Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA/RZ 99-04_PLANNING I � 19IhINIIII � I SEPARATOR SHEET AP-N- 035 — 2ND - o 'IS « PROJECT NUMBER � vet/Rz F9 - a4 { PROJECT SUMMARY SHEEG FILE #: 'GPA/RZ 99-04 PROJECT TYPE: General Plan Amendment and Rezone APPLICANT:- James R.Blacks ADDRESS: 9243 Turner Lane,Durham,CA 95938 OWNER:_ Same ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVE: Rolls,Anderson and Rolls ADDRESS: 115 Yellowstone Dr.,Chico,CA 95973 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres) PROPERTY ZONED: A-10 LOCATED: at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane AP#: 039-240-075 TOWN/AREA: Durham GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Orchard and Field Crops r 1. Application complete- June 14, 1999 Amount: $4496.00 Receipt#: 17632 ` 2. Comments sent to: EH,LAFCO,DEV SERV,ASSS,APCD,PW,FARM BUR,AG COMM,CDF,PG&E,F&G, WATERSHED CONSER 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 6. Assigned To: Daniel Breedon 7. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No: Categorical Exemption-CEQA# Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Subject to Fish&Game: Environmental Impact Report Gen.Rule Ex.-CEQA#15061.(bx3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: 9. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 10. Publication Notice Written: 7 ' Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: — 12. Newspaper Publication Date: 7`'d/ '� n /C / P G B 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): T' a 7 OZ Action taken: ,$ Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): 66,W Action taken: ilD I -h P ' Board Resolution No.: U ' Ordinance No: Adopted: �a 15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature: 16. N.O.E./N.O.D./APPENDIX G: Fish&Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: 19. Copy of Use Permit/Variance to Planning Technician: J 00-395 A MATTER ON WHICH A PUBLIC-HEARING HAS BEEN HELD AND A MOTION OF INTENT ADOPTED - James R. Black - General Plan Amendment and Rezone - consideration of a General Plan Amendment from an Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) on a 9.91 acre parcel (item on which a negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts has been recommended). The property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area, and identified as APNs 040-020-166, 167, and 168 (DB [File#UP00-05]) - STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: 1. SUBJECT TO FINDINGS I(1-5) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; 00-395 2. FIND THAT THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO FISH AND/OR WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT, AND APPROVE A "DE MINIMUS"EXEMPTION TO THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 711.4(d)(3) AND 14 CCR 753.5, AS THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT KNOWN TO CONTAIN ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANY RIPARIAN HABITAT; HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT; INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES; CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES; OR, CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISION OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN; 3. SUBJECT TO FINDING III(1), AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, FIND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65358; 4. SUBJECT TO FINDINGS IV(1-2) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM THE "ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS"DESIGNATION TO THE "AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; __ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - MINUTES -December 19, 2000 AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JAMES R. BLACK, IDENTIFIED AS APN 039-240-075, FROM A-10 (AGRICULTURAL-10 ACRE PARCELS) TO SR-3 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL-3 ACRE PARCELS), SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN; AND 5. SUBJECT TO FINDING V(l) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, ADOPT A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLAN MAP FROM AN"ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION TO AN "AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY JAMES R. BLACK, IDENTIFIED AS APN 039-240-075, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT"A" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. (****1490) 00-395 MOTION: SUBJECT TO FINDINGS I(1-5) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, I MOVE TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; FIND THAT THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WILL NOT CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE TO FISH AND/OR WILDLIFE OR THEIR HABITAT, AND APPROVE A "DE MINIMUS"EXEMPTION TO THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 711.4(d)(3)AND 14 CCR 753.5, AS THE PROJECT SITE IS NOT KNOWN TO CONTAIN ANY SPECIES IDENTIFIED AS A CANDIDATE, SENSITIVE, OR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL PLANS, POLICIES, OR REGULATIONS, OR BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME OR THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON ANY RIPARIAN HABITAT; HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT; INTERFERE SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MOVEMENT OF ANY NATIVE RESIDENT OR MIGRATORY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES; CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES; OR, CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISION OF AN ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN. SUBJECT TO FINDING III(l), AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, I MOVE TO FIND THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65358. SUBJECT TO FINDINGS IV(1-2) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -MINUTES - December 19, 2000 s 19, 2000, I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-162 AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM THE "ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS"DESIGNATION TO THE "AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; . AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 3667 REZONING THE PROPERTY OWNED BY JAMES R. BLACK, IDENTIFIED AS APN 039-240-075, FROM A-10 (AGRICULTURAL-10 ACRE PARCELS) TO SR-3 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL-3 ACRE PARCELS), SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN; AND SUBJECT TO FINDING V(1) AS DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, I FURTHER MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 00-163 AMENDING THE DURHAM-DAYTON- NELSON PLAN MAP FROM AN"ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION TO AN"AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL" GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY JAMES R. BLACK, IDENTIFIED AS APN 039-240-075, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS'OF APPROVAL AS DETAILED IN EXHIBIT"A" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED DECEMBER 19, 2000, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. S M VOTE: 1 Y 2 N 3 N 4 Y 5 Y (Motion Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -MINUTES - December 19, 2000 r. • 00-192 07- James R. Black General Plan Rezone - Report to the Board - the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural. Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) on property located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham - action requested - ACCEPT FOR INFORMATION; AND SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS MATTER FOR JULY 11, 2000, AT w - 10:45 A.M. ' BUTTE,COUNT-Y,BOARD.OF-SUPERVISORS MINUTES - JUNE 13,2000 James R. Black, proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures .regarding environmental impacts, General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation 'to an Agricultural Residential.General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 10-acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3-acre parcels), on a-9.91 acre parcel. The property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. APN 039-240-075 (DB) (File #GPA/REZ 99-04) Chairman Leland said he has a conflict and stepped down from the dias. The hearing was turned over to Vice-Chairman Nelson. Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of the project and an explanation of the motions. He explained the background on the parcel. Vice-Chairman Nelson said the County should look at the whole area. Mr. Breedon said there are areas for development other than this one. He said this hearing would need to be continued, if approved, for staff to bring back findings. The hearing was opened to the public. Bruce Nash, Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls, questioned Page 7, IV E, PRC 4290. He said there is a hydrant there. Todd Kimmelshue,Butte County Farm Bureau, said this rezone issue has been fought in the past. He said a request for 3 acres is better than 1 acre zoning. He said the neighbors have concerns. He said this area is some of the finest farmland in the County. He said he is concerned this rezone would set a precedent. He said this property provides a nice buffer from the larger farms. He said if this is approved,they will need a condition for an agricultural statement to put people on notice of the agricultural activities in the area. He said the people in the area suggest a two parcel split instead of a three parcel split. Gail Robly said the question is the Greenline. She said if this is approved, what would stop her from wanting to split her property, and so on. She said residential property will infringe on her orchard. Bruce Nash said the 300 foot buffer requirement will limit development in the area. The hearing was closed. There was a discussion on this area being 5 acre zoning. Commissioner Mooney said he likes 5 acre parcels in this area. Commissioner Lambert agreed the best recommendation would be for 5 acre zoning or to leave as it is. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Mooney, and carried to deny the application for a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for James R. Black, finding that the request isnot consistent with the D2N Plan or Agricultural Element of the County General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Cage, Mooney, Lambert, and Vice Chairman Nelson NOES: No one ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 27,2000 ■ ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Leland ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES`■ APRIL 27,2000 ■ DEPARTMEibT OF DEVELOPMENTOERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on other side: APPLICANTS NAME(If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: James R. Black 39-24-75 .. .......................................................... :........................ ........................................................................................ ....................................................................................... ........................................................................................ ....................................................................................... ADDRESS: CITY,STATE&ZIP CODE: YhICIti113tO OYOIC (J)3z .. 3 T r Lane Durham, CA 95938 924 urne NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT(If any) TELEPHONE r (530)342-2169 LOCATION OF PROJECT(Major cross streets and Address,if any) 2591 Burdick Road, Durham, CA 95938 «::: :>::>::::>::>;::>:<::>:<::GERAL..IN>FORMATL .N.RB. ... ::.::.............................................................................Q....................::..:..::::.:::::...::.....::.:..:::::...:...:::.:...:...............................:..::::::: :?. OWNER'S NAME TELEPHONE James R. Black (530) 342-2169 ADDRESS: CITY,STATE&ZIP CODE: 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE(in Square Feet or Acres) A-10 Orchard and Field Crop Vacant 9.91 Acres EXISTING STRUCTURES(in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES(in Square Feet) 3,200 Square Feet None (Check One) (Check One) ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ■ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER ■ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER :.:;:;.;;>:.;::;;>::>:.>;;>::> :.............>; A;I'PI XCATXO.N 1tE:. . . ■ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ■ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP ❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION ❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION ❑ MINOR VARIANCE ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ OTHER :;.;::::.;.;:.;:<.:;.;:.;:.;:.<:::::::......................................>:. »:;.><;;:.;PRO;IEC:T DE:S:CRiP O FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division,describe the number and size of parcels) Change General Plan designation from orchard and field crop to agricultural residential and change zoning from A-10 to SR-3 to allow future development of a three parcel land division with minimum lot size of three acres. :::>:::;.::::;:::::;::: :>.;;: ::<:>>.::>:::::>::>::::>::>:<::;::;;:::::>::>::::>::::>:>::><;::OWNER:CERTIFICAT O . . I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY,FURTHER,I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING XX OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. (If an agent is to be authorized,execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit wir s application.) DATE: tro II SIGNATURE: :v<>> E:\PROJECTS\99111\UNIFORM APP.wpd 061099 1 A�- NT AUTHORIZATION FORM To Butte County, Department of Deve opment Services; Rolls, Anderson& Rolls (Bruce A. Nash) ( 530 ) 895-1422 Print Agent Name and Phone Number 115 Yellowstone Drive, Chico, CA 95973 Mailing Address is hereby authorized to process this application for General Plan Amendment and Rezone on my property, identified as Butte County Assessors Parcel Numbers 39 - 24 - 75 - - This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearing, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interests. Owner(s) of Record: (Sign and Print Name) James R. Black Print Name Print Name Signature Signature Architect and/or Engineer: Rolls, Anderson & Rolls, Bruce A. Nash ( 530 ) 895-1422 Print ArchiteWEngineer Name and Phone Number 115 Yellowstone Drive, Chico, CA 95973 Mailing Address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date received: W 141619 Total amount received: ✓ AP Number(s) Av�— Legal Description twowners Authorization' 1/Loning requirements Project Description ./Copies of plot plan Taken byOP� Receipt No.1-1(,32- E.H.S&O LD Kv Plan �f' CDF_p� Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will be returned upon final action. Current fee for this application is $ as of Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer" E VROJECTS\9911AUNIFORM APP.wpd 061099 2 • COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed By Project Applicant) Date Filed General Information: 1. Name and address of owner,and/or project sponsor:James R. Black, 9243 Turner Lane. Durham CA 95938 2. Address of project: 2591 Burdick Road, Durham, CA 95938 Assessor's Parcel Number: 39-24-75 3. Name,address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Owner and Rolls.Anderson & Rolls attn: Bruce Nash, 115 Yellowstone Drive,Chico CA 95973 (530) 895-1422 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: Parcel map and Environmental Health Department permit for use of septic tank and leach fields for sewage disposal. 5. Existing general plan designation: Orchard and Field Crop 6. Existing zoning district: A-10 7. How is land currently used? One existing single family dwelling with the remainder of the land vacant 8. Proposed use of site(Project for which form is filed): Future development of a three parcel land division with minimum lot size of three acres. Project Description: 9. Site size: 9.91 (Acres/Sq.Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: N/A Compact: Total: 11. Plans attached Yes No X 12. Proposed development schedule . N/A 13. Associated projects N/A 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development N/A ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services❑ Planning Division❑ 1 Attach description of project containing the following information: 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents,and type of household size expected. 16. If commercial, indicate the type,whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. 17. If industrial, indicate type,estimated employment per shift,and loading facilities. 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities,and community benefits to be derived from the project. 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use, rezoning application,or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets if necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or _ X substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or _ X public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. _ X 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. _ X 24. Change in dust,ash, smoke,fumes or odors in vicinity. _ X 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or _ X quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels of the _ X vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. _ X 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials,such as _ X toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services _ X (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption _ X (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ X o Butte County Department of Development Services o Planning Division❑ 2 Environmental Setting: (Attach brief description) 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals,and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical,or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use(residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use(one family,apartment houses,shops,department stores, etc.)and scale of development (height,frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability,and the facts, statements,and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature for ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services❑Planning Division❑ 3 • COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Page 4 15. Three single family dwellings, 1,800 to 2,500 square feet in size. 16. N/A 17. N/A 18. N/A 19. The project consists of a change in the General Plan designation from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a change in the zoning from A-10 to SR-3 to allow future development of a three parcel land division with'minimum lot size of three acres. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: 32. The project site slopes to the southwest at approximately 0.25 percent. The soil type is vina loam. Existing structures located on the site consist of a single family home, detached garage and a shop building. The property was previously planted with almond trees but currently is vacant. The wildlife habitat consists of small birds and animals common to valley lands. There are no known cultural, historical or scenic aspects. 33. North: Existing single family residential subdivisions; Turner Subdivision consisting of eight single family residential lots with parcel size of one acre or greater and Durham Valley Estates consisting of 20 single family residential lots with a parcel size of one acre or greater. East: Existing single family residential subdivision, Tracy Subdivision consisting of single family residential lots with parcel size of approximately 0.30 acres, and approximately 46 acres of Almond orchard zoned SR-1 and a general plan designation of Agricultural Residential. South: Five acre parcel with one single family residence. West: Almond orchard Small birds and animals. No known cultural, historical or scenic aspects. EAPR0JECTS\99117\N0TES.wpd 061099 1 0 11111I11111111111111111111111111 � 111111111111111111111111111111II 03924 0025000 039240059000 039240075000 MARILDA FARM TRUST JONES&MATTHEWS RANCH,INC GORE MARTHA FRANCES DOWD BOYLES JOHN M TRUSTEE 401 MISSION SANTA FE CIR 990 JENOOKE LN 2643 BURDICK RD CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95926 DURHAM CA 95938 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 039460001000 039240076000 039240088000 DIXON DEBRA P ETAL RAABE CARL A&GALE G LELAND RICHARD A JR&GAYLE B RODEN BILLY D 9334 TURNER LN P O BOX 549 2549 BURDICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM' CA 95938-0549 DURHAM CA 95938 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 039460002000 039460003000 039460004000 WALKER IRIS T BLANCHARD GERALD L&GRACE E HENRY GARY&KITTY P O BOX 385 P O BOX 291 2527 BURDRICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 039460040000 039540008000 039540009000 DURHAM LAND COMPANY LEGER RONNY E&KATHLEEN D REIMERS KENNETH O&BONNIE R _ P O BOX 476 9434 DILLON CT P O BOX 975 DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111) 039540010000 039540011000 039540012000 TIDWELL MARVTN LEROY& SCHILL FREDERICK H&BARBARA L KELSO WILLIAM G&STACY L JOSEMERY BECKER 2532 BURDICK RD P O BOX 1003 2514 BURDICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 11111111111111111111111111111111 039540013000 039540014000 039540028000 MOORE JOHN W&MARGARET G PAYNE JAMIE&CHERYL L PERRY WARREN C&PATRICIA A 9427 DILLON CT 9435 DILLON CT 9407 DWYER CT DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 ROLLS ANDERSON AND ROLLS 039240025000 039-240-075 115 YELLOWSTONE DR MARILDA FARM TRUST JAMES R BLACK CHICO CA 95973 BOYLES JOHN M TRUSTEE 9243 TURNER LANE 2643 BURDICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 i s' OLI G O&C M- D!s g 1 is,vts � �. 0 7 (o 'RAA 8E� e- 0�8 LE-LArJD L, OO2 6-jALlCER, T 005 ZL o3C)- S Li O- 008 ECRL , 2 -. C>oftS lL .+ 0 I Q T1'D i D LLQ M LFLSO) LID - 0� 3 L►$ �' , � TA\ir3c- _ G, 039 -S'-t0- o 0 1 t{ p I 1 - EL: 039 240 075 000 STATUS: AC . � GORE MARTHA FRANCES DOWD ETAL 990JENOOKE LN , CHICO CA 95926 EL: 039 240 025 000 STATUS: AC MARILDA FARM TRUST � EL: 039 540 008 000 STATUS: AC BOYLES JOHN M TRUSTEE LEGER RONNY E & KATHLEEN D 3028 MAY ROAD ' RICHMOND CA 94803 9434 DILLON CT DURHAM CA 95938 El : 039 p40 059 000 STATUq: AC ` JONES & MATTHEWS RANCH, INC EL: 039 540 -009 000 STATUS: AC ' REIMERS KENNETH O & BONNIER . 401 MISSION SANTA FE CIR � [ CHICO CA 95926 P O BOX 975 ' ------- ' /(� _'—'—_—_—_' DURHAM CA 95938 / ' � : 039 240 076 000 STATUS: AC ���—� � |� `1 RAABE CARL A & GALE G / ~ EL: 039 540 010 000 STATUS: AC .' TIDWELL MARVIN LEROY & JOSEMERY B ' 9334 TURNER LN � DURHAM CA 95938 2514 BURDICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 EL : 039 240 088 000 STATUS: AC LELAND RICHARD A JR & GAYLE B EL: 039 540 011 000 STATUS: AC BALOGH GEORGE M & CHRISTINE A P O BOX 549 . . DURHAM CA 95938-0549 2532 BURDICK ROAD DURHAM CA 95938 EL: 039 460 001 000 STATUS: AC v~ ANGEL JACK N JR & AUDREY M EL: 039 540 012 000 STATUS: AC KELSO WILLIAM G & STACY L 2549 BURDICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 P O BOX 1003 DURHAM CA 95938 EL: 039 460 002 000 STATUS: AC WALKER IRIS T ' EL: 039 540 013 000 STATUS: AC LISK FAMILY TRUST � P O BOX 385 L LISK DELEVAN S & JANET L TRS � DURHAM CA 95938 � / 9427 DILLON CT | — DURHAM CA 95938 c EL: 039 460 003 000 STATUS: AC (_ BLANCHARD GERALD L & GRACE E EL: 039 540 014 000 STATUS: AC � PAYNE JAMIE & CHERYL L P [] BOX 291 DURHAM CA 95938 9435 DILLON CT DURHAM CA 95938 EL: 039 460 004 000 STATUS: AC HENRY GARY & KITTY EL : 039 540 028 000 STATUS: AC PERRY WARREN C & PATRICIA A 2527 BURDRICK RD DURHAM CA 95938 9407 DWYER CT . DURHAM CA 95938 EL: 039 460 040 000 STATUS: AC DURHAM LAND COMPANY P O BOX 476 DURHAM CA 95939 &ROJECT REVIEW CHECKAT Project Planners fill out this in-house checklist upon receipt of a new project. Project Number:6FAL4Z Project/Application Name: 9 Z &IPA ` -C C. l' -0-?S Project Site Zoning:_ General Plan Designation: APN:6 # , �_�(f Project Planner: Date completed: Z!LO5 2g' a3_6 'Zn�9 Is the project located within any of the following areas? North Chico Specific Plan vo Oroville Enterprise Zone t 1� Williamson Act Land CLCA: r.l A- ACRES: w A 100 Year Flood Plain _ �< Within FEMA Floodway �•9 1� g•�99'e gF Within DWR Floodway Dam Inundation Area Watershed Protection Overlay Zone East Avenue Specific Plan Area Greenline (Project in area where Greenline policies apply) er Chico Area Redevelopment Area 10ZNitrate Action Plan Area eological Sensitive Area Hazardous Site Other Critical of Sensitive Area ❑ Ppil'ngAreas / Urban Reserve Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area PZIIJ Paradise Urban Reserve Q Oroville Area Land Use Plan(Adopted 3/29/84) Oroville Urban Reserve 1-11 Chico Area Land Use Plan(Adopted 3/18/90) Chico Urban Reserve Gridley-Biggs Land Use Plan(Adopted 8/586) Gridley Urban Reserve Honcut Area �J aJ -� og d t"'4 61W Cohasset Area -' Palermo Area Chapman/Mulberry Planning Area(in process of adoption 9-14-99) Deer Herd Areas Designated Development Zone Winter Range Critical Winter Range- Summer Range Critical Summer Range Major Migration Corridor Intermediate Deer Range If Constrained, The Minimum Parcel Size Is acres. CLUP Area AIRPORT AREA OF INFLUENCE ® Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan J2 Chico Paradise Skypark Paradise Skypark Ranchero Ranchero Oroville Oroville Airport Land Use Commission Review(ALUC) Required y Urban Area(As defi�in Improvement Standards for Chapt*) City of Chico Durham City of Gridley City of Oroville Mountain Recreational Area S hereof Influence City of Chico City of Gridley City of Oroville City of Biggs g City f Paradise 80 Wat shed Areas Butte Creek, 723 S��i�s Cherokee Big Chico Creek Wyman Ravine Study Area Little Chico Creek Rock Creek Study Area Sacramento River Conservation(SB 1086) 7ublic 1 Services Water District1,14&4* Wells) Public Sewer District On-site Sewer If well and/or on-site sewage disposal, has Environmental Health determined the application filing requirements? ❑ Pre-application review complete Pre-application review not required Drainage District/CSA 1\j 2� ❑ Fir istrict Butte County ❑ El Medio Fire District NO Federal Aid Road(s) &1Lv�cL- R-0, a7 . s A �,� �? `!''o j �� rVP Other Permits required from other agencies Agency Special Review Department of Water Resources (DWR) Office of Mine Reclamation Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Department of Fish and Game CALTRANS HCD (Mobile Home Parks) Regional Water Quality Control Board Other Army Corps of Engineers Butte County Air Quality Control District Other Comments: . Version:9/28/99 CAMy 0oc6mentsTROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST.doc i i APPLICATION ACTIVITY LOG Action* Person Contacted** Phone Number** Time-Spent/Date I *Use more than one line if necessary. **If applicable. AV Resolution No. oo-162 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLAN FROM ORCHARD &FIELD CROPS TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. WHEREAS, a private individual, James R. Black has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, for a change from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential, for that property identified on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study (Exhibit A-2) prepared on the amendment pursuant to the California'Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendments at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors find's the proposed amendment complies with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and comprises an overall internally consistent whole, specifically: 1. The pro-ject is consistent with the following Agricultural Element Goals and Policies: Goal l: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Although the property is designated as Grazing& Open Land by the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors finds that conversion of this property to a more residential use would not impact agricultural land t or agricultural operations,provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program .2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, which excludes residential development. This setback shall be delineated on any future subdivision map, as a condition of recording. Policy 1.3: Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Although this area is outside of the more intensely developed areas of Durham, adjacent development has occurred which makes this land less desirable for agricultural pursuits. The Board of Supervisors finds that changing the allowable density from 10 acres to 3 acres on the subject property will not influence the surrounding agricultural areas of Durham, provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable, and further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands is discouraged. Policy 1.9: Applies the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Orchard &: Field Crops General Plan designation for this property is no longer applicable, due to surrounding residential development, and that an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is more suitable.for this property and therefore the limits on minimum parcel sizes and zoning imposed by Policies 1.6 and 1.9 do not apply. 