V page ;l
of 9
w.
P
Appoi k E - page 2 of 9
YES MAYBE
NO
h
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure!,
or similar hazards?
2, Air. Will the proposal result in;
a.
Substantial deterioration of
ambient or local airualit
q y
b.
The creation of objectionable,
odors, smoke or fumes?
c.
,
Significant alteration of air
movement, moisture or; temperature,
or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
3 Water, Will the proposal result in substantial:
a,
Changes in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements?
b;
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns; or the rate and amount of
surface ,rater runoff?
c.
Need for off-site surface drainage
improvements_, including vegetation
removal, channelization or culvert
installation?
a.
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
e,,
change in the amount of surface,
'in
'water any water body?
f.
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface
avatar quality, including but not
limited to temperature, c:' -,solved
o,,:ygen or turbidity?
g,
Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters?
h.
Change it the quantity or quality
of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
P
Appoi k E - page 2 of 9
YES MAYBE
N0 '
i•
othamount ofwater
erwise.availablefor p
water supplies?
j.
Exposure of people or, property
to water related hazards such as
£looding?,
4. Plant' Life. Will the proposal rer,ult
in
substantial ;
A.
Lost of vegetation or change in the
diversity of species or number
Of any, species of pl.arts (including
trees, shrubs, grass, Crops'
microflora and aquatic plants)
b.
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants?
C
C.
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agrz-
cul tu) al trod?
5. Animal Life. 1,7111 the proposal, result
TT
substantial.
a.
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-
fi8h, benthic organisms, insects or
microauna) ?
b,
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
c,
Introductionof new species of
,
animals into an area or result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d,
Reduction of, e±croachment upon, or
deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Appendix E -
page 3 of 9
YES MAYBE
{
NO
6,
Nolte. will the proposal result in
substantial..,
I
a. Increases in noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
C,
"levels?
7,
Light, and Glare. Will the proposal
Pro uce sign cant light or glare?
8,
Land Use. Will the proposal result
in a significant:
a. Alteration of the planned land use
of an area., or establish a trend
which will demonstrably lead to such
(�•
alteration?-,---.
b. Conflict with uses on adjoining
properties, or conflict with
+stsblLched recreational, educa-
4ional, religious or scientific
uses of an area?
9,
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
x;esu t n substantial:
a, Demand fog, or increase in the rate
of use of any natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource?
lb;
Rislz: of Upset, Does the proposal
In o�ve a risk of an explosion or
the -release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
,
in the event of an accident or upset
conditions?
11
Eoppu�l.a�ttiOft, Tgill� the proposal
s gniCicantl.y alter the location,
distriibution,, density, or growth
rate of the human population of an
area or ph--,ically divide an
established coromunitry`t'
1,
Housin , Will tte proposal
sib" fx.cantiy affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional
housing
Appendix
'V _ page of 9
,
YES MAYBE
NO"
13. Transportation/Circulation., Will the
'proposal ressi t in:
a.
Generation of substantial additional
C
vehicular movement?
b.
Signif ica.ht effects on existing
parking facilities, or demand f.or
new parking?"r
c•
Substantial i" -pact upon: existing
transportation systems?
I.
d.
Significant al'terat•i.ons to present
patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods?
e.
A? terations to waterborne, 'rail or
al r. traffic?
f.
Tncrease in ti:,ffic hazards to motor
Gr
ivehcles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14, Public. Services. Will the proposal have
an
e -ect upon] or result in a substantial
need for new or altered governni►� nta1
services in any of the following creast
a.
Fare protect n?
b.
Policeprotection!"
c.
Schools?
d.
Parks or other recreatior►aI
facilities?
e,
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads"
f ,
ether go :rernmantz-sevvices 7
15, Energy. tli.11 the proposal result in:
a,
Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy?
b,
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or
require the deve7.opment of new
sources of energy?
YES
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result
in a neecT for
MAYBE NO
new systems, or ,sub-
stantial alterations to the following
utilities
a. Power or natural gas
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
di 5`ewer (wi.11 trunk line be extended,
providing capacity to serve -
new
development') ?
e. Storm water drainage?
1T.
Human Health. 1,jill the proposal
result in
a. Creation of any health hazard or
uotent al health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
18.
