HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 79-37 1• , i i Ptd• f ,�� X (
9.
l
1
l
r �
�.�, ., - ,�4 r _ k� is
S'
� �. d •!e'i
r
y� - ��'• 'K !
" l � "4 r{�,k , � OM1.
a3>
3 i�}
t
t..w
3r
� �nr� � "�•
3
�3
3 •q
r �
l
a3>
3 i�}
3
3 •q
`i
�'`Y
� �
�
'(1/ "j A
0
1
!. 1, ' �f, , k ,•.
,.. ,ter —...I,..—.•�+� ��e•-�. .n....
II it (V II
Ask AN I
OUTTF CUt-TX PLANNING COINI iISStON
ii STAFF FINDINGSo- February 7, 1970
REZONING
2. ,
R. X Alasingame Rezone from "A-5'" (Agricultural,
5 ,acre p=arcels) to "R-1" (Single Family Residential)
property located on the east side of �T'Ones Avenue appr'ox
imately 300 feet northof Durham Oroville Highway, ident-
ified,, as AP <40-18-400 Durham
The applicant states:
"The highest and best use of land is for residential use."
This proposal is a reroniftg of 10 acres of 'land east of Durham
,from A-5 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single :Family Residential) .
,. The property is located on 'Me east, side of Jones Avenue °about
300 feet "north of the Durham-,Qroville Hi.ghwp.y. The central
Du`r'ham area lies 'nearby to the west and southwest bey6' d the
Southern Pacific Railroad -Sacramento Northern Railroad route
approximately 600 feet west of the property.
,.i?
The site and surrounding area are currently in agricultural use
as almond and walnut orchards There are several residences
along Jones Avenue The entire arca to the nor9h, east and
.south is in agricultural use with very light residential use. ,
To the west, the land is also in" res.ide,ntial use, bordered; by'
the railroad corridor and the community of nurham further west.
Commercial and light industr%al uses occur to the southwest
rI along 'the Durham -O: oville Highway adjacent to the railroad,:
The subject property lies within the northeastern, corner of the
urban a'kQ,a of Durham as designated on the Couni,jt's General t'1an.
The site is designated on the Land tlse Plan Mari for, Lovv Density
Res 'dentzal use, 1-4 divell:ings per acre;. "Actual urban development
associated -,with the community of Durham is located within 400-
600 feet of the site ;`properties contigibus to the site are in
either agricultural or rural residential use .
Current zoning of adjacent properties is A-5. A small 'area
of C-1 and M-1 toning lies south .of the burhairl-Orovil1e Highway
just ryes°t of Jones Avenue. Surrounding property,' is in the
immediate area range from
. g . 2 to 30 acre,p in , area, and are ,generally
5-10 acres .
The subject property is not serviced with severs or a community
Water system. SeWOrs, are 'unavailable throughout' the Durham
area and the Durham Irrigation T1i sitrict which 1),rovides domestic
wdtcr to the community, is located approximately 700 flet west
of the site. If individual, wells and septic tanks ate, utilized
for subseciuont development on the sante, 2/3tcr,,e parcels may be
required to allow sufficient area for leach fields,
i
1 _ •'r
11Amse7ua�lmrfve.ioama..r. .. -. , ... ',
AA
w. •
,
NOTICE TO . A�'1?T�IOA.N�' w IUP,N'G,
Z0RI
P. Zocat 1on
3 '{;xistinc Y,
As the ap, licant :%'o,:5 tho t�oquo^,ted re""'Ox�irig rofOrrod -bo
m Lino � , thv: r4° 1 t,t��.oa�:°hiC� betwo.en Ow T;ut;tr; G()unr -y
,
Gc:1�c,�x�nL Plan and my rozo;rcing .rocque.-,t has beoa oxplainpcl
O 1Tl(: 1)Y 'G rl urldors;Lgnod pI'C1Ini: +g rtaff- nc'ITl'l ori In
maklf g 'iihis rltzo11ihr appl J CFIt,];CX.11 , I aI(l awa".L"E? "thEZb the
axic 1 am requost-1-rip; do,.s corifoiv to thq, )�.uttr~ 00IMb
nZen.ov 1 Plon
#A r ri _
rf � • .
Ir.`i fii .4• %.i r t"J'�. i Lu.t1x� "� 1 t�e1.�l�ti Yr+,A �, �:�.tJ
o-
r
t ,
Yy/
y
APPENDIX E,.
