HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA TRANSMITTALE1
BUTTE _CO`UNTY
CLERK O HE BOARD USE ONLY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING DATE:
NDA TRANSMITTAL
AGENDA ITEM:
Kathleen Parker — Appeal — Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14)
AGENDA TITLE:
DDS, -
DATE: 6/2/04
MEETING DATE 6/8/04
DEPARTMENT: Planning
REQUESTED:
REGULAR X CONSENT
Dan Breedon
PHONE: 7629'
CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:
Kathleen Parker, Appeal by the applicant' concerning the Parker Tentative Parcel Map application that was
denied by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2004. Kathleen Parker proposed a Tentative Parcel Map to
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 -acre parcels and a 2.35 acre remainder. A lot line adjustment was also
proposed to'transfer a 31 -foot wide strip along the northerly property line. The project is located on the east side
of Goodspeed Street approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way in Durham. The Planning Commission denied
the Tentative Parcel Map
Action Requested: See Attached.
AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL (1) IN A FORMAT THAT CAN BE
REPRODUCED BY STANDARD OFFICE EQUIPMENT
ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY
Budgetary Impact: Yes No X
CAO OFFICE'USE ONLY
If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back
Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No x
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.)
4/51s Vote Required: Yes: _ No:
Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No x
Auditor -Controller's Number (if
Date Received by Clerk of the Board:
required):
County Counsel's Approval: Yes No x
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: Yes _ No x
Number of Permanent: Temp
Extra Help
Previous Board Action Date: Additional Information Attached: Yes x No
scribe: memo
Rev. 06/02
ACTIONS'FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
L Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
,Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality. Act), and that no Fish and Game fee,is required.
H. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the Tentative Parcel
Map and Lot Line Adjustment . for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-14), subject to
following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
i
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts. of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface , to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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 'situatioris.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet 'of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray
drift.
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKER.03=14\6.08.04 Board Report.appealldoc.
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors i Agenda Report e Page 1 ■ .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOARD TRANSMITTAL SHEET
BOARD AGENDA REPORT
PAGE.
Attachment A:,
General Plan and Zoning .Map
1
Attachment B:
Letter of Appeal
2
Attachment C:
Planning Commission Agenda Reports and Minutes
4
Attachment D:
July 7, 2003, Letter from Sierra West Surveying
'23 ,
.Attachment E:
June 10, 2003', Letter from Development. Services
25
Attachment F:
Draft Initial`Studies
27
Attachment G
'Tentativef Parcel Map
78
Applicant:
Kathleen Parker
Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban
Residential, 1 -acre
minimum parcel size)
Appellant:
Thomas R. Wrinkle; Sierra
West Surveying
File #:
TPM 03-14 '
APNs: 040-280-054, & 070
Request:
This is an , appeal of the
Location: On the east side of
Planning Commission's
Goodspeed, St.
denial of the Kathleen
approximately 450 feet
Parker Tentative Parcel
north of Hutton Way,
Map, • which proposes to
Durham.
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel
project Dan Breedon'
into four 1 -acre parcels and
a 2.35 -acre. remainder.
Planner: Principal Planner
Parcel Size: ' 6.35 +/-acres'
Supervisor 4'
District:
Attachments:
.General Plan-
A: General Plan and Zoning Map
Designation:
Agricultural Residential
B. Letter of Appeal.
C. Planning- Commission Agenda
Reports/Minutes
D. July 7, 2003 Letter from Sierra- West
Surveying
E. June 10, 2003 Letter from Development
Services
F. Draft Initial Studies
G. Tentative Parcel Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This.Agenda Report focuses on the request of the appellant. The Board of Supervisors review of
this appeal should focus on the points made by the written appeal provided by Sierra West
Surveying. The appellant states that -Butte County violated the State Permit Streamlining Act,
and that anautomatic approval should be granted for the project. The appellant states -no other
appeal issue aside from the alleged violation of the Permit Streamlining Act. County staff has,
researched this issue and has determined that no violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has,.
taken place: Therefore, staff recommends that this appeal be denied and that the Planning
Commission's April 22, 2004 denial of this Tentative Parcel Map be upheld.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. This is a request to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 acre
remainder.
2. Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would be handled by on-site septic systems
and domestic water would be obtained from individual wells.
3. Proposed parcels would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60
foot easement.
4. A lot lineadjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the
northerly property line.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed
2.35 -acre remainder parcel.
2. The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to have not been
maintained for some time.
3; Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree rows. -.No water courses traverse the
property.
4. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level.
5. The project site has an average slope of approximately 1% o to 2%.
6. Surrounding parcels range in size from 0.25 to 5 acres.
7. The property is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area.
8. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors ■ Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0 •
ANALYSIS:
Permit Streamlining Act and Associated Time Limits
1. The Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seq) is the State statute
that applies to all development projects; the Act sets time limits for, the processing of
permits associated with development projects.
2. Other time limits are imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Sections 21100.2, and 21151.5) and . State Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code Section 66452 et seq).
3. Time limits associated with reviewing 'an application indicate that the Lead Agency has
30 -days to determine if an application is complete.
4. Time limits associated with processing a Negative Declaration state that the Lead, Agency .
must approve a Negative Declaration 180 days from the time an application is deemed
complete.
5. The time limits state that once a Negative Declaration is approved, the Lead Agency has
50 days to approve or deny a land division for which the Negative Declaration was
adopted.
6. The Permit Streamlining Act also includes a provision` .concerning an "unreasonable
delay" by the applicant in meeting requests by the Lead Agency necessary for the
preparation of a Negative Declaration. This provision indicates that an unreasonable
delay by the project applicant will suspend the time limits described above.
Parker Tentative Parcel Map Processing Times
1. The Parker Tentative Parcel Map was received by the County on February 21, 2003.
2. The Parker TPM was deemed complete on March 22, 2003:
3. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the Lead, Agency should have adopted a Negative
Declaration for the Parker TPM by September 18, 2003 (180 -days from the date the
application wasdeemed complete).
.4. Department policy requires that staff provide a copy of the Initial Study to the project
applicant for review and signature so that revisions to the project are agreed to prior to
releasing a proposed mitigated Negative' Declaration for public review'..(CEQA
Guidelines Section'15070 (b) (1)).
5. On June 10, 2003 an, Initial Study was sent to the applicant's representative, Sierra West
Surveying, which included a mitigation to revise the project to conform to the 300 foot
agricultural setback as required under Program 2.2 of the Agriculture Element of the
General Plan.
6. On July 7, 2003 the Department of Development Services received a letter from Sierra
West Surveying which indicated that the applicant did not agree to redesign the project to
conform to Agricultural Element 2.2.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 3 0
7. Because the project applicant would not agree to redesign the project to conform to
Agricultural Element Program 2.2, staff scheduled a Planning Commission meeting on
August 14, 2003, recommended that the Planning Commission deny the Parker TPM due
to the inconsistency with the General Plan Agricultural Element.
8. 'The Planning Commission elected to continue this project for at least 45 days to allow for
circulation of the Negative Declaration and to also review the 300 -foot agricultural
setback as it applied to this project.
9. -Staff reviewed the 300 -foot agricultural setback* issue with the Agricultural
Commissioner and County Counsel. This review included researching past Planning
Commission and Board actions concerning this issue. This information was provided in
the attached March 25, 2004 Agenda Report to the Planning Commission. .
10. At the April 22, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing, staff again recommended that the
project be denied due to inconsistencies with the Agricultural Element
11. Staff does not believe that a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has taken place with
respect to this project. Staff provided the applicant with the appropriate course of action
to conform the project to the General Plan on June 10, 2003, well within Permit,
Streamlining timelines.
12. The applicant chose not to comply with the revisions necessary to make the application
comply with the Agricultural Element.
13. Staff considers this an "unreasonable delay" by the applicant in meeting requests by the
Lead Agency necessary for the preparation of a Negative Declaration.
14. The applicant's actions suspended the running of timelines associated with the Permit
Streamlining Act and CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15109)
15. This delay prohibited staff from preparing a Negative Declaration under-CEQA, because
a Negative Declaration could not be supported for the project in its then current form.
16. Nevertheless, staff continued to review the project against the Agricultural Element and
worked with the Agricultural Commissioner, and the County Counsel to ensure that all
possible options had been exhausted prior to again recommending denial on April 22,
2004.
17: In summary, the appellant's contention that the County violated the Permit Streamlining
Act is not supported by the record.
18. If the applicant had agreed to the required mitigation measures the County would have
had 180 days from the date the application was deemed complete to take action on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.
19. The applicant chose not to redesign their project as supported by the Initial Study and in
so doing suspended the time lines afforded to the project under the Permit Streamlining
Act.
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 4 0
CEQA ISSUES:
Two draft initial studies were completed for the project. The second draft was completed
primarily to show that the agricultural setback also presented a hazard to public health from :the
spraying of agricultural chemicals near residential uses. The applicant disagreed with the
recommended 'mitigation measure requiring a 300=foot setback from adjoining agriculturally
zoned lands. Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The initial study has not been circulated.
Public Resources Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that
are. going to be denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA-pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and "(b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation -of the California Environmental
Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game *fee is required.
II. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions. denial of the Tentative Parcel
Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-14), subject to
following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
'development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and'buffers
between urban . development , and agricultural interface to reduce
interference and conflict:
And 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.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray,
drift.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 5 0
Applicant:
Kathleen Parker
Zoning:
SR -1 (Suburban
Residential, 1 -acre
minimum parcel'size)
Appellant:
Thomas R. Wrinkle, Sierra
West Surveying
File #:
TPM 03-14
APNs:.
040-280-054, & 070
Request:
This is an appeal of the
Location:
On the east side of
Planning Commission's
Goodspeed St.
denial of - the Kathleen-
approximately 450 feet
Parker Tentative , Parcel
north of Hutton Way, .
Map, which proposes to
Durham.
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel
Project
Dan Breedon ".
into four 1 -acre parcels and
a 2.35-acre•remainder.
Planner:
Principal Planner:
Parcel Size:
6.35'+/- acres
Supervisor
4
District:
Attachments:
General Plan
A. General Plan and Zoning Map
Designation:
Agricultural Residential
B. Letter of Appeal ,
A d
C. Plammng Commission gen a
Reports/Miniztes
D. July 7, 2003 Letter from Sierra West
Surveying
E. June 10, 2003 Letter from Development
Services'
F. Draft Initial Studies
G. Tentative Parcel Map
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors ■ Agenda. Report 0 Page 1 ■
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Agenda Report focuses on the request of 'the appellant. The Board of Supervisors. review of
this appeal `should focus on the points made by the written appeal provided -by Sierra West
Surveying. The appellant states that -Butte County violated the State Permit Streamlining Act,
and that an automatic approval should be granted for the,project: The appellant states no other
appeal issue aside from the .alleged violation of the Permit Streamlining Act. County staff has'
researched this issue and has determined that no violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has -
taken place. Therefore, staff recommends that this appeal be -denied •and that the Planning
Commission's April 22, 2004• denial of this Tentative Parcel Map be upheld.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: '
1. This is a request to divide, a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 .acre.
remainder.
2. Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would•be handled by on-site septic systems .
and domestic water would be obtained from individual wells. t
3. Proposed parcels would access Goodspeed Street via" a private road constructed on a 60
foot easement. r
4. A lot line adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31- foot wide strip along the "
northerly property line.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. The site is developed with one single family :dwelling andis located on the proposed '
y 2.35 -acre .remainder parcel..
2. The land is level -and is planted in':an older almond orchard that appears to have not been
maintained for some time.
3. Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree rows.' No water courses traverse the
property.
4. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above, sea level. • -
5. The project site his an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%.4
6. Surrounding parcels range in size from 0.25 to 5 acres.
7. The property•is within the Durham Urban`Improvements standards area.
8. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 2 ■
ANALYSIS:
• Permit Streamlining Act and Associated Time Limits
1. The Permit Streamlining Act (Government' Code Section 65920 et seq) is the State statute
that applies to all development projects; the Act sets time limits for the processing of
permits associated with development projects.
2. Other time limits are imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code Sections 21100.2 and 21151.5) and State Subdivision Map Act
(Government Code Section 66452 et seq):
3. Time limits associated with reviewing an application indicate that the Lead Agency has
30 -days to determine if an application is complete.
4. Time limits associated with processing a Negative Declaration state that the Lead Agency
must approve a Negative Declaration 180 days from the time an application is deemed
complete.
5. The time limits state that once a Negative Declaration is approved, the Lead Agency has
50 days to approve or deny a land division for which the Negative Declaration was
adopted.
-6. The Permit Streamlining Act also includes a provision concerning an "unreasonable
delay" by the applicant in meeting requests -"by the Lead Agency necessary for the
preparation of a Negative Declaration. This provision indicates that an unreasonable
delay by the project applicant will suspend the time limits described above.
• Parker Tentative Parcel Map Processing Times
C]
1. The Parker Tentative Parcel Map was received by the County on February 21, 2003.
2. The Parker TPM was deemed complete on March 22, 2003.
3. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the Lead Agency should have adopted a Negative
Declaration for the Parker TPM by September 18, 2003 (180 -days from the date the
application was deemed complete).
4. Department policy requires that staff provide a copy of the Initial Study to the project
applicant for review and signature so that revisions to the project are agreed to prior to
releasing a proposed mitigated Negative Declaration for public review, (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15070 (b) (1)).
5. On June 10, 2003 an Initial Study was sent to the applicant's representative, Sierra West
Surveying, which included a mitigation to revise the project to, conform to the 300 foot
agricultural setback as required under Program 2.2 of the Agriculture Element of the
General Plan.
6. On July 7, 2003 the Department of Development Services received a letter from Sierra
West Surveying which indicated that the applicant did not agree to redesign .the project to
conform to Agricultural Element 2.2.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 3 0
7. Because the project applicant would not agree to redesign the project to conform to
• Agricultural Element Program 2.2, staff scheduled a Planning Commission meeting on
August 14, 2003, recommended that the Planning Commission deny the Parker TPM due
to the inconsistency with. the General Plan Agricultural Element.
•
8. The Planning Commission elected to continue this project for at least 45 days to allow for
circulation of the Negative Declaration and to also review the 300 -foot agricultural
setback as it applied to this project.
9. Staff reviewed the 300 -foot agricultural setback issue with the Agricultural
Commissioner and County Counsel. This review included researching past Planning
Commission and Board actions concerning this issue. This information was provided in
the attached March 25, 2004 Agenda Report to the Planning Commission.
10. At the April 22, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing, staff again recommended that the
project be denied due to inconsistencies with the Agricultural Element
11. Staff does not believe that a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has taken place with
respect to this project. Staff provided the applicant with the appropriate course of action
to conform the project to the General Plan on June 10, 2003, well within Permit
Streamlining timelines.
12. The applicant chose not to comply with the revisions necessary to make the application
comply with the Agricultural Element.-
13.
lement:
13. Staff considers this an "unreasonable delay" by the applicant in meeting requests by the
Lead Agency necessary for the preparation of a Negative Declaration.
14. The applicant's actions suspended the running of timelines associated with the Permit
Streamlining Act and CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15109.) ,
15. This delay prohibited staff from preparing a Negative Declaration under CEQA, because
a Negative Declaration could not be supported for the project in its'then current form.
16.. Nevertheless, staff continued to review the project against the Agricultural Element and
worked with the Agricultural Commissioner, and the County Counsel to ensure that all
possible options had been exhausted prior to again recommending denial on April 22,
2004.
17. In summary, the appellant's contention that the County violated the Permit Streamlining
Act is not supported by the record.
18. If the applicant had agreed to the required mitigation measures the County would have
had 180 days from the date the application was deemed complete to take action,on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.
19. The applicant chose not to. redesign their project as supported by the Initial Study and in
so doing suspended the time lines afforded to the project under the Permit Streamlining
Act.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 4 ■
•
CEQA ISSUES:
Two draft initial studies were completed., for the project. The second draft was completed
primarily to show that the agricultural setback also presented a hazard to public health from the
spraying of agricultural chemicals near residential uses. The applicant disagreed with the
recommended mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback .from adjoining agriculturally
zoned lands. Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the
preparation of .an Environmental Impact Report. The initial study has not been circulated.
Public Resources,Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that
are going to be denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for•Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee is required. -
H. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the Tentative Parcel
Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker. (File TPM 03-14), subject to
following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1. Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface_ to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray
drift:
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report 0 Page,5 ■
r�
r
,.• �.». .- �......
a ...... -.S. Y
j
_ .na .r.✓
�+
.+- ,... .. - . .. ... w ..Yr. -Mww• e..f
fr}
ro
- .. ..- .. +f
t.. a.. .+
•�
�
��"�
•
d
{. d,, ..rrf-'�a-�e - :tea:.,
A - �
#
A
1t-�";
�n • ,.,� /,{ li./ � x •d�.d.- i t.Sf'i ryt-�,
c
r
�Y
r
INK
�d�6,T
PI
Y
r.�
j
"
- d• A d
-
� � R N : "' •�?. f 1,� h
't.
�t r � .
M,•r,
, ,
Y
'tel ..
- _. ♦ . ♦ y
:. xf ri .x i f
sJ• . ... .-
.S'f.. ...-_
- 1r•.ty
/"
-.
- ��... - ,"k r-. •,•. .. _ �r .
- l � , !. - - - • W t +ta�•w.� - ..
_... •: Com:., t
r � r . '+wF•u. •w .
♦ `
. - V r!w•
l
,-•
r-
04/26/04-09:52.FA% 530 538 7120 BUTTE COUNTY ADMIN. w Z001
&Sierra West Surveying , a
' SURVEYING
— ,
LICENSED LAND SU - .
5437 Black Olive Drive - Paradise, CA 95969
Phonev(530) 877-6253
Fax: t';530) 877-6254 `
April 22, 2004
Butte County -
Board of Supervisors',
25 County Center Drive i
Oroville, California 95965 r
RE: Lewis A Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map I
File: TPM 03-14; APN.040-280-054 070
Dear Members-
We
embersWe hereby appeal the Butte County Planning Commission's' denial of the Parkin Parcel Map.
- It if our hopes that you will have .County, Council review the Permit Strenmlinirig Act and
• provide you with that information. It is our opinion that Butte County 'violated the Permit
Streamlining Act and that an automatic approval should be granted to this project:;
The application for tentative parcel map was submitted to Butte County Planning on February
19, 2003 and went to public hearing on August 14, 2003,. seven months after the application was ;
submitted:
The Planning Commission sent it back to the Planning Department to complete their work on the
Initial Study and bring it back before the Commission to. be heard. At the August 14, 2003 hearing`it
was agreed to a six-week extension. Finally on March 5, 2003, eight months Inter, it came back to
the Planning Commission for review: M 4
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
ri Sincerely,
' Thomas R. Wrinkle
- SIERRA WEST SURVEING
TRW/kem
• Attachment
G:Letters\Letters\B1o9Porker6.itr ' I
04/26/04 •09:52 FAX 530 538 7120BUTTE COUNTY ADMIN. X002
a •
• BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT — August 14, 2003
Applicant: Kathleen Parker Zoning: SR4 (Suburban
Residential; 1 -acre.
minimum.parcel size) Y
File #: TPM 03-14 APN:- 040-280-054,•& 070
r
Request: This is an application for a -Location: On the -east side of
Tentative Parcel Map to Goodspeed' St.: `
divide a .6.35 -acre parcel' approximately 450 feet
into four 1" acre parcels and :north of Hutton Way,
a 2.35 acre remainder. A Durham.
lot line adjustment is also parcel Size: 6.35 +/- acres
being processed to transfer
a 31 foot wide strip' along Supervisor 4
the northerly property line.
District:
Attachments:
•G.P.: Agricultural Residential. A: General Plan/Zoning Map ,
B: Site Plan _
STAFF COMMENT:
r
The -project is consistent with the SR -1,. but does not conform to County General Plan
':Agricultural Element policies for separation'of residential and agricultural uses. The applicant
has declined to txy 'to'redesign the request as it would most likely result in fewer parcels-.. Staff
recommends that the project be denied because it isnot consistent with the Butte.County General
. , . Plan.
4• . r •
SITE DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and,a 2.35 acre remainder. .
Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would be+handled by,�on-site septic systems and
domestic water would be obtained from 'individual wells. Proposed parcels -would access
Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement.' A lot line adjustment is
also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along -the northerly property line'
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
0 Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 1 0 '
.The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed 2.35 -acre
remainder parcel. The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to
have not been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have grown up in' between the tree
rows. No water courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above
sea level. The project site has an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%. Surrounding parcels
range in size from .25 to 5 acres.
The property is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area. The site is not within a
100 -year flood zone or within. an airport overflight zone.