Solid. Waste. Will the proposal result
in any sig-'fi_tant
:impactsassociated
with sdlid waste disposal or litter
control?
t9
Aesthetics, Will the propos,a.l result
in t- e o structacn
of any public
designated, or recognized scenic Vista
open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of ajl
aesthetically offensive site
open to
public view?
2�
Recreation -.
on. Will the proposal result
_
in an i, upon 'the quality or
quantity of existing public recrea-
tion facilities"
21,
Archeolo ical/Hifitorical, Will, the
`resu
proposa- t �.n an a oration of
a significant archeological or
historical site structure,
object
or building? i
*pp(andix
V Page 6 of 5
Appendix V 1 6.k.10-
YES
MAYBE NO
22. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a, Does the project have the potential
to degrade ;the quality of the
environment,, substantially reduce
,
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
specit - , cause a fish or wildlife
population: to drop below self
sustaining levels, t?lreaten to
;
eliminate a plant or animal comms
munityj reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential
to achieve short term benefits to
the detriment og publicly adopted
long-term environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts *which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (a project
may impact on two or core separate
resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small., but
where the effcsct of the total of
those impacts on the environment is
significant .)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings
either directly or indirectly?
Appendix V 1 6.k.10-
jy
,'Xr r j�� i'S ��,,,Y f d�v��\�1S$ \iyw1�\+... � •\•. 1 ��:'�' hip
l
,•\�\4
"�", I ft Art T2 f �.��" a: H
t ' MUNtC1PAt e
qL
� 240
•`-00 1 it °, PlUI1me �`♦Aix
�r�w �'� • • 1 Yi ,✓�a.� _ r♦ .r 277
�.d •, .IMI
-k*4
0 t p
..1 ,_r.• t. j. ! �.•' C;fh1 �C51 xre, .� �Y `IY
PROJ
jm.
rC �•t ♦� � ," .,lam �4t' .�.z2dJIP •.
209 �v
,3,. �ry ♦, Y '�♦ .,�� .rt ♦tyles �� +. �%:t9� r! a���« \,1 �,`+y-_'.wr ."� y�
--,..--11 _ ado rx
la AN;a - �� \.\` HDY
• 4� ' i1 i• JAI • « i Y - .1 '.ti "P ' �.
01
p �..
° w
ly ,i C �'\�e.. ♦ Vii. • 4 ' °• V ei •UP11Vk ,.`•1 ,'
• • a • Y/ - \ ' tYyj'f"� c � s r-rah W • ' � � ♦ ' •..,, .,,., ' .
« Y 1
�. R i' Y is •i yi�i� a � P�9 ,r�...-�.♦.• .•fir Y b' q ' «�. , � 1'
Y • [ i '. 'b �•q . •i♦ i`a a�'♦ UW , '•... , ' 1 �,r1� ♦ .Yif est ',tb Y •Y . i }
p�♦•�+r Y•,1 +' i + ,Y,• �,..- � � . # �,;tr �if ! i,, 1 . '� 1 ♦be°j� r ' ��, • ,��.: : •.."�..-• � j
' •�'♦�i' y '• YOZ �. } Y EAS
p' ♦ Y� `i./"/ir
•� ' \�� '• i h?'i i F . .r �` i r r A ii41k ' , r.J,♦♦��,, <
r ,. i � by r•r,♦i/ i+/ i N .� J9.i � +. '"t y. � I. •O • r� it d' 3 1 •.y �Q
S♦" � ' 1tl ri. ,l • �+ .•1` . . t �• / , i 1� • `! rt f , 11• � V , " °�
Ohl
.•. i. ♦ r, �I• 'Y .l a •• ♦ C U, , i q ♦/y �♦]'• ri/.�('� `j b w ,. Y b' �� i i
., •• rr•Yia r �%l° r i t •. �r��' Y �♦'Y i/ r# yii `. i�,t Fl �\.,11� i; • V
Y 1
�t i1 ♦i i^• 'k+. MYrI., +-0!• " ..♦ \ Y• v. [• ``11 y� Yt ♦ ..«.,, 41-y� • �i
,, i,�`! i%+'.y 1205
n '♦Y « ♦' '� ,.�n r f. /" ,A i • + 'ti chfi i • 01 •• r.• Fi. ,��, R'q
q a
• V
•
' Q-10 OQU
±50,i000b FtLI
Mapped, edited, and puHshotl by the Geological Survey
'MH 1
��,
Control by USGS and U5ir&C5
It. 14 T,0 .ography from aerial photographs by Ittplex method
a
,and by plane•table SuYveys 1951 Aer �lographs taken 1947
, t50.fuot grid based an i alifotn coordinate sAmarican datum
�o� Conlc �roje�lioii. 1���1� North �ysterrl, �on�
�,—
N 081-06-02-04
III'. DISCUSSION OP ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Project Description -
l. Type of Project: -Rezone s
?. Brief Description: Rezoning of 7S acmes from A-40 (Agricultural,
40 acre minimum parcels' to SR -2 (Suburban Residential, ,2
acre minimum parcels)
3. Location: Northeast corner of Cohasset Road and Thorntree Drive x
about
h mile north of Eaton Road, north Chico,
4. Access and Nearest. Public Road(s): Thorntree Drive
ovides
access from Cohas;set Road; Vizpe-r-a--Dr ve—and�,Oro�Pino -Drive
N-are":
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ( CONTINUED)
S.. Visual/Scenic Quality: Open land to east, north and south at thi,
�t� time; industrial to northwest.