2. Thepro-Pct is consistent with the following Durham-Da)don-Nelson Plan Goals and Polices: l Goal IV. Objective 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. The Board of Supervisors finds that the continued viability of agricultural production in the Durham, Dayton, Nelson Planning Area will be supported provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. The Board of Supervisors finds that adjacent residential development limits the use of this propertyfor agricultural pursuits. Goal VI. Policy 2 shall be upheld for agricultural lands adjacent to this property provided that an Agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, in accordance with County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The General Plan Amendment to Agricultural Residential as shown on the attached Exhibit A-1 are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The General Plan Amendment is hereby adopted and by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, said Amendments to be the land use policy for the County of Butte in the affected area for all findings pursuant to law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 65359 that the General Plan be endorsed to show that the above amendments have been approved by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this 19th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Davis and Josiassen NOES: Supervisor Houx and Chair Dolan ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None Curt Josiassen;CHAIR u e County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the 7d . (Signed 1/9/01 for 12/19/00) K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\BLACK.GPA\BDRESO ■ pow- [AM _ Ir i■i��■�111�1�11111111�� ��,��.= • ' jk 11/j111111� �� In i � . BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING AppHcant: James R. Black • . 1 : • 111 . • 1Existing Zone: A-10(Agricultural, 10 acre minimum) Supervisorial Request: •• n•u • • Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residentialand a RezoneDistrict • • ( to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, No: 039-21 1 •• 1. Project:Black General Plan.Anendnient and Rezone 99-04 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: James R. Black 2. Address: 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 Phone: 530-342-2169 3. Name of Proposal: Black (GPA/RZ 99-041 4. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone 5. Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. 6. Location of project: The project is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. 7. Setting: This property is developed with a single family dwelling, detached garage, shop, septic system and one domestic well and one agricultural well. This property has previously been planted with almond trees, which have since been removed. Soil consists of the Vina loam series. The property is level and contains no defined water courses. Access to the proposed parcels is by Burdick Road. Turner Lane provides access to the existing parcel. Future residential development will be provided with water service from the Durham Irrigation District. Note: The project specific environmental issues that may result from a land division allowed under this proposal would be completely addressed when an application is made for a subdivision. This Initial Study addresses the environmental impacts directly related to a change in the zoning designation and General Plan designation. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 039-240-075 7, Date Checklist Submitted: April 3, 2000 8. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. Butte County Department of Development Services r Planning Division :7 1 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 H. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. K I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. . A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner Date Reviewed by: Wndy Wilson, Principal Planner Date III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 2 Project:Black General Plan.Amendment and Rezone 99-04 The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics X Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population VHousing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic u Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) 'Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process. an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 1506-33 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. Butte County Department of Development Services .a Planning Division ❑ 3 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact . Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, 'and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential. impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant., IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. AESTHETICS. Won&the pr•(ject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1t b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway9 1t c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site Butte County Department of Development Services I Planning Division C) 4 Prgiect:.Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact and its surroundings? 1t d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? �t Response: This project will not affect a scenic vista nor have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is not located along a State or County designated scenic highway. The two additional building sites that could be built as a result of this project, if the land is subdivided, will most likely have night lighting for safety and security reasons. However, lighting will not cause a significant impact because of the limited number of additional dwellings that can be placed on the site, and the relatively low 3-acre density of development. Street lights are not required as a part of this project. Mitigation: None required. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland . Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? K b) Conflict with existing zoning for Butte County Department of Development Services l± Planning Division 5 v Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? �t c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1t Response: This property is designated as Orchard and Field Crops by the County General Plan. The soil is classified as Vina loam by U.S. Department of Agriculture mapping of soils in Butte County. The soil series and General Plan indicates that this property is valuable for agricultural uses. The property was at one time planted in almond trees but is now vacant, with the exception of a single family dwelling. The property is not currently used for any agriculturally related use. There is no Williamson Act contract affecting this property. Butte county has specific land use policies contained within the Agricultural Element of the General Plan regarding development of agricultural land designated as Orchard and Field Crops. This property is also located within the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area, adopted in 1992. This plan establishes area-wide land use policies that designates the entire area as an "Urban Reserve" to promote consideration of various elements of the County's policies, plans and standards and to ensure proper development of the area. The applicability of these policies to the subject General Plan Amendment and Rezone is subject to interpretation of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Depending upon this determination, the project may or may not have an impact on agricultural resources in the County. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must also determine if the General Plan Amendment, as proposed, is in the public interest, in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (a). Policy Discussion The zoning within and immediately surrounding the Community of Durham can be characterized as residential and agricultural, which transitions from a relatively dense town center, to I-acre residential, 5-acre agricultural, 10-acre agricultural and finally.20-acre agricultural zoning. The 20-acre zoning is prominent to the west where it eventually transitions into 40-acre zoning. There is a large amount of A-5 zoning adjacent to Durham Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division r.] 6 V Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to the east. Durham is a community that is surrounded by large tracts of productive agricultural land. It is this surrounding agricultural land, which includes the subject property, that is afforded protection under the Agricultural Element. The General Plan's designations in this area likewise transitions from low and medium density residential, within the town center of Durham, to Agricultural Residential, to Orchard and Field Crops. The General Plan identifies varying General Plan designations within one-quarter mile to approximately 1 mile away from the Durham town center. Beyond one-quarter to one- mile the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation prevails. This property is situated adjacent to a zoning district boundary which separates the A-20 zone to the west from the A-10 zone within which the project resides. Although many recent subdivisions have occurred within the A-R General Plan designation, which surrounds Durham, this project resides within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that a General Plan Amendment was approved to allow for 1-acre parcels north of this site. However, this amendment was approved prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element in 1995. Approval of this General Plan Amendment and rezone could result in subsequent amendments of the general plan in this area. This property occupies approximately 10-acres of the A-10 zone. The A-10 zone occupies approximately 97 acres of the outlying area. If a similar Rezone and General Plan Amendment is approved in this 97 acre area, the number of parcels allowed could increase from approximately 9 to 32. This would further compromise the protection of the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation in this area. There is proximate vacant land that is zoned SR-1, which would allow for additional residential growth in the Durham area without changing the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation, and thereby impacting prime agricultural land. Specifically ,a 50-acre parcel is adjacent to the town center area zoned for one-acre parcels. Additionally, approximately 50 more acres are available between undeveloped SR-1 zoned property east of and adjacent to the Midway Highway and west of and adjacent to Durham-Dayton Highway. Together, these areas would allow for the creation of 100 parcels under existing zoning. Based upon the location of this property within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation and the additional information as discussed above, the following goals and policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan may be inconsistent with this proposal: Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 7 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Program 2.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. Guidelines, as part of the General Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. Cl Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 8 y � • Project:Black General Plan Arnendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Should the General Plan Amendment and Rezone be determined as consistent with these policies, a 300 foot agricultural buffer is recommended along the site's south and west property lines, in accordance with Program 2.2. It should be noted that the existing residence will fall within this buffer. This is an existing condition, which cannot be corrected. Mitigation Measure #1: In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the pr(ject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 1t b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? �t e) Create objectionable odors affecting Butte County Department of Development Services C Planning Division Ci 9 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a substantial number of people? )t Response: a. - d. Vehicle traffic generated by the 2 new dwelling units allowed under this proposal will result in an incremental impact on air quality created by the increased traffic generated and the use of wood burning devices. The Butte County Air Quality Management District indicates that if access to future parcels is on unpaved roads, dust may become a nuisance to nearby residents. The District recommends that control measures be incorporated that will reduce dust emissions from unpaved roads, such as paving and the use of surface treatments with penetration chemicals. Construction impacts, such as grading and operation of construction vehicles, will create a temporary increase in dustfall within the immediate vicinity of the project site. This is a temporary impact which can mitigated below a level of significance. Future proposals to develop the land to the extent permitted by the will require additional environmental review to assess the potential impacts from any proposed roads and development associated with the subdivision. Appropriate air quality control measures will be incorporated at that time. Future proposals must also consider the standards as set forth by both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. These standards have been established to protect human health and welfare. Counties are designated in attainment if the standards are met and in nonattainment if they are not met: Butte County, and all Northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts, have been designated as being "moderate" nonattainment areas for the State standards for ozone and fine particulate matter defined as smaller than 10 microns (Particulate Matter 10, or "PM10") Currently, Butte County in attainmentnt for all the federal air quality standards which are less stringent than the State of California standards. e. This proposed change in residential density will not create significant objectionable odors, smoke or filmes beyond what is customary and expected from residential uses at rural densities. Mitigation: None required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 10 r ,a t Project:Black General Plan.amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? �t b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? �t c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,.hydrological interruption, or other means) 1t d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 1t e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree.preservation policy ordinance. 1t Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 11 Project:Black.General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1t Response: It is anticipated that the rezoned land will be divided and some clearing will take place to accommodate site development and non-native landscaping may be introduced. Any future proposal to divide the land to the extent permitted will require additional environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential impacts of any proposed subdivision of the site. A drainage plan should be developed as a part of this review to address how run-off related to additional development will be retained on-site and prohibited from entering.Mud Creek. Because the General Plan Amendment and change in zoning to SR-3 in and of itself will not cause any environmental impacts, no mitigations are recommend for project approval. It is not recommended that Fish and Game Filing fees be required, and a Deminimus impact finding shall be made with respect to the projects impact on fish and wildlife. This finding may not be applicable to future land division proposals if significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources are indicated. Mitigation: None required. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.59 �t b) Cause a substantial adverse change,in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X 0! Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division :D 12 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-14 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1t Response: According to Butte County constraints mapping, the project site is located in an area considered to have a high archeological sensitivity. Often such sites are found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above bodies of water. This mapping is general in nature and basis the probability of archeological significance on the physical characteristics and history of different areas of the County. Classification of this property as having a high sensitivity for archeological resources does not in itself indicate the presence of archaeological resources. The proposed Parcel Map may result in a land division that would allow two additional home sites, construction of which may have an impact on archaeological sites. Due to the site's classification within the High archeological sensitivity area, mitigation should be included to protect archeological resources. Under normal procedures a pedestrian level survey is required for projects within these areas. However, development of this site cannot be initiated until a proposal for land division is submitted for review. Upon receiving a land division, proposal, staff will require an archaeological survey. Nlitigatiow None required. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X 1) Rupture of a known earth- quake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other sub- stantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Butte County Department of Development Services _: Planning Division 0 13 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Geology Special Publication 42. X 2) Strong seismic ground Shaking? X 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4) Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site J landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? X Response: a.1. The Seismic Safety Element indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The closest mapped Fault-Rupture Zone is the Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 14 Proiect Black General Plan.Amendnient and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Cleveland Hills Fault line which is located approximately 15 miles to the southeast. No impacts are anticipated as a result of fault rupture and no seismic related requirements are necessary. a.2. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and on the local geologic soils and conditions. At present, there is insufficient data to predict accurately the expected ground motions at various locations in Butte County. a.3. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. a.4. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. No Impact is anticipated. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incidents that indicates a specific problem at this location. No Impact is anticipated. b. The Erosion Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no erosion.potential at this site. No impact is anticipated. C. No impact is anticipated from instability, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. No impact is anticipated. e. The Butte County Environmental Health Department indicates that the project is located in an area where soils are adequate for on-site sewage disposal. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. World the project: a) Create a silsnificant hazard to the public or the environment through Butte County Department of Development Services E, Planning Division 15 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous materials? K b) Create asignificant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?- X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing.or working in the project area`' X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 16 Project:Black General Plan.unendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact plan? x h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? x Response: a. - g. The project will not interfere with any airport or emergency response plan nor is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. h. The proposed rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite. These new homesite represent an incremental increase in the need for fire protection services. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department.of Forestry indicates that this individual General Plan Amendment and Rezone has no impact on the Fire Department, but the cumulative affect of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone and higher density results in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. Future land divisions permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will require additional environmental review which may result in mitigation measures/conditions requiring fire sprinkler systems, water availability requirements and the application of fire safety standards found in Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations). Mitigation: None required. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the pr(#ecl: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? x b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume '. Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 17 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 1t c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? )t d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially.increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X Z)) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard E Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 18 Project:Black General Plan.nnendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1t I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 1t j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X ReVonse: a. - f. Future proposals to develop the land to the 3-acre parcel size permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will require additional project-specific environmental review to assess the potential impacts to water quality, drainage and groundwater withdrawal. It is not anticipated that development of the 3-acre parcels proposed will have an impact on water flows off-site. The 3-acre parcels proposed are large enough to accommodate retention of run-off generated by development of single family dwellings. b. Water supply for the 3 additional parcels permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be provided by the Durham Irrigation District: No impact is anticipated. g. - I. The property is shown to be outside the area of the 500-year flood according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel #06007C0520C, dated June 8, 1999. No impact shall be incurred with respect to flooding. J. The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact shall be incurred with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation: None required. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project? a) Physically divide an established Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 19 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact community? �t b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? K c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Response: a. The project will not physically divide an established community. No impact shall be incurred. b. This project may conflict with polices of the Agriculture Element of the Butte.County General Plan. These policies were adopted by Butte County in order to prevent the loss of agricultural land within the County. Loss of agricultural land to development is considered an environmental impact and is discussed under Initial Study Checklist Item 2, Agricultural Resources. C. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the pr•t?j(ct: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral.resource that would be of value to the region and the residents Butte County Department of Development Services D Planning Division 0 20 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact or the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 1t Response: a. - b. The property is not known to contain any important mineral resources of value to the region. No impact shall be incurred. Mitigation: None required. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels: X c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 1t d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division C 21 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? • X f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1t ReXQonse: a. - d. The project site is located in an area of rural residential uses away from customary sources of significant noise. This General Plan Amendment and Rezone project will not cause an increase in noise or expose people to severe noise levels. A subsequent land division as a result of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone will result in an increase in noise created on the project site and on the adjacent parcels. Construction noise will be the first new source added to the site that could influence nearby residents. Sources could include heavy equipment, power saws and hammering and can be significant, especially during noise sensitive hours. Construction activities would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise, especially grading equipment, will not have a significant impact on nearby residents because the noise will be intermittent and short- term in nature. Mitigation: None Required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? X Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division . 22 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? at c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Re.Wonse: a. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 1990 was 195,000, while the actual census population was 182,000. The estimated population for January 1, 1998 was 201,596. This project will have the potential to add an estimated 6 people to Butte County (2 dwelling units x 2.6 persons/dwelling unit). It is impossible to speculate when the land will be subdivided or when these parcels will become occupied. However, based on similar development, build-out may be spread out over several years, and some parcels may be left vacant for an indefinite period of time. In either case this is not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of about 2% per year. b. - c. The project will not displace individuals or housing. If the land is subdivided additional housing could be developed. No impact shall be incurred. Mitigation: None required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order Butte County Department of Development Services :.: Planning Division +, 23 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? �t b) Fire protection? �t c) Police Protection? x d) Schools? x e) Parks? x f) Other public services? X Response: a. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow for two additional homesite. Although this presents an incremental contribution to the impact on area services, it is not considered significant enough to warrant specific mitigation. b. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite. These new homesite represent an incremental increase in- the .need for fire protection' services. The Butte 'County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry indicates that this individual General Plan Amendment and Rezone has no impact on the Fire Department, but the cumulative affect of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone and higher density results in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. Future land divisions permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will require additional environmental review which may result in mitigation measures/conditions requiring fire sprinkler systems, water availability requirements and the application of Fire safety standards found in Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations). C. The cumulative impacts of increased development in rural areas impacts the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Sheriffs facilities will be collected at the time of building permit issuance to.offset the cost of proving sheriff services to the new dwelling units on the project site. :.? Butte County Department of Development Services D Planning Division D 24 0 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite, which represents an incremental increase in the demand for school services in the area. New development is subject to payment of school fees that are collected prior to issuance of building permits. This will be a condition of future subdivisions. e. - f. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite in addition to the one existing building site. This may represent an incremental increase in the demand for maintenance of.roads and other public facilities in the area as well as area parks. This is not considered significant due to the small number of potential additional residents. Mitigation: None required. 14. RECREATION. a) would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? )t b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? �t Response: a - b. The project will allow for the eventual improvement of two new building sites in addition to the one existing building site. The impact on area recreation facilities will be assessed upon review of a subsequent subdivision proposal. However, due to the limited extent of development, no impact is anticipated. Mitigation: None required. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 25 .l 0 Project:Black General Plan.Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumula- tively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X- e) Result in inadequate emergency access? K f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X- D Butte County Department of Development Services p Planning Division C 26 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: a - g. The property is served by Burdick Road, a minor county road. Burdick Road connects to the Durham-Dayton Highway, east of McAnarlin Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site. According to the Butte County Master Environmental Assessment, 3,650 daily trips occurred on this section of Durham- Dayton Highway. The Assessment indicates that Durham-Dayton Highway provides for a Level of Service (LOS) of "B." An LOS of"B" indicates an unrestricted flow of traffic. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may contribute additional traffic related impacts. However, it is not anticipated that the two additional building sites allowed by subdivision of this site will generate any significant traffic impact. A specific environmental review shall be conducted regarding the improvements necessary to private and public area roads upon review of any future land division. However, no impact is anticipated. Mitigation: None required. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1t b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1t c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 1t Butte County Department of Development Services ':: Planning Division [.: 27 Project:Black General Plan.nnendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 1t 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 1t g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X ReVonse: a. - g. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone proposal will provide for the potential of additional development. No impact in these areas shall be incurred as a result of General Plan Amendment and Rezone approval. A project specific environmental review will be necessary when a land division is submitted for review. Additional mitigations may be necessary at that time to address any significant impacts to these areas. 17. NI.ANDATORY 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 species, cause a fish or wildlife L Butte County Department of Development Services Ci Planning Division ❑ 28 i Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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 hist or prehistory? X b) Does the project have impacts that . are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �t Response: a. and d. The proposed General Plan Amendment and.Rezone will not degrade the environment, or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. b. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Butte County Department of Development Services . Planning Division 29 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1: In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an. agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 30 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 DATA SKEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone 2. Proposed Density of Development: 3-acre 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: 2 additional single family dwellings 4. Access and Nearest Public Road: Access is provided by Burdick Road 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems. 6. Source of Water Supply: Durham Irrigation District 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: The rezone proposes a 3-acre parcel size, which will allow for two additional dwellings. B. Environmental Setting I. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Level valley b. Slopes: None C. Elevation: 153 to 154 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: None. 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: ViLoam b. Limiting Factors: None. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: None C. Landslide Potential: None d. Fire Hazard: None. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: None. b. Ground Water: Abundant valley aquifers. C. Drainage Characteristics: Northerly sheet flow. d. Annual Rainfall (normal):24-inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: None. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Good. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Fallow agricultural land/orchard. 9. Wildlife Habitat: None. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High sensitivity area. l ]. Butte County General Plan designation: Orchard and Field Crops Butte County Department of Development Services !_; Planning Division i ; 31 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 12. Existing Zoning: FR-20 (Foothill Recreational, 20-acre parcels) 13. Existing Land Use on-site: Single Family Dwelling, shop, septic system, agricultural well and domestic well. 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: North: 1-acre residential subdivision. South: 5-acre parcel with single family residence. East: Residential Subdivision and almond orchard. West: Almond orchard. b. Zoning: North: SR-1. South: A-10. East: SR-1 and R-1. West: A-20 C' General Plan Designation: North: Agricultural Residential. South: Orchard and Field Crops. East: Agricultural Residential and Low Density Residential. West: Orchard and Field Crops. d. Parcel Sizes: North—1-acre. South: 5-acres. East: One-third acre and 46- acres. West: 28-acres. 15. Character of Site and Area: Undeveloped and developed agricultural land and residences. 16. Nearest Urban Area: City of Chico and Durham 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: None 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: None 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station number 45 approximately one- bald mile away. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only. 20. Schools: Durham Unified School District. ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map_1 I-1- Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Mao 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element flap IV-t. Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH21\/I Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. Butte County Department of Development Services J Planning Division L 32 Project:Black General Plat Amendment and Rezone 99-04 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Ma-p 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map- Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map. Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/Oroville(1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Mao. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 72 Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 33 Durham Irrigation District. D P.O. Box.98 Durham, CA 95938-0098 JUN ' 6 2001 q (530) 343-1594 s BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION June 5., 2001 Butte County,Department of Development Services, Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Attn: Dan Breedon Re: Black(GPA/RZ 99-04) Dear Dan-, This is to advise you that when the Developer has: (1) Applied for, made payment for, and received District approval for service, (2) Installed the water lines and service connection to.the satisfaction of the State Health Department,Division of Drinking Water, and the Durham Irrigation District: The District will serve the,above referenced-Development with ample water for normal use and fire protection. Water will be furnished-on demand; without exception, to each-and-every lot. Water is potable. The Durham Irrigation District has-formally annexed the property to the Durham Irrigation District. Additionally, in order to comply with State.Law requiring water meter installation on all new construction, a charge of$650.00 for a 1"(one inch) service connection will be levied by Durham Ir-rigation District at the time of the issuance of a County.Building Permit. The Durham Irrigation District holds no-other exception-to the servicing of the proposed Development. I .. i ! 1 vivitloo RTU� r r Sincerely, erry tm son,Manager Durham Irrigation District Copy to: Jim Black Bruce Nash COUNTY OF BUTTE Oroville, California ---- GENERAL CLAIM E CCp M E'8 1� .E D CLAIMANT: James R. Black M 260 ADDRESS: 9243 Turner Lane gUTTECouNTY CITY & STATE: Durham, CA 95938 PLANNING DIVISION DATE OF CLAIM: January 30, 2001 IMPORTANT.• SEE INSTRUCTIONS SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES CNREVEI:;ZSES®E DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY AMOUNT 1-30-01 Refund of Unused Fees for File No.GPA/REZ 99-04 .$488. 25 TOTAL $488. 25 I,the undersigned,declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered,and that this claim is true and correct as state r Date this day o -,20&,at Calif. Signature of Claimant I,the undersigned,hereby certify that,to the best of my knowledge,the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation[ ]or Specific Board Approval[ ](Check one)for the same. Dated this day of 200E,at Cie-eLxo P Calif.—6, Department Head or Aut orized Deputy Dept.Code Exp.Code PAYABLE FROM FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-AUDITOR'S USE ONLY DEPT.&SUB. PROJ. SUB.OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV.NO. INV.DATE ENCUMB. GROSS AMT. Date. 03/01/01 Development Services Department Time 11 :22 am Applicant •Billing Worksheet Page 1 GPA/REZ 99-04 * James R. Black 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 In reference to GPA/REZ 99-04 Rounding None Full Precision No Last bill Last charge 02/07/01 Last payment / / Amount $0 . 00 Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 06/14/99 Larry P. / P 1 . 25 73 . 75 #23830 Processing 59 . 00 06/14/99 Teri B. / C 2 . 00 68 . 00 #23841 Clerical 34 . 00 06/28/99 Steve L. / LR 0 . 25 14 . 75 424150 LAFCo Review 59 . 00 06/28/99 Dan B. / P 0 . 50 29 . 50 #24212 Processing 59 . 00 10/18/99 Dan B. / P 0 . 50 29 . 50 #26363 Processing 59 . 00 03/06/00 Dan B . / P 7 . 00 413 . 00 #28824 Processing 59 . 00 03/20/00 Dan B. / P 13 . 00 767 . 00 429054 Processing 59 . 00 04/03/00 Paula A. / C 1 . 00 34 . 00 #29310 Clerical 34 . 00 04/03/00 Dan B. / P 3 . 00 177 . 00 #29342 Processing 59 . 00 04/03/00 Larry P . / P 1 . 00 59 . 00 #29386 Processing 59 . 00 04/03/00 Lynn R. / C 1 . 00 45 . 00 429428 Clerical 45 . 00 04/17/00 Dan B. / P 7 . 75 457 . 25 #29592 Processing 59 . 00 Date 03/01/01 Development Services Department Time 11: 22 am Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 2 GPA/REZ 99-04 * :James R. Black (continued) Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 04/17/00 Lynn R. / C 2 . 25 101 . 25 #29696 Clerical 45 . 00 05/15/00 Lynn R. / C 0 . 50 22 . 50 #30204 Clerical 45 . 00 06/24/00 Lynn R. / C 1 . 50 67 . 50 #30864 Clerical 45 . 00 06/24/00 Dan B. / P 4 . 00 236 . 00 #30906 Processing 59 . 00 07/10/00 Dan B. / P 2 . 50 147 . 50 #31059 Processing 59 . 00 08/18/00 Diana / P 0 . 25 14 . 75 #32332 Processing 59 . 00 08/21/00 Lynn R. / C 0 . 50 22 . 50 #31822 Clerical 45 . 00 10/02/00 Diana / P 0 . 50 29 . 50 #32587 Processing 59 . 00 10/30/00 Lynn R. / C 0 . 50 22 . 50 #32908 Clerical 45 . 00 11/11/00 Dan B. / P 6 . 00 354 . 00 #33148 Processing 59 . 00 11/27/00 Dan B. / P 4 . 00 236 . 00 #33496 Processing 59 . 00 12/11/00 Lynn R. / C 0 . 50 22 . 50 #33701 Clerical 45 . 00 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES 61 . 25 $3 , 444 . 25 J Date 03/01/01 •Development Services Depatment Time 11 : 22 am Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 3 GPA/REZ 99-04 * :James R. Black (continued) Date/Slip# Description QTY/PRICE 02/07/01 Ordinance Publishing Fee 1 67 . 50 67 . 50 TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $67 . 50 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $3 , 511 . 75 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS 06/14/99 Deposit - Receipt #17632 (4 , 000 . 00) 02/28/01 Refund/Claim Form to Auditor 488 . 25 TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($3 , 511 . 75) NEW BALANCE TOTAL NEW BALANCE $0 . 00 i � I z _ LAND -OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Y• sr�r T r+.� ^.,..., DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES '•i.•,t•.5:.�.::, .,;;. 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965 3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 www.buttecounty.net February 7, 2001 James R.Black 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 RE: General Plan Amendment/Rezone File No. GPA/REZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: Recently, a claim form in the amount of$555.75, was sent to you for your signature. The claim form has been received. However, it was discovered that you had not been charged for the publishing of the Ordinance, which was $67.50. Butte County Code, Chapter 3, Section 3-44(f) states that the applicant is responsible for the publication costs of zoning ordinances or development agreements. Therefore, I have deducted this amount from the original amount and have prepared a new claim form in the amount of$488.25. Please sign the enclosed claim form and return it to this office. Once we receive the signed claim form,.your refund will be processed.. If you have any questions,please contact Brian Larsen at 538-7601 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Phomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Enclosures • u un LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY ' DIRECTOR'S OFFICE ~ DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 www.buttecounty.net January 30, 2001 James R. Black 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 RE: General Plan Amendment/Rezone, File No. GPA/REZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: The total cost for the processing of the above-referenced applications is $3,444.25. Please sign, date, and return the enclosed claim form to this office. Once we receive the claim form, we will then process your refund in the amount of$555.75. Deposit on 6-14-99, Receipt No. 17632 $4,000.00 Professional Planner $2,861.50 Mapping $ 177.00 Clerical S 405.75 Total $3,444.25 Refund Due $ 555.75 Should you have any questions,please contact Brian Larsen at 538-7601 Monday through Friday,between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Enclosure ♦. y o�vTTFo TEROFFICEffMORANDUM ° o ° op o =_ o UN TO: Auditor-Controller, Attention: Mary VanGilder Administrative Office Phone: 538-7631 FROM: Dorothy Bell Fax: 538-7120 SUBJECT: FPO 261077 DATE: February 5, 2001 Mary, per our phone conversation this morning, please prepare a journal entry to have the $67.50 charge from the Chico Enterprise on FPO 261077 charged to the Development Services Department/Planning Division, 480001.537, instead of the Clerk of the Board, 020002.537. Thanks, /db cc: Development Services Y OF BUTTE. FIELD NUMBER _ E, CALIFORNIA PURCHASE ORDER • F 26107 7 S U Attention: Donna., Business Office P Chico Enterprise T. Issued B PP. 0. Box 9 Department Clerk of the Board of Supervisors I Chico, CA 95927 E R DATE GINTY INVOICE NUMBER AND DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CHARGE TO W.0. 1/10/Cl Ordinance No. 3667 - Black rezone 50 020002537 Please publish once in 8-pt type on Wednesday, January 17, 2001; sending two copies of your affidavit of, publication and two copies of your statement of charges to the Board of Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Dorothy Bell, 538-7&33 TOTAL 5-01 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered or,where authorized,are hereby contracted for and that there is a Budget Appropriation for the same. Dated: ,�`� or-�.� ;e _ .. . F 261077 Department Head Authorized Deputy SUPPLIER NO. DEPT ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT NO. INVOICE NO. INV.DATE ENCUMBRANCE AMOUNT 1 2 3 a 5 6 Submit WHITE,CANARY and PINK to PURCHASING SERVICES with supplier's invoice. Retain GOLDENROD. • _ I -C K_ 'A 4C„•Ta:f- :,�.:'� 7•:-i li:Ft_ 'aff• 'r. M .<.: in. -:i.rw',. fr �':t: i=qc^:y:.:^' .r:� �.Y'�, .,„.tT. '.{oeL: ':a.. J i�u;:zr:•' v:T 3h... •1. ,�("�.`.tia'rr,x,, :7y:�v. ,,. 'r". ,r.-�,,�''a$FI�":a�',.},,t -f..y� V 3:•� ^��,�� .1'n.,, ;,n;• l:t'.i••+iQ�r•. 2'.,f•:�..�;o.•v! ${ .;:t.. �� 'T - ?!%;�:'+i ;i• ty}. ,� dd' .,,.,;. ,,!', 4 L�•�ra.', ,a K .F �. i G. i_Y 'ic `pi�'�-7�',� � :�:�::i=i�@^.:..�\t.',' wr, :�—,i �, �`•,. .,� •�.."?, n+.;.rr`.... \ tq. .,{.�..r,�.?:� S�-.;' .fid h'-(:� .'�,.?^;,,r�. •.v,-,lxt�.f�, 3� .: i.f. ,,- .sr u-;,r;.. �e�. �,tt `' - u r ,i. +`al. .•;'}�„ _�3:r�'•�•:' .'t:M'�6` v;T;�T ° N�': r�y,�''�i'•J;.+� t rF:. `..,y�c`a vt`�r. r,+.,,, 3a. lny �a:>�u•<'...:;..�j- t��:;sr. .k'^ik .�lafstii:n�':^'�:,iwc}�j�.4i"'>''sfj`.* 'i:' .,,•�..-as1- :Y.: ,i�„�•`?:E•wxu`!"" ^.':� 1 R 4'".�; ,3,r•=:;�1-. � 9GZ •.`''�„{r',j' ".s�:.4' c�;;tJ,«.l.:•`£•!<--:uur`T;<"r:-E ei;,. .�f, „�„, '•�. t>;.•h..;��•;ti.,_,v::t -t �-�1.i4 %•?' r. �cy�'�. aC: 'fti^h. 'c�F-,oE«:. y:1f�7 •;k.., :a ,�•.zly _.,%1.':=_.,. •4,-�. - r•;?r •m;f ,•�c`^ 1i9�` � 'n '�•- .y�a{.�;r"�+Sil ��",.x� .. -'G-F'._- ,,,,.' ".�i=.4°' .•t..>. - .'+.- =1 �:``�"' Z'•:.'°- "..��{' M ,v,b Ic,;%..''�: � i� '�Y -,:,.r� ��',: %2. .utt U,v. n•.a•r "'a S ;,. (. -yF..4,ny,,t,: •r .� ,.er+��"' ;'r a,- r`•.� h .rn R RA2i,3a >^ -� r••'^„r;,;•. -•v,;��L.r:3 `� ..�.�'• �'A""., vx-.�.�."r31�'�k'y`A'. x_�' �'.7�.iiT,::+�::i •-�F'3'T'w„�1`f:�si•••�' ;�M=.n ua�'.A'�'�ii y.-F'•�`, �.:� nf•�a,'. � '�^ �w.v.. ��+•: n. :.'�,'�,�� .�;'.:. -i•�c .:f...w.r .� _ya `1( .�.✓•'Y.. - _ r -'Z,CS�.:':�'•`'`•'' k a'•,�. °~t`;'+r'-+��`."�.'..- a : C. `i.,4+ •� H ti "� •fi _ '.vF i•f, a+v: nl: •.,i.nn j :,ti:. y.a,r ,.3� L .-�1:. •.:•,;/:.c„ cr' al..- yr-„::,::. S 2:,t1' f, ..'L.',:4.:. ;>k•.rtr. C x. .e� '•+�;•s- -.r' !tv^i; ;J... '.i•' i r: .5•Y t.- -'}. ,t•a�ra.' .,.y?': ..} ..i�: r` 1 �+`:': Gc .,,>l:,_- ..1. :tiY',',G,-„•:,..u` .) ,dY•• 3 - "1'. � •]:Y -t A '.:�Z.l 1.CvM rw..S i� •.�. ••�.1/s.'.)-_ �. - {?.,i.;` .,� ".}�': `'3'c'•.' 7c.. %”: .i: i_s� .'1 r �a n. .1`'.,wa:..•,y•'x.a!,-•.,;.��. � :.,i=id:•?'•:�a. �., � ,8.f",'•fit'. Zs �a -�.,.n - ty_ w h� m y- p., t-„t3 K S �.: 4 Y �.r., !'••'�.:''-_`P ,c to nr >y'\ '! 'y`iWsj:ici•'?sif::;.'Y { 1 r:'a In "•�l` 4,. J•:��icr.s.'�•i�'.• -1�'1-.1.T:..,r.wi .!•i"G¢¢.: r( 'Vq •lr�'Aa.L%:..IW.�{.O..:ir r.•P:��7s-.�ytt r. .st1Y., :J\i7.n,4�Y.•L' 'l{,,w.33 y'!”5,.r•lvi•Y.�iw � A-., T.,',{r,.• 14»'•!�. '.q,`• 1 j ;:l h :.S -.W,r... «:C_.t,a:Y, �:t. ? qF".'4. [ .c FJ L c P'.<� _:tJ'r' •1,1 C � .f.t, �. :�•l. y y'•! .a { M (SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In the Matter of ORDINANCE NO. 3667. NO. ORDINANCE N0.3667 AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY' OF BUTTE, STAE OF AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ANT SR-3 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, 3-ACRE State of California PARCELS)" DISTRICT; T TO PURSUANT SECTION 24-25.50• SS. The Board ofSu ervi- sors of the County of Butte, County of Butte State. of California:. litnt o n nia:. de 25.40 of the Butte County The ne undersi d resident of the county of Code..of said.,'County, g ty ORDAINS,as follows: Butte, State of California,says: SECTION 1.The here- inafter described area situ. ate in the County-of Butte, State of California,shall be That I am,and at all time herein mentioned and it is hereby zoned as an SR-3 (Suburban�Residen- was a citizen of the United States and not a party tial,3-acre parcels)°District, to nor interested in the above entitled matter• and such area snail be sub. ns-and � ject to the restrlotions that I am the principal clerk of the printer and tionsctedvses aria'autte P p P tions' pursuant•to*Butte publisher of Counry Code Sedtlon 24.95. p Sa(d area so zoned being located,In the unincor- porated area of Butte Coun-. The Chico Enterprise-Record ty,Durham;more ly described as follows: •particular`- The Oroville Mercury-Register . All that certalnreal prop- ---------.... erty situate in the County of Butte, State of California, That said newspaper is one of general circula- described as follows:•- ,. - Lot 1 as shown on that tion as defined by Section 6000 Government certain map entitled'R:M.. Turner's First Subdivision, Code of the State of California,Case No.26796 Cn l ny Co.,tteounty*T6wn-' by the Superior Court of the State of California, nia,which map was record-' in and for the Count of Butte;that said news a- ed in the office of the my of County + p ry Recorder of the County of per at all times herein mentioned was printed BButte,State of,California,on: p P December 112,:1690,:iA' and published daily in the City of Chico and Book 1 of Maps,at page 46.1 '�Containing 9.90:acres, County of Butte;that the notice of which the more or less. ..SECTION 2.This-'Ordi-; annexed is a true printed copy,was published in nance shall be and it'is hereby'declared to be in full said newspaper on the following days: force-and,effectifrom„and, after thirty(30)`days;after. the date of Its passage,and before the expiration of,fd= JAN. 17, 2001. teen(t5)dayys atter its pas- sage,thts'Ordinance shall be published-once with the names of the.members of t Dated January 19,2001, he.Board of Supervisorsvoting,for and aggainst It in at Chico,California. R cord,-a�noewsp pier pub- lished in the County,of Butte;State of California.- ” PASSED.AND ADOPT- ED by the Board of Supervi- sors of the Cpunty of Butte,, State of California;'o6 the (Sig ture) I 19th'=day..of.December, 2000,by the following vote- n iAYES:Supervisors Beeler, 2 3 2001 Josiassen and Davis.i. NOES:- Supervisor, Houz and Chair Dolan;- a t; ABSENT:None - (� CALIFORNIA NOT VOTING:None. �{ Curt Josiassen„CHAIR Butte.County Board”:of. e Supervisors'F,<o.`_^ t'r (` A EST:JOHNS.BLACK- LOCK,Chief administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board y Marion Reeves;De Pursuant to;Government Code Section 25124(c): Effective:February 16,2001 s Publish:January 17,2001 ADVERTISING INVOICE CHICO ENTERPRISE RECORD PO BOX 9 400 EAST PARK AVENUE CHICO CA 95927 530-891-1234 ACCOUNT NUMBER 016230 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE CA 95965 ORDINANCE NO 3667 F261077 PUB JAN 17, 2001 9" @ 7.50/IN. TOTAL $67.50 { - uttecounfq _ LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 www.buttecounty.net January 30, 2001 James R. Black 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 RE: General Plan Amendment/Rezone,File No. GPA/REZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: The total cost for the processing of the above-referenced applications is $3,444.25. Please sign, date, and return the enclosed claim form to this office. Once we receive the claim form, we will then.-process your refund in the amount of$555.75. Deposit on 6-14-99,Receipt No. 17632 $4,000.00 Professional Planner $2,861.50 Mapping $ 177.00 Clerical $ 405.75 Total $3,444.25 Refund Due $ 555.75 Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Larsen at 538-760.1 Monday through Friday,between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Sincerely, Thomas A. Parilo Director of Development Services TAP:jb Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. 3667 AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AN SR-3 (SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL, 3-ACRE PARCELS) DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO 1 SECTION 24-25.40. 2 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, 3 under and pursuant to Section 24-25.40 of the Butte County Code of said County, 4 ORDAINS, as follows: 5 SECTION 1. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 6 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as an SR-3 (Suburban 7 Residential, 3-acre parcels) District, and such area shall be subject to the 8 9 restrictions and restricted uses and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code 10 Section 24-95. 11 Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte 12 County, Durham, more particularly described as follows: 13 All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of 14 California., described as follows: 15 Lot 1 as shown on that certain map entitled "R.M. Turner's First Subdivision, Colony Co., Dayton Township, Butte County, California", 16 which map was recorded in the office of the.County Recorder of the 17 County of Butte, State of California, on December 12, 1890, in Book 1 of Maps, at page 46. 