C]
•
ANALYSIS:
The project would result in the creation of four residential parcels in an area that is planned for
suburban single-family residential land uses and generally has similar -sized residential parcels in
the area. The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the, SR -1 zone, which requires a
minimum parcel size of 1 acre. The project site is designated by the Land Use Element of the
Butte County General Plan as Agricultural Residential. This designation states that the minimum
parcel size is one to forty acres, and the zoning districts that are consistent are A -20,.A-40, TM -
40, FR -20, FR -40, and C -F. The Agricultural Residential designation also lists conditionally
consistent zones which includes the SR -1. The Agricultural Residential designation lists five
development criteria that must be met when a parcel is less than 20 acres in size. The
conditional development criteria are listed below; -along with staff s response:
Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
Agricultural uses in the project area consist primarily of almond orchards. Most of the
orchard land is in an A-10 zone which abuts the property to the south and west. With the
interface between agriculture and residential comes the potential of conflicts between the
two land uses. The project is inconsistent with Agricultural Element "Policies 2.1 which
states that "Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development"; and policy 2.3 which states: "Require development to provide land use
transitions, setbacks, and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to
reduce interference and' conflict.. Program 2.2 of the General Plan Agricultural Element
calls for a 300 foot buffer setback to be placed on the residential side of the interface.
The configuration �of the proposed lots will not accommodate the required setback and the
project would conflict with agricultural uses.
2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division hasreviewed the project and did not
have any objections to the proposed use of septic systems or individual wells.
Groundwater is generally plentiful in the area as evidenced by the wells that serve the
orchards.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned
all year. This is considered adequate to serve the proposed development.
■ Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 2 0
014. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service area.
The site abuts a paved, County -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the
capacity to handle approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this
development.
S. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools.
Commercial services and schools are .located between %2 and 1 mile from the property.
This is clearly adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
Based upon the above discussion, the sizes of the proposed parcels generally meet - the
development criteria for parcels designated as Agricultural Residential that are less than 20 acres
in size, however, the conflict with adjoining agricultural uses would make this particular project
inconsistent with the General Plan. Section 66473.5 of the California Subdivision Map Act
requires any Tentative Map approval to be consistent with the General Plan. Based on the
inconsistency discussed above, this project cannot be recommended for approval.
In addition, the location of residences near agricultural operations has the potential .to expose
people to agricultural chemicals from orchard spray operations and the resulting spray drift., This
is a potential health and safety hazard.
• This application also involves a request for a lot line adjustment between two parcels. The
proposed adjustment is consistent with County requirements including zoning � and building,
issues and could be approved separate from the request to divide the property.
CEQA ISSUES:
An initial study was performed for the project. The applicant disagreed with the recommended
mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback from adjoining agriculturally zoned lands.
Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant has asked that he project be taken to hearing
without the environmental findings. The initial study has not been circulated. Public Resources
Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that are going to be
denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Development Review Committee take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation, of the California Environmental
Quality Act).
H. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM
03-14), subject to following findings:
0 Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 3 0
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and `
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:'
2.1.' Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic-impacts.of urban'
development.' and, policy.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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 Ipart of the „General . Plan's implementation, shall be
developed illustrating buffer requirements foryarious situations.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural ,chemical spray
• .drift. `° � •
j
i
'■ Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report ■ Page 4
Kathleen and Lewis Parker, (Item not subject to environmental review), Tentative Parcel
Map to divide a 6.35 acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels with a concurrent Lot Line
Adjustment with an adjacent property on property zoned SR -1 (Suburban. Residential — 1
acre parcels). The property is located. on the east side of Goodspeed Street, approximately
450 feet north of Hutton Way, in Durham: APN 040-280-054, 070 (CS) (TPM 03-1'4)
Mr. Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. He noted'a letter received from Michael Hislop.
Chairman Lambert questioned if the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) was necessary to allow enough
acreage for this parcel map.
Mr. Sanders said there was adequate acreage without.the LLA.
Chairman Lambert asked how this project relates to the D2N Plan.
Mr. Sanders said it is within the urban improvement standards area of the D2N Plan.
Commissioner. Nelson asked if the other one -'acre lots in the area are occupied.
Mr. Sanders said the lots'along the Midway are mostly single-family residential, the parcel along
Goodspeed -to the north has a single-family residence on it, and homes generally line Goodspeed "
also on the easterly side of the road. He said the land to the south is agriculturally zoned, but there is
no orchard on the property. He said the potential is there for an orchard. He said there is a health
and safety issue in terms of spraying from a potential orchard.
Commissioner Nelson stated he did not see a 300 foot buffer being,reasonable at this location.
Mr. Sanders said there is an approved, Subdivision to the south and these parcelsrange in size from
3.9 to 4 .or 5 acres in size.
Mr. MacKenzie informed the Commission that the environmental documents have not been
circulated on this project. He said this project could not be approved today. He said the
Commission might want to continue the hearing to allow staff time to work out the buffer problem.
Commissioner Leland read from the Agricultural Element Program 2.1 "Agriculture'shall not be
made unviable by the economic impacts of urban development." Program 2.2 states "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." He felt that this gave the
Commission some discretion to modify or adjust the 300 foot setback.
Commissioner Nelson said he believed in the 300 foot setback requirement when it was reasonable,
but he was not sure it was reasonable here. -
Commissioner Evans noted that there is no existing agricultural use to the south.
r BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ AUGUST 14, 2003 PAGE 10 ■
• Mr. Baker said as Counsel has pointed out, it would be appropriate to allow time for staff to prepare
an initial study on this project and continue this hearing.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveyors, said he checked on the Sutton Subdivision to the south and the
subdivision is a residential subdivision. In addition, houses are being built on approximately 4-5 acre
parcels. He said the acreage to the road would be lower after deeding out the roads. He discussed
the buffer and the fact that the County has not implemented the Agricultural Element. He said there
are no agricultural operations in this area.
Bud False said that across the street there is an active orchard 100 feet away. He said his concern is
the maintenance of the private road. _
Beth Fernandz said her concern is the access road through Midway. She said Midway is a traffic
problem now.
Commissioner Nelson informed'her the access road would come in from Goodspeed.
The hearing was closed.
• Commissioner Leland said that this proposal has two unique aspects that were not addressed when
the implementation of the Agricultural Element was being discussed. One is that this parcel is infill
where there are residences that are closer than 300 feet. The other circumstance is the character of
agricultural use of the property abutting this parcel. He said the use is a ranchette hobby farm and
not intense farming. He wanted to highlight the need for the Guidelines to implement the
Agricultural Element of the General Plan.
Commissioner Nelson said the property is surrounded on at least two sides by residential parcels.
Commissioner Marin said he did not think a 300 foot buffer would work here.. He said a 300 -foot
setback would hobble the owner from developing the.land, but next door adjoining land is 1/3 to %2
acre parcels that are developed or being developed.
Mr. Sanders said he would need a minimum of 30 days to complete the Initial Study.
Commissioner Evans asked what strides could be made on the Guidelines for the General Plan
implementation in 45 days.
Chairman Lambert said the Commission could initiate hearings.
Commissioner Nelson discussed dealing with setback buffers.
Mr. Baker said this type of discussion and implementation would probably be tied to the General
Plan update.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMNIISSION ■ NIINUTES ■ AUGUST 14, 2003 ■ PAGE 11 ■
Commissioner Nelson said he would like to address the. setback for this parcel .as a special
circumstance where they can make some adjustments.
Chairman Lambert said there have been times when the 300 foot buffer has been reduced, but the
question is where or when 300 feet is appropriate.
Commissioner Leland said this is a unique situation because the parcel is infill and because the
agricultural use next to the property isnot intensive agricultural use.
Commissioner Marin said the 300 -foot buffer for this property does not work. He also felt that this
was a unique situation where the Commission could adjust the setback.
Commissioner Evans said they need to have staff do the Initial Study and maybe work on the
Guideline at the same time.
Commissioner Nelson suggested that staff go back and look at the old hearing.
Mr. Baker said he will take the Commission's concerns to the director and -will report back to the
Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously carried
to postponethis hearing for at least 45 days to allow .staff adequate time to circulate the
environmental document and return with comments for the Commission to further consider this
particular application.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously carried
to ask staff to come back and refresh the Commission's memory on where they -ended with the
discussion on the 300400t setback issue. It was part of the Agricultural Implementation hearings as`
a discussion item. He would like this at the same time as the. Parker, hearing comes back.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING'COMIVIISSION. ■ NDNUTES ■ AUGUST.14; 2003 PAGE 12 w 1. 0
" BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
. AGENDA REPORT March 25, 2004
Applicant: ' Kathleen Parker Zoning:, SR -1 (Suburban
Residential,, 1. -acre
' minimum parcel. size)
File #: TPM 03-14 APN: 040-280-054, & 070
Request: This is an application fora Location: ' On the east side of.
- Tentative ::Parcel Map. to 'Goodspeed -St. ,
divide -a 6.35 -acre parcel approximately 450 feet
into. four 1 acre parcels and north•of Hutton Way,
a 2.35 acre remainder. `:A Durham.
lot line adjustment is also project Dan Breedon
being processed to'transfer planner: Principal Planner
a 31 foot wide strip along
the northerly property line., Parcel Size: 6.35 +/- acres -
• Supervisor. 4
District: f,
Attachments: `
General Plan A: General Plan and Zoning ,
Designation: Agricultural Residential Map
B: FAugust`l4, 2003, Planning
Commission' Agenda
' Report/Minuies
C. 'Aerial Maps for' Parker
and Niderost -
D. Initial Study
- E. Tentative >Parcel, Map
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The project is consistent with the SR -1 zone, but does not conform to County'General Plan
Agricultural Element policies. regarding a 300 -foot agricultural setback, or the Conditional
Development Criteria required by the Agricultural Residential. General Plan designation that
requires development to be compatible with- neighboring agricultural activities. The applicant
has'declined to redesign the project to conform to'the 300 -foot agricultural setback.,..
This project was last heard by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2003.. The Planning
Commission continued the project off the agenda pending further review of the 300 -foot
■ Butte County Plannmg.Commission 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 1 0
•
agricultural setback issue and provision of further information to the Planning Commission
regarding this issue.
Staff re -reviewed this agricultural setback issue ' with the Agriculture Commissioner who
provided revised comments. The revised comments received from the Agriculture
Commissioner do not provide any relief from the 300 -foot agricultural setback.
Staff, therefore, recommends that the project be denied because it is not consistent with the Butte
County General Plan.
If the applicant wishes to pursue the lot line adjustment proposed by this map; a revised map
would be required showing the adjustment proposed and omitting the proposed parcels. As an
alternative option, the applicant could submit a lot line adjustment application to the Land
Development Division.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
1. This is a request to divide. a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 acre
remainder.
2. Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would be handled by on-site septic systems
and domestic water would be obtained from individual wells.
3. Proposed parcels would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60
foot easement. "
4. A lot line, adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the
northerly property line.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed
2.35 -acre remainder parcel. v
2. .The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to have not been
maintained for some time.
3. Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree rows. No water courses traverse the
property.
4. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level.
5. The project site has an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%.
6. Surrounding parcels range in size from .25 to 5 acres.
7. The property -is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area.
8. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
0 Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 2 ■
12
ANALYSIS:
1. On August 14, 2003, the Planning Commission continued this item off the agenda.
2. The Planning Commission instructed staff to provide further information relative to the
30.0 -foot agricultural setback as required under Program 2.2'of the Agricultural Element
of the General Plan.
3. Staff reviewed the Planning Commission's minutes regarding further issues related to the
agricultural setback since this item was continued and found the following information:
a. At the August 28, 2003, Planning Commission public meeting Development
Services Director Yvonne Christopher briefed the Planning Commission on the
Agriculturat Setback issue.
b. Director Christopher explained to the Planning .Commission that there are two
kinds of 300 -foot agricultural setbacks, one based upon health and safety issues
and not related to zoning, and the other based upon Agricultural Element Program
2.2.
c. Director Christopher indicated that the Agricultural Element was adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
d. At the October 9, 2003, Planning Commission hearing the Planning Commission
considered a Tentative Parcel Map, for Edward J. Niderost, for which the
agricultural setback was discussed.
e. At this hearing, the Planning Commission received information regarding a 150 -
foot Agricultural Setback as recommended by the Agriculture Commissioner and
continued the hearing to November 13, 2003, to allow for further consideration of
the. Agricultural Setback by the Agricultural Commissioner.
£ At this hearing extensive discussion took place on the agricultural setback. The
setback was approved_ at 300 feet for the placement of dwellings from adjacent
agricultural operations.
g.' This condition was later appealed to the Board of Supervisors., The Board
reviewed the agricultural setback as approved by the Planning Commission.
h. The Board of Supervisors determined. that the existing dwellings in the area
created a buffer from the surrounding agricultural spray operations. The potential
development on the parcels created was classified as infill and no agricultural
setback was required.
i. On February 12, 2004, the Agriculture Commissioner Richard Price provided a
presentation to the Planning Commission on the agricultural setback,.
j. The. Planning Commission also received comment from Development Services
Director Yvonne Christopher regarding the agricultural setback
k. Director Christopher indicated that as part of the Agricultural Element.. "
implementation, guidelines would be developed concerning the agricultural
setback.
■ Butte'County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 3 E.
13
1. Director Christopher indicated that Development Services staff would implement
the 300 -foot setback on all development projects unless they have direction from
the Board to do otherwise -
m. Director Christopher indicated that 'members of the public considering the
division of their property adjacent to agricultural operations must plan for a buffer
300 feet back from active agricultural operations.
4. Staff asked the Agricultural Commissioner to review this Tentative Parcel Map again, in
light of the Board of Supervisors' finding the Niderost Tentative Parcel Map as an infill
development that could be approved without the 300 -foot agricultural setback. (See
Aerial Maps for Niderost and Parker, ATTACHMENT C)
5. Although there are similarities between the Niderost Tentative Parcel Map and the Parker.
Tentative Parcel Map, residential development adjacent to the Parker Map is considered
more disbursed, and the Parker Map involves a larger, 6.35 -acre parcel as opposed to the
smaller Niderost Map at.2 acres.
6. The arrangement of adjacent dwellings and the relatively small size of the Niderost Map
provide an area where agricultural. spraying is already prohibited due to the proximity of
adjacent dwellings.
7. In contrast to the Niderost Map, there are areas on the Parker Map that, due to its larger
size, will be influenced by adjacent agricultural activities and spraying.
8. The Parker Map, therefore, does not qualify as infill development for purposes of
• implementing,the 300 -foot agricultural setback, as does the Niderost Map.
9. The Agriculture. Commissioner, therefore, requires that the Parcel Map be reconfigured in
such a way that will support the development of building sites outside of the 300 -foot
agricultural setback.
10. The current map does not support this configuration and places building sites within the
300 -foot setback.
11. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of this tentative parcel map, unless the applicant
can reconfigure the project to comply with a 300 foot agricultural setback.
•
CEQA ISSUES:
An initial study was performed for the project. The applicant disagreed with the recommended
mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback from adjoining agriculturally zoned lands.
Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant has asked that the project be taken to hearing
without the environmental findings. The initial study has not been circulated. Public Resources
Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that are going to be
denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
■ Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 4 0
1'4
ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not'subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under'Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee is required.
H. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM
03-14), subject to following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic,impacts of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers ,
between urban development and .agricultural interface to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath 'and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray
drift.
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKER\3.25.04 Planning Commision Report.doc
0 Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 5 ■ .
4
Kathleen Parker, Tentative Parcel Map This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map
to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels. and a 2.35 acre remainder. A -lot line
adjustment is also being processed to transfer .a'31 foot wide strip along the northerly
property line. The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential — 1 acre parcels) and is
located on the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way,
Durham. APN 040-280-045 and 070.(DB) (TPM 03-14)'
Mr. Breedon said the applicant has requested that this hearing be continued to April 8; 2004.
Chairman Leland announced that.he would not be here for the April 8 meeting.
The meeting was opened to the public.
No one was present to speak on this item.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously ;
carried to continue this hearing open to April 22, 2004.
■
2004 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ MARCH 25, ■ PAGE.1 ■
p O
O
O C
O�—_x� .
M_emorandum o -- - yo
J.
TO: HonorablvChairman and Planning Commission y
FROM- Dan Breedon; Principal, Planner `
SUBJECT: Addendum to March 25, 2004 Planning. Commission Agenda Report for
Parker Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14) for April 22, 2004 Planning
Commission Meeting
DATE: April 14, 2004
Department of Development Services
Planning Division
The consideration of the March 24, 2004 Agenda Report was continued to this date at the request
of the applicant.
• The Agriculture Commissioner's office has additionally brought to staff's attention the conflict
associated with the commercial stables located adjacent to 'the southeast portion, of the proposed
Parker tentative map. .% "'
-The Agriculture Commissioner's office indicates that the proximity of the project to the stables ;a
supports the implementation of the 300 foot agricultural buffer ' provided for under Program
2.2 of the Agricultural Element of the General Plan. The Agriculture Commissioner commented
to staff that there is a potential for nuisance complaints regarding dust, odor, noise, and pests
generated by the commercial stables, if the project is approved without an agricultural buffer.
The agricultural buffer required for. the .commercial horse stables Win. addition to the buffer,
required from the balance of the south property line due to the potential for this adjacenVproperty
to be improved with a commercial orchard.
Staff is therefore recommending that an additional finding be included- in the Planning
Commission's denial of this project. The additional finding is to be included under the Actions
for Consideration Section, Item 1I (c) as follows:
C. The development of residential structures within 300 feet of the commercial stables,
located adjacent to the southeast portion,of the project, would subject residents to land
use impacts such as dust, odor, noise,. and pests, which are considered public nuisances
and are impacts that are considered incompatible with the proposed residential uses. .
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKER\Parker Addendum.doc"
•
Kathleen Parker, Tentative Parcel Map This is an application for a Tentative
Parcel Map to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 acre
remainder. A lot line adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide
strip along the northerly property line. The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban
Residential — 1 acre parcels) and is located on the east side of Goodspeed St.
approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham. APN 040-280-045 and 070
(DB) (TPM 03-14)
Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of the project. He said this project does not qualify as infill
property. He added an additional finding to read "The development of residential structures within
300 feet of the commercial stables, located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would
subject residents to land use impacts such as dust, odor, noise, and pests, which are considered pubic
nuisances and are impacts that are considered incompatible with the proposed residential uses."
Commissioner Nelson asked if the property for Ms. Parker could be farmed with residences on three
sides of it.
Mr. Breedon said the problem is that the property to the south could be farmed and sprayed and
could affect this property. i
Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner, said the stables are considered an agricultural use. He
said they are looking at allowing a smaller density.
Commissioner Lambert asked if there is access on the map where it shows a small strip to the bottom
right where it adjoins Midway.
Mr. Breedon said "yes" and explained the applicant's right to appeal if this is denied.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveying, said the application was submitted in 2003 and went to the
Commission in August 2003 for the first time. He said at that time the applicant agreed to a 6 week
continuance. He said it has now been 8 months. He said the Permit Streamlining Act does not allow
this to happen and that this should be considered an automatic approval. He said there is no reason
to tell an applicant he will be back in 6 weeks then take 8 months instead.
Mr. Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel, stated that the Permit Streamlining Act is clear that it
sets specific time limits for approving or denying projects after the environmental documents have
been certified or if you area responsible agency after a lead agency has approved a project. He said
there have been no environmental documents certified in this case.
• Mr. Breedon explained that a Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study was prepared and the
applicant refused to sign the document. He felt that staff had worked with diligence to try to work
through the issues, but the applicant chose to not re -design the map or re -configure the parcels to
comply with the 300 -foot agricultural setback.
2004 ii PAGE
....... ■BUTTE .. .. ... _ .. ......._ �,.....� _, _. __ ...
• Mr. Wrinkle disagreed With Mr. Wannenmacher's explanation -of the Permit Streamlining Act.
Chairman Leland said there are no environmental documents, the 300 -foot setback is the law, and the
Permit Streamlining Act does not apply.
The hearing was closed.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and unanimously
carried to deny the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14) for Kathleen Parker, subject to the findings
listed below, adding a finding to read "The development of residential structures within 300 feet of
the commercial stables, located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would subject
residents to land use impacts such as dust,, odor, noise, and pests, which are considered public
nuisances.and are impacts that are considered incompatible with the proposed residential uses." as
follows:
L Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code
21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and' (b) of, Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation f the California Environmental
Quality Act).
II. Deny thetentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-
14), subject to the following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1. Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development and policy.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions,. setbacks, and buffers -
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference
and conflict.
And 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.
• B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands poses a
health and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray drift.
C. The development of residential structures within 300 feet of the commercial stables,
located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would subject residents to21
0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 22, 2004 ■ PAGE 3 ■
•
4
J
I
•
SIERRA WEST SURVEYING -
' LICENSED LAND SURVEYING.