AWL
16 If residential, include the number of unit$, schaduke ,of Unit
sues, and .type of household 14 ., *1
size expected, �2 Gam;
1.74 If commercial indicate the type, whether' neigh.borIlOod city
07' egionally oriented, square footage o.f ,gales area, and laadn;
facilities ,
18; If industrial
a,*l,((Indicate type, estimated employment per shift,
ndloading facilities . '77
19 If it's citutidnal, indicate' the major func ion estimated
employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loaning facilities,
and community benefits to be derived fromtheproject; 1 M
20• If the project involves a variance, conditional use or 'rezoning
application, state this a d Why the application is
indicae clear]
required..._._ At�'
Are the, following items applicable to the project or its effectgl
Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as
necessar
YES NU.
- r 21. Change in existing features of, any beactieG, lakes,ur hills; or substantial alteration of �rotind contouzs
-=.-- 22. Significant change in scenic views or vistas from
existing residential areas or public lands or roads.
_..`L 23. Sis;nificantly change pattern, ,.scale or character of
general area of project.
24. SiPnificant amounts of solid waste or litter,
I � icini.ty: j Chane in dus't,` ash, smoke, fumes or odors in
1
vicinity,
_ 26. Significant change in la' e, stream or ground water
p
quality r alteration.of existing drainage
ualit or quantity, o
patterns
1
27. Substantial change in existing; noise, or vibration
_levels in the -vicinity,.
Site on filled land or on slope ofd} percent or rciore,
1b!9. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials,
such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives:
Appendix F -aae 'Z_ of 3
P '
n
. ter• ,,, �, "� r r�
APPENDIX F
ENVIRONIAENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
by Lead Agency)r',
.(To be completed
BACKGROUND #' 7`8-10-23-01
7:. ,
1, Name oProponent R. K. Blasingame
'"Prop
Phone IJum�er offipent:
2. Address and
Ro,ute I_Box 011
Durham. C1 1 orn is
3. Date of Checklist Submitted
`
4, Agency Requiring Checklist _
Name Proposal,,.if applic-aUle Rezone from A-5 o R -1d
5. of
II , ENVIRONMENTAL IPT£'ACTS'
(Explanations of all "Yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets:),;
SES MAYBE
NO
rr
Earth, Will th`` proposal result iri significant:
a, Unstable earth conditions or inx'
changes in geologic sublptructures'?
Ah
-; b, Disruptions, displacements, com- ,-
of the soil?-`
paction or overcoveri ng
c, Change in topography or,, around sur
ID -r -relief or removal of
,features
topsoil?
.--
d, Destruction, covering or modifica-
tion of any unique geologic or
physical features?./. --
. ...
'd., Increas e in wind or water erosion
off the site?
rr
AM
of soils) either on or, _ -
f. Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands , ,u, or changes in silta-
tion, deposition or ero°sioii, .which
a give
may modify the channel of or
stream or°the bed of the ocean or
any bay, inleto'r lakeT
"g. Loss of prune agriculturally pro-
outside designated= q:)3.
0
.
duct,v- soils
urban areas?
Ap�Sendi�c F - 'page l
of;, 9,
YES MAYBE
N
h1.
Exposure of people or property to;
geslogic hazards such as earthquakes;
4,
lands4des, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
2. Air. ff Will the proposal result in;
a,
Substantial deterioration of (1,
Ambi e t or local air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable
"
odors, smoke or fumes?
c.
8,�gnificant alteration of air
movement, moisture or tempature,
or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally,?
3, Water.. Will, the proposal result in substantial;
a.
danger in currents, or the course
or direction of water movements.
-b.
!i
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
sur ace water runoff?
°'-
c.
Need for off"site surface draina'e
improvements, including vegetation
removal, channelization or culvert✓
installation?
d.
Alterations to the course or flow
of.flood waters?
F;
e.
change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?<
f.
bischarge into'surface waters, or
"
in any, alteration oC., surface
`dater quality,, including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
,.
Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground,waters?'
1Z,
Change ;in the quantity or quality
g ' either through
of round waters e�.
,
direct additions- or withdrawals,,
or through interception of %n
%(
aquifer by cuts or excavations.
JI
4
Ap prtdix -E�ya :2
� ., -g�-
0 9",
k
i
YES MAYBE
NO
i.
Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available .for public
water- supplies?
Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such a
flooding?,�•
4. Plant': Life. Will the proposal result
int'antia :
a,
Loss of vegetation or, change in the
diversity of species or number
of any species of plarts (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic plants)?
,
,h o.
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of Rants?
c.
Introduction of new species-of
4,
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the nozmA replenishment of
existi�lg species?
d.
Reduction in acreage of any agr-
„
cultural drop?�
5, Animal L fe, Will the proposal result,_,
in
substantia]:
a.
Change .41 the diversity of species,,
or numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
{:
including, reptiles, fish' and shell-
he'll-fish,,'benthic_'organisms,
fish, 'benthic organisms,'Insects or
mi.crofauna)
b.,
Reduction of the numbers, of any
unique, rare or endangered species
I
f animals? _.._
,,.-c ,l
Introduction of new species of
animals kato an arca,, ov:.result in
a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
1
Reduction of, encroachment upon, or
deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
c, Appendix
-' page 3` of 9
YES MAXi31;
6,
Noise, Will the proposal result in
substantial s 11
i
Increases in noise. lev6 s?
b. Exposureofpeople to severe noise
levels? ,
7,
Light and Glare. Wirl the proposal
pra uC e s gncant light or glare?
8.
Land Use, Will the proposed result
in a significants
a, Alteration of the planned land use
of an area, or establish a trend
which -will demonstrably lead t•o such
_alteration?
b, Conflict with uses on adjoining
properties ,or conflict with
establichod recreational , eduea-
tional, religious or scientific
uses, of an area?
9.
rjatural aesources . Will the proposal
in substantial.;
a , Demand for, or increase it the rate
-
of use, of any *natural resources;?
b, Depletion o£ any nonrenevab'le
o
natural resource?'
lo,
Risk of Upset, Does the proposal
involve a risk of an explosion or
c;
the -release,of hazaedous substances
(including, but not limited to, oil.,
pesticides, chemicals or rc.diat,on)
.n the event of an accideild or upset
conditions?
11,
Population. Will the proposal
aignificantly alter the location,
distribution,'
istribution density, or,growth
rate of the human population of an
area or physically divide an
established community,
12.
Housing. Will the proposal.
-n
sig`—` ; � cantly aft existing housing;
or create a demand for additional,•
.,
housing?
.,�
Appendix F page 4 of 9
Y,
,> IES
MAYBE,: NO.,
l3 , Trans ' ortatian/Circulation. Will thQ 4,
proposal resu t LLI
a Generation of substantial additional,
vehicular movement?
icu
b, Signif ic'ant effects on existing
parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
G,. Substantial impact ,,upon existing
Mb
transportation systems?.
d.. Significant alterations to present
patterns of circulation or movement
0 people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to,waterborne, rail o°r,l`
fA
air traffic?
---- -
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? r
14. public Services, 4Ji11 the proposal have
an et ect upon, or result in a substantial;
need for new or altered governmental
"in any of the following areas
_services
a. F3.re protection?
b, Police protection?Ak
. ---
Y
c, Schools? _'
d. parks or other recreational,
facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
Am
including roads?'
-
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. ` Will the proposal. result in:
a, Use of substantial amounts of fuel
;ijob
or energy? --
b, substantial increase in demand'upon
existing sources of energy, or'..
require the development of new
sGurces of energy?
es. Will the proposal result
16. UtiP,,tnLee-U—f
in ox new systems, or sub-;,
stantLal alterations to the follow3.ng
utilities:
YES MAYBE O
'
a ,, Power a r natural gas?
b. Communications systems.?
c. Water?
d. Sewer (will trunk line be extended,
providing capacity to serve 'new
development)?
=,
e. Storm water drainage?
17.
-Human Health. Will the proposal,;
result in;
a., Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard; (excluding
mental' health''
b. Exposure 6-f people , to -potential
health hazards?
18
Solid Waste. Will the proposal result:
in any significant impacts associated
with solid waste disposal or litter
Ash
control?
19.
Aesthetics , Will.:'the proposal, result
in the obstruction of any public
designated or recognized scenic vista'
-open to the 'p'ublic, or:.-will the,
proposal res Ho
ern the cxeation of an
to
aesthetically offensive site open
public view?
20.
Recreation. Will the proposal result
in an impact upon the,qual.ty oz
quantity of existing public recrea-
tionfacilities.?
21.