M.. Acoustic Quality: Intermittent noise levels of 60l CNEL from -
aircraft using the nearby ai-rport; traffic noise along
the Cohasset Road. corrid.er.
7. Air Quality: Generally good; reduced along the Cohasset Road
area from vehicle emissions
Biological Environment
. 'Vegetation: Grassland with few trues; see, attached botanical
survey letters for data about potential rare or endangered
plants on the property and in the vicinity,
9. Jyildlife Habitat: Open grassland.
Cultural EnVironmont
`10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: Lori
sensitivity in this area.
11» Butte County General Plan designation: Agriculturt,l Residential.
, 12, Existing Zon rLg,:*A--40; A,2 from August 1955 to4 JAWWIry-1.9-81.
Existing Land Use on-site'# Open grassland, mobilehome, outbuildings,
trucks, boat., heavy equipment, construction materials, family
garden and a few head of cattle,
14. Surrounding area.
a. Land Uses: Open land at this time though Skypark Estates,
Phase 2 is proposed to the north and a specific plan for
development is underway within h mile to the sottth4o Chico
Municipal Airport to 'the northwest; Cohasset Rod,,d and
Sacramento Northern Railroad tracks to the west..
b, Gen. Plan designation; Agricultural Residential, Industrial
to the northwest, Low D nsity Residentiai to south.
C. Parcel Sizes: Vary frim `4 "6 -"to 640 acres..
d. Population: Disperskid, lightly populated.
1..5
Character of Site and Area: Rural•, industrial area to northwest,
16 Nearest Urban Area! Chico Urban area within mile,
l7j Fire Protection Service:
a. Nearest County (State) Vire Station: Station 942 (north Chico)
b Mater Availability; Wells, fire truck capdcit,.
The followingo osal. Potential ncern and impacts have been identified
proposal.
environmental co. incompatibility between the use of the
for this r p incomp y
airport and higher density residential use, particularly on the
western portion of the property, is a key factor.
lb,c: Compaction and overcovering of tho 'soil ,y up to 28 additional
residences along wi th related driveway an��3 rood improvements, Some
excavation has occurred on the pxoporty to provide trenches for
drainage easements. A large trench is located to the south southeast
Appendioj page Ra of 9
w
s1-ob-az-o�
IIT. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
of the ,molilehome. A limited amount of grading would be required
;for road and building pads.
2b: Increased dust generation will occur from more vehicles using
the gravelled roads.
3b: Generation of addition.il runoff and the provision of a permanent
drainage solution for parcels of less than 3 acres. The existing
.drainage swales may be modified. to facilitate residential development
on the parcels. The soils have poor natural drainage in their
natural condition.
3h: 'Limitations exist to the installation of conventional septic tank-
leachfield systems due to the tr&riable soil types and depths. ,The
Environmental Health Department has not yet given tentative: clearance
for the creation of four parcels of 8 to 9 acre's in size o:h AP 48-01-17.
For the four parcels of 10 acres created on the east`portion, an area
of 33,000. square feet was 'reserved at the south porton of each parcel
for leachline purposes. A small drainage swale was to be relocated at
part of the sewage disposal solution.'