5437 ,Black Olive Drive - Paradise, CA 95969 ,
Phone: .(530) 877-6253 BUTTE
Fax: (530) 877-6254 COUNTY —
JUL 092003 -
.. , DEVELOPAMNT _ - --
July 7, 2003 sLRvicEs
Craig Sanders
County of Butte
Planning Department
7 County Center Driver
,
Oroville; California 95965
RE:- JOB 8109
APN 040-280-054 '
** Tentative Parcel Map for Kathleen Parker
• Dear Craig:`
I have received the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Kathleen Parker Parcel Map, APN 040-280-054 & 070, TBM 3-14.. ;
We do not agree to Mitigation Measure.#1 regarding..'" No residential
structures may be developed within 300 feet of -the southerly"property lines of
the project.,_
Has the 300 foot building setback requirement been adopted as part of the
Butte County -Code by the -Board �of Supervisors? Is it in the General'Plan? Is it'in
the Agriculture Element? _
This property is within the Durham developed area. J have not seen any,
adopted ordinances which state that there shall be a 300 foot setback for any
home to be built in an agriculture zone. r -
If this is a policy being implemented by the county staff and,not adopted by
• D the Board ,of Supervisors, I would like to know what'authority they have to
' implement this. i -
y Craig Sanders
--Butte County Planning
July 7, 2003
A Page Two
1
1104
L A N D O F� N At U R A L W E A L T HAND B E A U T Y
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE. OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530)538-7785
June 10, 2003
Tom Wrinkle
Sierra West Surveying
5437 Black Olive Drive
Paradise, CA 95969
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration •for the Kathleen Parker, APN 040-280-
054 and 070, Project # TPM 03-14
Dear Mr. Wrinkle:
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3), an Initial Study has been prepared
to determine if the above-referended project would have significant adverse effects on the
environment. The Initial Study determined that mitigation measures are necessary to
prevent the project from causing significant impacts to the environment and a'Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed.
Please review the enclosed initial study and recommended mitigation measures, noting
particularly -.any environmental problems which could be minimized or avoided by the
care and manner in which the project is carried out. Section 15070(0)(1) of the California.
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires that the project applicant, or his or her
agent, provide a written consent to the proposed mitigation measures prior to release of
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration' and" Initial Study for public review. The
recommended mitigation measures constitute a revision to the project.
If you agree to the mitigation measures, please sign Section 8 of the Initial Study and -
return to the Planning Division. The Initial Study will be released for public review and
the project -set for a public hearing by the Development Review Committee once we haves
received the signed Initial Study. You must return the signed Initial Study to this office
before the project .can be scheduled for the public' hearing.. If you do not agree to the
mitigation measures, please contact this office as soon as possible to discuss possible
alternatives.
25.
Should you have any further questions regarding this Mitigated Negative Declaration,
please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
at (530) 538-7153.
Sincerely,
Craig Sanders
Senior Planner
Enclosure: Initial Study for TPM 03-14
•
a
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
D"AFT
COUNTY OF BUTTE ,
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
_ INITIAL STUDY FOR
TPM 03-14 (Parker)
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
A Applicant/Owner• Kathleen and Lewis Parker
B. Engineer: Sierra West Surveying
C. Staff Contact: Ciaig Sanders
D. Proiect Name: N/A
E. Proiect Location: On the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham.
F. Type of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment
G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 040-280-054 and 070
H. Proiect Site Size: 6.35 acres
L Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) '
J. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential
K Environmental Setting: The site is developed with one single family dwelling on the proposed 2.35 -acre
remainder parcel. The site is level and is planted in`an almond orchard. The orchard appears to be old an has
not been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have. grown up in between the tree rows. No water
courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level. The project site has
an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%.
Surrounding parcels range in size from .25 to 5 acres, with the predominant size being in the less being less
than an acre.
The property is located within the Sphere of influence of the City of Oroville, but isn't in the County's Urban
Improvement Standards Area. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight
zone.
L. Surrounding Land Uses: Dwellings at rural densities and almond orchards.
M. Proiect Description: This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1
acre parcels and a 2.35 acre remainder. Sewage disposal for the future dwellings on the -site would be '
handled by on-site septic systems and domestic water obtained from i9ndividual wells. Proposed parcels
would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement. A lot line adjustment is
' also being processed to transfer a,31 foot wide strip along the northerly property line.
N. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works
Department, and Butte County Fire Department.
2.0 DETERNIINATION' '
A..i
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
L) RX
] 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon .the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared by: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Date
Reviewed by: Joe Baker, Principal Planner
Date
3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
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.
[ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [X] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality
[ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [ ] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes
[ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [ ] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use
[ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing
[X] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic
[ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. 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.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■
E
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
. 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) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EM, 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.
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.
4.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
4.1 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
within a state scenic highway?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■
Project Name:. Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 ,
Impact Discussion:
The project would result in the creation of four new residential parcels in an area that is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found'in•the project area, no substantial conflicts with the
'
established character or functioning of the surrounding.community is anticipated. Future dwellings on the site may
have outside lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor, required as a part of the"
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of
-the project site. The project would not create any significant ° sources of new light or glare: The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not affect a
scenic vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
Mitigation Measure: None required
� t
• 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
♦
Previous
c
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
`
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
X
quality of the site `and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in theX
,
area? I IR
'
Impact Discussion:
The project would result in the creation of four new residential parcels in an area that is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found'in•the project area, no substantial conflicts with the
'
established character or functioning of the surrounding.community is anticipated. Future dwellings on the site may
have outside lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor, required as a part of the"
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of
-the project site. The project would not create any significant ° sources of new light or glare: The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not affect a
scenic vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
Mitigation Measure: None required
� t
• 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:
y
Impact Discussion:
The SR -1 zoning of the site allows most types of agricultural uses as an accessory use. The General Plan land use
designation of Agricultural Residential lists agricultural uses as a primary use. No agricultural' uses are currently
• established on the site, although the suitability of the land for agriculture has .been shown by the remnants of.an
almond orchard on-site and the small orchards in the general vicinity. Surrounding residential development along with
the small size of the parcel itself, limits the commercial viability of the property for viable commercial endeavors. The
project site abuts an A-10 zone to the south and to the west,, across Goodspeed Street. Currently. no commercial
n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■
•L
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
y
Impact Discussion:
The SR -1 zoning of the site allows most types of agricultural uses as an accessory use. The General Plan land use
designation of Agricultural Residential lists agricultural uses as a primary use. No agricultural' uses are currently
• established on the site, although the suitability of the land for agriculture has .been shown by the remnants of.an
almond orchard on-site and the small orchards in the general vicinity. Surrounding residential development along with
the small size of the parcel itself, limits the commercial viability of the property for viable commercial endeavors. The
project site abuts an A-10 zone to the south and to the west,, across Goodspeed Street. Currently. no commercial
n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No .
Reviewed"
Would the proposal:
Significant.
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
a
Previous
c
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
`
a: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
'
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, ora
-'
X
^
Williamson Act Contract?
c. Involve other,changes in the existing environment which,
'
" due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
X
of Farmland; to non-agricultural use?
y
Impact Discussion:
The SR -1 zoning of the site allows most types of agricultural uses as an accessory use. The General Plan land use
designation of Agricultural Residential lists agricultural uses as a primary use. No agricultural' uses are currently
• established on the site, although the suitability of the land for agriculture has .been shown by the remnants of.an
almond orchard on-site and the small orchards in the general vicinity. Surrounding residential development along with
the small size of the parcel itself, limits the commercial viability of the property for viable commercial endeavors. The
project site abuts an A-10 zone to the south and to the west,, across Goodspeed Street. Currently. no commercial
n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Y
agricultural operations are being conducted to•the property to the south which is divided into two 5 -acre parcels each
developed with a single family residence. A small orchard has been planted on the property immediately to the south
on Goodspeed. The orchard covers less than 2 acres and is located approximately 200 feet away from the subject
property.. The area is a mixture of residential and agricultural with the agriculture being comprised of so called
"hobby farms." Due to heath and safety concerns associated with spray drift from chemicals applied to agricultural .
operations, the County is attempting to reduce human exposure to such chemicals particularly at an
agriculture/residential interface. To reduce potential exposure, a 300 foot residential setback is being required on
properties abutting agricultural lands. Applying the 300 foot setback to the subject property renders the proposed lot
configuration infeasible. No other .lot configurations appear to be feasible to divide the property and maintain the
desired 300 foot buffer. 4
The site has soils with a Soil Classification Service Classification of II (Butte County GIS Soils theme), Class H soils
have few limitations to the cultivation of agricultural crops and can sustain a variety of orchard and field crops.
There is no California Land Conservation Agreement ("Williamson Act") contract affecting this property or any of the
surrounding parcels. While the site has what can be considered prime agricultural soil, surrounding development and
the current zoning which allows for 1 -acre residential parcels combine to make the property unsuitable for viable
agricultural production. The conversion of these 6 acres will not have a significant effect on agricultural production
within the County.
The project is not within an area designated Orchard and'Field Crop but is still subject to certain provisions in the
Agricultural Element because it abuts Orchard and Field Crop land. Development of residential uses adjacent to
agricultural properties has the effect of of existing agricultural practices or curtailing future agriculture
production because farmers cannot spray many chemicals near residences. The agricultural Element requires a 300
foot setback from agricultural m
lands for residential uses unless special circumstances can be found. No such special
circumstances appear to be in place for this project. Applying a 300. foot setback from the southerly property line
effectively wipes out the potential for residential use on the project.
Agricultural uses, including grazing, would be possible on the proposed parcels. No significant impact is anticipated
to agricultural resources as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measure #1: Re -design the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the southerly property line.
4.3 AIR QUALITY:
Impact Discussion:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
2
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Conflict with or -obstruct implementation of the applicable
X
air quality plan?. -
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
X
-
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
X
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
X
of people?
Impact Discussion:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
2
/ 1
J
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03.14
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards.
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant .because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur.at the same time. The
road servicing the*project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such , as grading, excavation for
foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 1 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map"or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b.' During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
R c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation.
Document
Incorporated
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
X
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califomia
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
I
•
Project,Name: Kathleen Parker TenEative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
f
Impact Discussion: °
The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat, exists on-site. A
search of the California Natural Diversity'Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. Is a native of California, growing in adobe clay in open fields
The fields where it grows are very wet in winter and spring, baked hard in summer. This plant is not a State of
Federally listed species. The California Native Plant Society has it as a rare plant on their list. The project site does
not have the type habitat needed for this plan. The ground doesn't not have a high clay content the cultivation of the
• orchard would preclude this plant from becoming established.
The project site is not located in deer herd winter range (Butte County Deer Herd GIS coverage). The project would
not have a significant impact on deer herd range. '
4..
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division m. Page 7 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under •
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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
'X
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
`
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with
X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy
X
ordinance?
L Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or state_ habitat
conservationplan?,
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an
impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened,
X
or endangered species of animals?
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite
(including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or
X
invertebrates)?
i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for
X
-
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or
X
migratoryfish or wildlife species?
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the
X
normal activities of wildlife?
Impact Discussion: °
The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat, exists on-site. A
search of the California Natural Diversity'Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. Is a native of California, growing in adobe clay in open fields
The fields where it grows are very wet in winter and spring, baked hard in summer. This plant is not a State of
Federally listed species. The California Native Plant Society has it as a rare plant on their list. The project site does
not have the type habitat needed for this plan. The ground doesn't not have a high clay content the cultivation of the
• orchard would preclude this plant from becoming established.
The project site is not located in deer herd winter range (Butte County Deer Herd GIS coverage). The project would
not have a significant impact on deer herd range. '
4..
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division m. Page 7 ■
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
This project would have not have significant impact to the loss of wildlife habitat because the property is cultivated as
an orchard. Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711:4(d)(3) and 14 CCR
753.5 are not required to be paid by the project proponent.
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community
'Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure: None Required .
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under,
proposal:
Impact
with .
Impact
Impact
Previous
'
Impact
Mitigation
Impact '
Document
Incorporated
Document
a. • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
Incorporated
A historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource ursuantto §15064.5.?
X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains; including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Impact Discussion':
Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls,
water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. - Cultural resources consist of any human -made
site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past.. No such structures or sites are located on the
subject site.
The project site is located in a general area characterized as having a low to medium, including unknown,
archeological sensitivity. The location of the project is in an area that -does not have a high potential for historical or
cultural resources. Often such sites are found "in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas '
overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above bodies of water. The project site has undergone extensive agricultural
operations over the years, and it is unlikely that any intact cultural resources are located on the site. Therefore, no
impacts are expected to occur to any historical or cultural resources.
4
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant-
Impact
Under
'
Impact
with
Impact '
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■
5
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal: ` ,
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact y
with
Impact
Previous
~
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial`adverse .
effects; including the risk of loss, injury; or death involving:
1. Rupture,of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
X
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
'known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
3.. Seismic -related, ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X
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 landslide, lateral -
-X
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
;
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
X
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
,
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
X
,
where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste
water? r
Impact Discussion:
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate
Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone, but is in an after shock
4.
epicenter region. 'The nearest active fault, the Cleveland Hill fault, is located'approximately 19 miles to the southeast,
of the site. The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that an inferred. fault is located approximately 2.2 miles to
the west of the site. '
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. , However, strong seismic ground
shaking is closely related to the proximity of active fault lines. Although there is insufficient data to predict these
forces, the closest mapped Fault -Rupture Zone is the Cleveland Hills fault zone, whichl is located approximately 19 w
miles to the east of the project site. The Cleveland Hills fault line is the only fault line in Butte County that is'
recognized under the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones A'ct to pose a •threat from fault rupture. However, new
structures placed on the site are required to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code.
Seismic risk is not limited to faults which have been currently identified. Some earthquakes originate from unknown
sources sometimes characterized as "background seismicity" or "floating earthquakes". The Butte County Master
Environmental Assessment indicates that it is reasonable to assume that background seismicity could produce
earthquakes as large as Richter magnitude (modified Mercalli intensity scale) 6.5 virtually anywhere in Butte County.
There is no current evidence that an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.5 would occur at this location. Earthquakes at
this magnitude are generally felt by all persons, but damage is generally slight to minor, with fallen chimneys and
cracked plaster the most prominent damage. Richter magnitude 6.5 is not subjectively characterized on the intensity
scale, but a magnitude'7 is generally characterized by negligible damage, especially in buildings of good design and
. ' k
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning -Division ■ Page 9 ■ '
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 '
• construction. Considerable damage can occur in poorly built or badly designid strtictures. However, the impact
would be less than significant.
The Butte County Seismic.Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential
for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant for the development of single family residential structures
constructed in conformance with State Building Code.
The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that
there is a low potential for landslides in this area. No impact is anticipated.
The Erosion. Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that the soil erosion
potential for the project site is low. Gentle slopes predominate on the site of approximately 1% to 2%. Standard
construction techniques are required as .part of the construction process of this site, which would help prevent
significant soil erosion impacts. It is expected that the development of the site including roads, driveways, septic
leachfields, and houses would impact more than one acre of land and would therefore require a Construction .
stormwater permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater permits are intended to
minimize water quality impacts of development. As this is a statutory requirement, no mitigation is necessary. A
condition will be included as part of any approval recommendations for the project.
No impact is anticipated from instability, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. .
The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive`soil
potential. This will be taken into account at time of building permit application for future residences and the
foundation design will reflect the shrink/swell characteristics of the soil.No impact is anticipated: "
The Butte County Environmental Health Department does not object to the use of septic systems on the property.
• Percolation tests were conducted on the site and sewage disposal areas are identified on the tentative parcel map.
Septic systems installed on the site are required to comply with the County Improvement Standards. No impact is
anticipated.
•
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS' MATERIAL'S
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No .
Reviewed
proposal:.
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact,..
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal
X
of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely ,
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
X
quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
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
X
significant hazard to the public or the environment? .
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Would the proposal:
Impact "
with
Impact
Impact
Previous
Impact
Mitigation
Impact '
Document
Incorporated
Document
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
Incorporated
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
X
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
X
X
working in the project area?
g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation-
X .
plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wild ands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
'
residences are intermixed with willdlands?
Impact Discussion: '
The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous
materials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
• Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated.,
The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and -does not
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. 4
The project is not located within a State Response Area for wildland fires and wildland fires are not a high concern in
the area. The nearest fire station is Station # 45 (full time), located approximately 3,000 feet away, to the north in
Durham. .
Mitigation Measure: None required
. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER•OUALITY: `
m Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page I Lm
ZN
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact '
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste�discharge
X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
m Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page I Lm
ZN
r
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems placed on the site must meet the requirements of the ,Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site.
Domestic water supply for the future dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater is
readily available in the area. r
- This project would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as houses, accessory structures,
and driveways. A minor increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created
"from the impervious surfaces. The Butte County Department of Public Works is requiring a condition that the peak
flow runoff from the site not increase as a result of the development. A system to detain runoff water will have to be
designed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the Public Works Department. Adherence to the standards of
the Butte County Public Works Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts on area drainage.
No water courses exist on the site or on adjacent properties, therefore the project would not affect the water quality of
any water course.
The project siie'is not located within a 1007year flood zone as shown on the Federal Emergency Management- ,
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 08, 1998.
The property is not located in an 'area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact,would occur with respect to
these natural hazards.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■+
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impaci
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area,. including through the alteration of the course of a
X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage patter of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, of substantially increase the rate or amount
X '
of surface runoff in a manner which would result inr,
flooding on- or off-site?
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
X
runoff?
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
F
X
Insurance Rate Map,or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
= `
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
X
` result of the failure of a levee or dam? -
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems placed on the site must meet the requirements of the ,Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site.
Domestic water supply for the future dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater is
readily available in the area. r
- This project would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as houses, accessory structures,
and driveways. A minor increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created
"from the impervious surfaces. The Butte County Department of Public Works is requiring a condition that the peak
flow runoff from the site not increase as a result of the development. A system to detain runoff water will have to be
designed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the Public Works Department. Adherence to the standards of
the Butte County Public Works Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts on area drainage.
No water courses exist on the site or on adjacent properties, therefore the project would not affect the water quality of
any water course.
The project siie'is not located within a 1007year flood zone as shown on the Federal Emergency Management- ,
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 08, 1998.
The property is not located in an 'area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact,would occur with respect to
these natural hazards.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■+
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Mitigation Measure: None required.
4.9 LAND USE:
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35-acre'parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
• 20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
•
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
a The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. 'Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting • lands. The project may not be
compatible with this criterion.
2.' Evidence of adequate water and- sewage disposal capacity.
The site has soils that are suited for individual' septic tank and leachfield systems. The * Butte County
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the property for either sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools
Commercial services and schools are located between '/2 and 1 mile from the property. This is clearly
adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. in 1992 as part of the Durham Dayton Nelson
Plan the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The site is- appropriately designated as Agricultural
Residential and generally meets the conditional zoning and development criteria required when considering applying
zoning less than 20 acres in size. -
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
lIJ
-Potentially .
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal: ..
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
'
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan,- specific plan,
X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservation plan?
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35-acre'parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
• 20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
•
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
a The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. 'Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting • lands. The project may not be
compatible with this criterion.
2.' Evidence of adequate water and- sewage disposal capacity.
The site has soils that are suited for individual' septic tank and leachfield systems. The * Butte County
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the property for either sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools
Commercial services and schools are located between '/2 and 1 mile from the property. This is clearly
adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. in 1992 as part of the Durham Dayton Nelson
Plan the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The site is- appropriately designated as Agricultural
Residential and generally meets the conditional zoning and development criteria required when considering applying
zoning less than 20 acres in size. -
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
lIJ
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File #,TPM 03-14 r
The proposal would not physically divide an established community because the division of a 6:35 acre parcel in
relationship to the Durham community boundary/division.
The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the SR -1 zone and with the Agricultural Residential General Plan . .
land_ use designations. `
The property is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would '
occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES:
Impact Discussion:
The proposed project would not use or extract.any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral resource areas. -The project is located within an area where there are little or no, mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would liave no impact on mineral resources.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.11 NOISE:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
'
resource that would be of value to the region and the
X
X
residents of the state?
`
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
X
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
X '
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? -
'
Impact Discussion:
The proposed project would not use or extract.any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral resource areas. -The project is located within an area where there are little or no, mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would liave no impact on mineral resources.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.11 NOISE:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
`
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
X
borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? «
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levelsin
'
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X
ro'ect?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
t
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing :
X -
without theproject?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No" '
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Would the
Impact
with
Impact
No
Previous
proposal:
Significant
Mitigation_
Significant
Impact
Document
Impact
Incorporated
:Impact
Previous
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
Mitigation
Document
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
Incorporated
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
_
X
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
'
X
the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not subject to any significant noise source nor will the development of four additional home on four
acres create significant new noise. The project site is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses, which is
not significant and would not have an impact on the future residents of the site.
Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate higher noise levels on and adjacent to,the project site
intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not have a significant impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature, and due to the low density of the
existing residential development in the area. It is anticipated that in a small development such as this, the homes will.
be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the relatively small increment of traffic added• to the -local roadways, the project would not significantly
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels because no significant noise generators are near the
project site.
The project is not located in the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.
MitiEation Measure: None required
4.12 HOUSING:
42
■ Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■.
Would the
Potentially
Less Than.
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
- with
:Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
'
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
42
■ Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■.
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 '
• Impact Discussion:
Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population.projections for the past 10 years.
" Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,1.71 The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11'.6%, or 1.16% per year. -.
•
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
potential to'add an estimated 10 people to Butte County (four. dwelling units x 2.414 persons/dwelling unit).-This.is
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the - County of approximately
2% per year. The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the. proposed'density does:
not exceed that planned and being developed in; the area.
The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. s
` Mitigation Measure: None required
4.13 • PUBLIC SERVICES: -
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
.Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
)' `
Document
t
Incorporated
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
X
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other.
performance objectives for any of the public services?
b. Fireprotection?
X
c. Police Protection?
X
d. Schools?
X
,
e. Parks?
X
E Other public services?
•X
Impact Discussion:
y`
A less than significant impact is expected to these public service concerns, except as discussed below.
.The project site is located in an area designated as a low/unclasified fire hazard area by the Safety'Element of the Butte, -
County General Plan. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry states that ,cumulative
development in rural areas would impact their ability, to provide fire protection services. This agency states that the
installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems in residential structures, the use of fire resistant building
material's and the availability of water supply systems would reduce the demand for fire protection services. As a
• mitigation of project approval, all new dwelling units on the site are required to be equipped with an automatic fire '
suppression sprinkler system unless the parcel is connected to a pressurized community water system and has a fire
hydrant available to serve the parcel in accordance with CDF/Butte County Fire Department standards. Public water
does not currently serve the parcelFire sprinklers would not be required for, the existing home. on the remainder
• parcel,
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. 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 fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits
for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant -level.
The proposal would result in an incremental demand'for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the
Durham Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development
impact fee for school. facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined
and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these. fees do
not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional" fees or mitigation by
state legislation.
The project would result in the potential development of one residence and would not create significant impacts to area
parks and facilities.
A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services due to the limited impact of one additional
residence.
Mitigation Measure #3i
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with .the map or on an additional map sheet,
thatstates: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes,`NFPA Standard 13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels.
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the, time .of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection
4.14. RECREATION:
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with- _
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. .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
X
'
accelerated?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ti Page 17 ■
Ili
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution 'of one new parcel is considered less than significant and would not warrant specific
mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park and Recreation District has adopted impact fees
that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative impacts to
recreation services.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
,
X
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution 'of one new parcel is considered less than significant and would not warrant specific
mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park and Recreation District has adopted impact fees
that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative impacts to
recreation services.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Impact Discussion: '
• The project has the potential to generate approximately 40 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle
trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single
family residential use in urban areas, although in rural and semi -rural areas the number of vehicle trips generated by a
dwelling unit is usually less. This number of vehicle trips would not significantly, impact the local circulation system.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
• No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact'
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
X
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
X
in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergent access?
X
f. Result in inadequate arking ca aci ?
X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative ttansportation,(e.g., bus turnouts,
X
bicycle racks)?
Impact Discussion: '
• The project has the potential to generate approximately 40 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle
trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single
family residential use in urban areas, although in rural and semi -rural areas the number of vehicle trips generated by a
dwelling unit is usually less. This number of vehicle trips would not significantly, impact the local circulation system.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 .
All the roads in the project area have a level of service of "C" or better (Butte County Master Environmental
Assessment - Existing Conditions) which indicates that vehicle.circulation is acceptable.
Each of the four new parcels will have frontage on a'private road that will be constructed to serve the development.
Construction will meet • County standards. The private road connects , with Goodspeed Street, a County maintained
road. There is adequate site vision in both directions on Goodspeed.
Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b) requires two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have
adequate room to provide two spaces each, and, therefore, the project presents no impact relative to insufficient
parking capacity.
This Tentative Parcel Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation as no bike paths or bus routes would be affected by the developement.
{
Mitigation Measure: •"None required
e
4.16 UTILITIES•AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the proposal:
Potentially.
Significant
Less Than
- ' Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
'•
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water,Quahty Control Board?
X
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
X
environmental effects? '
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 • •.
X
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
_
X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
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
X.
in addition to theprovider's existing commitments?
L " 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
Impact Discussion:
r
Sewage disposal for. he new dwellings on the project site would be handled by individual on-site septic systems: The
project would not have an impact on any wastewater treatment facilities. Adequate soil for the installation of a home
on each parcel has already been proven to the satisfaction of the Butte County Division of Environmental Health.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■
F
u
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Domestic water supply for the' new dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and ground water in
the are is of auali
q ty,'and quantity to serve the project. Oroville Wyandotte Irrigation District. Water lines to serve
the future development have already been installed to the site. ' , '
According to the Department of Public Works, no additional storm water facilities would be necessary as a Iresult of
this project.
The project would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount.
According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum
holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal.
No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste due the
insignificant increase in solid waste generated by one additional home. '
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065):
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact"
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact .
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause"a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
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,histo or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
.cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
X
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)?
c. , Does the project have environmental effects which will
,
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
X
directly or indirectly?
• -
The project site. does not contain any habitat or wildlife population that would be affected at a species or community
-level. Nor are there any rare or endangered species �on the site. The project has the potential to contribute impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.3 Air Quality, , .
and 4.13 Fire Protection Services. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of
Mitigation Measures # 2, and 3 as itemized under Section 5 — Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. No "
".
'Significant impacts would occur to human beings occupying the site as the area is residential in nature and not
significant health hazards exist in the area.
5.0 - MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Mitigation Measure #1: Re -design the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the southerly property line.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 m
7
i
Project Narne: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Followthe dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp '
On ough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements:' All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction.periods.
Monitoring:" The Department shall ensure_ that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
Mitigation Measure # 3:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures°in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one , and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map.
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the time of building
construction
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential 'structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the fmal inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection.
•
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning'Division ■ Page 22 ■
r�
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
6.0
ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL:
L
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 Mau IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
7.
Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Mau V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
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 SensitivityMap, Oroville, CA: James P. Manning;
1983.
10.
Butte County Planning Department. School District Mau. 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 Man, established by Resolution No. 67-178.
Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987.
13.
National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Mans. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
1989 and 2000.
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 MaV, Butte
County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989.
•
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning'Division ■ Page 22 ■
r�
`Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• 7.0 CONSULTERAGENCIES:
[X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [ ,] Building Manager
[ ] BCAG [ ] ALUC ' [X] -LAFCo
[X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ] City of Chico [ ]> City of Biggs,
• . [ ] City.of Gridley' . [X] City of Oroville _ [ `] Town of Paradise
[X] CA Department of Forestry . [X] : CalTrans (Traffic) [ - ] Central Reg. Water Quality,
[ ] Department of Conservation , [X] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] , Highway Patrol
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wldlife Service [ ] Agricultural Commissioner
[ ] Butte Co. Tarm Bureau, [ ] Oroville Union School Dist. [ :] Feather River Rec. Dist. V
[ ]' El Medio,Fire Dept: [X] OWID [ ] LOAPUD .
[ ] PG&E [ ]; Pacific Bell [' ] Palermo Union`School Dist.
[X] Oroville Elein: School Dist' '[X] 'County Assessor `{
.'
`k:$rojects\tpm\Parker\ initial study.doc
` ■: Butte County Department of Development Services m Planning Division ■ Page 23 m
i
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Me have reviewed the Initial Study for the Kathleen and Lewis Tentative Parcel Map (APN #
040-280-054) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby
modify the application, on file with the, Butte County Planning Department to include and
incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study.
Project Sponsor/Project Agent . Date
Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date
■ Butte County Department of Development Services n Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
COUNTY OF BUTTE .
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY FOR
TPM 03-14 (Parker)
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Owner: Kathleen and Lewis Parker
B. Engineer: Sierra West Surveyirig -. .
C. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
-D..- Proiect Name: N/A
E. Proiect Location: On the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham.
F. Type of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment
G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 040-280-054 and 070
H. Proiect Site Size: 6.35 acres
L Current Zoninlj: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum paicel size)
J. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential
K Environmental Settintr: The site is developed with one single family dwelling on the proposed 2.35 -acre
remainder parcel: The site is level and includes .an almond orchard. The orchard appears to be old and has
not been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree rows. No water,
courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea -level. .The project site.has
an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%,
Surrounding parcels range in size from .25 to 5 acres, with the predominant size being in the less being less
than an acre.
The property is located within the Improvement Standards Area for Durham. The site is not within a 100-.
year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
L. Surrounding Land Uses: Dwellings at rural densities and almond orchards.
M. Proiect Description: This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1
acre parcels and a 2.35 acre remainder. ; Sewage disposal for the future dwellings on the site would be
handled by on-site septic systems and domestic water obtained from individual wells. The proposed parcels
would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement. . A lot line adjustment is
also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the northerly property line.
N. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public. Works ,
Department, and Butte County Fire Department.
-
■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
2.0 DETERMINATION
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] 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.
[X] 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 theenvironment, 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: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Date
Reviewed by: Joe Baker, Principal Planner Date
n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■' Page 2 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
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.
[.. J 4.1 Aesthetics [X] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality
[ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes
[X] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [ ] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use. _
[ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing
[X] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic
[ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory, Findings of Significance
B. 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 aneffect may
be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Irilpact' 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) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." 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.
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.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• 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.
6 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map; File # TPM 03-14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
4
AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: -
' f -
Impact Discussion:
' The project would result in the creation of four.new residential parcels in an area that'is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found in the project area, no substantial conflicts with the
established character or functioning of the surrounding`communit ' is anticipated. Future dwellings on the site may
have outside lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor required'as a part of the `
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of
' the project site. The project would not create any ,significant sources of new light or'glare. The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not,affect a
scenic vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative, aesthetic effect.
Mitigation Measure: None required -
•4.2 AGRICULTURE'RESOURCES:
a
Would the proposal:'
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Would the proposal: (
Potentially
Significant
Less Than •
Significant
.Less Than
Significant
No
.Impact
Reviewed
Under
`
Impact
with'
Impact
Previous
• .
Mitigation
Document
a. * Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
°
Incorporated
,
a. ' Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
'
X
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
X.
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a'state scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
X
qualityof the site 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
,
Impact Discussion:
' The project would result in the creation of four.new residential parcels in an area that'is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found in the project area, no substantial conflicts with the
established character or functioning of the surrounding`communit ' is anticipated. Future dwellings on the site may
have outside lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor required'as a part of the `
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of
' the project site. The project would not create any ,significant sources of new light or'glare. The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not,affect a
scenic vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative, aesthetic effect.
Mitigation Measure: None required -
•4.2 AGRICULTURE'RESOURCES:
a
Would the proposal:'
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with ., '
Impact {
Previous
`
Mitigation. '
Document
Incorporated
a. * Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
°
of Statewide Importance (Farmland),.as shown on the
'
`maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
X.
- Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use; ora
X
Williamson Act Contract? `
'
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?
J
A;7
■ -Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
The Agricultural Residential General Plan designation supports the use of property for agricultural uses but also supports
the development of residential uses • at rural densities. The applicable SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcel) zoneds
is
listed as a Conditionally Consistent Zone by the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation,' One of the conditions
requires that residential development be compatible with adjacent agricultural activities ,
f
The Butte County Agricultural Commissioner commented.regarding the potential agricultural conflicts presented by the T
,. project. The Agricultural Commissioner finds that the land designated as Orchard and Field Crops on the south boundary
could go back into production and therefore requires a 300 foot agricultural setback from this area, in accordance with
Butte County Agricultural Element Program 2.2. This requirement is set forth below as a mitigation measure.
The chemical spraying activity associated with "adjacent agricultural uses presents. a hazard to people (see Initial Study
Checklist Item 4.7 —Hazards).
The applicant was advised of this mitigation but would not agree to impose the buffer on the proposed map. The 300 -foot
agricultural setback would cover, and thus eliminate, the parcels proposed by this parcel map.
Mitigation Measure# 1:
In order to protect residences of the Parcel Map from hazardous overspray from agricultural operations, and to comply ,
with Agricultural Element Program 2.2, redesign the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the
southerly parcel line.
Plan Requirements: Submission of a revised map showing compliance with the 300 foot agricultural setback.
Timing: Requirements of the mitigation shall be completed at the time a revised tentative map is submitted which
conforms to the mitigation. '
Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and Agricultural Commissioner shall'ensure compliance.
4.3 .AIR QUALITY:
'
Potentially
Less Than
. Leis Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
• 4
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
X
r
air quality plan? "
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
''. X
quality standard (including releasing emissions which '
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
'
-
1,
X
i
concentrations?
- ,
• ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency.has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards.
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur at the same time. The
road servicing the project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such as grading, excavation for
• foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 2 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
•
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall`be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check, Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance- complaints. `
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■
9
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
X
of people?
Impact Discussion:
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency.has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards.
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur at the same time. The
road servicing the project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such as grading, excavation for
• foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 2 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
•
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall`be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check, Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance- complaints. `
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■
9
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• • A A RTnT TIC -3 A11, RVgO1TRC PR!
i. A deterioration of existing nsn or wuatue naorrat kior X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? '
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or. X. .
migratory fish or wildlifespecies?
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human .
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the X
normal activities of wildlife?
Impact Discussion:
• The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat exists on-site. A: ,
search of the California Natural Diversity Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. is a native of California found growing- in adobe -clay open fields
60
Rutte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division.m Page 8.4
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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
X
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. ' Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal,
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
d. Interferesubstantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with'
X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy
X
ordinance?
'f.- Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat.
conservationplan? •
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an
impact to the critical habitaf of any unique, rare, threatened,
X
or endangered species of animals?
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite
(including mammals; birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or
X
invertebrates)?
i. A deterioration of existing nsn or wuatue naorrat kior X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? '
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or. X. .
migratory fish or wildlifespecies?
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human .
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the X
normal activities of wildlife?
Impact Discussion:
• The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat exists on-site. A: ,
search of the California Natural Diversity Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. is a native of California found growing- in adobe -clay open fields
60
Rutte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division.m Page 8.4
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• The fields where. it grows are very wet in winter and spring, baked hard in summer. This plant is not a State or
Federally listed species. The California Native Plant Society has it listed as a rare plant. The project site does not
have the type of habitat needed for this plant. The historic cultivation of the orchard on-site would preclude this plant
from becoming established.
*I
The project site is not located in a deer herd winter range (Butte County Deer Herd GIS coverage). The project would
not have a significant impact on the deer herd range. .
This project would not have a significant impact to the loss of wildlife habitat because the property has been cultivated
as an orchard. Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5
are not required to be paid by the applicant.
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure: None Required
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES:
'
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
. X
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact Discussion:
The subject property is located in an area identified as having a low archeological sensitivity. This project is located in
an area that has been extensively altered from a natural state through land clearing, grading and use as an orchard and
home site. Archeological resources have either been removed or disturbed to such an extent that they are no longer
significant.
There is always the potential for undiscovered archaeological resources to be uncovered during excavation activities.
Staff recommends that a mitigation measure be included that will require that all construction activities cease in such
an instance. Ground disturbance would not resume until clearance is provided by a qualified archaeologist. `
Mitigation Measure #3
Place a note on the map or additional map sheet stating: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural
resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.;
structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
• professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte County
Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal remains be encountered,,. State law requires immediate
notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
1
■ Rntte County DeDartment of Develovment Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14'
•r
context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State
law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains."
Plan Requirements: This note shall be required to be placed on the Parcel Map or on a separate instrument recorded with
the Subdivision Map.
Timing: This_ measure shall be implemented during site preparation and construction.
Monitoring: Should cultural resources be,,discovered, the Planning Division shallcoordinate with the developer and
appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action.
4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:
Impact Discussion:
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County' General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate
Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The sites not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone, but is in an after shock
epicenter region. The nearest active fault; the Cleveland Hill fault, is located approximately 19 miles to the southeast
of the site. The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that an inferred fault is located approximately 2.2 miles to.
the west of the site. ,
■ Rnite Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■
2
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than •
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
-�..
Impact
, with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
X
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a ;
..
known fault? Refer to Division'of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
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
X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, `lateral
reading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil; as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
X
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks"of alternative waste water disposal system
X
where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste
water?,
Impact Discussion:
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County' General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate
Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The sites not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone, but is in an after shock
epicenter region. The nearest active fault; the Cleveland Hill fault, is located approximately 19 miles to the southeast
of the site. The Butte County GIS Fault Lines theme shows that an inferred fault is located approximately 2.2 miles to.
the west of the site. ,
■ Rnite Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■
2
11
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
•
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. However, strong seismic ground
shaking is closely related to the proximity of active fault lines. Although there is insufficient data to predict these
forces, the closest mapped Fault -Rupture Zone is the Cleveland Hills fault zone, ,which is located approximately 19
miles to the east of the project site. The Cleveland Hills fault line is the only fault line in Butte County that is
recognized under the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones Act to pose a threat from fault rupture. However, new
structures placed on the site are required to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code.
Seismic risk is not limited to faults which have been currently identified. Some earthquakes originate from unknown
sources sometimes characterized as "background seismicity" or "floating earthquakes". The Butte County Master
Environmental Assessment indicates that it is reasonable to assume that background seismicity could produce
earthquakes as large as Richter magnitude (modified Mercalli intensity scale) 6.5 virtually anywhere in Butte County.
There is no current evidence that an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.5 would occur at this location. Earthquakes at
this magnitude are generally felt by all persons, but damage is generally slight to minor, with fallen chimneys and
cracked plaster the most prominent damage. Richter magnitude 6.5 is not subjectively characterized on the intensity
scale, but a magnitude 7 is generally characterized by negligible damage, especially in buildings of good design and
construction. Considerable damage can occur in poorly built or badly designed structures. However, the impact
would be less than significant.
The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential
for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant for the development of single family residential structures
constructed in conformance withState Building Code.
The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that
there is a low potential for landslides in this area. No impact is anticipated.
The Erosion .Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that the soil erosion
potential for the project site is low. Gentle slopes predominate on the site of approximately 1% to 2%. Standard
construction techniques are required as part of the construction process of this site, which would help prevent
significant soil erosion impacts. It is expected that the development of the site including roads, driveways, septic
leachfields, and houses would impact more than one acre of land and would therefore require a Construction storm
water permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Storm water permits are intended to
minimize water quality impacts of development. As this is a statutory requirement, no mitigation is necessary. A
condition will be included as part of any approval recommendations for the project.
No impact is anticipated from instability, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil
potential. This will be taken into account at time of building permit application .for future residences and the
foundation design will reflect the shrink/swell characteristics of the soil. No impact is anticipated.
The Butte County Environmental Health Department does not object to the use of septic systems on the property.
Percolation tests were conducted on the site and sewage disposal areas are identified on the tentative parcel map.
Septic systems installed on the site are "required to comply with the County Improvement Standards. No impact is
anticipated.
Mitigation Measure: None required
■ Rntte Countv Deuartment of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 0
3
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous
mateIials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated.
The project site is located next to an area designated as Orchard and Field Crops by the County General Plan. Lands
so designated may be developed with intensive agricultural uses such as orchards. Chemicals that may be harmful to
humans could be used in the orchard and present an impact to future residents of this parcel map. The Spray -Drift
Task Force Study (1997) established that the negative impacts of agricultural chemicals can extend in excess of 300
feet from the active spray area. In an effort to protect the health, safety, and welfare of future residents it has been
determined that a 300 -foot buffer between potential agricultural uses' and potential residential structures is necessary to
reduce impacts of agricultural chemicals and sprays. Mitigation Measure #1 has been set forth to address this issue.
• The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and does not
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
11
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■
Potentially'
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
.Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
4
environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal
X
of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
'
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
X
quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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
X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
X
working in the project area?
g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency_ evacuation
X .
plan? - I '
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with willdlands?
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous
mateIials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated.