Archeological/Hist..rical. Wi11 the
�,....l_,f
proposal xesu t in an 'a alteration o
a significant archeological or,
historical site, structure, object`
or building?
22.
Mandatary Findings of Significance.
a. Does theproject have the potential
to degrade the'quality.''of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fishor wildlife
species, cause a fish or Wil d1 f
population to drop below, self
,,. .
;'
x F - e of 9
AppendiPad
r
r
JGZT DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This proposal is a rezoning of 10 acres of land east of Durham
(AP#1 40-18-40) from A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre minimum parcel size)
to R1 (Single Family Resident?a1, 8125 square font parcel sizes
ali'owed)'. The property is located on the east side ,of Jones Avenue
about 200 feet north of the Durham-Oroville Highway. The central
Durham area lies nearby to the West and southwest beyond the South`--
ern Pacific `Railroad-Sacramento"Northern Railroad route which lies
about 600 feet west of th.;e property.
The site and surrounding area is relatively level Vina loam soils
currently in agricultural use as"almond and walnut orchards. 5'ev
eral residences lie dispersed along Jones Avenue in the vicinity.
The entire area to the north, east and south is in agricultural use
with very light residential use. To the west, the land is also in
residential use, bordered by the railroad corridor and the community
re Durham further west. Commercial and light industriar1 uses occur
to the outha�est along the Durham-Oroville Highway adjacent to the
1. railroad,
The Butte County General Plan designates this area for low density
residential use,.
1-4 dwellings per acre. Current zoning of the site
and surrounding lands is A-5. .. A small areauof C-1 and zoning
lies south of the Durham-Oroville Highway jJonesAvenue.
An SR-1. ,zoning district lies 600 feet West of this site on the west
side of the Midway, north of the central Durham, area, A C-2 l
tri ct exists at the central Mi dway-Durham Orovi 11 e Vii ghWay i nt`is er
section. Surrounding properties in the immediate area range from
2 to 30 acres in area, and are generally 5-10 'acres.
This rezoning to R-1 would. permit the development of 25-30 residences'
on the 10-acre site.. This theoretical maximum potential is based on
the following factor :
1. Creation of 1/3 to 1/4 acre
sized parcels,
2.` The Butte County General Plan low ',density urban resden
tial designation, 1-4 dwellings per acre.
8. 20_2:5% of. the site utilized for street developments. y
The potential is conditioned upon meeting Health Department require-
ments under county ordinance standards. Larger parcels (�,erhaps 2/3
acre) maybe necessary if individual wells on each parcel a�e uti,-
1i;zed, Under current zoning, only two parcels are potential
Appendix r - page 8 ®f 9
_ ®�r+�rr�a�l 9i�`iaa�nimi��r�rr�a�m��n��nnsrtn�rwn�n�nninir�iw mwim,nm�rtmrmnn�rnn®�i�
1(b): Approval of the rezone could ,result in 25-30 residcnces
on the property with consequent impervious surfaces on the land
streets, buildings, driveways, and appurtenant improvements),
An estimated 30% of the ,"and could be covered with impervious
urfaces under R-1 density residential development.,
1(g),; This site possesses prime agriculturally -productive soils
which may be removed from agricultural, use as a result of the
rezone.
3(b) (c): This proposal will result in increased surface water
runoff from the impervious surfaces as a consequence -,of, deVelop
-
ment on numerous residential parcels under the new zone.
No natural drainage swales or channels exist in the area, and no,
,storm drainage facilities have been developed in the Durham area,
Currently, the Butte County Public. Works Department has a drainage
study under.contract to solve any drainage problems.
Currently, drainage on this site and throughout Durham must be
accommodated by percolation into the soil. however, the'Vina loam
soil has good percolation rates (5 to 20 minutes,' per i n,ch) wl•ri ch
is considered adequate to handle normal precipitation and drainage:
Drainage is generally: not a problem on residential properties in
the area-, particularly if 'low densities are maintained. Other resi-
dential properties elsewhere in Durham on small parcels currently
have few drainage problems since soil percolation handles drainage.
Any drainage problems in Durham usually are generated as a result
of more intensive development such as commercialand industrial
uses` which create nearly 100 percent impervious covering,of soils.
Therefore, it is not expected that drainage will be'a problem as
a result of This rezoning and subsequent residential development.
A drainage system in the Durham area may be developed in the 'future
as a 'result of the'�•Idrainage study currently underway.