18 Continain 9.90 acres, more or less. 19 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be 20 21 in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, 22 and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this 23 Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of 24 Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a newspaper 25 published in the County of Butte, State of California- 26 Lf II 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the 2 County of Butte, State of California, on the 19th day of December , 2000, by the 3 following vote: 4 AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Josiassen and Davi6 5 NOES: Supervisor Houx and Chair D61an 6 ABSENT: None 7 NOT VOTING: None 8 9 Curt osia.ssen..CHAIR 10 e County Board of Supervisors 11 ATTEST: JOHN S. BLACKLOCK, Chief Administrative 12 Officer and Clerk of the Board . 13 14 lr'� B 15 Dep ty 16 17 K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\BLACK.GPA\ORDINANC.WPD 18 19 Pursuant to Government Code Section 25124(c) : Publication Date - January 11, 2001 20 Effective Date - February 16, 2001 21 Signed 01/09/01 for 12/19/00 22 23 24 25 26 41- kp .n; ru. _ t{ F'.C,`t Z. N _rt y,"��� 4- x •'i ,�x - % ki • 9 y �^ ,.... 7,,' r"p, i a #t J - - r ' •d're Jti` -1:c7 y .,,aa • OF�tiE h4Si, !r c �.I�i•.'�"1f �a � x a: °' �Y`u�j�K3 111-7 4NO. l`'Cl'�TWf7, 4 MW-11'T - Apr ::GAt �.'�1,4 Resolution No. 00-162 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLAN FROM ORCHARD & FIELD CROPS TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. WHEREAS, a private individual, James R. Black has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, for a change from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential, for that property identified on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the Initial Study (Exhibit A-2) prepared on the amendment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendments at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed amendment complies with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and comprises an overall internally consistent whole, specifically: 1. The project is consistent with the following Agricultural Element Goals and Policies: Goal l: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard &Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Although the property is designated as Grazing& Open Land by the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors finds that conversion of this property to a more residential use would not impact agricultural land or agricultural operations,provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, which excludes residential development. This setback shall be delineated on any future subdivision map, as a condition of recording. Policy 1.3: Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Although this area is outside of the more intensely developed areas of Durham, adjacent development has occurred which makes this land less desirable for agricultural pursuits. The Board of Supervisors finds that changing the allowable densityfrom 10 acres to 3 acres on the subject property will not influence the surrounding agricultural areas of Durham, provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines.. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for-new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map,to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable, and further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands is discouraged. Policy 1.9: Applies the.policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation for this property is no longer applicable, due to surrounding residential development, and that an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is more suitable for this property and therefore the limits on minimum parcel sizes and zoning imposed by Policies 1.6 and 1.9 do not apply. 2. The}pro-ect is consistent with the following Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Goals.and Polices: Goal IV. Objective 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. The Board of Supervisors finds that the continued viability of agricultural production in the Durham, Dayton, Nelson Planning Area will be supported provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. The Board of Supervisors finds that adjacent residential development limits the use of this propertyfor agricultural pursuits. Goal VT. Policy 2 shall be upheld for agricultural lands adjacent to this property provided that an Agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, in accordance with County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The General Plan Amendment to Agricultural Residential as shown on the attached Exhibit A-1 are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The General Plan Amendment is hereby adopted and by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, said Amendments to be the land use policy for the County of Butte in the affected area for all findings pursuant to law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 65359 that the General Plan be endorsed to show that the above amendments have been approved by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this 19th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: II AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Davis and Josiassen NOES: Supervisor Houx and Chair Dolan ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None Curt Jo en CHAIR u e County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Bo d (Signed 1/9/01 for 12/19/00) K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\BLACK.GPA\BDRESO BUTTE COUNTY .. CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY 6bARD OF SUPERVI RS a 4 MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL _ - Y }: AGENDA ITEM: AGENDA TITLE:,:.; .James -R. Black GPA/RZ 99-041 'General"Plan FAmend>nent:- *•Rezone DEPARTMENT: DDS, Planning DATE: 12/1/00 MEETING DATE REQUESTED:- CONTACT: Dane BreedonPHONE: 7601 REGULAR % st:�.CONSENT:..�t= z. DEPARTMENT SUMMARY_AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Continued with a motion ofintent. 3 � �,.• Ste°"•f: �, SEE ATTACHED. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL REQUIRES THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes. No CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes,complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No Administrative Office Review If yes,complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor-Controller's Number(if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No Date Received by Clerk of Board: Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel:Yes No Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help Previous Boar i e Additional Information Attached:Yes R No Descrit�e: Pac�c'es Rev.1198 SPE ►L INSTRUCTIONS TO CLEI Number of originals required to be returned to Department: "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. ,Clerk of the Board returns completed Auditor's copy ONLY. Requested Board Action:­— S' Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required Y For Information Only BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET . Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source Source of Additional Funds Requested Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $ (Fund Name: ) (Fund Number____________) Amount Budgeted $ Unanticipated Revenue $ (Budges Unit Number: ) (Source: ) (Fund Name: ) (Rev.Code: ) (Fund Number. ) Other Transfer(s) $ 1. Complete worksheet below 2. Deadline is one business day Drior to normal agenda deadline Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds $ , Annualized cost$ if also planned for next year. Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office Board Action Required for B-Transfer? Yes No Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET Transfer Request: AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer t (No Cents)From To Transfer S (No Cents)From To Transfer$ (No Cents)From To Transfer S (No Cents)From To SUMMARY: James R Black,proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding enviornmental impacts, General Plan Amendment(GPA/RZ99-04) General Plan Amendment from Orchard& Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels). The property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. APN 039-240-075 (DB) ACTION REQUESTED: In order to support the Motion of Intent to approve this project, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: - I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with. the following findings: 1. Find that an Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that said study identified significant environmental effects and includes mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. 2. Find that the Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the review process. 3. Find, on the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors,including the Initial Study and any comments received that, with the inclusion of Mitigation Measure#1,requiring a 300 foot residential setback from adjacent agricultural lands, to be delineated on any future subdivision map, there is no substantial evidence that the James R. Black Rezone and General Plan Amendment, Planning Division File No. GPA/RZ 99-04, will have a significant effect on the.environment. 4. Find that the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. 5. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with Mitigation Measure #1, as detailed in the Agenda Report dated July 11, 2000, and attached Exhibit"A". H. Adopt a"de minimus"exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat. The design of the proposed project improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) and 14 CCR 753.5. is not required. The.project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. III. Find the proposed General' Plan Amendment in the public interest in accordance with California Government Code Section 65358 as supported by the following: 1. The Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation's primary uses are for the cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops especially annual food crops. The Agricultural Residential General Plan designation's primary uses are.agricultural uses and single family dwellings at rural ` densities. Due to this property's 9.9-acre parcel size, which restricts commercial agricultural activities suitable for this area, and its location adjacent to residential subdivisions with the community of Durham, which can present land use conflicts with agricultural activities, an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is a more appropriate designation and in the general public's interest. IV. Adopt a Resolution amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan from an"Orchard & Field Crops" General-Plan designation to an "Agricultural Residential" General Plan designation, and adopt an Ordinance rezoning from A-10 (Agricultural,-10 acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3 acre parcels) for property owned by James R. Black, identified as APN: 039-240-075, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A", with the following findings: 1. The eject is consistent with the following Agricu] ral Element Goals and Policies: Goal 1: Maintains parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard&Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Although the property.is designated as Grazing& Open Land by the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors finds that conversion of this property to a more residential use would not impact agricultural land or agricultural operations,provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, which excludes residential development. This setback shall be delineated on any future subdivision map, as a condition of recording. Policy 1.3: Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Although this area is outside of the more intensely developed areas of Durham, adjacent development has occurred which makes this land less desirable for agricultural pursuits. The Board of. Supervisors finds that changing the allowable densityfrom 10 acres to 3 acres on the subject property will not.influence the surrounding agricultural areas of Durham, provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map,to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on i Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable, and further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands is discouraged. Policy 1.9: Applies the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation for this property is no longer applicable, due to surrounding residential development, and that an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is more suitable for this property and therefore the limits on minimum parcel sizes and zoning imposed by Policies 1.6 and 1.9 do not apply. 2. The SR-3 zone is conditionally consistent with the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation as supported by the following: o n . A. Access to the property is provided by Burdick Road, a County road capable of accommodating the additional traffic allowed by the rezone if the land is subdivided. B. Condition #1 requires that future land divisions include a 300 foot agricultural setback in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. C. The Environmental Health Department indicates that soil conditions are capable of supporting on-site sewage disposal. D. The property is located in proximity to other similar-sized residential developments to the north and east. E. Future development will be required to comply with Public Resources Code 4290 regarding the provision of water availability in amounts adequate for fire protection, internal sprinklers for the protection of structures and other fire safety standards. F. Commercial services and schools are available within reasonable distance from the property. V. Adopt a Resolution amending the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Map from an "Orchard&Field Crops"General Plan designation to an"Agricultural Residential" General Plan designation,for property owned by James R.Black, identified as APN: 039-240-075, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A", with the following findings: i 1. The is consistent with the following_Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Goals and Polices: Goal IV. Objective 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. The Board of Supervisors finds that the continued.viability of agricultural production in the Durham, Dayton,' Nelson Planning Area will be supported provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. The Board of Supervisors finds that adjacent residential development limits the use of this propertyfor agricultural pursuits. Goal VI. Policy 2 shall be upheld for agricultural lands adjacent to this property provided that an Agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, in accordance with County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2. EXHIBIT A Condition #1 ((Mitigation Measure); In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map or subdivision map application, as a condition of recording. BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT-December 19, 2000 Applicant: James R. Black Location: The projecris located at the southeast corner of Burdick File#: GPA/RZ 99-04 Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. Request: General Plan Amendment from Orchard & Field Crops Parcel Size: 9.91 (+/-) acres General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Zone date: 02/25/92 Rezone - from A-10 +. (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels) Supervisor District: 4 to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels) Attachments: G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops A. Condition of Approval Zoning: A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre B. Rezone Ordinance parcels) C. Resolution Amending General Plan, Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan APN: 039-240-075 D. July 11, 2000, Board of Supervisors. Minutes Project Planner: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner STAFF COMMENT: On July 11, 2000, the Board of Supervisors passed a Motion of Intent to approve this General Plan Amendment and Rezone on a 3 -2 vote, and directed staff to return to the Board with the necessary findings to support approval. The necessary findings, ordinance, and resolution amending the General Plan and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan are attached to this agenda report. This action was postponed in order to group any additional General Plan Amendments received into one Board action, in order to minimize the number of General Plan Amendments approved by the County in the calender year. State law requires that the County approve no more than 4 General Plan Amendments per year. Besides the James R. Black General Plan Amendment, no other General Plan Amendments are ready for Board action at this time. ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0 AGENDA REPORT ■ December l9,2000 0 PA6E I ■ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from an Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: In order to support the Motion of Intent to approve this project, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions: I. .Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with the following findings: i 1. Find that an Initial Study was completed in .compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, that said study identified significant environmental effects and includes mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. 2. Find that the Board of Supervisors has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with comments received during the review process. 3. Find, on the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, including the Initial Study and any comments received that, with the inclusion of Mitigation Measure#1, requiring a 300 foot residential setback from adjacent agricultural lands, to be delineated on any future subdivision map, there is no substantial evidence that the James R. Black Rezone and General Plan Amendment, Planning Division File No. GPA/RZ 99-04, will have a significant effect on the environment. 4. Find that the proposed mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. 5. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with Mitigation Measure #1, as detailed in the Agenda Report dated July 11, 2000, and attached Exhibit "A'. II. Adopt a"de minimus" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat. The design of the proposed project improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) and 14 CCR 753.5. is not required. The project site is not known to contain any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U: S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat; have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ December 19. 2000 ■ PAG(: 2 ■ migratory fish or wildlife species; conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources; or, conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. III. Find the proposed General Plan Amendment in the public interest in accordance with California Government Code Section 65358 as supported by the following: 1. The Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation's primary uses are for the cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops especially annual food crops. The Agricultural Residential General Plan designation's primary uses are agricultural uses and single family dwellings at rural densities. Due to this property's 9.9-acre parcel size, which restricts commercial agricultural activities suitable for this area, and its location adjacent to residential subdivisions with the community of Durham,which can present land use conflicts with agricultural activities, an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is.a more appropriate ` designation and in the general public's interest. IV. Adopt a Resolution amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan from an"Orchard & Field Crops" General Plan designation to an "Agricultural Residential" General Plan designation, and adopt an Ordinance rezoning from A-10 (Agricultural, 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3 acre parcels)for property owned by James R. Black, identified as APN: 039-24.0-075, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A", with the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the following Agricultural Element Goals and Policies: Goal 1: Maintains parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Although the property is designated as Grazing& Open Land by the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors finds that conversion of this property to a more residential use would not impact agricultural land or agricultural operations, provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, which excludes residential development. This setback shall be delineated on any future subdivision map, as a condition of recording. Policy 1.3: Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Although this area is outside of the more intensely developed areas of Durham, adjacent development has occurred which makes this land less desirable for agricultural pursuits. The Board of Supervisors finds that changing the allowable density from 10 acres ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ December l9,2000 ■ PAGE 3 ■ to 3 acres on the subject property will not influence the surrounding agricultural areas of Durham, provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres.. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable, and further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands is discouraged. i Policy 1.9: Applies the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. The Board of Supervisors finds that the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation for this property is no longer applicable, due to surrounding residential development, and that an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation is more suitable for this property and therefore the limits on minimum parcel sizes and zoning imposed'by Policies 1.6 and 1.9 do not apply. 2. The SR-3 zone is conditionally consistent with the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation as supported by the following: A. Access to the property is provided by Burdick Road, a County road capable of accommodating the additional traffic allowed by the rezone if the land is subdivided. B. Condition#1 requires that future land divisions include a 300 foot agricultural setback in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. C. The Environmental Health Department indicates that soil conditions are capable of supporting on-site sewage disposal. D. The property is located in proximity to other similar-sized residential developments to the north and east. E. Future development will be required to comply with Public Resources Code 4290 regarding the provision of water availability in amounts adequate for fire protection, internal sprinklers for the protection of structures and other fire safety standards. ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ December 19,2000 ■ PAGE 4 ■ F. Commercial services and schools are available within reasonable distance from the property. V. Adopt a Resolution amending the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Map from an "Orchard & Field Crops" General Plan designation to an "Agricultural Residential" General Plan designation, for property owned by James R. Black, identified as APN: 039-240-075, subject to the condition listed in Exhibit "A", with the following findings: 1. The project is consistent with the following Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan Goals and Polices: Goal IV. Objective 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as + the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. The Board of Supervisors finds that the continued viability of agricultural production in the Durham, Dayton, Nelson Planning Area will be supported provided that, in accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program.2.2, an agricultural buffer.is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. The Board of Supervisors finds that adjacent residential development limits the use of this property for agricultural pursuits. Goal VT Policy 2 shall be upheld for agricultural lands adjacent to this property provided that an Agricultural buffer is established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines, in accordance with County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2. ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ December 19,2000 ■ PAGE 5 ■ EXHIBIT A Condition #1 (Mitigation Measure);. In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Element Program 2.2, .an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map or subdivision map application, as a condition of recording. K:\PROJECTS\GPA\BLACK.GPA\BOSRPT3.WPD ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ A(jENDA DEPORT ■ December 19,2000 ■ PAGE O ■ BU TE COUNTY � CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF .SUPERVISORSETI M E NG DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL - AGENDA REM: AGENDATITLE: James R. Black - General Plan Amendment and Rezone - GPA/RZ99-04 DEPARTMENT: DDS, Planning DATE: 6/23/00 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 7/11/00 CONTACT: Dan Breedon PHONE: 7601 REGULAR X CONSENT DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: See Attached AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL REQUIRES THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No ✓ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes,complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on bac Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No Administrative Office Review If yes,complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda dea ne) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor-Controller's Number(if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No ✓ Date Received by Clerk of Board: Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel:Yes No Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help. Previous Board Actio Dat : Additional Information Attached:Yes No Describe: ���o Rev.1198 SPE L INSTRUCTIONS TO CLEI r Number of originals required to be returned to Department: "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk of the Board returns completed Auditor's copy ONLY. Requested Board Action: 3 ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required 'For Infomlation Only BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET Current Year Estimated Cost/Funding Source Source of Additional Funds Requested Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $ (Fund Name: ) (Fund Number: ) Amount Budgeted $ Unanticipated Revenue $ (Budget Unit Number: ) (Source: ) (Fund Name: ) (Rev.Code: ) (Fund Number. ) Other Transfer(s) $ 1. Complete worksheet below 2. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds $ Annualized cost$ if also planned for next year. Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office Board Action Required for B-Transfer? Yes No Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET Transfer Request: AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer S (No Cents)From To Transfer$ (No Cents)From To Transfer$ (No Cents)From To Transfer S (No Cents)From . To SUMMARY: James R. Black, General Plan Amendment from Orchard&Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels). The'property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. APN 039- 240-075 (DB) (File #GPA/RZ 99-04) ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following action: I. Deny General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04, for James R. Black, based upon the following inconsistencies with the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan and the Agricultural Element of the General Plan: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintains parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. This proposal would allow for the creation of 3-acre parcels, which would not maintain the current parcel size. The piecemeal conversion of agricultural land into smaller parcels will not promote long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard&Field Crops. Policy 1.3: Designates areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. This proposal is located outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham,.and therefore should be protected from development for the continuation of agricultural land uses. Alternative areas that are not designated for agricultural land uses are located within the more intensely developed portions of Durham and are available for residential development. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable, and states that further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. This proposal allows for the creation of 3-acre parcels. This parcel size would allow for the further subdivision of the existing property, and is less than the existing zoning designation, which is 10-acres. Conversion of this area from Orchard& Field Crops to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation places adjacent Orchard&Field Crops land at risk of similar conversion and subdivision. Policy 1.9: Applies the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton- Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. This proposal allows for the creation of 3-acre parcels. This arcel ize would allow for the further subdivision of the existing property, and is less than the existing zoning designation and the minimum on the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Plan map, which is 10-acres. Durham Dayton-Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. This proposal would allow for the creation of 3-acre parcels, which would allow for the development of two additional building sites. The 3-acre parcel size proposed for the existing 9.91-acre parcel would not benefit the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area, because a 9.91-acre parcel zoned for commercial agricultural uses is more economically viable for agricultural purposes than three, 3+ acre parcels zoned for agricultural/residential purposes. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. This property is classified by Butte County Soils Maps as containing Vina loam soils. This soil type is recognized as one of the more productive soils within Butte County. The creation of three, 3+ acre parcels and associated residential building sites would compromise the productivity of this agricultural land and soil, and would contribute to the encroachment of urban-type uses. TABLE OF CONTENTS Agenda Item Form Board Agenda Report PAGE Attachment A: General Plan and Zoning Map 1 Attachment B: April 27, 2000, Planning Commission Agenda Report/Minutes 2 Attachment C:,Initial Study 13 Attachment D: Exhibit Map f' - • • BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA REPORT -JULY 11, 2000 Applicants: James R. Black Location: The project is located at the southeast corner of Burdick File#: GPA/RZ 99-04 Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. Request: General Plan Amendment from Orchard & Field Crops Parcel Size: 9.91-acres General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Zone date: 02/25/92 Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels) Supervisor District: 3 to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels) Attachments: G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops A. General Plan and Zoning Map Zoning: A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre B. April 27, 2000 Planning Commission parcels) Agenda Report/Minutes C. Initial Study APN: 039-240-075 D. Exhibit Map Project Planner: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Commission, on a 4-0 vote, recommends denial of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone because of inconsistencies with the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan and the Agricultural Element of the General Plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE CHARACTERISTICS: This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from an Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. This property is developed,with a single family dwelling, detached garage, shop, septic system, one domestic well and one agricultural well. This property was previously planted with almond trees, but ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ JULY 11,2000 ■ PAGE 1 ■ these trees have since been removed. The site's soil consists of the Vina loam series. The site is level and contains no defined water courses. Access to any future parcels proposed is provided by Burdick Road. Turner Lane provides access to the existing parcel. SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission reviewed the agenda report, and testimony was received from the applicant's representative, the Butte County Farm Bureau, and a member of the public. The Planning Commission indicated that a 5-acre parcel size.was the preferred size for this area, and found the proposed 3-acre parcel size inconsistent with the policies provided from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan. Based upon the Planning Commission's determination regarding these policies, staff has prepared detailed findings supporting the inconsistency of the project with the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan. Please refer to Planning Commission Agenda Report, pages 3 and 4 for further background and analysis. Staffs analysias provided within the Planning Commission Agenda Repor�indicates that approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone could result in additional General Plan Amendments within the 97-acre area occupied by the A-10 zone, within which this project is located. Additional General Plan Amendments could result in the loss of greater amounts of Orchard &Field Crops land in this area. Staff also provided information to the Planning Commission indicating that proximate land is available for growth in the Durham area, without the unnecessary conversion of Orchard & Field Crops land. This information is reflected in the findings of inconsistency attached to this staff report. RECOMMENDATION: ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following action: I. Deny General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04, for James R. Black, based upon the following inconsistencies with the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan and the Agricultural Element of the General Plan: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintains parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. This proposal would allow for the creation of 3-acre parcels, which would not maintain the current parcel size. The piecemeal conversion of agricultural land into smaller parcels will not promote long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard&Field Crops. ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ JULY 11,2000 ■PAGE 2 ■ Policy 1.3: Designates areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. This proposal is located outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham, and therefore should be protected from development for the continuation of agricultural land uses. Alternative areas that are not designated for agricultural land uses are located within the more intensely developed portions of Durham and are available for residential development. Policy 1.6: Limits the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be. the minimum lot size allowable, and states that further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. This proposal allows for the creation of 3-acre parcels. This parcel size would allow for the further subdivision of the existing property, and is less than the existing zoning designation, which is 10-acres. Conversion of this area from Orchard&Field Crops to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation places adjacent Orchard & Field Crops land at risk of similar conversion and subdivision. Policy 1.9: Applies the policies of.the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton- Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. States that minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. This proposal allows for the creation of 3-acre parcels. This parcel size would allow for the further subdivision of the existing property, and is less than the existing zoning designation and the minimum on the Durham- Dayton-Nelson Plan map, which is 10-acres. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2: Supports the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. This proposal would allow for the creation of 3-acre parcels, which would allow for the development of two additional building sites. The 3-acre parcel size proposed for the existing 9.91-acre parcel would not benefit the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area, because a 9.91-acre parcel. zoned for ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ JULY 11,2000 ■ PAGE 3 ■ commercial agricultural uses is more economically viable for agricultural purposes than three, 3+ acre parcels zoned for agricultural/residential purposes. Goal VI. Policy 2: Protects agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. This property is classified by Butte County Soils Maps as containing Vina'loam soils. This soil type is recognized as one of the more productive soils within Butte County. The creation of three, 3+ acre parcels and associated residential building sites would compromise the productivity of this agricultural land and soil, and would contribute to the encroachment of urban-type uses. K:\PROJECTS\GPA\BLACK.GPA\BOSRPT.WPD ■ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ JULY 11,2000 ■ PAGE 4 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT -APRIL 27, 2000 Applicants: James R. Black Project Planner: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner File #: GPA/RZ 99-04 Location: The project is located at the Request: General Plan Amendment southeast corner of Burdick from Orchard &Field Crops Road and Turner Lane in the General Plan designation to Durham area. an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Parcel Size: 9.91-acres Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre Zone date: 02/25/92 parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels) Supervisor District: 4 G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops Attachments: Zoning: A-10(Agricultural, 10-acre A. Conditional Zoning parcels) B. General Plan and Zoning Map C. Vicinity Map APN: 039-240-075 D. Initial Study E. Exhibit Map STAFF COMMENT: This property is located within the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area, adopted in 1992. This plan establishes area-wide land use policies that designates the entire area as an "Urban Reserve" to promote consideration of various elements of the County's policies,plans and standards and to ensure proper development of the area. Additionally, Butte County has specific land use policies contained within the Agricultural Element of the General Plan regarding development of agricultural land designated as Orchard and Field Crops. The applicability of these policies to.the subject General Plan Amendment and Rezone is subject to policy interpretation of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Depending upon this determination, the project may or may not conform to General Plan policy. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must determine if the General Plan Amendment,as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan and find that the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (a). ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27,2000 ■ PAGE 1 ■ Staff is recommending that this project be continued to allow for policy discussion prior to any action. An alternative recommendation has been provided if it is the Planning Commission's desire to make findings to approve the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/CHARACTERISTICS: This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from an Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. This property'is developed with a single family dwelling,detached garage, shop, septic system, one domestic well and one agricultural well. This property was previously planted with almond trees, but they have been removed. The site's soil consists of the.Vina loam series. The site is level and contains no defined water courses. Access to any future parcels proposed is provided by Burdick Road. Turner Lane provides access to the existing parcel. Future residential development will be provided with water service from the Durham Irrigation District. ANALYSIS: Project Background: This property was the subject of an earlier application, GPA/RZ 96-06, which proposed a General Plan Amendment from the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to Agricultural Residential and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels) to SR-1 (Suburban Residential, 1-acre parcels). This proposal was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1998, due to inconsistencies with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan. The Planning Commission's denial recommendation included an alternative to consider a rezone to A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre parcels), instead of SR-1, which would not require a General Plan Amendment, since the 5-acre parcel size is conditionally consistent with the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation. The proposed 5-acre parcel size would allow for the creation of one additional parcel. On March 10, 1998, the Board of Supervisors denied the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone. The Board did not act on the request to consider a rezone to A-5. The current application includes a General Plan Amendment to Agricultural Residential, since the 3-acre parcel size proposed is not consistent with the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that this project proposes 3-acre parcels and the project previously denied by the Board of Supervisors proposed 1-acre parcels. Policy Discussion The zoning within and immediately surrounding the Community of Durham can be characterized as residential and agricultural, which transitions from a relatively dense town center, to 1-acre residential, 5-acre agricultural, 10-acre agricultural and finally 20-acre agricultural zoning. The 20- acre zoning is prominent to the west where it eventually transitions into 40-acre zoning. There is a large amount of A-5 zoning adjacent to. Durham to the east. Durham is a community that is ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27,2000 8 PAGE 2 ■ F surrounded by large tracts of productive agricultural land. It is this surrounding agricultural land, which includes the subject property, that is afforded protection under the Agricultural Element. The General Plan's designations in this area likewise transitions from low and medium density residential, within the town center of Durham, to Agricultural Residential, to Orchard and Field Crops. The General Plan identifies varying General Plan designations within one-quarter mile to approximately 1 mile away from the Durham town center. Beyond one-quarter to one-mile the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation prevails. This property is situated adjacent to a zoning district boundary which separates the A-20 zone to the west from the A-10 zone within which the project resides. Although many recent subdivisions have occurred within the A-R General Plan designation, which surrounds Durham, this project resides within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that a General Plan Amendment was approved to allow for 1-acre parcels north of this site. However, this amendment was approved prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element in 1995. Approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone could result in subsequent amendments of the General Plan in this area. This property occupies approximately 10-acres of the A-10 zone. The A-10 zone occupies approximately 97 acres of the outlying area. If a similar Rezone and General Plan Amendment is approved in this 97-acre area,the number of parcels allowed could increase from approximately 9 to 32. This may further compromise the protection of the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation in this area. There is proximate vacant land that is zoned SR-1, which would allow for additional residential growth in the Durham area without changing the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation, and thereby impacting prime agricultural land. Specifically, a Tentative .Subdivision Map was approved for Rick Peterson on property east of and adjacent to this project for the creation of 43, 1- acre lots in August of 1993. This map has not been recorded at this time. This property is located within the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and is zoned for 1-acre parcels. Additionally, approximately 50 more acres could be available between undeveloped SR-1 zoned property east of and adjacent to the Midway Highway and west of and adjacent to Durham-Dayton Highway. Together, these areas would allow for the creation of 100 parcels under existing zoning. The following goals and policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan may be inconsistent with this proposal,based upon the location of this property within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation and the additional information as discussed above: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture: ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COiMMISSION 0 AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27, 2000 ■ PAGE 3 0 Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as. Orchard and Field Crops on the General P1an'Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Program 2.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. Guidelines, as part of the General Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. Should the General Plan Amendment and Rezone be determined consistent with these policies,a 300 foot agricultural buffer is recommended along the site's south and west property lines,in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. Determining that the General Plan Amendment is Within the Public Interest California Government Code Section 65358 indicates that amendments to the General Plan can be approved by the legislative body when they are found to be in the public interest. In order to approve a General Plan amendment, the Planning Commission must recommend to the Board of Supervisors that this action is in the public interest. Policy Decision Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the relevant policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, and make preliminary findings regarding the policies. If it is determined that the project either conforms or does not conform to these policies, it may be beneficial to continue the project to allow. staff time to write formal findings for the Planning ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA REPORT April 27, 2000 ■ PAGE 4 0 Commission's final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. An alternative recommendation is offered if the Planning Commission wishes to adopt findings at this hearing. RECOMMENDATION: ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following two actions: I. Continue GPA/RZ 99-04, and consider the applicability of the following policies from the General Plan Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, and additionally consider California Government Code Section 65358 to find the General Plan Amendment in the public*interest,prior to the Planning Commission's final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors: . Agricultural Element Goal l: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map,to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres.. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply.the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Durham Davton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. 0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27, 2000 ■ PAGE 5 0 QB: (Alternative Recommendation) I. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act identifying potentially significant environmental effects that the project may have. The design of the project and mitigations added to the project as shown in Exhibit"A" Condition 1, will mitigate such effects to a level of insignificance. B. The Board of Supervisors independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures prior to making its decision on the project, and hereby finds that a Negative Declaration, with mitigation measures, adequately represents impacts associated with this project and reflects the independent judgement of Butte County. II. The design of the proposed project improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a"de minimus"exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) and 14 CCR 753.5. is not recommended. III. Find the General Plan Amendment in the public interest in accordance with California Government Code Section 65358 and provide findings of approval regarding the following Policies from the Agricultural.Element and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum.lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27, 2000 ■ PAGE 6 ■ sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Durham Davton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. AND: IV. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan amendment and adopt a Resolution approving the Zoning change on GPA/RZ 99-04,subject to the condition listed in Exhibit"A" and the following additional findings: A. Access to the property is provided by Burdick Road, a County road capable of accommodating the additional traffic allowed by the rezone if the land is subdivided. B. Condition #1 requires that future land divisions include a 300 foot agricultural setback in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. C. The Environmental Health Department indicates that soil conditions are capable of supporting on-site sewage disposal. D. The property is located in proximity to other similar-sized residential developments to the north and east. E. Future development will be required to comply with Public Resources Code 4290 regarding the provision of water availability in amounts adequate for fire protection, internal sprinklers for the protection of structures and other fire safety standards. F. Commercial services and schools are available within reasonable distance from the property. EXHIBIT A Condition #1 (Mitigation Measure): In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. 0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION■ AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27, 2000 ■ PAGE 7 0 Vicinity Map Project Location ml CLDurhem�DaY� f Kaflua I arka Durham gurd Durham-Per .-Harnlln 6n Y )IM S CL > ID :a 0 1Y -n =L J GPAIRZ 99-04 APN 039-240-075 RL :■ice► , �1L1�-0pUl: 11111/ �:ftp�I�►\ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DfVISION LI Applicant: James R. Black MA 1 M 0 U. M. 24 Mf11 • • 21 Existing Zone: 1 (Agricultural, 10 acre minimum) Supervii• Request: General Plan Arnerndment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential and'a Rezone District#4 • 10 to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, • iAssessor039-240-075 •• 1. ��Ol;�'•' �af• • ' nCh�� taffy-,i ', e .S F7\pyza�Y/.ren+.\�'. �`',"'-y,, �'� r, y � r ;•: p r x�..�... 4r4 'b �`3:.,AR s�n'`�E T� s � 'ta rte.•. �;;, c�'r:- :-rbc _ic•�'.;•X�tyaal';�cte s. a .;'p no- '- w t ' div i�s'Y a�•,y F'l ,;`+`. `C:' `i•� .� �`;,�;,{!' ��\`Y S` ,{ \ O $`:Y •fyr. S}Oi{ � yf` /,�,\ •4x A-yv'•+ 1�1 � ,.S .' , fv f+rl -ej S'`t,3<i.�� /sCt�,��;y�>r ;,�:•.r. Project Location a > sa?3f s? ?3f33si38EEsf zsLw, '�`��`•'�i�•Y{� h - '` °.?r' .,/\moi - '� 't�^o �� 1 I �. ��y•�. �� /�''�-',. o�? �'r'r 'n `�'Z' lf'.•�,,,�yst v sono q `,•r. 3;' ,c;.v fR:�t�.f•.>`Y o. 2;(' "A• v{'o-. "4` Yl> a' 3•- ,2�;CY yr 2k\'' y. �?;;r.•;vu�'ty �N` � ;, y,\�•Z,�,r`` ' �.<uls�•:`'"• 3��$•:3 .f ti I :�Ss^.i•.G`'>� 5r h g''�>.�f's ti ,,, ,,¢e`-'ihl' 1' i�G1x :� \< 'r ink•{' '' F �'Rakt?FSs/#'s,wi "r�z ,ao i, �F•"9,`���r,, .?��'�'`C ,i�`~Y..., 1 "` aa< ...eros:" '�'' �•-^ "11WI SSR 1 r:�rrV .M b {a n ':r�::'o,{ � 2:. b �'o i'j:3• i�'.J qti DURHAM :'"� ,.• �k y. '.9 SX r��oo �; •? :k <� •'};r',r��+'k^ tis'•�T•/fr���A,r •_. �w°'0` ;�>.; c^ off; a,; .,�s '..•., rr� � ".c 1 i �4 �4�)t✓r• �c� ,,'�r.XO>ti,.s`,•FC'� <�;`is.�. :i>F wQ ' - xyv:_'4.'- �a'say34E iJ2r:`� :r �• ., '. s 4• r' 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Feet • BUTTE COUNTY BOARD of SUPERVISORS a Applicant: James R.Black Owner: Same Hearing Date: July 11,2000 @ 10:45 a.m. Existing Zone: A-10(Agricultural, 10 acre minimum) N Supervisorial Request: General Plan Amemdment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone District#4 from A l0 to SR-3(Suburban Residential,3 acre minimum). Assessor parcel No: 039-240-075 Fue: 99-04 0 fie 9LO-OVZ-6£0 Ndd IrO-66 Z?J/VdJ t LL _ f ? E m tl 1 ID $ a z Q) o _ �wg�no. .1 weymo a liL Uope307 PG[oJd r deVq A4!UIDI - ■ ■ii,,,MUM1111111'� 'M ��..� � , 1.� �l�,Cjt�i►l�• 1 ill1%�IIIII± -- BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Applicant: James R.Black Owner: Same i 1 . • 111 i • 1 �� -77 Existing Zone: 1 (Agricultural, 1 acre minimum) Supervisorial. Request: General Plan Amerndment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone I I > ; H Xtx Y BURDICK -- '—'-----'— ROAD R ....w .............. a ...............N.B9'H..78�[...._........... .. .............06L..7�•...1.........•x �•'' t a I I �L.� LDKDrY M, 1 SR-I I IDL. CYITUPAL PLSIOENTIAL I�� I urlxR,NW[ u rmLu $ I W JET 4�'x,l INft„I Nr,wP °i I.......;....,,............ s I _. I L,Drlxe P�. 1 2 3 ZI a P_D J A]]AG !.!O AC. 3.27 K u g - Puellt I I 'j t i ' wGRI LT RAL RES HT • nuWso,Dy P[Mxrxl K e-- Yr— Ux6 \ — I t2o I�...�.. ,.P. �I.NrRN.SAK A Y.L Kt L OPDHAP IIEID CROP � ���•��������................ FI _......_.._...... COMMERCIAL i � - ..................... 1__. I .............._._. .................. H DAYTON x10MWAY � I ....q P...••.. Do M I~ s PROPERTY LOCATION w•""' �� I2 I :� � R-I• I�: SR-I c51 tACPICYLTUMAL A251DENTIAL RDICK NLT� BUTy,.At : ll 3 Y ,AMEBM ERLA OPCMAPO:ND,INcIo cxoF B20TURNERLANE SITE PLAN OYRNAALG 954,5 SCALE I•"6d ENGINEER: ROUE,ANDERS ROLLS 115YELLDV/STWNE ORNE cIgCO.G 9m3 BRUCE A MASK R.C.E.]]]!1 ASSFSSOR'B PARCEL NUMBER:7 2475 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE GENERAL PLAN DESKiIU710N: CURREM•ORLNARD AND FIELD CROP PRRRENr. ACIIAADnIRALRE CROP AL LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED zoN : CIRREMT-A-10 "R.M.TURNER'S FIRST SUBDIVISION" 'i PRoPo=-SR'S RECORDED IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS,AT PAGE 46, IN SECTION 25,T.21N.,RAE.,M.D.B.