The project site is located next to an area designated as Orchard and Field Crops by the County General Plan. Lands
so designated may be developed with intensive agricultural uses such as orchards. Chemicals that may be harmful to
humans could be used in the orchard and present an impact to future residents of this parcel map. The Spray -Drift
Task Force Study (1997) established that the negative impacts of agricultural chemicals can extend in excess of 300
feet from the active spray area. In an effort to protect the health, safety, and welfare of future residents it has been
determined that a 300 -foot buffer between potential agricultural uses' and potential residential structures is necessary to
reduce impacts of agricultural chemicals and sprays. Mitigation Measure #1 has been set forth to address this issue.
• The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and does not
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
11
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■
4
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
•^
The project is not located within a State Response Area for wildland fires and wildland fires are not a high concern in
the area: The nearest fire station is Station # 4'5 (full time), located approximately 3,000, feet away; to the north in
Durham ,
Mitigation Measure: See Mitigation Measure #1
I A Y"rr%"1-%Y d"%C4X7 AXTn XVArrVlD f1TTAT.TTV-
•
•
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The.Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems .placed on the site must meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site. " `
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
5
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal'
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Previous
Impact
with
Impact
"
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
X
,
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
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
X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
`
flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
_
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundaryor Flood
X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
'i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. ' Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The.Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems .placed on the site must meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site. " `
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
5
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Domestic water supply for the future dwellings on the site would be obtained frorn individual wells and groundwater is
readily available in the area.
This project would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as houses, accessory structures, -
and driveways. A minor increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created
from the impervious surfaces. The Butte County Department of Public Works is requiring a condition that the peak
flow runoff from the site not increase as a result of the development. A system to detain runoff water will have to be
designed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the Public Works Department. Adherence to the standards of
the Butte County Public Works Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts on area drainage.
No water courses exist on the site or on'adjacent properties, therefore the pfoject would not affect the water quality of
any water course. .
The project site is not -located within a 100 -year flood zone as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 08, 1998. • °
v
The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur with respect to
these natural hazards.
Mitigation Measure: None required. '
4.9 LAND USE:
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The,General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for.20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project is not compatible
with this criterion, unless the applicant redesigns the project to comply with the 300 foot agricultural buffer as
provided for under Mitigation Measure 0.
�. 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. y ✓
a
R„tte. ("aunty Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
t
Potentially
Less Than,
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under_
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
t '
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
'
"
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservationplan?
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The,General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for.20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project is not compatible
with this criterion, unless the applicant redesigns the project to comply with the 300 foot agricultural buffer as
provided for under Mitigation Measure 0.
�. 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. y ✓
a
R„tte. ("aunty Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
t
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
The site has soils that are suited, for individual septic tank and lea chfield systems." The Butte County
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the property for either sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
"The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte CountyFire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access withsufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. ,The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools.
Commercial services and schools are located between '/2 and 1 mile from the property. ;This is adequate to
meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. In 1992 as part -of the Durham Dayton Nelson
Plan, the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The Durham Dayton Nelson Plan includes an Urban
Reserve Policy Statement that regulates urban development within the plan area. This policy includes a statement that
any parcel that. is now less than 20 acres in size which was legally created, pre-existing, and non -conforming maybe
developed according to. its zoning. This property is 6.35 acres in size and may be proposed for development in
accordance with its SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning, under the Durham Dayton
Nelson Plan.
The proposal would not physically divide an established community because the division of a 6.35 acre parcel in
relationship to the Durham community boundary/division.
The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the SR -1 zone and with the Agricultural Residential General Plan
land use designations.
The, property is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would .
occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES:
Impact Discussion:
• The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral, resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are little or no mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on mineral resources.
■ Rntte County Denartment of Development Services ■ Planning Division■ Page 15 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a., Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would.be of value to the region and the
X.
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
X ;
plan, specific plan, or other land useplan?
Impact Discussion:
• The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral, resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are little or no mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on mineral resources.
■ Rntte County Denartment of Development Services ■ Planning Division■ Page 15 ■
C]
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 '
Mitigation Measure: Norte required
4.11 NOISE:
Impact Discussion:
The project°site is not subject to any significant noise source nor will the development of four additional homes on
four acres create significant new noise. The project site -is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses,
which isnot significant -and would not have an impact on the future residents of the site. `
Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate.higher noise levels on and adjacent to the project site
intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not'have a significant 'impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature, and' due to the low-density of the
existing residential development in the area. It is anticipated that in a small development such as this, the homes will
be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the relatively small increment of traffic added to the local roadways, the project would not significantly
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels because no significant noise generators are near the
project site.
The project is not located in the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.
4 41
Mitigation Measure: None required
6,8
. R„tte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
` No
Reviewed
Under
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
' r
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
-Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of.persons to or generation of excessive ground
X
borne vibration or ound borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X -
ro'ect?
d. A substantial temporary,or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels'in the project vicinity above levels existing
X .
without the roject?
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
X
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
X
the projecf area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Discussion:
The project°site is not subject to any significant noise source nor will the development of four additional homes on
four acres create significant new noise. The project site -is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses,
which isnot significant -and would not have an impact on the future residents of the site. `
Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate.higher noise levels on and adjacent to the project site
intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not'have a significant 'impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature, and' due to the low-density of the
existing residential development in the area. It is anticipated that in a small development such as this, the homes will
be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the relatively small increment of traffic added to the local roadways, the project would not significantly
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels because no significant noise generators are near the
project site.
The project is not located in the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.
4 41
Mitigation Measure: None required
6,8
. R„tte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
is 4-12' HOUSING:
•
..•
Impact Discussion:
Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years.
Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, onl.16% per year.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
potential to add an estimated 10 people to Butte County (four dwelling units x 2.414 persons/dwelling unit). This is
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of approximately
2% per year. 'The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the proposed density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area.
The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur.. ,
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under -
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
,
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and _
X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
_
roads or other infrastructure?
X
b. -Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere? ' '
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
X
construction of re lacement housing elsewhere?
X
Impact Discussion:
Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years.
Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, onl.16% per year.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
potential to add an estimated 10 people to Butte County (four dwelling units x 2.414 persons/dwelling unit). This is
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of approximately
2% per year. 'The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the proposed density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area.
The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur.. ,
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES:
■ Butte Countv Department of Development' Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
b. Fireprotection?
X
c. Police Protection?
X
d. Schools?
X
e. Parks?
X
L Other public services?
X
■ Butte Countv Department of Development' Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
A less than significant impact is expected to these public service concerns, except as discussed below.
The project site is located in an area designated as a low/unclassified fire hazard area by. the Safety Element of the
Butte County General Plan. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry states that
cumulative development in rural areas would impact their ability to provide fire protection services. This agency
states that the installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems in residential structures, the use of fire
resistant building materials and the availability of water supply systems would reduce the demand for fire protection
services. As a mitigation of project approval, all new dwelling units on the site are required to be equipped with an
automatic -fire suppression sprinkler system unless the parcel is connected to a pressurized community water system
and has a fire hydrant available to serve the parcel in accordance with CDFButte County Fire Department standards.
Public water does not currently serve the parcel. Fire sprinklers: would not be required for the existing home on the
remainder parcel.
The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for, police protection services. 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 fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits
for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the
Durham Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development
impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined
and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do
not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by
state legislation.
The project would result in the potential development of one residence and would not create significant impacts to,area
parks and facilities.
A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services due to the limited impact of one additional
residence.
Mitigation Measure #4:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for -the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the time of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■
❑1
0
-•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 ,
4.14 RECREATION:
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution of four new residential parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant
specific mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park and Recreation District has adopted
impact fees that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative
impacts to recreation services.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
`
accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of "recreational facilities which might have an
X
,
adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution of four new residential parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant
specific mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park and Recreation District has adopted
impact fees that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative
impacts to recreation services.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■
Potentially '
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
vehicle hips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? "
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
,
service standard established by the county congestion
X
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
X
in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
'
e. Result in inadequate emergency -access?
X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs
,
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
X
bicycle racks)?.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 r
Impact Discussion:
The project has -the potential to generate approximately 40 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle
trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single. "
family residential use in urban areas, although in rural and semi -rural areas the number of vehicle trips generated by a
dwelling unit is usually less. This number of vehicle trips would not significantly impact the local circulation system.
All the roads in the project area have a level of service of "C" or better (Butte County Master Environmental
Assessment - Existing Conditions) which indicates that vehicle circulation is acceptable.
Each of the four new parcels will have frontage on a private road that will be constructed, to serve the development. .
Construction will meet County standards. The private road connects with Goodspeed Street, a County maintained
road. There is adequate site vision in both directions on Goodspeed.
Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b) requires two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have
adequate room to provide two spaces each, and, therefore, the project presents no impact relative to insufficient
parking capacity.
This Tentative Parcel Map project would not -conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation as no bike paths or bus routes would be affected by the development. -
Mitigation Measure: None required `
• : 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
k L
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
' Less Than
Significant
No
Impact,
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
X
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?'
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
X
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
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
X
environmental effects? '
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
'
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e.. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
X
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
_
in addition to theprovider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
X'
to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs?
r
g. Comply with federal, state; and local statutes, and
regulations related to solid waste?
,
X
Y
7
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■-
2
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 0344 n
Impact Discussion: '
Sewage; disposal for the new dwelling`s on the project site would•be handled by individual on-site septic systems. The
project would not have an impact on -any wastewater treatment facilities. Adequate soil for the installation of a home
y s on each parcel has already been proven to'the satisfaction of the Butte County Division of Environmental Health.
'
Domestic water supply for the new dwellings on,the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater in '
the area is of a quality and quantity to serve the project. 1, ;
The project would,increase thetstream of waste being deposited'in the Neal Road Landfill by;a minor amount that is .
not .iignificant and `is consistent with projected growth rates. According' to the Butte County, Public Works
Department, the Neal Road Landfill is. expected to reach -maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The project
k; would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal'.
_ No impact would.occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste due the \
' insignificant increase in solid waste generated by one additional home..
Mitigation Measure: None required ;7+«
w
m Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ '
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 ,
Y •a S
4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section. 15065):
'
ro
Would theosil:
p p
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact.
with
Impact -
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality 9f -
'the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
`
or wildlife species, cause a fish or ,wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict
X
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Have -'impacts that are individually"limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
X
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current,
`
' ro•ects and the effects of probable future projects)? `
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either
X.
directly or indirectly?
The project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited bui cumulatively, considerable
with respect to cumulative impact to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.2 Agricultural Resources, 4.3. Air
Quality, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.7 hazards/Hazardous Materials, .and 4.,13 Public Services. Cumulative
impact to these areas will be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measures #1- through #4 as itemized
under Section 5.0 - Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. Since some spects of the project do
not comply.with required mitigations, specifically the 300, foot agricultural setback required as Mitigation
Measure #1, the project as proposed has significant impacts that are unmitigatable and potentially significant
and, therefore: require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if. the project ' cannot be
appropriately designed to allow for the setback. t
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ '
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File #TPM 03-14
• SECTION 5.0. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Mitigation Measure # 1:
In order to protect residences of the Parcel Map from hazardous overspray'from agricultural operations, and to comply
with Agricultural Element Program 2.2,'redesign the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the
southerly parcel line.
Plan Requirements: Submission of a revised map showing compliance with the 300 foot agricultural setback.
Timing: Requirements of the mitigation shall be completed at the time a revised tentative map is submitted which
conforms to the mitigation.
Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and Agricultural Commissioner shall ensure compliance.
Mitigation Measure # 2:
_Place a note on a separate .document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, -earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials; water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b.' During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement
damp enough to.prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
• areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per
hour.
C. -Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent
dust generation.
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans. l
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans.Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site: Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
Mitigation Measure #3
Place a note on the map or additional map sheet stating: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural
resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.;
structural remains; human skeletal -remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte County
Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate
notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State
law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains."
Plan Requirements: This note shall be required to be placed on the Parcel Map or on a separate instrument recorded with
the Subdivision Map.
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Timing: This measure shall be implemented during site•preparation and construction.
Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and
appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. •
Mitigation Measure #4:
Place a iiote on a.separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map -sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new'residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family'
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, ;unless a pressurized community water system, with -hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be,placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all, new' residential structures.at the time of building
construction.'
Monitoring: Building Division:plan checkers shall ensure that -.the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL:
1.
Butte County.Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element.
Building Manager
Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977.
2.
Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville,
[X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ]
CA: CH2M Hill, 1977.
3.
Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element.
City of Oroville [ ]
Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 1t.
4.
Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M
Central Reg. Water Quality
Hill, 1977.
5.
Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers' [ ]
Hill, 1977.
6.
Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
Oroville Union School Dist. [ ]
C112M Hill, 1977.
7.
Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA:
LOAPUD
CH2M Hill, 1977.
8.
Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA:
[ ] Oroville Elem. School Dist [X]
C112M 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 and 2000.
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.
•
7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES:
[X] Environmental Health [X]
Public Works [X]
Building Manager
[ ] BCAG [ ]
ALUC [ ]
LAFCo
[X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ]
City of Chico [ ] _
City, of Biggs
[ ] City of Gridley [ ]
City of Oroville [ ]
Town of Paradise
[X] CA Department of Forestry [ ]
CalTrans (Traffic) [ ]
Central Reg. Water Quality
[ ] Department of Conservation [X]
CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ]
Highway Patrol
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers' [ ]
US Fish & Wldlife Service [X]
Agricultural Commissioner
[ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ ]
Oroville Union School Dist. [ ]
Feather River Rec. Dist.
[ ] El Medio Fire Dept. [ ]
OWID [ ]
LOAPUD
[ ] PG&E [ ]
Pacific Bell ( ]
Palermo Union School Dist.
[ ] Oroville Elem. School Dist [X]
County Assessor
' ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■
7
♦
r
'
BUTTE COUNTY
CLERK OF HE BOARD USE ONLY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MEETING DATE:
ENDA TRANSMITTAL
AGENDA ITEM:
Kathleen Parker — Appeal — Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14)
AGENDA TITLE:
DDS,
DATE: 6/2/04
MEETING DATE 6/8/04
DEPARTMENT: Planning
REQUESTED:
REGULAR X CONSENT
Dan Breedon
PHONE: 7629
CONTACT:
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AND REQUESTED BOARD ACTION:
Kathleen Parker, Appeal by the applicant concerning the Parker Tentative Parcel Map 'application that was
denied by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2004. Kathleen Parker proposed a Tentative Parcel Map to
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 -acre parcels and a 2.35 acre remainder. A lot line adjustment was also
proposed. to transfer a 31 -foot wide strip along the northerly property line. The project is located on the east side
of Goodspeed Street approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way in Durham. The Planning 'Commission denied
the Tentative Parcel Map
Action Requested: See Attached.
r
*AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTALS REQUIRE THE ORIGINAL 1 IN A FORMAT THAT CAN BE
Q �)
REPRODUCED BY STANDARD OFFICE EQUIPMENT
ATTACH EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS NECESSARY
Budgetary Impact: Yes No X
CAO OFFICE USE ONLY
If yes, complete Budgetary Impact Worksheet on back
Budget Transfer Requested: Yes No x
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.)
4/5/s Vote Required: Yes: _ No:
Will Proposal Require an Agreement: Yes No x
Auditor -Controller's Number (if
Date Received by Clerk of the Board:
required):
County Counsel's Approval: Yes No x
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel: . Yes No x
_
Number of Permanent: Temp
Extra Help
Previous Board Action Date: Additional Information Attached: +Yes x No
Describe: memo
Rev. 06/02
•
•
ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environiiiental
'Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee is required.
II. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the Tentative Parcel
Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-14), subject to
following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce
interference, and conflict.
And 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.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray
drift.
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKEk.03-14\6.08.04 Board Report.appealldoc
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors i Agenda Report e Page 1 ■
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOARD TRANSMITTAL SHEET
BOARD AGENDA REPORT..,
PAGE
Attachment A:
General Plan and Zoning Map
1. .:
Attachment B:
Letter of Appeal
.2
Attachment C:
Planning Commission Agenda Reports, -and Minutes
4
Attachment D:
July 7, 2003, Letter from Sierra West Surveying
23
Attachment E:
June -10, 2003, Letter -from Development Services
25,
Attachment F:
Draft Initial Studies J
'27
Attachment G.
Tentative Parcel Map
78
ki
• - .
Applicant: _
Kathleen Parker
Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban
Residential, 1 -acre
minimum parcel size) .
Appellant:
Thomas R. Wrinkle,- Sierra
West Surveying
File #: ,
TPM 03-14
APNs: 040-280-054, & 070
Request:
This is. an appeal of the
Location: On the east side of
Planning Commission's'
Goodspeed St.
denial of the Kathleen
approximately 450 feet
Parker Tentative Parcel :.
north of Hutton Way,
Map, which proposes . to
Durham.
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel
project Dan Breedon
into four 1 -acre parcels and
a 2.35 -acre remainder.
Planner: Principal Planner'
Parcel Size: 6.35 +/- acres
Supervisor. 4
District:
Attachments:
General Plan
A. General Plan and Zoning Map
Designation:
Agricultural Residential
B. Letter of Appeal
C. Planning Commission Agenda
-
Reports/Minutes
D., July 7, 2003 Letter from Sierra West
Surveying
E: June 10, 2003 Letter, from Development
Services
F. Draft Initial Studies
G. Tentative Parcel Map,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
• This Agenda Report focuses on the request of the appellant. The Board of Supervisors review of
this appeal should focus on the points made by the written appeal provided by Sierra West
Surveying. The appellant states that Butte County violated the State Permit Streamlining Act,
and that an automatic -approval should be granted for the project. The appellant states no other
appeal issue aside from the alleged violation of the Permit Streamlining Act. County staff has
researched this issue and has determined that no violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has
taken place. Therefore, staff recommends that this appeal. be denied and that the Planning
Commission's April 22, 2004 denial of this Tentative Parcel Map be upheld.
PROJECT "DESCRIPTION:
1. This is a request to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 acre
remainder.
2. Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would be handled by on-site septic systems
and domestic water would be obtained from individual wells.
3. Proposed parcels would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60
foot easement.
4. A lot line adjustment is also being.processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the
northerly property line.
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed
2.35 -acre remainder parcel.
2. The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to have not been
maintained for some time.
3. Annual grasses have grown up in. between the tree- rows. No water courses traverse the
property.
4. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level.
5. The project site has an average slope of approximately, l% to 2%.
6. Surrounding parcels range,in size from 0.25 to 5 acres.
7:. The property is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area.
8. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 2 0
ANALYSIS:
• Permit Streamlining Act and Associated Time Limits
1. The Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Section 65920 et seq) is the State statute
that applies to all development projects; the Act sets time limits for the processing of
permits associated with development projects.
2. Other time limits are imposed by the California, Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources. Code Sections 21100.2 and 2115.1.5) and State Subdivision. Map Act
(Government Code Section 66452 et seq).
3. Time limits associated with reviewing an application indicate that the Lead Agency has
30 -days to determine if an application is complete.
4. Time limits associated with processing a Negative Declaration state that the Lead, Agency
must approve a Negative Declaration 180 days from the time an application is deemed
complete.
5. 'The time limits state that once a Negative Declaration is approved, the Lead Agency has
50 days to approve or deny a land division for which the Negative Declaration was
adopted.
6. The Permit Streamlining Act also includes a provision concerning an"unreasonable
delay" by the applicant in meeting requests. by the Lead Agency necessary for the
preparation. of a Negative Declaration. This provision indicates that an unreasonable
delay by the project applicant will suspend the time limits described above.
• Parker Tentative Parcel Man Processing Times
•
1. The Parker Tentative Parcel Map was received by the County on February 21, 2003.
2. The Parker TPM was deemed complete on March 22, 2003.
3.. Under the Permit, Streamlining Act, the Lead Agency should have adopted a Negative
Declaration for the Parker TPM by September 1&, 2003 (180 -days from the date the
application was deemed complete).
4. Department policy requires that staff provide a copy of the Initial Study to the project
applicant for review and signature so that revisions to the project are agreed to prior to
releasing a proposed mitigated Negative Declaration , for public review (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15070 (b) (1)).
5. On June 10, 2003 an Initial Study was sent to the applicant's representative, Sierra West
Surveying, which included a mitigation to revise the project to conform to the 300 foot
agricultural setback as required under Program 2.2 of the Agriculture Element of the
General Plan.
6. On July 7, 2003 the Department of Development Services received a letter from Sierra
West Surveying which indicated that the applicant did not agree to redesign the project to
conform to Agricultural Element 2.2.
■ Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 3 0
7. Because the project applicant would not agree to redesign the project to conform to
Agricultural Element Program 2.2, staff scheduled a Planning Commission meeting on
• August 14; 2003, recommended that the Planning Commission deny the Parker TPM due
to the inconsistency with the General Plan Agricultural Element.
8., The Planning Commission elected to continue this project for at least 45 days to allow for
circulation of the Negative Declaration , and to also review the 300 -foot agricultural
setback as it applied to this project.