3 Butte Creek lies east of the site � mile. Because the stream
(j): ''
channel is bordered by a levee system, flooding from this,channel
is not expected to be a problem. Local ponding could occur from
storms.
4(d): The proposal would eventually result in the loss of a pro
ductive economic unit', the almond orchard. Though the I -acne
orchard is not in i tsel f a .1 arge enough unit for one orc,hardi st,
i+ a nearby orchardist or an orchardist who would maintain and harvest
this orchard along with another orchard or orchards may be interested
in purchasing the entire acreage for continued agricultural use.
8(a), (b): The site _lies within the northeastern corner of the
l to County Gen-eral Plan,
urban area of��Durhar,as designated by the But
The entilundi''
re surrng area is zoned A-5. This; projects. if approved,
would establish `an isolated urban zoning district in the midst, of a
Appendix F page 86 of 9
• V. N it 1i
Lary
e A-5 agri11 cultural zoned district, not contiguous to other
The nearest- urban-
urban a,n zontng -distrfcts or urban develop rent. d. feet
density zoning dist'ricts in the area occur several hundre
to the southwest and west. While -the community of Durham and urban
development exists- within 400-6.00eet,te contiguous
propertiees
are in agrifcultural use and rural
_ruseon I 's
(5-13+ acres).
There is the potential for a°eatzonengytorremainpAn5naspitphas ybeen
owners who may prefer th,e
since August 1J, 1967.
11: This urban rezoning could lead to the establishment of'2`5~80
residences on the site increasing the area population by 70- 0Persed
peo,pl e
The Jones Avenue area is currently in very fight,
vural residential use and orchard use, and the population density,
'very low: This proposal could markedly increase-the area pop
tion density.
s on
12: Approval of this her
-la ds inuld theeA-5udistricteinrordernto allow
adjacent lands and other tan
residences on s+n'allcul�arc ls,,. The re beductcumulation of pvelylsagnifgcant
this currently agriossi-
if a trend of urban rezonings were to occur. tiowever, this p
bi l i ty is too speculative for evaluation,
13(a); .Troffic,on Jones Avenue near the project site has no;t been
Measured. Since only minimal- residential use occurs along Jones
traffic is probably minimal. The proposal may
Avenue in the' area, ation on Jones Avenue as addi
result in increased traffic and crcul residential development. The
tional vehicles frequent the 'site Upon
traffic count on the Durham-Qr"oville highway west of Jones Avenue
and east of Midway is 1868 ADT. The traffic count at the north end
of Jones two miles to the north is recorded as 511 ADT (1977 public
Works Count).'Urban
14,
16 This area i riot currently i n urban residential `use,
require
development in the area may expansion of public services and
will require some extension of utilities from existing nearby faci1i-
ties to serve this outlying area.
14(c) The 25-30 additional homes would add Uel
ppbe ad tel,.y
students to Durham $Theoschoolswliehir6Wwe'sterndQurhamdandtthethele-
elementary school.
mentary school is currently near, capacity,. (486 students),
17�a,) The capability of the V'ina loam soils to support septic sys-
tems is good, and can accommodate upatce1hree or foued w2/3'�acreper
acre. 1f individual wells on each p r
parcels may be required to allow sufficient area for leach 'yields.
Appendix 1= page 84 of '9
a.n:,re�nriosrnp �
-211; ,2'3
AMML
I1 D.' Fi V. -A. Miller
Nellie IVI eeloc
A ': Yr h►': Vexncl''+g
Rt 2 , Box 4100
Rt"i 2 , I3vx Ci
_ At. �, , Pox 420
Durham, Ga95938
DuTIJ)6m0 Ca. 1)5938 i
18-22 l;'
40-18-36
40,419 - 4 0
J. C . r` fj P . All S aU 11
�;
Ranko 1reh 7.ch
, ,. , .
� iC Fr D� I3lasingamo
P:O. Fax 73
P.O. Box 134
- R 2, Box 580
Tlurhayn> C7. 959.18
, Durham, C1. 95938
// Durham; Ca„ 95938 _
40-18-41
40-18-49
j 40-20'454
F C . rt M. M. Pucal
F. A. & D. M. Rano Westlamam 'Poods
5664 Topeka Dr.
Rt. 1, Box ,31Ar ;`,
P.C, Box 58-40.5
Tarzana, Ca. 91356'
Durham, C,a. 95938, ,'
i,osAngelos, Ca. 9005.8
40Z�p-63
40-20-67 J`
Dome Tractor Co'.