Seepage pits have been proposed for use on similar properties in the
groundwater date is necessary, ' percolation tests and logging 'of
area. Excavation of dee holos
g y, in such instances, to determine
feasibility of seepage pits on individual parcels. If leachfIelds
are proposed in areas with adobe soils, the leachlines would need
to be located beneath the adobe soil layer assuming a more friable
soil layer is present beneath the adobe soils.
3,j;i The northwest corner of the property may be inundated on ak,
pera.odic basis; The Sycamore -San Joaq:vizi Drainage District easement
traverses this area. The following mitigation measure or condition
of approval is recommended for the parcel map: "Show areas subject
'to inundated ) on final map."
Botanical surveys e or endangered plants occur in this vicinity.
4b: potential sure rare
were previously conducted for the property and
clearance recommended.
6b; Exposure of residents to the 55-60 plus CNEL (Community Nuase
Equivalent Level.) Contour radiating from the Chico Municipal
Airport. A mitigation measure for the parcel map on the eastern
portion of the property is also proposed for the western 'portion,
This measure reads "Record an air avigationa.l easement on all;
parcels , r
8a,b,11: SR -2 zoning would allow up to 28 additional parcels to be
created on the 75 acres. Duo to this potential and the location of
Appendix F - page 8b of 9
81-06-02-04
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
the property :near the flight corridor of the Chico Municipal
Airport, alternative zones with a larger minimum parcel site should
be considered. SR -3 zoning Mould allow up to 15 additional parcels.
to be created. SR -5 zoning would allow up to 4 additionar parcels.
A portion of the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Flan is attached. The
safety analysis section is pertinent to this, proposed rezone. Potential
incompatibilities between the use of the airport and proposed
residential use, at a much higher density than allowed by A-40 zoning,
are key factors.
The surrounding zoning includes SR63 to the north (since February 1979),
A-40 to the east (since January 1981), City of Chico zoned land to
the south, west and northwest, SR -1 to the south (since October 1974),
A-2 to the southeast and M-1 to the north of the western portion (since
October 1980),
At the time the parcel map application was submitted for Robert Brown
on AP 48 -of -17, the zoning was A-2. As of January 1981 the zoning
has been A"40 .for the property. A rezone to at least Sit -5 zoning
gry for the pending parcel map to be considered. The
Asnecessary
A-2 zoning the property was in effect for 25� years from August 1955
to January 1981.
The creat;�,on of up to 28 parcels would generate about 200
13a r f access vehicular trips onto Cohasset Road The access road extending north
may be utilized as an alternate access for the Skypark Estates Sub -
,division Phase 2 G3 lots to the north), 66mments previously submitted
by the City of Chico for the R.'L, Brown parcel map were ; A. All
access from 60 foot easement, no other direct access onto Cohasset.
,bi .Provide additional right-of-way on Cohasset frontage; total right-
of -way to be 80 feet or 40 feet from centerline. Ce Provide for
left turn lane into project and allow for turn pockets into and out
of project on east sideof Cohasset..
An english walnut tree and mailboxes just north of the intersection `
of "Thorntree Drive and Cohasset Road inhibit sight distance to the
north. Relocation of the mailboxes and regular trimming of the
lower branches of the'tree will be even more of a factor should
additional. parcels be created subsequent to a rezoning.
l4a,b The Butte County Fare Department indicates this project as
in a moderate fire hazard area as designated in the Safety Element
of the Butte' County General Plan. Arrival times for the first. four
engines,.
z
2) Station
taion #42, north Chico - 5 minutes
#41., Nord - 6;3 minutes
3) Station #44, Chico - 10 minutes
4) Station #22, Cohasset CDP 12 minutes
(Vire Seas only)
AppQix C page 8c of 9
e
81-06-02-04
III. DISCUSSION OF-ENVIROMMENTAL EVALUATION (CONTINUED)
Also reco
mmend.ed is a fire department connection with a gated valve
ff each water pressure tank with placement on the property such
th"t fire engines will have access to each valve'. Spark arrestor
tvy,ces are also recommended.
Me Sherif fI's Department does not anticipate a significant impact
�n they 'services from the rezone'.
17a_ Any standing water (more of a factor with the relatively
imp ervious soils) may -require mosquito abatement measures.