•
9. Staff reviewed the 300 -foot agricultural setback issue with the Agricultural
Commissioner and County Counsel. This review included researching past Planning
Commission and Board actions concerning this issue. This information was provided in
the attached March 25, 2004 Agenda Report to the Planning Commission.
10. At the April 22, 2004 Planning Commission Hearing, staff again recommended that the
project be denied due to inconsistencies with the Agricultural Element
11. Staff does not believe that a violation of the Permit Streamlining Act has taken place with
respect to this project. Staff provided the applicant -with the appropriate course of action
to conform the project to the General Plan on June 10, . 2003, well within Permit
Streamlining timelines.
12. The applicant chose not to comply with the revisions necessary to make the application
comply with the Agricultural Element.
13. Staff considers this an "unreasonable delay" by the applicant in meeting requests by the
Lead Agency necessary for the preparation of a Negative Declaration.
14. The applicant's actions suspended the running of timelines associated with the Permit
Streamlining Act and CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15109)
15. This delay prohibited staff from preparing a Negative Declaration under CEQA, because
a Negative Declaration could not be supported for the project in its then current.form.
16. Nevertheless, staff continued to review the project against the Agricultural Element and
worked with the Agricultural Commissioner, and the County Counsel to ensure that all
possible options . had been exhausted prior to again recommending denial' on April 22,
2004.
17. In summary, the appellant's contention that the County violated the Permit Streamlining
Act is not supported by the record.
18. If the applicant had agreed to the required mitigation measures the County, would have
had 180 days from the date the application was deemed complete to take action on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.
19. The applicant chose not to redesign their project as supported by the Initial Study and in
so doing suspended the time lines afforded to the project under the Permit Streamlining
Act.
0 Butte County Board of Supervisors 0, Agenda Report ■ Page 4 ■
CEQA ISSUES:
Two draft initial studies were completed. for the project. The second draft was completed
primarily to show that the agricultural setback also presented a hazard to public health from the
spraying of agricultural chemicals near residential uses. The applicant disagreed with the
recommended mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback from 'adjoining agriculturally
zoned lands. Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The initial study has not been circulated.
Public Resources Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that
are going to be denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee is required.
II. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commissions denial of the Tentative Parcel
Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-14), subject to
following findings:.
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface .to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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 I 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 -bey
developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray
drift.
■.Butte,County Board of Supervisors 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 5 ■
•
•
•
y
a
L
'
z
H
.
a
iL
1
� }
' j bY,� ^ •r-�''jja , r � ( t�
t ,F- t�7 !'i i
-fes
T�
.. ,O a - !_ . t)ld i
.. % t •F.r�+. . r... 1°7h.'
_
. r .f 14 , t
_
J J J
if
n �� rA. ^� L f� (t -r -• W, it
r
Y ••i . - i
- .4 . _ �.. / ♦ - wr• - .► a ;,,./,r. a. ./ as �.f^+ - •Y r ..
w. . /W
AL
r. , .../ ,c.- - '\M rr .. .a , r "M• .
ac. 4Vw M. s w "�I.M.n4a•/W •r.E .. 4 r .. -. • •q xY "Ir - +M4�� +.•' 41r.?•' •n i" �/•.
a - .•f- Y+ rN
0
x
•
4
i
04/26/04 :09:52 FAX 530.538 7120, BUTTE COUNTY ADMIN.,
[a 001
'ierra . �/e�t . Surveying �-
V NG
LICEN5ED LAND SVR EYI --
5437 Slack.Olive Drive - Paradise, CA 95969
Phone: (530) 877-6253
Fax: (530) 877-6254
April 22, 2004
i
Butte County `
Board of: Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Orovilie, California 95965 I "
RE: Lewis 8 Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map
File:. TPM 03-14; APN 040-280-054 4 070. `
Dear Members
We hereby appeal the Butte County Planning Commission's denial of the Parkfrr Parcel Map.,J
it' if our hopes that "you will have County Council review the Permit Streamlining Act and
• provide you with that information. It is our opinion that Butte County violated, the Permit
Streamlining Act and that an automatic approval should be granted to this project:;
The application for tentative parcel map was submitted to Butte County P�anning_on February
19, 20031 and went.to public hearing on August 14, 2003, seven months after the application was
submitted. '
The.Planning Commission sent it back to the Planning Department to comple+e their work on the
Initial Study and bring it back before the Commission to be heard. At the August 14, 2003 hearing it
was agreed to a six-week extension. Finally on March 25, 2003, eight months later, it came back to
the Planning -Commission for review. y
Thank you for your; consideration in this matter.
2
• ... '
,
'r
C UNTV OF BUTTE 3 1198-_
•
OFFICIAL RECEIPT
i
1GL _ 2
O EOR EA i+TMENT ISSUING RECEIPT
r
Received from f
' -
'Tile
N
Sum of
"
For
L
'Received: Reeelved -
,
CASH ❑ '..
,
CHECK ( ✓" ,> By
• _ _
DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS(530) 743-"1" form 75702Cq
�,I '
.. ••
C
•
m
0
a
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
• AGENDA REPORT — August 14, 2003
Applicant: Kathleen Parker Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban
' Residential,) -acre
minimum parcel size)
File #: TPM 03-14 APN: 040-280-054, & 070
Request: This is an application for a Location: On the east side of
Tentative Parcel Map to Goodspeed St.
divide a 6.35 -acre parcel 4 approximately 450 feet
into four, l" acre parcels and north of Hutton Way,
a 2.35 acre remainder.' A Durham. -
Jot line adjustment is also Parcel Size: 6.35 +/- acres
being processed to transfer
a 31 foot wide strip along Supervisor 4
the northerly property line. District: Q
Attachments:
• G.P.: Agricultural Residential A: , General Plan/Zoning Map
B: Si a Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
The project is. consistent with the SR -1, but does not conform to County General Plan
Agricultural Element policies for separation of residential 'and agricultural uses. The applicant
has declined to try to redesign .the request as it would most likely result in fewer parcels. - Staff
recommends that the project be denied because it is not consistent with the Butte County General
Plan. _
SITE DESCRIPTION:
This is a request to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35' acre remainder.
Sewage disposal for the_ future dwelling sites would be handled by on-site septic systems and
domestic water would be obtained ,from individual wells. Proposed parcels would access
Goodspeed,Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement. , A lot line adjustment is
also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the northerly property line.
• SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
0 Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report 0 Page 1 0
The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed 2.35 -acre
. remainder parcel. The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to
have not been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree
rows. No water courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above
sea level. The project site has an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%. Surrounding parcels
range:in size from .25 to 5 acres.
The property is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area. The site is not within a
100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
ANALYSIS:
The project would result in the creation of four residential parcels in an area that is planned for
suburban single-family residential land uses and generally has similar -sized residential parcels in
the area. The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the SR -1 zone, which requires a
minimum parcel size of 1 acre. The project site is designated by the Land, Use Element of the
Butte County General Plan as Agricultural Residential. This designation states that the minimum
parcel size is one to forty, acres, and the zoning districts that are consistent are A-20, A-40, TM -
40, FR -20, FR -40, and C -F. The Agricultural Residential designation also lists conditionally
consistent zones which includes the SR -1. The Agricultural Residential designation lists five
development criteria that must be met when a parcel is less than 20 acres in size.. The
conditional development criteria are listed below, along with staff's response:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
Agricultural uses in the project area consist primarily of almond orchards. Most of the
orchard land is in an A-10 zone which abuts the property to the south and west. With the
interface between agriculture and residential comes the potential of conflicts between the
two land uses. The project is inconsistent with Agricultural Element Policies 2.1 which
states that "Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development"; and policy 2.3 which states: "Require development to provide land use
transitions, setbacks, and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to
reduce interference and conflict. Program 2.2 of the General Plan Agricultural Element
calls for a 300 foot buffer setback to be placed on the residential side of the interface.
The configuration of the proposed lots will not accommodate the required setback and the
project would conflict with agricultural uses.
2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and did not
have any objections to the proposed use of septic systems or individual wells.
Groundwater is generally plentiful in the area as evidenced by the wells that serve the
orchards.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned
all year. This is considered adequate to serve the proposed development.
0 Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 2 ■
• 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service area.
The site abuts a paved, County -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the
capacity to handle approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this
development.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools.
Commercial services and schools are located between '/2 and 1 mile from the property.
This is clearly adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
Based upon the above 'discussion, the sizes of the proposed parcels generally meet the
development criteria for parcels designated as Agricultural Residential that are less than 20 acres
in size, however, the conflict with adjoining agricultural uses would make this particular project
inconsistent with the General Plan. Section 66473.5 of the California Subdivision Map Act
requires any Tentative Map approval to be consistent with the General Plan. Based on the
inconsistency discussed above, this project cannot be recommended for approval.
In addition, the location of residences near agricultural operations has the potential to expose
people to agricultural chemicals from orchard spray operations and the resulting spray drift. This
is a potential health and safety hazard.
This application also involves a request for a lot line adjustment between two parcels. The
proposed adjustment is consistent with County requirements including zoning 'and building
issues and could be approved separate from the request to divide the property.
CEQA ISSUES:
An initial study was performed for the project. The applicant disagreed with the recommended
mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback from adjoining agriculturally zoned lands.
Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant has asked that he project be taken to hearing
without the environmental findings. The initial study has not been circulated. Public Resources
Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA"is not applicable to projects that are going to be
denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION:
Staff recommends that the Development Review Committee take the following actions:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act).
H. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM
03-14), subject to following findings:
■ Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 3 ■
A. The proposed map is, inconsistent with the Butte County'General Plan Goals and
Policies, ,particularly Agricultural Element Polices:,
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development. and policy.
2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers.:
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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.
B: The development of residential 'structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray.
drift.
'e
■ Butte County Planning Commission Ngenda Report 0Page 4
• Kathleen and Lewis Parker, (Item not subject to environmental review), Tentative Parcel
Map to divide a 6.35 acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels with a concurrent Lot Line
Adjustment with an adjacent property on property zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential — 1
acre parcels). The property is located on the east side of Goodspeed Street, approximately
450 feet north of Hutton Way, in•Durham. APN 040-280-054, 070 (CS) (TPM 03-14)
Mr. Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. He noted a letter received from Michael Hislop.
Chairman Lambert questioned if the Lot Line Adjustment (LLA) was necessary to allow enough
acreage for -this parcel map.
Mr. Sanders said there was adequate acreage without the LLA.
Chairman Lambert asked how this project relates to the D2N Plan.
Mr. Sanders said it is within the urban improvement standards area of the D2N Plan.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the other one -acre lots in the area are occupied.
Mr. Sanders said the'lots along the Midway are mostly single-family residential, the parcel along
Goodspeed to the north- has a single-family residence on it, and homes generally line Goodspeed
also on the easterly side of the road. He said the land to the south is agriculturally zoned, but there is
no orchard on'the property. He said the potential is there for an orchard. He said there is a health
and safety issue in terms of spraying from a potential orchard.
Commissioner Nelson stated he did not see a 300 foot buffer being reasonable at this location.
Mr.. Sanders said there is an approved Subdivision to the south and these parcels range in, size from
3.9 to 4 •or 5 acres• in size.
Mr. MacKenzie informed the Commission that the environmental documents have not been
circulated on this project. He said this project could not be approved today. He said the
Commission might want to continue the hearing to allow staff time to work out the buffer problem.
Commissioner Leland read from the Agricultural Element Program 2.1 "Agriculture shall not be
made unviable by the economic impacts of urban development." Program 2.2 states "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." He felt that this gave the
Commission some discretion to modify or adjust the 300 foot setback.
Commissioner Nelson said he believed in the 300 foot setback requirement when it was reasonable,
but he was not sure it was reasonable here.
Commissioner Evans noted that there is no existing agricultural use to the south.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION ■ NE NUTES m AUGUST 14,_2003' ■ PAGE 10 ■
a
• Mr. Baker said as Counsel has pointed out, it would be appropriate to allow time for staff to prepare
an initial study on this project and continue this hearing.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveyors, said he checked on the Sutton Subdivision to the south and the
subdivision is a residential subdivision. In addition, houses are being built on approximately 4-5 acre
parcels. He said the acreage to the road would be lower after deeding ouf the roads. He discussed
the buffer and the fact that the County has not implemented the Agricultural Element.. He said there '
are no agricultural operations in this area.
Bud False said that across the street there is an active orchard 100 feet away. He said his concern is
the maintenance of the private road.
Beth Fernandz said her concern is the access road through Midway. She said Midway is a traffic
problem now.
Commissioner Nelson informed her the access road would come in from Goodspeed.
The hearing was closed.
Commissioner Leland said that this proposal has two unique aspects that were not addressed when
the implementation of the Agricultural Element was being discussed. One is that this parcel is infill
where there are residences that are closer than 300 feet. The other circumstance is the character of
agricultural use of the property abutting this parcel. He said the use is a ranch ette hobby farm and
not intense farming. He wanted to highlight the need for the Guidelines to implement the
Agricultural Element of the General Plan. -
Commissioner Nelson saidthe property is surrounded on at least two sides by residential parcels.
Commissioner Marin said he did not think a`300 foot buffer would work here. He said a 300 -foot -
setback would hobble the owner from developing the land, but next door adjoining land is 1/3 to 1/2
- acre parcels that are developed or being developed. '
Mr. Sanders said he would need a minimum of 30 days to complete the Initial Study.
Commissioner Evans asked what strides could be made on the Guidelines for the General Plan
implementation in 45 days.
Chairman Lambert said the Commission could initiate hearings.
Commissioner Nelson discussed dealing with setback buffers.
• Mr. Baker said this type of discussion and implementation would probably be tied to the General
Plan update. `
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COTvMSSION ■ ME%MTES ■ AUGUST 14, 2003 ■ PAGE 11. ■
! Commissioner Nelson said he would like to address the setback for.this parcel as a. special 1.
circumstance where they can make some adjustments.
ChairmanLambert said there have been times when the 300 foot buffer has been reduced, but the
question is where or when 300 feet is appropriate.
Commissioner Leland said this is a unique situation because the parcel is infill and because the
agricultural use next to the property isnot intensive agricultural use.
Commissioner Marin said the 300400t buffer for this property does not work. He also felt' -that this
was a unique, situation where the Commission could adjust the setback.
Commissioner Evans said they need to'' have staff do the Initial Study and maybe work on the
Guideline at the same time.
Commissioner Nelson suggested that staff go back ,and look at the old hearing.
Mr. Baker said he will take the Commission's concerns to the director and will -report back to the
Commission.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously carried
to postpone this hearing for at least 45 days. to allow staff adequate time to circulate the
_environmental document and return with comments for the Commission to further consider this
particular application.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously carried
to ask staff to come back and'refresh the Commission's memory on where they ended with the
discussion on the 300400t setback issue. It was part of the Agricultural Implementation hearings as
a discussion item: He would like this at the same time as the Parker hearing comes back.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. ■ MINUTES. m. AUGUST, t4,200 'PAGE 12 n .1. 0
r
• BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION "
AGENDA REPORT — March 25, 2,004 R
Applicant: Kathleen Parker Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban
Residential, l' -acre''
' minimum parcel size) r
-File #: TPM 03-14 APN: 040-280-054, & 070
Request: This is an application for a Location: On the east side of
Tentative Parcel Map to Goodspeed St.
' divide a 6.35 -acre parcel approximately 450 feet
into four 1 acre parcels and • north of Hutton Way,
a 2.35 acre remainder. A - Durham.
lot line adjustment is also project Dan Breedon
being processed to transfer Planner: Principal Planner
w a-31 foot, wide strip along
the northerly property line. parcel Size: 6.35.+/- acres t
Supervisor 4
'District:
. Attachments: "
General Plan A: GeneraTPlan and Zoning '
Designation:. Agricultural Residential Map
` B: August 14,•2003, Planning
Commission Agenda '
Report/Minutes
C. Aerial Maps for Parker
and Niderost ;
D. Initial Study
E. Tentative Parcel Map .
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The project -is consistent with the SR -1 zone, but does not conform to County'Gemral Plan
Agricultural Element policies regarding a 300 -foot agricultural setback, or 'the Conditional
Development Criteria 'required by the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation that
requires development to be compatible with neighboring agricultural activities. ' The applicant
has declined to redesign the project to conform to the 300 -foot agricultural setback.
This project was last heard by the Planning Commission on August 14, 2003. The Planning
Commission continued the project off the agenda pending further review of the 300 -foot f
■ Butte County Planning Commission ■,Agenda Report 0 Page 1 ■
•agricultural setback issue and -provision of further information to the Planning, Comrr ission
regarding this issue.
Staff re -reviewed this agricultural , setback issue with the Agriculture' Commissioner who ,
provided revised comments. The revised comments, received from the .Agriculture
Commissioner do not provide any relief from the 300 -foot agricultural setback.
4 5
_Staff, therefore, recommends that the project be denied because it is not consistent with the Butte
County General Plan. r
If the applicant wishes to pursue the lot line adjustment proposed by this map, a revised map '
• would be required showing the adjustment proposed and omitting the proposed parcels. As an
alternative option, the applicant could submit _a lot Gine adjustment application to ,the. Land
Development Division. F
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: '
1. This is a request to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four` 1 acre parcels. and a 2.35 acre
remainder.
2. Sewage disposal for the future dwelling sites would be handled by on-site septic systems
and domestic water would be obtained'from individual wells. _
3. Proposed parcels would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed ori a 60
foot easement.
4. A lot line adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the
northerly property line.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
1. The site is developed with one single family dwelling and is located on the proposed .
2:35 -acre remainder parcel..
2. The land is level and is planted in an older almond orchard that appears to have not been
c . maintained for some time. w '
37 Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree.rows. No water courses traverse the ,
property.
4. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level:
5. -The.project site has an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%:
6. Surrounding parcels range in size from .25 to 5 acres.
7. The property is within the Durham Urban Improvements standards area'.'
8. The'site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight_ zone.
1 ,
1*■ Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0
•ANALYSIS: F
1. On August 14, 2003, the Planning Commission continued this item off the agenda.
2. The Planning Commission instructed staff to provide further information relative to the
300 -foot agricultural setback as required under Program 2.2 of the Agricultural Element
of the General Plan.
•
•
3. Staff reviewed the Planning Commission's minutes regarding further issues related to the'
agricultural setback since this item was continued and found the following in
a. At the August 28, 2003, Planning Commission public meeting Development
Services Director Yvonne Christopher briefed the Planning Commission on the
Agricultural Setback issue.
b. Director Christopher explained to the Planning. Commission that there are two
kinds of 300 -foot agricultural setbacks, one based upon health and safety issues
and not related to zoning, and the other based upon Agricultural Element Program
2.2.
c. Director Christopher indicated that the Agricultural Element was,adopted by the
Board of Supervisors.
d. At the October 9, 2003, Planning Commission hearing the Planning Commission
considered a Tentative Parcel Map for Edward J. Niderost, for which the -
agricultural setback was discussed.
e. At this hearing, the Planning Commission received information regarding a 150—
foot.
50-
foot Agricultural Setback as recommended by the Agriculture Commissioner and
continued the hearing to November 13, 2003, to allow for further consideration of
the Agricultural Setback by'the Agricultural Commissioner.
f. At this hearing extensive discussion took place on the agricultural setback. The
setback wasapproved at 300 feet for the placement of dwellings from adjacent
agricultural operations.
g. This condition was later appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The Board
reviewed the agricultural setback as approved by the Planning Commission.
h. The Board of Supervisors determined that the existing dwellings in the area
created a.buffer from the surrounding agricultural spray operations. The potential
'development on the parcels created was classified as infill and no agricultural
setback was required.
i. On February 12,'2004, the,'Agriculture Commissioner Richard Price provided a
presentation to the Planning Commission on the agricultural setback.
j. The Planning Commission also received comment from Development 'Services
Director Yvonne Christopher regarding the agricultural setback
k. Director Christopher indicated that as part of the Agricultural Element
implementation, guidelines would. be developed concerning the agricultural
setback.
■ Butte County Planning Commission 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 3 ■ 1,3
1. Director Christopher indicated that Development Services staff would, implement
Y the 300 -foot setback on all development' projects unless they have direction from
the Board to do otherwise.
m. Director Christopher, indicated that members of the public considering the
division of their property adjacent to agricultural operations must plan for a buffer
300 feet back from active agricultural operations.
4. Staff asked the Agricultural Commissioner to review this Tentative Parcel Map again, in
light of the Board of Supervisors' finding the Niderost Tentative Parcel Map as .an infill
development that could be approved without the 300 -foot agricultural setback.. (See
Aerial Maps for Niderost and Parker, ATTACHMENT C)
5. Although there are similarities between the Niderost Tentative Parcel Map and the Parker
Tentative Parcel Map, residential development adjacent to the Parker Map is considered
more disbursed, and the Parker Map involves a larger, 6.35 -acre parcel as opposed to the
' smaller Niderost Map at 2 acres.