MI J P, A. Keene'''
P40, Box 234
Rt . 2 ; Box 432 }{r
Chaco, Ca,: 95926
Durham, Ca. 94'938
,i1
t
1r::.
�S
BUTTE COTYNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MUMS February 1, 1979
Mr. Butterwick read, staff findings. '
Steve Streeter, EnvironMpnta:l; ReviewTepart':ment, reviewed the ''Discussion
pot hnvironmhnta.l Evaluation" ;and commented, hat a Negative Declaration
F,
was recommended.
Opponents: Don. Ullerud, 1543 Stanford Lane, Durham, read a petition
containing Z4 names and added that all those9 s:ignaturo5 bad boon ob
ta.i.n.ed this afternoon.
Clare M'Yrt.;r:O VI Route 2, Boy 176, . urham 'also dike Wt I
telock spoke against
the
project, citing the i tcrea.sing difficulty. of f a.rilling tate surrounding
area if spcah a project is approvod
Nossa V xltage , whose uax4:1 awns adjoining property, stt i G}� 1 louse davi
our cement on our. best soil". f/J
In rebuttal., Mi. Blas:ingame commented that he cannot make a living on
the 10 acres that he has Aned since 1961, that he is nearing-etirement
and was hoping to be ablo to subdivide his propertyfor this riison ; He
also notaod 'that tho County's GoApral Plan—allows densities consistent
rfi .t t the Proposed, rogpbst- ,
""Ile hearinj was closed and Commissioner Lambert, stating that she teas
unable to justify .0ban residential development in a predominantly age
ric'ultu;ral area,,mailo a motion to recommend denial of this pro eqt. AT
motion was soconded by Commissioner i3ppnott,,
AYES: Commissioners Bennett, Albert $ Lambeyt. and Acting Chairman
,1 Tiverh:�rd. ,
1�
NCFS ;..,; N one.
WENT Commissioner Wheeler
Motion calpied,
i The applicant was ajapra.ised of the apPial per`iad.
n,
it
BOARD OF ,j,SUPERVIS
MINUTES--March 6 � 79
407 POLIC HEARING: R. K. BLASINGAME - APPEAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
REZONE FROM "A--5" (AGRICULTURAL -FIVE ACRE PARCELS) TO '►R-1" (.S4TNG,E
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JONES.A ENUE
APPROX. 3,00 FEET NORTH Ol` DURHAM
-ORQVILLE HIGHWAY, IDENTIFIED AS
AP 40-1.8:;,,0, DURHAM.
'`The public hearing on the R. K. Blasin arae appeal APeal of negative
declaration and rezone from "A-5" (agricultural - five acre Parcels)" to,
"R-0 (single family residential) property l,Qga,ted on the east side of
Jones Avenue approximately 300 feet north O!_:,Jrham-oroville Highway,
identified as AP 40-18-40, Durham was held -asiadver'tised
background of the negative declaration.
Earl Nelson environmental review director, set out the
g� The main environmental effects
would be the question of urban development versus the preservation of
agritultural lands. In making a recommendation for a negative declaration
he looked at the proximity of the commercial area in Durham and lookedr
at the general plan which is residential, one to four units per, ,acre,.
There are some physical environmenCal problems. The,'question of the";i
effect on surrounding agricultural land is still a question the neighbors
are concerned about. He suggested that if in fact this area is not =suitable
for urban developmentthe General Plan should be looked at. The existing
General'Plan„weighed heavi-ly in their decision. There is a potential '
for 25 to 30 residences and it appears that`'ll the environmental concerns
are solveable, except for the preservatio,t of agricultural land:.
Bettye Blair", planning ditecto� set out the background of
the rezone. The Board has received copies of staff, findings and the
Pldnning Commission minutes.'.As`�stated by Mr. Nelson, do have problems
with the General- Plan. The staff recommendations noted the subject
79-
$ " �.. property, even though the density is low density residential, was not
revised and the (;ommssion could:. not findproperlythat they could
further, urbanize that area. `'Thi d�eision was appealed. ;
Hearing open to the publiol+l';i,Appearing..,
1. Ron "Graves,
represent
stated that he did go over ani��ig R. K. Blas in aateGraves
.