&M. NOTES: BUTTE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA 1. BEARINGS Arra 1lsrANLEs sxoWm FOR TM9 EKTEWOR PROPERTYOWN ME AS�ON THA7 RECORD VICINITY MAP RECORDED W BOOK 10OFYAP$AT PAM GE9E510.1 MD 55 FOR �R�� JAMES R.BLACK BCALC 1••A00• 2. PROPOSED LOT MEAD 8110 N ARE GROES LAT AREAS ANO INCLUDE AN DOSMNO 15.6 N'IOE ST W TURNER LAME ANDA 10 WIDEST ALONO BURDICK RCAO TO BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO TME CtXl T OF PAR BUTTE W FEE SIMPLE ROLLS ANDERSON O RCNJS S. EKGTINO GROUND CONTOURS SMO"ARE INTERPOLATED FROM GROUND •X•X•t'^�^i1-®w,�•NmY,I CONTOURS AS SMITNN ON TME USGS OUAORANGLP YAP FOR CMKO.BUTTE COUNTY.CALLFORNIA JUNE,1999 99117 SHEET 1 OF 1 utte ount LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION : DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE •• OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 t•` TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 December 1, 2000 James R. Black 9243 Turner.Lane Dunham, CA 95938 Re: Rezone, AP 039-240-075, GPA/RZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors set public hearing for December 19, 2000; to consider your application for a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres)at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham. The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Daniel Breedon at this Office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant /Ir 6 ' Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: James R. Black 2. Address: 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 Phone: 530-342-2169 3. Name of Proposal: Black (GPA/RZ 99-04) 4. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone 5. Project Description: General'Plan Amendment from Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. 6. Location of project: The project is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. 7. Setting: This property is developed with a single family dwelling, detached garage, shop, septic system and one domestic well and one agricultural well. This property has previously been planted with almond trees, which have since been removed. Sol] consists of the Vina loam series. The property is level and contains no defined water courses. Access to the proposed parcels is by Burdick Road. Turner Lane provides access to the existing parcel. Future residential development will be provided with water service from the Durham Irrigation District. Note: The project specific environmental issues that may result from a land division allowed under this proposal would be completely addressed when an application is made for a subdivision. This Initial Study addresses the environmental impacts directly related to a change in the zoning designation and General Plan designation. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 039-240-075 7. Date Checklist Submitted: April 3, 2000 8. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 1 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 H. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed 'to by the project proponent. . A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ETR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions'or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner Date V,,� , Zda Reviewed by: ndy Wilson, Principal Planner Date III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 2 r Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics K Agriculture Resources ❑ Au-Quality ❑ Biological resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils 0 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources 0 Noise ❑ Population VHousing 0 Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Signif Cance EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1 A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are P q P P adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer.Is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e. . , the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ 3 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With . Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 4 • • Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 .Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X Re,Wonse: This project will not affect a scenic vista nor have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is not located along a State or County designated scenic highway. The two additional building sites that could be built as a result of this project, if the land is subdivided, will most likely have night lighting for safety and security reasons. However, lighting will not cause a significant impact because of the limited number of additional dwellings that can be placed on the site, and the relatively low 3-acre density of development. Street lights are not required as a part of this project. Mitigation: None required. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland . Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? X b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 5 I 0 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? �t c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? X Response: This property is designated as Orchard and Field Crops by the County General Plan. The soil is classified as Vina loam by U.S. Department of Agriculture mapping of soils in Butte County. The soil series and General Plan indicates that this property is valuable for agricultural uses. The property was at one time planted in almond trees but is now vacant, with the exception of a single family dwelling. The property is not currently used for any agriculturally related use. There is no Williamson Act contract affecting this property. Butte county has specific land use policies contained within the Agricultural Element of the General Plan regarding development of agricultural land designated as Orchard and Field Crops. This property is also located within the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area, adopted in 1992. This plan establishes area-wide land use policies that designates the entire area as an "Urban Reserve" to promote consideration of various elements of the County's policies, plans and standards and to ensure proper development of the area. The applicability of these policies to the subject General Plan Amendment and Rezone is subject to interpretation of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Depending upon this determination, the project may or may not have an impact on agricultural resources in the County. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must also determine if the General Plan Amendment, as proposed, is in the public interest, in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (a). Policy Discussion The zoning within and immediately surrounding the Community of Durham can be characterized as residential and agricultural, which transitions from a relatively dense town center, to 1-acre residential, 5-acre agricultural, 10-acre agricultural and finally 20-acre agricultural zoning. The 20-acre zoning is prominent to the west where it eventually transitions into 40-acre zoning. There is a large amount of A-5 zoning adjacent to Durham ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 6 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact - Incorporated Impact Impact to the east. Durham is a community that is surrounded by large tracts of productive agricultural land. It is this surrounding agricultural land, which includes the subject property, that is afforded protection under the Agricultural Element. The General Plan's designations in this area likewise transitions from low and medium density residential within the town center of Durham, to Agricultural Residential, to Orchard and Field Crops. The General Plan identifies varying General.Plan designations within one-quarter mile to approximately 'I mile away from the.Durham town center. Beyond one-quarter to one- mile the Orchard and Field Crops General :Plan designation prevails. This property is situated adjacent to a zoning district boundary which separates the A-20 zone to the west from the A-10 zone within which the project resides. Although many recent subdivisions have occurred within the A-R General Plan designation, which surrounds Durham, this project resides within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that a General Plan Amendment was approved to allow for 1-acre parcels north of this site. However, this amendment was approved prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element in 1995. Approval of this General Plan Amendment and rezone could result in subsequent amendments of the general plan in this area. This property occupies approximately 10-acres of the A-10 zone. The A-10 zone occupies approximately 97 acres of the outlying area. If a similar Rezone and General Plan Amendment is approved in this 97 acre area, the number of parcels allowed could increase-from approximately 9 to 32. This would further compromise the protection of the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation in this area. There is proximate vacant land that is zoned SR-1, which would allow for additional residential growth in the Durham area without changing the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation, and thereby impacting prime agricultural land. Specifically ,a 50-acre parcel is adjacent to the town center area zoned for one-acre parcels. Additionally, approximately 50 more acres are available between undeveloped SR-1 zoned property east of and adjacent to the Midway Highway and west of and adjacent to Durham-Dayton Highway. Together, these areas would allow for the creation of 100 parcels under existing zoning. Based upon the location of this property within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation and the additional information as discussed above, the following goals and policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan may be inconsistent with this proposal: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 7 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Agricultural Element Goal l: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area:Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Program 2.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed fof residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. Guidelines, as part of the General Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 8 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Should the General Plan Amendment and Rezone be determined as consistent with these policies, a 300 foot agricultural buffer is recommended along the site's south and west property lines, in accordance with Program 2.2. It should be noted that the existing residence will fall within this buffer. This is an existing condition, which cannot be corrected. Mitigation Measure #1: In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. 3. AER QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 1t d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 1t e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 9 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a substantial number of people? X Response: a. , d. Vehicle traffic generated by the 2 new dwelling units allowed under this proposal will result in an incremental impact on air quality created by the increased traffic generated and the use of wood burning devices. The Butte County Air Quality Management District indicates that if access to future parcels is on unpaved roads, dust may become a nuisance to nearby residents. The District recommends that control measures be incorporated that will reduce dust emissions from unpaved roads, such as paving and the use of surface treatments with penetration chemicals. Construction impacts, such as grading and operation of construction vehicles, will create a temporary increase in dustfall within the immediate vicinity of the project site.. This is a temporary impact which can mitigated below a level of significance. Future proposals to develop the land to the extent permitted by the will require additional environmental review to assess the potential impacts from any proposed roads and development associated with the subdivision. Appropriate air quality control measures will be incorporated at that time. Future proposals must also consider the standards as set forth by both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. These standards have been established to protect human health and welfare. Counties are designated in attainment if the standards are met and in nonattainment if they are not met. Butte County, and all Northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts, have been designated as being "moderate" nonattainment areas for the State standards for ozone and fine particulate matter defined as smaller than 10 microns (Particulate Matter 10, or "PM1011). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal air quality standards which are less stringent than the State of California standards. e. This proposed change in residential density will not create significant objectionable odors, smoke or fumes beyond what is customary and expected from residential uses at rural densities. Mitigation: None required. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 10 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California DeP artment of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? �t b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1t c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? x d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? x e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy ordinance. �t ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 11 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Ilan. Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Response: It is anticipated that the rezoned land will be divided and some clearing will take place to accommodate site development and non-native landscaping may be introduced. Any future proposal to divide the land to the extent permitted will require additional environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the potential impacts of any proposed subdivision of the site. A drainage plan should be developed as a part of this review to address how run-off related to additional development will be retained on-site and prohibited from entering.Mud Creek. Because the General Plan Amendment and change in zoning to SR-3 in and of itself will not cause any environmental impacts, no mitigations are recommend for project approval. It is not recommended that Fish and Game Filing fees be required, and a Deminimus impact finding shall be made with respect to the project's impact on fish and wildlife. This finding may not be applicable to future land division proposals if significant impacts to fish and wildlife resources are indicated. Mitigation: None required. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in `15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 12 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Response: According to Butte County constraints mapping, the project site is located in an area considered to have a high archeological sensitivity. Often such sites are found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above bodies of water. This mapping is general in nature and basis the probability of archeological significance on the physical characteristics and history of different areas of the County. Classification of this property as having a high sensitivity for archeological resources does not in itself indicate the presence of archaeological resources. The proposed Parcel Map may result in a land division that would allow two additional home sites, construction of which may have an impact on archaeological sites. Due to the site's classification within the High archeological sensitivity area, mitigation should be included to protect archeological resources. Under normal procedures a pedestrian level survey is required for projects within these areas. However, development of this site cannot be initiated until a proposal for land division is submitted for review. Upon receiving a land division proposal, staff will require an archaeological survey. Mitigation: None required. G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the pr•ojecl: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: �t 1) Rupture of a known earth- quake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other sub- stantial evidence of a know fault? Refer to :Division of Mines and ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 13 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Geology Special Publication 42. X 2) Strong seismic ground. Shaking? X 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4) Landslides? 1t b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating sub- stantial risks to life or property? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? X Response: a.1. The Seismic Safety Element indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The closest mapped Fault-Rupture Zone is the ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 14 Proiect:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact ' Incorporated Impact Impact Cleveland Hills Fault line which is located approximately 15 miles to the southeast. No impacts are anticipated as a result of fault rupture and no seismic related requirements are necessary. a.2. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and on the local geologic soils and conditions. At present, there is insufficient data to predict accurately the expected ground motions at various locations in Butte County. a.3. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. No impact is anticipated. a.4. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. No Impact is anticipated. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map also indicates that the property is located within an area of heavy groundwater withdrawal and is a potential subsidence area. Although so designated, this designation is general in nature, and is applicable to virtually all of the Central Valley area of Butte County. Although subsidence is a problem in all of the Central Valley in California due to groundwater withdrawals for irrigation, there has not been any documented incidents that indicates a specific problem at this location. No Impact is anticipated. b. The Erosion Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no erosion potential at this site. No impact is anticipated. C. No impact is anticipated from instability,-landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil designation. No impact is anticipated. e. The Butte County Environmental Health Department indicates that the project is located in an area where soils are adequate for on-site sewage disposal. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 15 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the routine transport use, or disposal of hazardous-materials? X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions-involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? X d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 16 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact plan? 1t h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? �t Response: a. - g. The project will not interfere with any airport or emergency response plan nor is 9 located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. h. The proposed rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite. These new homesite represent an incremental increase in the need for fire protection services. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry indicates that this individual General Plan Amendment and Rezone has no impact on the Fire Department, but the cumulative affect of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone and higher density results in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. Future land divisions permitted by the General Plan Amendment.and Rezone will require additional environmental review which may result in mitigation measures/conditions requiring fire sprinkler systems, water availability requirements and the application of fire safety standards found in Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations). Mitigation: None required. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? K b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 17 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? K c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? K d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? )t e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1t f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? _ X h) :Place within a ]00-year flood hazard ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 18 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1t I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding , as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? �t J) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?. Xt Response: a. - f. Future proposals to develop the land to the 3-acre parcel size permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will require additional project-specific environmental review to assess the potential impacts to water quality, drainage and groundwater withdrawal. It is not anticipated that development of the 3-acre parcels proposed will have an impact on water flows off-site. The 3-acre parcels proposed are large enough to accommodate retention of run-off generated by development of single family dwellings. b. Water supply for the 3 additional parcels permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone would be provided by the Durham .Irrigation District. No impact is anticipated. g. - I. The property is shown to be outside the area of the 500-year flood according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel #06007C0520C, dated June 8, 1999. No impact shall be incurred with respect to flooding. J. The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact shall be incurred with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation: None required. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project? a) Physically divide an established ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 19 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact community? �t b) Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? x c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? K Response: a. The project will not physically divide an established community. No impact shall be incurred. b. This project may conflict with polices of the Agriculture Element of the Butte County General Plan. These policies were adopted by Butte County in order to prevent the loss of agricultural land within the County. Loss of agricultural land to development is considered an environmental impact and is discussed under Initial Study Checklist Item 2, Agricultural Resources. C. The proposal will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 20 Project:Black General flan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact or the state? X b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? X Response: a. - b. The property is not known to contain any important mineral resources of value to the region. No impact shall be incurred. Mitigation: None required. 11. NOISE. Would the project r•e,sult in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 1t b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels: 1t c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 21 • • Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1t Response: a. - d. The project site is located in an area of rural residential uses away from customary sources of significant noise. Tlvs General Plan Amendment and Rezone project will not cause an increase in noise or expose people to severe noise levels. A subsequent land division as a result of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone will result in an increase in noise created on the project site and on the adjacent parcels. Construction noise will be the first new source added to the site that could influence nearby residents. Sources could include heavy equipment, power saws and hammering and can be significant, especially during noise sensitive hours. Construction activities would temporarily generate high noise levels on and adjacent to the project site intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise, especially grading equipment, will not have a significant impact on nearby residents because the noise will be intermittent and short- term in nature. Mitigation: None Required. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Rr•ojecl: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 22 • Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Response: y a. Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 1990 was 195,000, while the actual census population was 182,000. The estimated population for January 1, 1998 was 201,596. This project will have the potential to add an estimated 6 people to Butte County (2 dwelling units x 2.,6 persons/dwelling unit). It is impossible to speculate when the land will be subdivided or when these parcels will become occupied. However, based on similar development, build-out may be spread out over several years, and some parcels may be left vacant for an indefinite period of time. In either case this is not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of about 2% per year. b. - c. The project will not displace individuals or housing. If the land is subdivided additional housing could be developed. No impact shall be incurred. Mitigation: None required. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 23 • Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? K b) Fire protection? X c) Police Protection? X d) Schools? 1t e) Parks? 1t f) Other public services? K Response: a. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow for two additional homesite. Although this presents an incremental contribution to the impact on area services, it is not considered significant enough to warrant specific mitigation. b. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite. These new homesite represent an incremental increase in the need for fire protection services. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry indicates that this individual General Plan Amendment and Rezone has no impact on the Fire Department, but the cumulative affect of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone and higher density results in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. Future land divisions permitted by the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will require additional environmental review which may result in mitigation measures/conditions requiring fire sprinkler systems, water availability requirements and the application of fire safety standards found in Public Resources Code 4290 (Fire Safe Regulations). C. The cumulative impacts of increased development in rural areas impacts the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Sheriffs facilities will be collected at the time of building permit issuance to offset the cost of proving sheriff services to the new dwelling units on the project site. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 24 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite, which represents an incremental increase in the demand for school services in the area. New development is subject to payment of school fees that are collected prior to issuance of building permits. This will be a condition of future subdivisions. e. - f. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may result in land divisions that would allow two additional homesite in addition to the one existing building site. This may represent an incremental increase in the demand for maintenance of roads and other public facilities in the area as well as area parks. This is not considered significant due to the small number of potential additional residents. Mitigation: None required. 14. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Response: a- b. The project will allow for the eventual improvement of two new building sites in addition to the one existing building site. The impact on area recreation facilities will be assessed upon review of a subsequent subdivision proposal. However, due to the limited extent of development, no impact is anticipated. Mitigation: None required. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 25 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? X b) Exceed, either individually or cumula- tively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 3t f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? K g) Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Wit^ ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 26 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: a - g. The property is served by Burdick Road, a minor county road. Burdick Road connects to the Durham-Dayton Highway, east of McAnarlin Avenue, approximately 2,000 feet east of the project site. According to the Butte County Master Environmental Assessment, 3,650 daily trips occurred on this section of Durham- Dayton Highway. The Assessment indicates that Durham-Dayton Highway provides for a Level of Service (LOS) of "B." An LOS of"B" indicates an unrestricted flow of traffic. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone may contribute additional traffic related impacts. However, it is not anticipated that the two additional building sites allowed by subdivision of this site will generate any significant traffic impact. A specific environmental review shall be conducted regarding the improvements necessary to private and public area roads upon review of any future land division. However, no impact is anticipated. Mitigation: None required. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 1t b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? K c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 27 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? X 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Response: a. - g. The General Plan Amendment and Rezone proposal will provide for the potential of additional development. No impact in these areas shall be incurred as a result of General Plan Amendment and Rezone approval. A project specific environmental review will be necessary when a land division is submitted for review. Additional mitigations may be necessary at that time to address any significant impacts to these areas. 17. 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 species, cause a fish or wildlife ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 28 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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 hist or prehistory? �t b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively consider- able" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Response: a. and d. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone will not degrade'the environment, or have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. b. The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 29 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1: In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 30 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone 2. Proposed Density of Development: 3-acre 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: 2 additional single family dwellings 4. Access and Nearest Public Road: Access is provided by Burdick Road 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems. 6. Source of Water Supply: Durham Irrigation District 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: The rezone proposes a 3-acre parcel size, which will allow for two additional dwellings. B. Environmental Setting I. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Level valley b. Slopes: None C. Elevation: 153 to 154 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: None. 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Vina Loam b. Limiting Factors: None. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land. a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: None C. Landslide Potential: None d. Fire Hazard: None. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: None. b. Ground Water: Abundant valley aquifers. C. Drainage Characteristics: Northerly sheet flow. d. Annual Rainfall (normal)-24-inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: None. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Good. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Fallow agricultural land/orchard. 9. Wildlife Habitat: None. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High sensitivity area. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Orchard and Field Crops ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 31 • Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 12. Existing Zoning- FR-20 (Foothill Recreational, 20-acre parcels) 13. Existing Land Use on-site: Single Family Dwelling, shop, septic system, agricultural well and domestic well. 14. Surrounding Area: a. .Land Uses: North: 1-acre residential subdivision. South: 5-acre parcel with single family residence. East: Residential Subdivision and almond orchard. West: Almond orchard. b. Zoning: North: SR-1. South: A-10. East: SR-1 and R-1. West: A-20 c: General. Plan Designation: North: Agricultural Residential. South: Orchard and Field Crops. East: Agricultural Residential and Low Density Residential. West: Orchard and Field Crops. d. Parcel Sizes: North: 1-acre. South: 5-acres. East: One-third acre and 46- acres. West: 28-acres. 15. Character of Site and Area: Undeveloped and developed agricultural land and residences. 16. Nearest Urban Area: City of Chico and Durham 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: None 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: None 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station number 45 approximately one- hald mile away. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only. 20. Schools: Durham Unified School District. ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning:Department. Noise Element :Map IV-1, Scenic Highway Element, Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, '1977. 7. Butte County Planning :Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. c 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 32 Project:Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone 99-04 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning:Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. . 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map- Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville(1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 33 I MEMORANDUM -DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Larry Painter FROM: Lynn SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR EXHIBITS AND PUBLIC NOTICE LIST DATE: April 3, 2000 Project Name: _James R. Black File #: _GPA/REZ 99-04 THIS IS A REQUEST FOR: Number of Meeting Date Copies Black & white reproducible exhibit map PC/Board/DRC 4/27/00 1 Vicinity Map " Planning Manager Exhibit Map Extension of Time Exhibit Map Color Planning Commission Exhibit Map " Color Board of Supervisors Exhibit Map Public Notice List Special Exhibits Backread Ordinance Public Notice List: Special instructions: The above request is due no later than 4/6/00 Special Instructions and/or research: NOTE: Exhibits should be saved until project is through process, which includes appeal period. FILE SAVED AS: J:\WPDOCS\FORMS\REQUEST.MAP July 11, •2000 00-224 Public Hearing - James R. Black - General Plan Amendment and Rezone - consideration of a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) on a 9.91 acre. parcel (item on which a negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts has been recommended) . The property is located at the southeast corner' of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area, and identified as APNs 040-020-166, 167, and 168 (DB [File # UP00-05] ) - action requested - SUBJECT TO THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLAN AND THE AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AS DETAILED IN ITEM I OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 11, 2000, DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR JAMES R. BLACK. (FROM 6-13-00 [3 .09] ) (2292) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10 :55 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10 :59 A.M. MOTION: I MOVE FOR A MOTION OF INTENT TO APPROVE THE GENERAL . PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE AND DIRECT STAFF TO- RETURN ..TO THE BOARD WITH THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE APPROVAL. S M VOTE: 1 Y 2 N 3 N 4 Y 5 Y (Motion Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF- SUPERVISORS - ~+MINUTES, - July 11, 2000'- _ .. - _ __..- _ - .� _ . :.. .:-- - -_- -- - • • - _- .. - '_ _ .�- ___ _ - =:.���'"=-: �����..:�- July 11, 2000 00-224 Public Hearing - James R. Black - General Plan Amendment and Rezone - consideration of a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acreP arcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) on a 9 .91 acre parcel. (item on which a negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts has been recommended). . The property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area, ' and identified as APNs 040-020-166, 1671 and 168 (DB [File # 1UP00-051 ) - action requested - SUBJECT TO THE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLAN AND THE AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AS DETAILED IN ITEM I OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 11, 2000, DENY THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE FOR JAMES R. BLACK. (FROM 6-13-00 [3 . 091 ) (2292) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED: 10 :55 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 10 :59 A.M. MOTION: I MOVE .FOR A MOTION OF INTENT TO .APPROVE. THE GENERAL PLAN .. AMENDMENT AND REZONE AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN TO THE BOARD WITH THE NECESSARY FINDINGS TO SUPPORT THE APPROVAL. S M VOTE: 1 Y 2 N 3 N 4 Y 5 Y ;(Motion Carried) 'BUTTE 'COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - MINUTES - July 11, 2000 11/06/2000 15:30 5308951409 RAR PAGE 02 if LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that certain reaf property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: Lot 1 as shown on that certain map entitled"R.M. Turner's First Subdivision, Colony Co., Dayton Township, Butte County, California", which map was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, on December 12, 1890, in Book 1 of Maps, at page 46. Containing 9.90 acres, more or less. vtof ESS ��..4• �l�a-L Bruce A. A R.C.E 3 381h J sow Registration Expires 06-30.02 No.33331 " VIL c^ NOV 0 6, 2000 eta ml� KPRorEc7avenuea�oesuouw.t¢or a.,.od 11/06/2000 15:30 5308951409 RAR PAGE 01 RAR 115 YELLOWSTONE ORIVE • CH[CO.CALIFOANIA 9S99S-S$1I • TELE9MONE 530-895.1422 • FAX 530.895.1409 ROLLS ANDERSON & ROLLS CIVIL ENGINEERS FAX TRANSMITTAL Plannkvomdon NOV 0 6 2000 ft»lre,caftmi8 Date: To: 4.y ml Company: 6,ns Fax No.: 538- X785 i From: �ASi4/ Fax No. (530) 895-1409 The following facsimile, consists of 2- pages, including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: t.aw.4z._ �s sc�i�ruw .roa •�54r-ice �3ufc.� /osfi¢�rL. 7X�- Yari ,QdsC?v�5 rm . if you do not receive the entire facsimile transmission, please call.us at (530) 895-1422. Thank youl Project Name Project No. 99��7 Y Al'. BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2525 Dominic Drive,Suite 1 LAWRENCE D.ODLE 6 Chico,California 95928 Air Pollution Control Officer Tel: (530)891-2882 W.JAMES WAGONER O�jQA t 9 y$ Fax:(530)891-2878 Asst.Air P011ution Control Officer April 20, 2000 Daniel Breedon, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: General Plan Amendment and Rezone GPA/RZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Breedon: The District has reviewed the proposed mitigated negative declaration for the above project on property located in the Durham area. Based on the information submitted the District has no further comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 891-2882. Sincerely, Gail Williams Air Quality Planner ppR 2 q 2000 pLAN�tz{ File No 3451.1 f:\apps\wpdm\eir\bcgpara9904rtmd.doc utte •• - oun LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION .� _:...•• --. r�-� ;?`�^"*"•:r��'�"` DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 June 23, 2000 James R. Black 9243 Turner Lane i Durham, CA 95938 Re: Rezone, AP 039-240-075, GPA/RZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors set public hearing for July 11, 2000, at 10:45 a.m. to consider your application fora General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres)at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham. The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Daniel Breedon at this Office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson _ Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant /Ir CC: Rolls, Anderson and Rolls —i BUTTE COUNTY p CLERK OF THE BOARD USE ONLY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATE: AGENDA TRANSMITTAL AGENDA ITEM: AGENDATITLE: James R. Black - General Plan Rezone - GPA/REZ 99-04 DEPARTMENT: DDS, Planning DATE: 5/19/00 MEETING DATE REQUESTED: 6/13/00 CONTACT: Dan Breedon PHONE: 7601 REGULAR CONSENT % DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION: Report to the Board. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the James R. Black General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban REsidential - 3 acre parcels) located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham. FOR INFORMATION ONLY.. AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL REQUIRES THE ORIGINAL AND NINE (9) COPIES / ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY Budgetary Impact: Yes No ✓ CAO OFFICE USE ONLY If yes,complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back Budget Transfer Requested: Yes _ No ✓ Administrative Office Review If yes,complete Budget Transfer Request Worksheet on back. Administrative Office Staff Contact (Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda dea line) Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No 4/5's Vote Required: Yes: No: Auditor-Controller's Number(if required): County Counsel's Approval: Yes No ✓ Date Received by Clerk of Board: Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes No Number of Permanent: Temp Extra Help Previous Board Action Date: Additional Intonnation Attached:Yes ✓ No Describe: Rev.1198 SPE, _ AL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLEr1r% Number of originals required to be returned to Department: "Please Note" Department is responsible for returning contract to contractor. Clerk of the Board returns completed Auditor's copy ONLY. ` Requested Board Action: Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required For Information Only BUDGETARY IMPACT WORKSHEET Current Year Estimated Cost/Fundinq Source Source of Additional Funds Requested Estimated Cost $ Contingencies $ (Fund Name: ) (Fund Number: ) Amount Budgeted $ Unanticipated Revenue $ (Budget Unit Number: ) (Source: ) (Fund Name: ) (Rev.Code: ) (Fund Number: ) Other Transfer(s) $ 1. Complete worksheet below 2. Deadline is one business day arior to normal agenda deadline -------------- -------------- Additional Requested $ Total Source of Funds $ Annualized cost$ if also planned for next year. Budget Transfer Authorized By Administrative Office Board Action Required for B-Transfer? Yes No Authorized Signature Date BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST WORKSHEET Transfer Request: AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer S (No Cents)From To Transfer S (No Cents)From To Transfer S (No Cents)From To Transfer$ (No Cents)From To } PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION REPORT APPLICANT: James R. Black OWNER: Same REQUEST: General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural - 10 acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3 acre parcels) LOCATION: At the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham FILE #: GPA/RZ 99-04 DATE ACTION REQUESTED: June 10, 1999 ACREAGE: 9.91 acres PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS• A. Finding that the request is not consistent with the D2N Plan or Agricultural Element of the County General Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: B. Recommend deinal. VOTE: 4-0-1 AYES: Commissioners Cage, Mooney, Lambert, and Vice Chairman Nelson NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Chairman Leland DATE OF LAST HEARING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION: 4-27-00 K:\PROJECTS\GPA\B LACK.GPA\REZON E.RPT oC aw 011 ce o f ` 51 5 WALL STREET CARL B. LEV_ TELEPHONE(530)895-1621ERENZ CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95928 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TIMOTHY D. FERRIS aFAX(530)894-5043 ATTORNEY AT LAW May 3, 2000 Daniel C. Breedon Senior Planner Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Dan: Re: File GPA/RZ 99-04 - James R. Black This is to confirm our conversation wherein I was advised that the decision of the Planning Commission denying James R. Black's project will be sent to the Board of Supervisors for review. I am, by a copy of this letter, requesting notice from the Clerk of the Board as to the time and place of the hearing. Thank you for your courtesy in this regard. Ve truly yours, CARL B. LEVERENZ CBL:pp A. cc: James R. Black Clerk, Butte County Board of Supervisors - �; �: :�; �.it: -rye:. i�•�+. A �.i�:• _ t?..r � RECEIVED MAY 0 5 2000 BUTTE COUNTY j PLANNING DIVISION uttecounty LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY v PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 April 28, 2000 James R. Black 9243 turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 Re: General Plan Amendment and Rezone, File GPA/RZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held April 27, 2000, your request for rezoning from A-10 to SR-3 for property located at the southeast corner of burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham, was recommended for denial. A report of this matter will be made to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at which time she will set the public hearing date. You will be notified of the date and time. Should'you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant cc: Clerk of the Board Rolls, Anderson and Rolls k:\forms\rezone.frm lute160unN LAND OF NATURAL. WEALTH AND BEAUTY - = - PLANNING DIVISION Y,� a.�; �::• ,... DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 April 20, 2000 James R. Black 9243 Turner Lane Durham, CA 95938 Re: General Plan Amendment and Rezone,AP 039-240-075, GPA/RZ 99-04 Dear Mr. Black: Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres) at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham. Should you have any concerns with the report or conditions of approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns. A public hearing has been set for April 27, 2000. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have. Should you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Daniel Breedon of this office at 538-7601, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Enc. cc: Rolls, Anderson and Rolls j:\wpdocs\pc1ts\scheduIe.mrg BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT -APRIL 27, 2000 Applicants: James R. Black Project Planner: Daniel C. Breedon, Senior Planner File #: GPA/RZ 99-04 Location: The project is located at the Request: General Plan Amendment southeast corner of Burdick from Orchard &Field Crops Road and Turner Lane in the General Plan designation to Durham area. an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Parcel Size: 9.91-acres Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre Zone date: 02/25/92 parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels) Supervisor District: 4 G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops Attachments: Zoning: A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre A. Conditional Zoning parcels) B. General Plan and Zoning Map C. Vicinity Map APN: 039-240-075 D. Initial Study E. Exhibit Map STAFF COMMENT: This property is located within the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area, adopted in 1992. This plan establishes area-wide land use policies that designates the entire area as an "Urban Reserve" to promote consideration of various elements of the County's policies, plans and standards and to ensure proper development of the area. Additionally, Butte County has specific land use policies contained within the Agricultural Element of the General Plan regarding development of agricultural land designated as Orchard and Field Crops. The applicability of these policies to the subject General Plan Amendment and Rezone is subject to policy interpretation of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Depending upon this determination, the project may or may not conform to General Plan policy. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must determine if the General Plan Amendment,as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan and find that the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, in accordance with Government Code Section 65358 (a). ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27,2000 ■ PAGE 1 0 • 0 Staff is recommending that this project be continued to allow for policy discussion prior to any action. An alternative recommendation has been provided if it is the Planning Commission's desire to make findings to approve the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/CHARACTERISTICS: This is a request for a General Plan Amendment from an Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential, 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91-acre parcel. This property is developed with a single family dwelling, detached garage, shop, septic system, one domestic well and one agricultural well. This property was previously planted with almond trees, but they have been removed. The site's soil consists of the Vina loam series. The site is level and contains no defined water courses. Access to any future parcels proposed is provided by Burdick Road. Turner Lane provides access to the existing parcel. Future residential development will be provided with water service from the Durham Irrigation District. ANALYSIS: Project Background: This property was the subject of an earlier application, GPA/RZ 96-06,which proposed a General Plan Amendment from the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation to Agricultural Residential and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural, 10-acre parcels) to SR-1 (Suburban Residential, 1-acre parcels). This proposal was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission on December 11, 1998, due to inconsistencies with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan. The Planning Commission's denial recommendation included an alternative to consider a rezone to A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre parcels), instead of SR-1,which would not require a General Plan Amendment, since the 5-acre parcel size is conditionally consistent with the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation. The proposed 5-acre parcel size would allow for the creation of one additional parcel. On March 10, 1998, the Board of Supervisors denied the proposed General Plan Amendment and Rezone. The Board did not act on the request to consider a rezone to A-5. The current application includes a General Plan Amendment to Agricultural Residential, since the 3-acre parcel size proposed is not consistent with the Orchard & Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that this project proposes 3-acre parcels and the project previously denied by the Board of Supervisors proposed 1-acre parcels. Policy Dis The zoning within and immediately surrounding the Community of Durham can be characterized as residential and agricultural, which transitions from a relatively dense town center, to 1-acre residential, 5-acre agricultural, 10-acre agricultural and finally 20-acre agricultural zoning. The 20- acre zoning is prominent to the west where it eventually transitions into 40-acre zoning. There is a large amount of A-5 zoning adjacent to Durham to the east. Durham is a community that is ■ BLJTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27,2000 0 PAGE 2 ■ surrounded by large tracts of productive agricultural land. It is this surrounding agricultural land, which includes the subject property, that is afforded protection under the Agricultural Element. The General Plan's designations in this area likewise transitions from low and medium density residential, within the town center of Durham, to Agricultural Residential, to Orchard and Field Crops. The General Plan identifies varying General Plan designations within one-quarter mile to approximately 1 mile away from the Durham town center. Beyond one-quarter to one-mile the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation prevails. This property is situated adjacent to a zoning district boundary which separates the A-20 zone to the west from the A-10 zone within which the project resides. Although many recent subdivisions have occurred within the A-R General Plan designation, which surrounds Durham, this project resides within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. It should be noted that a General Plan Amendment was approved to allow for 1-acre parcels north of this site. However, this amendment was approved prior to the adoption of the Agricultural Element in 1995. Approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone could result in subsequent amendments of the General Plan in this area. This property occupies approximately 10-acres of the A-10 zone. The A-10 zone occupies approximately 97 acres of the outlying area. If a similar Rezone and General Plan Amendment is approved in this 97-acre area,the number of parcels allowed could increase from approximately 9 to 32. This may further compromise the protection of the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation in this area. There is proximate vacant land that is zoned SR-1, which would allow for additional residential growth in the Durham area without changing the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation, and thereby impacting prime agricultural land. Specifically, a Tentative Subdivision Map was approved for Rick Peterson on property east of and adjacent to this project for the creation of 43, 1- acre lots in August of 1993. This map has not been recorded at this time. This property is located within the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and is zoned for 1-acre parcels. Additionally, approximately 50 more acres could be available between undeveloped SR-1 zoned property east of and adjacent to the Midway Highway and west of and adjacent to Durham-Dayton Highway. Together, these areas would allow for the creation of 100 parcels under existing zoning. The following goals and policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan may be inconsistent with this proposal,based upon the location of this property within the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation and the additional information as discussed above: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27,2000 0 PAGE 3 ■ Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map,to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. _ Program 22 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. Guidelines, as part of the General Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. Should the General Plan Amendment and Rezone be determined consistent with these policies,a 300 foot agricultural buffer is recommended along the site's south and west property lines,in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. Determining that the General Plan Amendment is Within the Public Interest California Government Code Section 65358 indicates that amendments to the General Plan can be approved by the legislative body when they are found to be in the public interest. In order to approve a General Plan amendment, the Planning Commission must recommend to the Board of Supervisors that this action is in the public interest. Policy Decision Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the relevant policies from the Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, and make preliminary findings regarding the policies. If it is determined that the project either conforms or does not conform to these policies, it may be beneficial to continue the project to allow staff time to write formal findings for the Planning • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27,2000 ■ PAGE 4 ■ Commission's final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. An alternative recommendation is offered if the Planning Commission wishes to adopt findings at this hearing. RECOMMENDATION: ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following two actions: I. Continue GPA/RZ 99-04, and consider the applicability of the following policies from the General Plan Agricultural Element and Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan, and additionally consider California Government Code Section 65358 to find the General Plan Amendment in the public'interest,prior to the Planning Commission's final recommendation to the Board of Supervisors: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton=Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal Vl. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27, 2000 0 PAGE 5 0 (Alternative Recommendation) I. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act identifying potentially significant environmental effects that the project may have. The design of the project and mitigations added to the project as shown in Exhibit"A" Condition 1, will mitigate such effects to a level of insignificance. B. The Board of Supervisors independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures prior to making its decision on the project, and hereby finds that a Negative Declaration, with mitigation measures, adequately represents impacts associated with this project and reflects the independent judgement of Butte County. II. The design of the proposed project improvements will not cause environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a"de minimus"exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) and 14 CCR 753.5. is not recommended. III. Find the General Plan Amendment in the public interest in accordance with California Government Code Section 65358 and provide findings of approval regarding the following Policies from the Agricultural Element and the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Plan: Agricultural Element Goal 1: Maintain parcel sizes that ensure the long-term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard & Field Crops and Grazing and Open Lands. Policy 1.3 Designate areas outside of the more intensely developed portions of the community of Durham for the protection of continued agriculture. Policy 1.6: Limit the minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres. The densities currently established by the existing zoning on Orchard and Field Crops lands shall be the minimum lot size allowable. Further subdivision of Orchard and Field Crops lands are discouraged. Policy 1.9 Apply the policies of the Agricultural Element to the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Area Plan as well as the currently adopted policies of this plan. Minimum lot ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT 0 April 27,2000 ■ PAGE 6 ■ sizes for agricultural land uses shown on the plan map shall be the minimums of the current zoning. Durham Dayton Nelson Plan Goal IV. Policy 2. Support the continued viability of agricultural production as the major source of income, employment and economic viability of the Planning Area. Goal VI. Policy 2. Protect agricultural lands which currently produce, or have the potential to produce, from encroaching urban uses. AL�II2: IV. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan amendment and adopt a Resolution approving the Zoning change on GPA/RZ 99-04,subject to the condition listed in Exhibit"A" and the following additional findings: A. Access to the property is provided by Burdick Road, a County road capable of accommodating the additional traffic allowed by the rezone if the land is subdivided. B. Condition #1 requires that future land divisions include a 300 foot agricultural setback in accordance with Agricultural Element Program 2.2. C. The Environmental Health Department indicates that soil conditions,are capable of supporting on-site sewage disposal. D. The property is located in proximity to other similar-sized residential developments to the north and east. E. Future development will be required to comply with Public Resources Code 4290 regarding the provision of water availability in amounts adequate for fire protection, internal sprinklers for the protection of structures and other fire safety standards. F. Commercial services and schools are available within reasonable distance from the property. EXHIBIT A Condition #1 (Mitigation Measure); In accordance with Butte County General Plan Agricultural Program 2.2, an agricultural buffer shall be established 300 feet in width along the south and west property lines. The buffer shall be labeled as a building site exclusion area. This setback shall be delineated on any future parcel map application, as a condition of recording. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA REPORT ■ April 27,2000 0 PAGE 7 ■ " Vicinity Map d Project Location riimin 6n n Hwv x CL Durham-Dayton Hvuy Durham R11 Ourharn-Per CL CL .-Haml HaMin R' 1> Haml 6n )LM CL ,n .... ...... J GPAIRZ 99-04 APN 039-240-075 BL kCIK ■ •�a t IN U BUTTE COUNTY ■ PLANNING Applicant: James R.Black HearingDate: 111 • 1 •r 1 (Agricultural, 1 acre minimum) Supervisorial �i _ � .S. "% K O ldvK e{^.,�4 bk b� �...T'..� ^.-�"^ 1n-.9}� rat`': � •+u. aca� `,,.�' a . f7ljsJp''tyi, L � Ha SR— A-1 Q AR a fjt UIV Project Location :, o n a u }#"Irm, �" Y� 42.18 cc SR-1 1-- A-5 �»d AR DURHAM �'R a A-10 1 # or-b III _ 3 F •� � p a:�. ,�A ,j 5 a r 1 AR ,.k, . .. sora r a: tw 7p 44r 0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 Abba BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Applicant: James R.Black Owner: Same Hearing Date: April 27,2000 @ 9:30 a.m. Eristing Zone: A-10(Agricultural, 10 acre minimum) Supervisorial Request: General Plan Amemdment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone District#4 from A-10 to SR-3(Suburban Residential,3 acre minimum). Assessor Parcel No: 039-240-075 File: 99-04 • . . . .,�_ � ., , : u a •ount . . _ LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND "BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION i, ,':•ri-"� s: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Date: April 3, 2000 To: Responsible and Trustee Agencies Subject: NOTICE OF INTENT - To Adopt a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for James R. Black General Plan Amendment and Rezone (GPA/RZ 99-04) The Butte County Planning:Division has completed an Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), of potential environmental consequences anticipated in connection with the above-mentioned project, a copy of which is enclosed. This letter serves as a Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration to allow responsible and trustee agencies a 20-day review period in accordance with Sections 15072 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Please review the enclosed Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This review should focus on your agency's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Any comments must be sent to the above address prior to April 25, 2000. A Public Hearing has been scheduled for April 27, 2000 before the Butte County Planning Commission. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed environmental document, please contact this office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Si , Daniel C. Breedon Senior Planner cc: James R. Black Bruce A. Nash, Rolls Anderson & Rolls Butte County Public Works Department Butte County Environmental Health Department California Department of Forestry Air Quality Management District Butte County Agricultural Commissioner Butte.County Farm Bureau Durham Irrigation District BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing on, Thursday, April 27, 2000, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors'Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item: ITEMSON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACTS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:30 a.m. - Greg Melton, Land Image Landscape Architects and William Evert, Skyway Golf Park, Use Permit to allow a six-hole public golf course/learning center with a maintenance storage yard and a 1,250 square foot metal building on an 18.3-acre parcel zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial). Approximately 11.5-acres will be used for the course. The proposal also includes a second phase, adding 676 sq.ft. of retail space to the front of the existing club house and pro-shop, to include a new covered entry, facade and fencing. Safety netting, night lighting and a 20-space overflow parking area is also proposed. The area will be extensively landscaped with turf grass and planted with cottonwood, sycamore, ash and oak trees. This proposal will be used in conjunction with the existing Skyway Golf Park Driving Range facility. The property is located west of and adjacent to the Skyway opposite the intersection of Honey run Road, at the Skyway Golf Park, 1 Longest Drive, Chico. APNs 040-020- 166, 167, and 168. (DB) (File #UP 00-05) 9:30 a.m. - James R. Black,General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation to an Agricultural Residential General Plan designation, and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural- 10-acre parcels) to SR-3 (Suburban Residential - 3-acre parcels), on a 9.91 acre parcel. The property is located at the southeast corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane in the Durham area. APN 039-240-075 (DB) (File #GPA/REZ 99-04) The above mentioned applications, Initial Studies, and maps are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Comments may be submitted in writing at any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as may be continued to a later date. Upon action taken by the Planning Commission on the project an appeal may be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The appeal period is 10 days. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARTLO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, April 6, 2000. BUTTE COUNTY &WINOt ente1 Health DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION J u a 181N TO: Environmental Health Chico, Callfomla. FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:James R.Black,GPA/RZ 99-04 DATE: June 17,1999 CONTACT PERSON: The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any;and to 2.. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop t� o Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agri. l tiiial-L10 a yres)to SR-1(§uburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres)located at the south east comer of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,DDrham,identified as APN 039-240-075. Supervisorial District No. 4. Ai THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN JJy 4',1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): .. Planning De arkment Ag JUL 61999 By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning 44— FROM: FROM: Michael Huerta, Environmental Health SUBJECT: Addendum-GPA/RZ 99-04, James R. Black, AP# 039-240-075 DATE: July 2, 1999 Project located in an area where soils are adequate for sewage disposal, (i .e, > 7 ' in depth, no groundwater and acceptable perc. rate) . The project is not in a 100 year flood zone. It is adjacent to Durham Irrigation District. . This office does not object to the GPA/Rezone. Future projects that_ are proposed as a result of this rezone will be required to meet Butte County Health Department standards for sewage disposal and provision of drinking water. In the case of drinking water, the County Subdivision ordinance Improvement Standards would require connection to Durham Irrigation District. . MH/dd/land/blackgpa Y Ai . 00�''` r BUTTE COUNTY �m 0� AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2525 Dominic Drive,Suite J LAWRENCE D.ODLE WT" G Chico,California 95928 Air Pollution Control Officer Tel: (530)891-2882 W.JAMES WAGONER en t Fax:(530)891-287,8 Asst.Air Pollution Control Officer July 6, 1999 Daniel Breedon, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: GPA/RZ-99-04 Dear Mr. Breedon: The District has reviewed the request for comments for a general plan amendment and rezone on property located at Burdick Road and Turner Lane in Durham. Based on the information submitted the District recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission from all road and other construction activities during project improvements. Measures may include site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil palliatives. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, .please contact me at 891-2882. Sincerely, Gail Williams Air Quality Planner ` Plawsr�izog t��par? ent File No 3451.1 7 1999 �gaJiiis,�"niii0qf1121 \\bcapcd\sys\apps\Wpdocs\eir\bcgparz9904.doc ping ®in BUTTE COUNTY JUL 0 8 09 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION oneerAia TO: LAFCo FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: James R.Black, GPAIRZ 99-04 DATE: June 22, 1999 CONTACT PERSON:Daniel Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to 4R- (Suburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned AA-10 (Agricultural-10 acres,)located at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,Durham, identified as APN 039-240-075. Supervisorial District No. 4. 076 002- THIS DZTHIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - —DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS, IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN July 6,1998. If no comments or communications are'received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): DURHAM M0Spt11TD CON720L /. CDMMdAkI' Al OZN PI-4,v R OQuai-PuL. UAfAA/s_ce_yM�e_r Z. DU/ NAM P4QK t PEC Ak4 Av4l"94-6- 4[oN6. eltRD/CK RQ Roo PA,ecEu 3. Dva94M UNUF1ED s. Aff-C ADJ.FCEArr -rey/LaAN AREA /f VA+DAlq✓_ 4. 60M COLLCGC Z. COMM6ano,v -m ObRNAM x/12/GA•nAN DI.M21vr w0010 s• CSA 164 (nimal Confrol) -m &�)VQR_n &I 92N oouuEr HY? t14 Tz 2 Uf E. 3. 3 ACeE fAe,,_ku /ONlUMF_ iC, ACeA_r -- 1�2d1A/✓ J�Qv/��1 /� !l64R�z n41yAPh /ouD� ft/Pr0.2rGnEAnE2 DENSInEs ANO 0NIUM/7/0N 4C 12/AV 46 GAA0. By: Jt`ih�n (�vcoJ Date: 1-9? 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 • 0 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Development Service FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: James R.Black,GPA/RZ 99-04 DATE: June 22,1999 CONTACT PERSON:Daniel Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Re ,one from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to R- (Suburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres)located at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,Durham, identified as APN 039-240-075. Supervisorial District No. 4. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - —DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN .Tule 6,1998. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): ,-c>-, rrev/oSid teas c%4reei • By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Public Works FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: James R.Black,GPAIRZ 99-04 DATE: June 17, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to SR-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres)located at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,Durham, identified as APN 039-240-075. Supervisorial District No. 4. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN July 1, 1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): 24f _ By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785RECEIVED J U M 18 9999 COUNTY OF BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV. PlanningDivision BUTTE COUNTY JUN 2 3 1999 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ®roviile,Caiffornia PLANNING DIVISION TO: California Department of Forestry FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: James R.Black,GPAIRZ 99-04 DATE: June 22, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Daniel Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any;and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to R- (Suburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres) located at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,Durham,identified as APN 039-240-075. Supervisorial District No. 4. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - —DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN July 6, 1998. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): a. . �• " -.m �.. _ �� „�, l�A FflrQ I>rmant IIE1 •� pg Y�.ktlVY4.9 C�SJ7Y rez!1dYne .urs. n .n .i�.�• r;r ,,,.s, ..d ,+-o~....s 4n P'�lf,".,�.�,. ,.�F.,.:7.�xtl^i9 • _ _��. ���1 �� 9r� n actian services Cl'.�s�.:c>'�37tle'u16Y7 it N.eveL'lWv �... �' h`t7!,66Ba�y e Y uv �. By: Date: 2-2 7 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 -530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: GPA/RZ 99-04 AP# 039-240-075 APPLICANT:James R. Black, 9243 Turner Lane, Durham, CA 95938 OWNER: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Rolls, Anderson and Rolls, 115 Yellowstone Dr., Chico, CA 95973 REQUEST: General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Cron to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural-10 acres) to R-3 (Suburban Residential-3 acres) SIZE: 10 acres LOCATION: at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane, Durham SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT#-A— EXISTING ZONING: A-10 ZONING HISTORY: 02/25/92 Ord 2985 SURROUNDING ZONING: A-10,�SR-1 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Agricultural, rural residential SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Orchard and Field Cron APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Rec'd 06-14-99 COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: James R. Black DATE: June 17, 1999 County Offices and Cities: Chief Administrative Officer _ Develop.Services Director ✓X_ Public Works Director _ Environmental Health C_ Assessor _ Building Manager Sheriff BCAG / ALUC LAFCo APCD �{/ Butte Co.Farm Bureau Biggs _ Gridley Chico Oroville = Paradise Chico Airport Commission Animal Control Agricultural Commission Irrigation District: Butte Water _ Biggs/W.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito Irrigation District _ Other Sewer Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ L.O.A.PUD Fire Protection tf"_ " Cali fomia Department of Forestry — EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts _ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec.&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks �f tilit�i V PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies / — CalTrans (Traffic) — Dept.of Water Resources ✓V Dept.of Fish and Game — Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol — Central Reg.Water Quality Cont _ Caltrans,Aeronautics Program — Department of Conservation _ Off.of Mining Reclamation — Off.of Governmental&Env.Relations — Dept.Social Services,Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies — US Forest Service — US Bureau of Land Management — US Fish&Wildlife Service — Army Corps of Engineers Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc. Lime Saddle Dist — Community Association — Mosq.Abatement.Oroville/Butte Co Drainage — Butte Env.l Council — Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. Reclamation Cal Native Plant Society _ Butte Co.Mining Committee Forest Ranch Community Assoc. _ Butte Ck.Watershed Conservancy_ School Districts BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: James R. Black, GPA/RZ 99-04 DATE: June 22, 1999 CONTACT PERSON:Daniel Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any;and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crop to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from A-10(Agricultural-10 acres)to SR- (Suburban Residential-3 acres)on property zoned AA-10 (Agricultural-10 acres)located at the south east corner of Burdick Road and Turner Lane,Durham,identified as APN0 90 9�. Supervisorial District No. 4. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON October 28, 1999. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN July 6, 1998. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville, California 95965 -530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 `'�'y�99 I'�G32 y'y'OIJ(o c+•,Ae� �5p'� Zteo,` � J � . . ,��. � RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC PUBLIC ENV. NOE/NOD DATE NO. RECEIVED WORKS LAFCO PLANNING SALES HEALTH FIRE F/G FEE OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM RECEIPT 17 6 3 2 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISSUED BY A Q"-� James R.Bleak - 3097 Oerroret CoMraetor Lia Na 993951 - P.O.Box 898 90-3504/1211 Durham,Ca 95898 `l (915)342-2188... l 9c�t9 PAY TORDER OF O THE Cti. . . 16 i _; '• o, - � � _ $�rMY bevm DOLLARS B ,� TRI COUNTIES DANK 9011 MIDWAY . P.O.BOK 190,DURHAM,CALIFORNIA 95938 40 20 HOUR BANKING SERVICE 14BOD-872.8702 FOR wv 11'00 309 711' "1: 1'24-13 504 51: 0113800 34 2 Lu' tic o.co .�. :tee cage 4 or rz 23 t as o eu v rxAcr I Z' 9/At 57-243 1 Y 79-ee4 DAYTON DURH M DURHAM DAYTON 41 C 40-l8 ' Q wJZf/ 5713 S/T0 SSO 7 1 O 34• /•• BOG 84 /T.83Ac. to ' I -------- 39AC A w b 0-55 4 m v a 2 7A 411'78 O © 120Ac. 313 40.76 .� TRANSFE'WiD 1329 ( RSIOI-99 39 5A. Tb' It 439 ac /6.2Ac 1 24:05 Aa 24.94 '24 95Ac. 24.94Ac. Ae- a 26 9/ 1 PM83-102 ------ — — -- 46 78.2 2 Ac. a 82.69 Ac. 4T I O 14-Z Ac. ; /5 /4 -( — ( moo► 42.38 Aa45 ' 24.94Ac. 49.99Ac. 60 .4 0 5Ac. 7 8 BP.T 71.6 Ilk 14.2A-. 1 ` T 68/.6J 40• q� ti 6 g2 ,2832Ac. C4 984Ac 75 1 o 20AC. 37.62Ac M 45.5 � ---- � N24.Q9 �A y 76 5.00AC 4 so ie 4 N 1 o Q a RS/27-54 I 585.1 s, ' %%. Mt �l h /32ACrr .SR 1284.49 98AC N r �c BURDICK $ g 46 ~ IOAC.6 i O �,�.. w� ReOA IOAC r . Q 6642e: 25130 36131 p 'T 1 Assessor's Map No. 39- 24 s R.111. TURNERS/ 1/0. M.0.R. At Pg.46 County of Butte, Calif. R M. T�/R/YER'S 24SUS. N.O.R. Sk. 0 P¢ /O £v: 12 .97 . RFV! S . v „ r u Of H 1 r W ' EXISTING STORM DRAIN r LEACH TRENCH - .' EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT Q � EXISTING -STORM DRAIN EXISTING WATER DROP UNLET, TYPICAL MAIN, TYPICAL F 8 W _� — 8 W _ �J BURDICK ROAD .. _ � pill j .Vi , SGP 221 22I' 221' it EXISTING DOMESTIC p; WELL DURHAM DAYTON HIGHWAY N pit N E 1 G SR— II f CULTURAL RESIDENTIAL Ya -- DURHAM IRRIGATION ODS EXISTING HOUSE DISTRICT BOUNDARY, o ti TYPICAL } —ul EXISTING GARAGE (ACCESS FROM � a TURNER LANE) t0 LANE ----- TEAL 1--.154.5.. , a .. ...................154.5• 1 EXISTING SHOP 3 _ W 2 �Z cro a z 7 P— Q I J 3.33 AC, 3.30 Ac. 3.27 AC. � S R- PUBLIC —__ AGRIC LT RAL RES NTI I . co co PROPOSED 300 RESIDENTIAL �(� BUILDING SETBACK LINE W ------- ------ — — — -----�::- -- --------- -----------------_ -- A -20 o r. �O 1= EXISTING AGRICULTURE WELL ORCHARDAND FIELD CROP 2 I s COMMERCIAL I ..... 1 o •..... ... .. . D I —X-]- ttt HAM' DAYTON HIGHWAY ... ...... i 154.0 . i r .. C 16.50 .Ilitlt III 5 r. I ,. 1. J I a, {6:50 ; 41 .^ } z: T f\ R a.... N O PROPERTY T <, LOCA ION p -- . O Of v .. SR O REST NTI L cc REES C { a - w -- AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ST -. -- --- L Q C BURDt K + ••.,�, I . s . ,. Q S'�R • .,• - � R ... 221 III}IlHN11ffN1HtlfllfllflllffHI1FIEFItI1Nfl#I8H1!{(tiNRINiIIII f ASE 22 t ,. INIHIIIHNflllBff fitttltft � n 662.72 N`t37°`47 40 E �•'• F , cr w z rr. E F=- BROwN ST R I A— IO ww P L APPLICANT: JAMES R. BLACK ORCHARD AND FIELD CROP LANE 9243 TURNER LANE SDA — o DURHAM 95938 �f , I F� 'CA SCALE' t = 60 , ENGINEER: ROLLS, ANDERSON & ROLLS q 115 YELLOWSTONE DRIVE CHICO, CA,95973 1 BRUCE A.”NASH, R.C.E. 33381 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONE Ilrn Imm111lnnrnLntnlmn�mmt�nallnlmtlllnrutmnminnrtrlutttu�utiutl�It�I�� , ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 39-24-75 SERVISS STREET GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CURRENT-ORCHARD AND FIELD CROP PROPOSED -AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT N ON THE CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED ZONING: CURRENT A-10 R.M. TURNER'S FIRST SUBDIVISION" RECORDED _ "PROPOSED - SR- RDED IN BOOK 1 OF MAPS, AT PAGE .46, IN ;SECTION 251 T.21 N., R.1 Er, M.D.B.& M. NOTES: BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. BEARINGS AND`DISTANCES SHOWN FOR THE EXTERIOR PROPERTY BOUNDARY ARE AS SHOWN ON THAT AMENDED RECORD OF SURVEY MAP woco F& A PRECORDED IN BOOK 146'OI= MAPS, AT PAGES 84, 85 AND 86.' FOR �I JAMES R. BLACK , P'RC)PO.SEb LOT;AREAS SHOWN ARE GROSS`LOT:AREAS AND INCLUDE AN SCALE I = 400`. . 2. EXISTING �1�G:5°.WIDE STRIP WITHIN TURNER LANE ANDA 10',WIDE STRIP � ALONG BURDICK ROAD TO BE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION TO THE COUNTY OF • �� BUTtEN FEE SIMPLE: ROLLS ANDERSON ,& ROLLS CIVIL. ENGilVEERS .i 3. EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS SHOWN ARE INTERPOLATED FROM GROUND 115vELlowsTONEl7RtvE -CHiCO•CAUFORNIA95973-5911 ` CONTOURS AS SHOWN ON THE USGS QUADRANGLE MAP FOR CHICO, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. JUNE, 999 99117 SHEET 1 OF 1 COUNTY OF BUTTE OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT r ® �d� 46o d 0 3 5 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE �9 a *+ OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 96 D nETEa 721066.7 U B. POSTAGE RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED PUBLIC 004AR HENRY ARY&KITTY RR CEIVED RICK RD ' DURHAM CA 95938 HEARING NOV 2 1 2000 HENR527 959362112 1400 17 11/18/00 k- NOTICE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION HENRETURN TO SENDER OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA, 497RNEWPORT DR CI-IICO CA 95979-5650 11.11111111 lilt 11IL21f1 111ii11ilifftliftI..A11111111-111 11111 i COUNTY OF BUTTE OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT ;0 _7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE (a NOV f Co® 0302 +► W A OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 � �bIHTEp 1210667 U.S. POSTAGE � RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED ( 0 028000 u PUBLIC PERRY ARREN C&PATRICIA A ' J 9407 DWYER CT DURHAM CA 95938 \��� HEARING _ _ �� � NOTICE E959392144 1A00 14 11/21/00 RETURN TO SENDER PERRY 3156 ESPLANADE SPC 222 CPICO CA 95973-0226