6. The arrangement of adjacent dwellings and the relatively small size of the Niderost Map
provide an area where agricultural spraying is already prohibited due to the proximity of ,
adjacent dwellings.
7. In contrast to the Niderost Map, there are areas on the Parker Map that, due to its larger
size, will be influenced by adjacent agricultural activities and spraying.
8. The Parker Map, therefore, • does not qualify as infill development for purposes of
implementing the 300 -foot agricultural setback, as does the Niderost Map. '
9. The Agriculture Commissioner, therefore, requires that the Parcel Map be reconfigured in
such a way that will support the development of building sites outside of the 300 -foot
agricultural setback.
10. The current map does not support this configuration and places building sites within the
300 -foot setback.
11. Staff is, therefore, recommending denial of this tentative parcel map, unless the applicant
can reconfigure the project to comply with a 300 foot agricultural setback.
CEQA ISSUES:
An initial study was performed for the project. The applicant disagreed with the recommended
mitigation measure requiring a 300 -foot setback from adjoining agriculturally zoned lands.
Without mitigation, the impact would be significant and unavoidable, requiring the preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report. The applicant has asked that the project be taken to hearing
without the environmental findings. The initial study has not been circulated. Public Resources
Code Section 21080 b. (5) states that CEQA is not applicable to projects that are going to be
denied. CEQA findings are, therefore, not necessary.
0 Butte County Planning Commission ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 4 0 . 1-4
ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION: r
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
L, Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant.to Public Resources
Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections' 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of "
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee -is required.
II. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line. Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File,,TPM
03-14), subject to following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development.
2.3 Require development to provide land'use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce
interference and conflict.
And 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.
B. ; The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands
poses a heath- and safety. hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical 'spray .
drift.
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKER\3:25.04 Planning Commision Report.doc )
■ Butte County Planning Commission. ■ 'Agenda Report `■ Page 5 ■
0
,�. Vicinity Map
'poa
a
Wel
a�
y�
G rd Road
Cummin m
i
G
Kathleen Parker, Tentative Parcel Map This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map
to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1 acre parcels and a'2.35 acre remainder. A lot •line
adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide, strip along .the northerly
property line. The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential 1 acre parcels) and is
located on the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet- north of Hutton Way,
Durham. APN 040-280-045 and 070 (DB) (TPM 03-14)
Mr. Breedon said the applicant has requested that this hearing be continued to April 8, 2004.
Chairman Leland announced that he would not be, here for ,the April 8, meeting..
The meeting was opened to the,public.
No one was present to speak on this item.
It was. moved by .Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Evans; and unanimously
carried to continue.this hearing open to April'22, 2004.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMNIISSION MRTLTTES MARCH 25, 2004 ■ PAGE 1 �.
o
wTTFo
° °
eniorandum
o °
OUR
TO.: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: - *Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Addendum to March 25; 2004'Planning Commission Agenda Report for
;Parker Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14) for April 22, 2004 Planning ,
Commission Meeting
DATE: April 14, 2004 J
' Department of Development Services
Plamiing Division
The consideration of the March 24, 2004 Agenda Report was continued to this date at the request
of the applicant. r
• The Agriculture Commissioner's office has additionally brought to,staff's attention the conflict
associated with the commercial stables located adjacent to the southeast portion of the proposed
Parker tentative map.
The Agriculture Commissioner's office indicates that the proximity of the project to the,stables
supports the implementation of the 300:foot-agricultural buffer as provided for under Program
2.12 of the Agricultural Element of the General Plan. The Agriculture Commissioner commented
to staff that there is a potential for nuisance complaints regarding dust, odor, noise,and pests`
generated by the commercial stables, if the project is approved without an agricultural buffer. .
The. agricultural buffer required for the commercial, horse stables is in addition'.to the buffer
required.from-the•balance of the south property line due to the potential for this adjacent property
J to be improved with a commercial orchard. ,
Staff is therefore recommending that an additional finding be included in the Planning
Commission's denial of this project. The additional finding is to be included under the Actions
for Consideration. Section, Item II (c) as follows:
Y C. The development of residential structures within 300 feet of the commercial stables,
located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would subject residents to .land
use, impacts such as dust, odor, .noise,- and pests, which are considered public nuisances
and are impacts that are considered incompatible with'the proposed residential uses.
K:\Planning\PROJECTS\TPM\PARKER\Parker Addendum.doc y
•
Kathleen Parker, Tentative Parcel Map This is an application for a Tentative
Parcel Map to divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into,four 1 acre parcels and a 2.35 acre
remainder. A lot line adjustment is also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide
strip along the northerly property line. The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban
Residential — 1 acre parcels) and is located on the east side of Goodspeed St.
approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham. APN 040-280-045 and 070
(DB) (TPM 03-14)
Mr. Breedon gave a brief summary of the project. He said this project does not qualify as infill
property.. He added an additional finding to read "The development of residential structures within
300 feet of the commercial stables, located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would,
subject residents to land use impacts such as dust, odor, noise, and pests, which are considered pubic
nuisances and are impacts that are considered incompatible with the proposed residential uses."
Commissioner Nelson asked if the property for Ms. Parker could be farmed with residences on three
sides of it.
Mr. Breedon said the problem is that the property to the south could be farmed and sprayed and
could affect this property.
• Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner, said the stables are considered an agricultural use. He
said they are looking at allowing a smaller density.
Commissioner Lambert asked if there is access on the map -where it shows a small strip to the bottom
right where it adjoins Midway.
Mr. Breedon said "yes and explained the applicant's right to appeal if this is denied.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tom Wrinkle, Sierra West Surveying, said the application was submitted in 2003 and went to the
Commission in August 2003 for the first time. He said at that time the applicant agreed to a 6 week
continuance. He said it has now been 8 months. He said the Permit Streamlining Act does not allow
this to happen and that this should be considered an automatic approval. He said there is no reason
to tell an applicant he will be back in 6 weeks then take 8 months instead.
Mr. Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel, stated that the Permit Streamlining Act is clear that it
sets specific time limits for approving or denying projects after the environmental documents have
been certified or if you area responsible agency after a lead agency has approved a project. He said
there have been no environmental documents certified in this case.
Mr. Breedon explained that a Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study was prepared and the
applicant refused to sign the document. He felt that staff had worked with diligence to try to work
through the issues, but the applicant chose to not re -design the map or re -configure the parcels to
comply with the 300 -foot agricultural setback.
b.BU.11�'I..VUN1YT,YL,Ei1V1V11V1Jl.vlvuvuO�ivi� �•.++ ,�
PAGE 2 ■
• Mr. Wrinkle disagreed with Mr. Wannenmacher's explanation of the Permit Streamlining, Act.
Chairman Leland said there are no environmental documents, the 300 -foot setback is the law, and the
Permit Streamlining Act does not apply.
The hearing was closed.
It :was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded, by Commissioner Nelson, and unanimously
carried to deny the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-14) for Kathleen Parker, subject to the findings
listed below, adding a finding to read "The development of residential structures within 300 feet of
the commercial stables, located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project,: would subject
residents to land use impacts such as. dust, odor, noise, and pests, which are considered public
nuisances and are impacts that are considered incompatible with the proposed residential uses." as
follows:
I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code
21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code, of
Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act).
II. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment for Kathleen Parker (File TPM 03-
14), subject to the following findings:
A. The proposed map is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan Goals and
Policies, particularly Agricultural Element Polices:
2.1 Agriculture shall not be made unviable by the economic impacts of urban
development and policy.
2.3 Require development to provide land. use transitions, setbacks, and buffers
between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference
and conflict.
And 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.
B. The development of residential structure within 300 feet of agricultural lands poses a
health and safety hazard from pesticide and agricultural chemical spray drift.
C. The development of residential structures within 300 feet of the commercial stables,
located adjacent to the southeast portion of the project, would- subject residents to21
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 22, 2004 ■ PAGE 3
*SIERRA WEST SURVEYING
LICENSED LAND SURVEYING
5437 Black Olive Drive - Paradise, CA 95969
Phone: (530) 877-6253 BUTTE
Fax: (530) 877-6254 - COUNTY
JUL .0`9 2003
DEVELOPMENT
July 7, 2003 sERvacEs
Craig Sanders
County of Butte
Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
RE: JOB 8109
APN 040-280-054
** Tentative Parcel Map for 'Kathleen Parker
Dear Craig:•, •
D
I have received the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Kathleen Parker Parcel ,Map, APN 040-280-054 & 070, TBM 3-14.
We do not agree to Mitigation Measure #1 regarding "No residential
structures may be developed within 300 feetof the southerly property lines of
the project.
Has the 300 foot building setback.requirement been adopted as. part of the
Butte County Code by the Board of Supervisors? Is it in the General Plan? Is it in
the Agriculture Element?
rham�developed area: I have not seen any
This property is within the Du
adopted ordinances which state that there shall be a 300 foot setback Ior any.
home to be built in an agriculture zone..
If this, is a policy being implemented by the county staff and not adopted by
• the Board of .Supervisors, I would like to know what authority they have,ao
implement this.
`• ATTACHMENT E ,
M•, S
WA
]�
BLAND OF NATURAL WEALTH •AND BEAUTY
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES'
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601
FAX: (530) 538-7785
June 10, 2003
Tom Wrinkle
Sierra West Surveying
5437 Black Olive Drive
Paradise, CA 95969
Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Kathleen Parker, APN 040-280-
054 and 070, Project # TPM 0-'14
14
-Dear Mr. Wrinkle:
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
• (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter. 3), an Initial Stud has been r
Y prepared
to determine.if the above -referenced project would have significant adverse effects on the
environment. The Initial Study determined that mitigation measures are necessary to
prevent the project from causing significant impacts to the'environment and a Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed.
Please review the enclosed. initial study and recommended mitigation measures, noting
particularly any environmental problems which could be minimized or avoided by, the
care and. manner in which the project is carried out.- Section 15070(b)(1) of the California
.'Environmental .Quality Act Guidelines requires that the project applicant, or his or her
agent, provide a written consent to' the proposed mitigation measures prior to release of
the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for public review. The
recommended mitigation measures constitute a revision to the project.
If. you agree to, the mitigation measures, please sign Section 8 of the Initial`Study and
rturn to the Planning Division. The Initial Study will be released for public review and
the project set for a public hearing by the Development Review Committee once. we have.
received the signed Initial Study. You must return the signed Initial Study.to this office
before the project,can'be scheduled for the public hearing. If you do not agree to .the
mitigation measures, please contact this office as soon as possible to discuss possible
alternatives.
25'
0
0
C
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
D ER" A F T
COUNTY OF BUTTE.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY FOR
TPM 03-14 (Parker),
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Owner: Kathleen and Lewis Parker
B. Engineer: Sierra West Surveying
C. Staff Contact: Craig Sanders
D. Proiect Name: N/A
E. ; Proiect Location: On the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham
F. Type of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment
G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 040-280-054 and 070
A. Proiect Site Size: 6.35 acres
I. Current Zoning: SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size)
J. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential.
K Environmental Setting: The site is developed with one single family dwelling on the proposed 2.35 -acre
remainder parcel. The site is level and is planted in an almond orchard. The orchard appears to be old an has
not been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have grown up in between the tree rows.. No water
courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea, level. The project site has .
an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%.
Surrounding parcels range in size from :25 to 5 acres, with the predominant size being in the less being less
than an acre.
The property is located within the Sphere of influence of the City of Oroville, but isn't in the County's Urban
Improvement Standards Area. The site is not within a 100 -year flood zone or within an airport overflight
zone.
L.' Surrounding Land Uses: Dwellings at rural densities and almond orchards.
M. Proiect Description: This`is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide'a 6.35 -acre parcel into four 1
acre parcels and a 2.35 acre remainder. Sewage disposal for the future dwellings on the site would be
handled by on-site septic systems and domestic water obtained from i9ndividual'wells. Proposed parcels
would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement. A lot line adjustment is
also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the northerly property line.
N. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Environmental Health Department, Butte County Public Works
• Department, and Butte County Fire Department.
2.0 DETERMINATION.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division mi Page 1 ■ °
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• .. -LOP
� �, rrs rt.y
[ ] 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared by: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Date
Reviewed by: Joe Baker, Principal Planner Date
3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
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.
[ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [X] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality
[ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [ ] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes
[ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [ ] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use
[ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing
[X] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic
[ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. 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.
I-
n Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■
0
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
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) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." 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.
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.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
4.1 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal:
Potentially
significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
'
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
■ Butte County Department of Development- Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■
H
. r
Project Name:. Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Impact Discussion:
The project would result in the creation of four new residential parcels in an area that is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found in the project'area, no substantial conflicts.with-the "
established character or functioning of the surrounding community is anticipated.. Future dwellings on the site may
have, outside'lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor required as apart of the .
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of `
the project site. The project would not create any significant sources of new lightror glare. The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not affect'a
scenie vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. ;
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:. S
t
`
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant_ '
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
J
Incorporated
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
-
X +
quality of the site and its surroundings? '
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which'
'X
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
X
'
area? k
• Impact Discussion:
The project would result in the creation of four new residential parcels in an area that is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. With the existing rural residential uses found in the project'area, no substantial conflicts.with-the "
established character or functioning of the surrounding community is anticipated.. Future dwellings on the site may
have, outside'lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor required as apart of the .
project. The relatively large size of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of `
the project site. The project would not create any significant sources of new lightror glare. The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not affect'a
scenie vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. ;
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES:. S
t
`
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant'
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown ori the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
'X
Monitoring_Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
X
Williamson Act Contract?
c. Involve other changes in the, existing environment which,
due .to their location or nature, could result in conversion
X
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Impact Discussion: „
The SR- I, of the site allows most types of agricultural uses as an accessory use. The General Plan land use
designation of Agricultural Residential lists agricultural uses as a primary use. No agricultural uses are currently
established on the site, although the' suitability of the land for agriculture has been shown by the remnants of an
almond orchard on-site and the small orchards in the general vicinity. Surrounding residential development along with
the small size of the parcel itself, limits the commercial viability of the property for viable commercial endeavors. The
project site abuts An A-10 zone to the south and to the west, across Goodspeed Street. Currently no commercial
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ '
K
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• agricultural operations are being conducted to the property to the south which is divided into two 5 -acre parcels each
developed with a single family residence. A small orchard has been planted on the property immediately to the south
on Goodspeed. The orchard covers less than 2 acres and is locaied approximately 200 feet away from;the subject
property. The area is a mixture of residential and agricultural with the agriculture being comprised of so called
"hobby farms." Due to heath and safety concerns associated with spray drift from chemicals applied to agricultural
operations, the County is attempting to reduce human exposure to such chemicals particularly .at an
agriculture/residential interface. To reduce potential exposure, a 300 foot residential setback is being required on
properties abutting agricultural lands. Applying the 300 foot setback to the subject property renders the proposed lot
configuration infeasible: No other lot configurations appear to be feasible to divide the property and maintain the
desired 300 foot buffer.
r
The site has soils with a Soil Classification Service Classification of II (Butte County GIS Soils theme). Class II soils
have few limitations to the cultivation of agricultural crops and can sustain a varietyof orchard and field crops.
There is no California Land Conservation Agreement ("Williamson Act") contract affecting this property or any of the
surrounding parcels. While the site has what can be considered prime agricultural soil, surrounding development and
the current zoning which allows for 1 -acre residential parcels combine to make the property unsuitable for viable
agricultural production. The conversion of these 6 acres will not have a significant effect on agricultural production
within the County.
The project is not within an area designated Orchard and Field Crop but is still subject to certain provisions in the
Agricultural Element because it abuts Orchard and Field Crop land. Development of residential uses adjacent to
agricultural properties has the effect of altering existing agricultural practices or curtailing future agriculture
production because farmers cannot spray many chemicals near residences. The agricultural Element requires a 300
foot setback from agricultural lands for residential uses unless special circumstances can be found. No such special
circumstances appear to be in place for this project. Applying a 300 foot setback from the southerly property line
effectively wipes out the potential for residential use on the project.
Agricultural uses, including grazing, would be possible on the proposed parcels. No significant impact is anticipated
to agricultural resources as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measure #1: Re -design the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the southerly property line.
4.3 AIR QUALITY:
Impact Discussion:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
`
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
-a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
X
air quality plan?.
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
X
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
X
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
X
of people?
Impact Discussion:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
•
r
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency .have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards.
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur at the same time. The
road servicing the project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project,may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such as grading, excavation for
foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 1 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour:
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent _dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the .plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
3
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed '
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a.. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications; on any species identified as a
X
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
3
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed '
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife'.
Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural communityidentified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
.
X
Department of Fish.and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological r
- interruption, or other means ? '
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with
X
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as a tree preservation policy
X
ordinance?
L Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
X
'
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservationplan?
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an
impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened,
X
or endangered species of animals?
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite
(including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or
X
invertebrates)?
i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for
X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or
X
migratory fish or wildlife species?
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human
'
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the
X
normal activities of wildlife?
Impact Discussion: ,
The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat exists on-site. A
search of the California. Natural Diversity Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. Is a native of California, growing in adobe clay in open fields
The fields. where it grows are very wet in winter and spring, baked hard in summer. -This plant is not a State of
Federally listed species. The California Native Plant Society has it as a rare plant on their list. The project site does
not have the type habitat needed for this plan. The ground doesn't not have a high clay content the cultivation of the
orchard would preclude this plant from becoming established.
The project site is not located in deer herd winter range (Butte County Deer Herd GIS coverage). The project would
not have a significant impact on deer herd range.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM.03-14
This project would have not have significant impact to the loss of wildlife habitat because the property is cultivated as
an orchard. Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) and 14 CCR
753.5 are not required to be paid by the project proponent.
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
• The proposal would. not conflict with the provisions of an'adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure: None Required `
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES:
'
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed'
proposal:
Significant.
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
'
Impact
with
Impact_
Previous
=
Mitigation
Document
e
Incorporated
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
X
_
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
' X
c. Directlyor indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
X
d. Disturb any human' remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
Impact Discussion: _
Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls,
water ditches` and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. • Cultural,resources consist of any human -made
'site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. No such structures or sites are located on the
subject site..
The project site is located in a general area characterized as. having a low to medium, including unknown,
archeological sensitivity. The location of the project is in an area that does not have a high potential for historical of
cultural resources. Often such sites are found 'in foothill. areas, areas with high' bluffs, rock outcroppings,: areas
overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above bodies of water. The project site has undergone extensive agricultural
operations over the years; and it is unlikely th'at any intact cultural resources are located on the site. Therefore, no
impacts are expected to occur to any historical or cultural resources., -
• Mitigation Measure: None required-
4.6
equired4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:
Would thoosal:
prp.
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
.e ,
'
Impact
with -
Impact
Previous
=
Mitigation
Document
•
Incorporated
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
.1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
X
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
'
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
2. Strong seismic ground shaking?
X
3. Seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
X .
4. I;andslides?
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 landslide, lateral
X
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
..
X
risks to life or property?
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
X
water?
Impact Discussion:
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate
Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone, but is in an after shock
epicenter region. The nearest active fault, the Cleveland Hill fault, is located approximately 19 miles to the southeast
of the site. The Butte County GIS FaultLines theme shows that an inferred.fault is located approximately 2.2 miles to
the west of the site.
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. However, strong seismic ground
shaking is closely related to the proximity of active fault lines. Although there is insufficient data to predict these
forces, the closest mapped Fault -Rupture Zone is the Cleveland Hills fault zone, which is located approximately 19
miles to the east of the project site. The Cleveland Hills fault line is the only fault line in.Butte County that is
recognized under the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones Act to pose a threat from fault rupture. However, new
structures placed on the site are required to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code. , ,
Seismic risk is not limited to faults -which have been currently identified. Some earthquakes originate from unknown
sources sometimes characterized as "background seismicity" or "floating earthquakes". The Butte County Master
Environmental Assessment indicates that it is reasonable to assume that background seismicity could produce
earthquakes as large as Richter magnitude (modified Mercalli intensity scale) 6.5 virtually anywhere in Butte County.
There is no current evidence that an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.5 would occur at this location. Earthquakes at
this magnitude are generally felt by all persons, but damage is generally slight to minor, with fallen chimneys and
cracked plaster the most prominent damage. Richter magnitude 6.5 is not subjectively characterized on the intensity
scale, but a magnitude 7 is geneially characterized by negligible damage, especially in buildings of good design and
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• construc:tion.' Considerable damage can occur.in poorly built or.badly designed structures. However, the impact
would be less than significant.