Mr
g . d lookdb at the area. This area is onl
about 600 feet from the center o_f"Du'rham, It is about 500; feet east of
y
Highway 99 In, this particular area from Durham-Oroville High
Jones Avenue there are about
g way an
ut l6 homes on a strip of land. He set out
the area at this time. The average acreage iri the area is ;6.
He did not 'think that 6.67 acres were 'prime agricultural land
67 This
Pro
is a very old orchard. The owners would like to take and
a e n
utilize the property. It is „oned A-5 and. the General Plan calls .for
residential. He asked that, the property be zoned "R-111
and this
be consistent with the ,General Plan and ronsi'stent with the land use-
li
the general area. The amt�unt of parcels would depend on septic;' soil
and water needs, If the area was divided into one acte,parcels, you
robabl
could
A y gear eight or nine parcels with streets.:
2. Dan BalwaQr. Balwar preseted a petition,to the Board
in opposition to the rezone. They, felt. that it is in cl;ireot conflict
ur ih the existing agrlaUltural practid)ps Of spzayiing etc. The average
that Mr, Graves presented of 6.67 acre's is not in conflict Grittz the
�`existirrg zonings,
bg
.Nt _ L PXN, I A I C illiIMIST
John Men < clonsa Pttblic works
Al' INN; 79-37 (AP 40-13-40
OP PIROJr1 ,:h , Rezone from,
A 5
to 'It -1
rr set—_an-n
wv..,ri..,.:.,�.,a,w�...-.�..Y �a�._-,R..��.M....,,�,....�..�,�..,a.•�,.,�....:.....W",_ _�..�....�,,�.....u,�.d�.,.,�- , ,.w,.:.. ,at� r
w.,.,, a�x,rsw > _.a,M . w r�,..,....,r..wrr..,,.�.w.-..•.w+�,...,. ...w.,� n,w�,'«.....+y.4, .r.�„
T M Ave.L� J. VX • G
IL0C ^e°� �.OIN ° on Jone`�s rth' o -f Durham Oxovillo jilvy
M,y=w
east.of Durham
�., .,,...,r��«..«.i.ru<...r....w,u...:.�..._n.vr.,...w6.,..,fa...w..v.w........+w,:�„.w-, �rrM.� r.hww..,�.r.a-y Min, r•+R ...n�:w,'...w. ,.•. ,.. . , .sw.�a�,.s.. .r.r ..
, A d.a .l.. YK
A(. BI asingaie
A'1)91:
u
Y ,
�. ,� ,rT4 �. �, •;�� a� ,,, v' �^ is
h4 �,d Ys"'��,i
Q, I3oU PaU usGC
T 2`5 1978
as ,
DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY
BUTTE COUNTu
1
Ae�otirie :From A- -
�
I On,Jones Av,o. amp ro) 200 ft north of Durl�am pxoville IN�e .
,
ease of Durliam
w' r i e..
, �.,. rw !r♦ -.+. nrnw,. e_:.�.. a sa.w: r.. _, � a..rs m Nwrp ,+...S:.WA.,, xw+a ww-u <ipinwn'ruwe- �.. ,e:YrrR:• .esn.wr:.-r,wa Js,q a• 4++-. rw ,.:. r..rw � +v w.,
•-. �ra nt4„+vn ..w.. ,. vv ... ,<
x R. Ki Blasinizame
.
Ftt- Box_58Q,, p bam, 'Ga 5938
.?.a . .
fa ¢FrR tu, e,p,�yrr` w rA'rYr vy ta•.;:
.Y # �.
�,.<'T`_���
10/-g4
ll
, ,
4
, ,w:'.a eamm, ,x-, cam. ,. „w ..:i •a,w.,:._w�wara+ aa,..a. „eR w._+,w �.': rMa„a..,, a.,s ux. rm,.,,W •.i a a= ,:. r r,.n ;. wase
N -Y. rww.«....,.+,t y
,{ '.. , . . ,i ,... r,n w .. ,r ..: „ >•r.-,;k..in .... ary,e „+ a „W MiVr+u ar i... y.�„sa !t> !M+ -w1r ♦ • ib ,ra±s4i,k,w.:a :i.�x:�sbv, -
+A.w: w.fTk
...♦ r,. w... , M �,�'n t w:.. w,a ..e r.... Mrtv., �.. a.Y+„n •.en+Y+tom-- lr6r ,r� .wkfa..,.*W aSS.v
.
11
r , , r�>♦a Ila � II.. �tNr� ww..
w
C-)