3,7b: Aircraft hazards ave potential due to the
location of the
idohat Wou].d depart near theht corr
directionroff theeproperty.w Any planes
that p ould be of
particular concern. Refer also to the discussion items 8a,b,ll.
References: 1. Initial study for G. E. Olson parcel map,
AP 48-01-1S (now 20-23)o ERD Log #80-02-01-03-
2. Memorandum for R. L. Brown parcel map,
AP 4`8-01-17, WIn Log #80-09-11-03
3. EIR for Chico Airport.Environs Rezone,
ERD :Log #7904-24.0.
4. Initial study for Hays, Plummer and McGrady parcel
maps, AP 48-01.-09,10 & 19, ERD Log 979-07-02 to 04.
5. Memorandim for Skypark Estates, Phase 2,
AP 48-i al -l6, ERD Log #80-10-10-02-
0i Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, R. Dixon
Speas Associates, Inc.0 August '3.978.
7. EIR f,'jr Dan Hays, et al. Rezone, Project 076-59.
8 tIR plus Addendum for AAE. Chico Specific Plan, 1979-80
Mr4 Steve Streeter
Environmental Review
18-F County Center Dr.
Oroviile, CA 95965
' N,V�P417M011{'B� A16V16W vapt,
OCT 14 1980
Bu0o Cmu y
Subjectt R.L. Brown Tentative Parcel Map, AP 48-01-17
Dear Steve
On 6 October, 1980 1 conducted a botanical survey of the subject property
as per your instructions of 26 September, 1980. The purpose of this survey
was to locate any extant populations of Butte Countyls rare and endangered
plants.
In a report prepared for the Chico Airport Environs Rezone by myself and
Jeffrey Prouty we identified the area of the subject property as potent-
ial habitat for Limnanthes floccosa sap. californica. At that time a
ground search of the area was not conducted. Our conclusions were based
on aerial photographa,,habitat type, and the presence of several known
Lmnanthes floocosa sap. californica populations within one mile of the
,property.
I,imnanthes floccbsa ssp; californica is associated with undisturbed; rocky,
vernally moist swales of the Valley Grasslands in Butte County. Upon
searching the subject property one swage, approximaf6ly 1000 feet long,
woo found. This swale is of the same type which support known populations
in the immediate urea:
The rare Limnanthes is not identifiable at this time of year. The mature
flowers of this species dry and fall from the plant in early summer
Making it impossible too locate the plants. To substan+iate the presence
of Limnanthes floccosa asp. californica,,on the subject property, a follow-
up survey in early Mtu?ch Would, be required.
Before Bnvirolmental Review postpones the approval of this tentative parcel
map the preservability of the rare ,Limnanthes _in this area should be con
sidered. The area east of Cohasset Hiway, surrounding the subject propert
y►
could potentially become highly developed in the near future. Past studies
have shown that rare plants cannot survive in an island '(esptcially small)
of undisturbed habitat "surrounded by developed property, This is edp@cially
true where industrial Or high density development is eminent, Furthermore
the rare Limnanthes is dependent upon a very specialized moisture regime,
Any action on adjacent property which would alter the tinting and amount
of i.hundation by water in the Spring would most certainly adversely effect
the plentd+
n
7 October,, 1960 cont
To sum -it all. up; You cannot expect to maintain the exact same environmental
parameters, -to which any rare plant is highly adapted to and dependant:
upon, if you drastically alter thk,� adjoining property. This appears to
be "the case on the subject property, Because preservation of the rare
I,-Mnanthes ie -highly uncertain on the Brown property it is my opinion that
Butte County should not require a future plantjourvey or suspend tentative
parcel map approval on the basis of rare plants.
In the area surrootirnding the Brown property and in two localities east of
and adjacent to Chico Idmanthes flo� oosa esp. californica populations
occur in small islands ofundisturbed habitat slated for future development.
These areas are not feasible for future preservation, and represent a
significatit number of the remaining, known populations. The fate of
this rare Mand very endangered species will be determined in the next
few years. Butte county should be aware of their role in determining
the future of this.species.and strive to preserve the remaining populations
as it continues to develop the areas with !aana thes habitat.
This letter is sure to raise some questions. Please contact me at
the University concerning«them.
Regards
A,�amD. ,token
ltiiig 'Botanist