The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential
for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant for the development of single family residential structures
constructed in conformance with State Building Code.
The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the'Butte County General Plan indicates that
there is a low potential for landslides in this area. No impact is anticipated.
The Erosion. Potential Map of the Safety,Element of the Butte County General+Plan indicates that the soil erosion
potential for the project site is low.' Gentle slopes predominate on the site of approximately 1% to 2%. Standard
construction techniques are required as, part of the construction process of this site, which would help prevent
significant soil erosion impacts. It is expected that the development of the site including roads, driveways, septic
leachfields, and houses would impact more "than one acre of land and would therefore require a Construction
stormwater permit'from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater permits are intended to
minimize water quality impacts of development. As this is a statutory requirement, no mitigation is necessary. A
condition will be included as part of any approval recomriiendations for the project.
No impact is anticipated from instability, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils , Map indicates that the project site has a moderate expansive soil
potential. This will be taken into account at time of building permit application for future. residences and the
foundation design.will reflect the shrink./swell characteristics of the soil.No impact is anticipated.
The Butte County Environmental Health Department does not object to the use of septic systems on the' property., '
• Percolation tests were conducted on the site and sewage disposal areas are identified on the tentative parcel .map.
Septic systems installed on the site are required to comply with the County Improvement Standards. No impact is
anticipated.
Mitigation Measure: None required `
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning`Division ■ Page 10 ■
Would the r0 osal'
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
P P
Significant
Significant
Significant-
Impact
Under
'
Impact
with
Impact
-
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
-
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal
X
of hazardous materials?
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
X
the environment? " J.
'
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely'
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
X
carter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
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
X
significant hazard to the public or the environment? '
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning`Division ■ Page 10 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant .
Less Than
Significant
No
. Impact
Reviewed
Under
Would the proposal:
Impact
with
Impact
Impact
Previous
•
Mitigation ,
Impact
Document
Incorporated
Document
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
Incorporated
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project
X -
X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
,
the project area?
L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would "
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing o'r
X
X
working in'the project area?
g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
X
plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where'
residences are intermixed with willdlands?
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous
• materials. The' project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated.
• The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and does not .
.interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
The project is not located within a State Response Area for wildland'fires and wildland fires are not a high concern in
the area. The. nearest fire station is Station # 45 (full time), located approximately 3,000 feet away, to the north in
Durham.
Mitigation Measure: None required
- 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY:
t
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■
Potentially
LessThan
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant,
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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 or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
preexisting nearby wells would drop to,a level,which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)? ,
t
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
'
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
_,Under
Impact
" with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
'
Incorporated
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a -
-
X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
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
X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
'
flooding on- or off-site?
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
X
runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade waterquality? '.
X
'
g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
.mapped on, a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
,
X,
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
X
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems placed on the site must meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site.
Domestic water supply for the future dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater is
readily available in the area. A "
This project would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as houses, accessory structures,
and driveways. A minor increase in surface water runoff can -be expected due to the reduced absorption ratecreated
from the impervious surfaces. The Butte County Department of Public Works is requiring a, condition that the peak
flow runoff from the site not increase as a result of the development. A system to detain runoff water' will have to be
designed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the Public Works Department. Adherence to the standards of
the Butte County Public Works Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts on area drainage. ,
No'water courses exist on the site or on adjacent properties, therefore the project would not affect the water quality of
any water course.
The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone' as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 08, 1998.
The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur with respect to
these natural hazards.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Mitigation Measure: None required.
4.9 LAND USE:
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in. size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning' and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
. can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project may not. be
compatible with this criterion.
2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. .
The site has soils that are suited for individual septic tank and leachfield- systems. The Butte County
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the property for either'sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools
Commercial services and schools are located between '/Z and 1 mile from the property. This is clearly
adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. in 1992 as part of the Durham Dayton Nelson
• Plan the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The site is appropriately designated as Agricultural
Residential and generally meets the conditional zoning and development criteria required when considering applying
zoning less than 20 acres in size.
1
Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
• with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
X
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservationplan?
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in. size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning' and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
. can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project may not. be
compatible with this criterion.
2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. .
The site has soils that are suited for individual septic tank and leachfield- systems. The Butte County
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the property for either'sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools
Commercial services and schools are located between '/Z and 1 mile from the property. This is clearly
adequate to meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. in 1992 as part of the Durham Dayton Nelson
• Plan the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The site is appropriately designated as Agricultural
Residential and generally meets the conditional zoning and development criteria required when considering applying
zoning less than 20 acres in size.
1
Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
The proposal would not physically divide an established community because the division of a 6.35 acre parcel in
relationship to the Durham community boundary/division..
The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the SR=1 zone and with the Agricultural Residential General Plan
land use designations. t
The property is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact.would
occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
r
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: '
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No .
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
-
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
X
X
residents of the state?
a
b. . Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
X
X
plan,, specific plan, or other land useplan?
Impact Discussion: '
The proposed project would not use or extiact any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are little or no mineral resources. Therefore, '
the project would have no impact on mineral resources. `
Mitikation Measure: None required
4.11• NOISE: '
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
r Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a.. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
a
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
bome vibration or ground borne noise levels?
X
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X
"
project?
A. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in,the project vicinity above levels existing
X .
without the project7
a t f r
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
• '
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File #f TPM 03-14
'
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
proposal:
Impact
with
Impact
Impact
Previous
y
Mitigation
Impact•
Document
Incorporated
Document
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
Incorporated
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
`
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
X
expose people residing or working in the project area to
X
excessive noise levels?
f. Fora project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing of working in.
X
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not subject to any significant noise"source nor will the development of four additional home on four
acres create significant new noise. The project site.is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses, vehich is
not significant and would not have an impact on the future residents of the site. Y
Construction activities on the site would temporarily generate higher noise levels on and adjacent to the project site
intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not have a significant impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature, and due to the low density of the
existing residential development in the area. It is anticipated that in a small development such as this, the homes will
be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the.relatively small increment of traffic added to the local roadways, the project would not significantly
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels because no significant noise generators, are near the
project site.
The project is not located in the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impactwould occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
• 4.12 HOUSING:
Would the
Potentially
Less Than -
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact•
Previous.
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
'roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere? '
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
X
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15+■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Impact Discussion:
Butte County population has grown at• a rate at , or below all official population projections for the past 10 years.
Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171.' - The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.16% per year. ,
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
potential to add an estimated 10 people to -Butte County (four dwelling units x,2.41.4 persons/dwelling unit). This is .
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate, for the County of approximately
2% per year. The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the proposed.density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area.
Kim
The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES:
Would the
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
1
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
b. Fire protection?
X
c. Police Protection?
X
d.Schools?
X
e. Parks?
X
f. Other public services?.
X
Impact Discussion: f
A less than significant impact is expected to these public service concerns, except as discussed below.
t The project site is located in an area. designated as a.low/unclasified fire hazard area by the Safety Element of the Butte
County General Plan. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry states that cumulative
development in rural areas would impact their ability to provide fire protection services. This agency states that the
installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems in residential structures, the use of fire resistant building
materials and the availability of water supply systems would 'reduce the demand for fire protection services.. As a'
mitigation of project approval, all new dwelling units on the site are required to be equipped with an automatic fire
suppression sprinkler system unless the parcel is connected to a pressurized community water system and has a fire
hydrant available to serve the parcel in accordance with CDFButte County Fire Department standards. Public water
• does not currently serve the parcel Fire sprinklers would not be required for the existing home on the remainder
parcel. .
3
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■
0
W
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
The proposal. would ' result in an incremental `increase in demand for police protection services., 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 fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits
for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the
Durham Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development
impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined
and calculated as.of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that. these fees do
not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by
state legislation.
The project would result in the potential development of one residence and would not create significant impacts to area
parks and facilities.
A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services due to the limited impact of one additional
residence.
Mitigation Measure #3:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire: Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed Jn all new residential structures at the time of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential strictures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection
4.14 RECREATION:
Would the
Potentially
Less Than -
Less Than
No
Reviewed
proposal:
P . P
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. 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
X "
accelerated?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■
•
• ti
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
f ,
Potentially
» Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
-
Mitigation.
Document
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
.
Incorporated
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
X
X
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution of one -new parcel is considered less than significant and would not warrant specific
mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park and Recreation District has adopted impact fees
that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative impacts to
recreation services.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:.
Would the proposal: r -
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant.
No
Impact
Reviewed
' Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous `
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
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
X
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
X
_
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
X
in substantial safety risks? -
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
X .
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs
'
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
X
bicycle racks)?
Impact Discussion:
• The project has the potential to generate approximately 40 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle
trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a.single
family residential use in urban areas, although in rural and semi -rural areas the number of vehicle trips generated by a
dwelling unit is usually less. This number of vehicle trips.would hot significantly impact the local circulation system.
4-5
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• All the roads in the project area have a level -of service of "C" or better (Butte County Master Environmental
Assessment - Existing Conditions) which indicates that vehicle circulation is acceptable.
Each of the four new parcels will have frontage on a private road that will be constructed to serve the development.
Construction will meet County standards. -The private road connects with Goodspeed Street, a County maintained
road. There is adequate site vision in both directions on Goodspeed.
Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b) requires =two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have
adequate room to provide two spaces each, and, therefore, the project presents no impact relative to insufficient .
parking capacity. '
This Tentative Parcel Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs. supporting alternative
= transportation as no bike paths or bus'routes would be affected by the developement.
r
Mitigation Measure: None required
a
4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: f
•
•
Would thero osal:
p p
Potentially.
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
«Impact
Reviewed
.Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
-
Document
Incorporated
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
',
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
"facilities, the'
he construction of which could cause significant ..
X
environmental effects? '
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
X
environmental effects?
d: , Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
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
X
in addition to theprovider's existing commitments?
L Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and
regulations related to solid waste?
X
Impact Discussion:
t • 3
Sewage disposal for the new dwellings on the project site would be handled by individual on-site septic systems. The
project would not have an impact on any wastewater treatment facilities. Adequate soil for the installation of a home
on each parcel has already been proven to the satisfaction of the Butte County Division of Environmental Health.
46
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Domestic water supply for the new dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and ground water in
the are is of a quality and quantity to serve, the project. Oroville Wyandotte Irrigation District. Water lines to serve
the future development have already been installed to the site.
According to the Department of Public Works, no additional storm water facilities would be necessary as a result of
this project.
'The project would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount.
According to the -Butte County Public' Works Department,. the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum
holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal.
No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid.waste due the
insignificant increase in solid waste generated by one `additional home..
Mitigation Measure:. None required
4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065):
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No,
Impact
Reviewed
Under
"
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
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 history or prehistory?
'
b. Have impacts that are individually limited,' but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
X
,
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
ro'ects and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects.which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
X
directly or indirectly?
The project site does not contain any habitat or wildlife population that would be affected at a species or community
level. Nor are there any rare or endarigered.species on the site. The project has the potential to contribute impacts that,
are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.3 Aii Quality, ,
and 4.13 Fire Protection Services. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of
Mitigation Measures.# 2, and 3 as itemized under Section 5 — Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. No
significant impacts would occur to human beings occupying the site as the area is residential in nature and not
significant health hazards exist, in the area.
5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Mitigation Measure #1:, Re -design the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the southerly property line.
47
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Mitigation. Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to. a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving,. excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving • the site and to create a crust after :each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement 'damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down. such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan, Requirements:. All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building` inspectors shall. spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance'complaints.
Mitigation Measure # 3:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for, the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, unless.a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map.
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the time of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shallensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire - sprinkler systems: Building inspectois shall ensure all residential structures have- a functioninginterior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection. .
48
■ Butte County Department of bevelopment. Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ -
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
t
6.0 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 Man 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 Mao 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.
8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 1114, 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 Man. 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 Mans: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
1989 and 2000.
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 Maw Butte
County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989.
.-49
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning -Division ■ Page 23,■
r�
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
7.0
CONSULTED AGENCIES:
t:
[X]
Environmental Health[X]
Public.Works
Building Manager
BCAG
11'
ALUC [X]
LAFCo
[X]
Air Qual. Management Dist.
[ ]
City of Chico [` ]
City of,Biggs
[J. ].
City of Gridley `
[X]
City of Oroville [ ]
Town of Paradise
[X]
CA Department of Forestry
[X]
'CalTrans (Traffic) [: ]
Central Reg. Water Quality '
]
Department of Conservation
:: [X]
CA Dept. of Fish and 'Game '. [ '] '
Highway Patrol -
j J.
Army Corps of Engineers
[ ]
US Fish & Wldlife Service [ J
Agi-icuitural Commissioner
[ ]
Butte Co: Farm Bureau
[ ']
Oroville Union School Dist. { ] ^
Feather River Rec. Dist. .
[ ]
El Medio Fire, Dept.
[X] .
OWID ' [ ]
LOAPUD
[ ]
PG&E
[ ] :
Pacific Bell [ ]
Palermo Union School Dist.
[X]
Oroville Elem: ' School Dist
[X]
County Assessor '
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning -Division ■ Page 23,■
r�
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
COUNTY OF BUTTE
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
INITIAL STUDY FOR
TPM 03-14 (Parker)
LO PROJECT INFORMATION
A: Applicant/Owner: Kathleen and Lewis Parker
B. Engineer: Sierra West Surveyirfg . .
C. Staff Contact: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner
D. `Proiect Name: N/A
E. Proiect Location: On the east side of Goodspeed St. approximately 450 feet north of Hutton Way, Durham.
F. Type of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map and Lot Line Adjustment
G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 040-280-054 and 070
• H. Proiect Site Size: 6.35 acres "
I. Current Zoningj SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size)
J. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential
IC Environmental Setting: The site is developed with one single family dwelling on the proposed 2.35 -acre
remainder parcel. The site is level and includes an almond orchard. The orchard appears to be old and has
not, been maintained for some time. Annual grasses have grown up, in between the tree rows. No water
courses traverse the property. The elevation is approximately 150 feet above sea level. The project site has
an average slope of approximately 1% to 2%.
Surrounding parcels range in size from .25 to 5 acres, with the predominant size being in the less, being less
than an acre:
The property is located within the Improvement Standards Area for Durham. The site is not, within a 100 -
year flood zone or within an airport overflight zone.
L. Surrounding Land Uses: ,Dwellings at rural densities and ahnond orchards.
M. Proiect Description: This is an application fora Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 6.35 -acre parcelinto four 1
acre parcels' and a 2.35 acre remainder. Sewage disposal for the .future dwellings on the site would be
handled by, on-siie.septic systems and domestic water obtained- from individual wells. The proposed parcels".
would access Goodspeed Street via a private road constructed on a 60 foot easement. A lot line adjustment is.
also being processed to transfer a 31 foot wide strip along the northerly propertyline.
N. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County EnvironmentalHealth Department, Butte County Public Works
Department, and Butte County Fire Department.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page l ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 .
2.0 DETERNIINATION
[ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT. have a significant effect on the environment; and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] 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.
[X] 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: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Date
Reviewed by: Joe Baker, Principal Planner Date
■ Butte County Department of Development Services m Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING
A. Environmental Factors Potentially. Affected:
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.
[ ] ,4.1 Aesthetics [X] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality
[ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes
[X] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [ ] 4.8 Hydrology/Water, Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use
[ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ 14.11 Noise [ ] 4.12, Housing
[X] 4.13 Public Services[ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic
[ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. 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) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." 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.
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.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services n Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■
5
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to, incorporate into the checklistreferences 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.
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File'4 TPM 03-14
4.0-, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
4.1 AESTIIETIQVISUAL RESOURCES-.' -
Would the proposal: *
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
'Impact
-with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation'
a
Document
Incorporated
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
t
X
within.a state scenic highway?
r
-
X.
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
-
quality of the site and its surroundings?
X
X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
,
would adversely affect' day or nighttime views in the •
area? _
X
X
- r
Impact Discussion:
r The project would result in the creation of four new residential parcels in.an area that is a mixture of residential and
agricultural uses. -With the existing rural residential uses found in the project area,'no substantial conflicts with the
established character or functioning of the surrounding community is anticipated. Future dwellings on the site may
have outside lighting for safety and security purposes. Street lighting is not proposed nor required as°a part of the
' project. The relatively large size, of the parcels would help attenuate light and glare contributed from development of
• the project site. The project would not create any significant sources of new light or" glare.. The project site is not
located on a State or County scenic highway (Butte County Scenic Highway Map). This project would not affect a,
scenic vista nor would it have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: '
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation,
Document
Incorporated'
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland; or Farmland
.•
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
-maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
X
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency;
to non-agricultural use?
-
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
X
`
Williamson Act Contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion -
X
' of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
r
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■
0
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 '
Impact Discussion: a
The Agricultural Residential General Plan designation supports the use of property for agricultural uses but also supports
the development of residential uses at rural densities. The applicable SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre parcel) zone is
listed as a Conditionally Consistent Zone by the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation. One of the conditions
requires that residential development be compatible with adjacent agricultural activities
The Butte County Agricultural Commissioner commented regarding the potential agricultural conflicts presented by the
project. The Agricultural Commissioner finds that the land designated as Orchard and Field Crops on the south boundary
could go back into production and therefore requires a 300 foot agricultural setback from this area, in accordance with
Butte County Agricultural Element Program 2.2. This requirement is set forth below as a mitigation measure.
The chemical spraying activity associated with adjacent agricultural uses presents a hazard to people (see Initial Study
Checklist Item 4.7 —Hazards).
The applicant was advised of this mitigation but would not agree to impose the buffer on the proposed map. The 300 -foot
agricultural setback would cover, and thus eliminate, the parcels proposed by this parcel map. '
Mitigation Measure # 1:
In order to protect residences of the Parcel Map from hazardous overspray from agricultural operations, and to comply
with Agricultural Element Program 2.2, redesign the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the
southerly parcel line. '
Plan Requirements: Submission of a revised map showing compliance with the 300 foot agricultural setback.
Timing: Requirements of the mitigation shall be completed at the time a revised tentative map is submitted which
conforms to the mitigation.
Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and Agricultural Commissioner shall ensure compliance.
4.3 AIR QUALITY:
in Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
"
Incorporated
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
X
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
X
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
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
X
quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
T__
X
concentrations?
in Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■
•
Project Name; Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. "
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur at the same time. The
road servicing the project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such as grading, excavation for
• foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 2 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
r�
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a"crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c.. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are .indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division si Page 7 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
.Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated,,
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number -
X
of people?
Impact Discussion:
Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution
standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated attainment if these
standards are met and nonattainment if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications
based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated
as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. "
Vehicle traffic generated by the project site development would result in an insignificant cumulative impact on air
quality created by the increase in vehicle traffic, the use of wood burning devices in the new residences, and dust from
vehicular traffic on unpaved driveways on the site. This is not anticipated to be significant because only four new
parcels would be created and the development of homes on each individual parcel will not occur at the same time. The
road servicing the project will be paved. The proposed 4 lots are well below the 97 -lot threshold established by the
Butte County Air Quality Management District for additional air-quality analysis (1997 Air Quality Attainment Plan).
The project may create fugitive dust emission during site development activities, such as grading, excavation for
• foundations and utilities, and other soil work. The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD)
recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission for all road and other construction activities
during project development, using such methods as site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil
palliatives. Mitigation Measure # 2 requires a note be placed on the final map stating that dust control measures shall
be taken during site development activities.
r�
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a"crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the
later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c.. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are .indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building inspectors shall spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division si Page 7 ■
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
•
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
'
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under.
(including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or.
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
i. A deteriorationof existing fish or wildlife habitat (for
Document
X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? -
Incorporated
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or
X
migratory fish or wildlifespecies? `
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a.
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the
t
X
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
X
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
'
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Service?
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
X
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
'
Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected',
f
wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, .
X
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means)?
'
•
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native,
t
resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with
Ix
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
^
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any.local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources such as, a tree preservation policy
X
ordinance?
E- Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan; .
X
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an
impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened,
w
X
or endangered species of animals?
h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite.
(including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or.
X.
invertebrates)?
i. A deteriorationof existing fish or wildlife habitat (for
X
foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? -
j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or
X
migratory fish or wildlifespecies? `
k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human
presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the
X
normal activities of wildlife?
Impact Discussion:
• The project site has been farmed as an almond orchard for decades. No significant natural habitat exists on-site. A
r search of the California Natural. Diversity Database revealed that the site is within a general area where Fritillaria
Pluriflora (Adobe Lily) may exist. Fr. pluriflora. is a native of California found growing in adobe -clay open fields
60
. Fhi to County Denartment of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■
•
•
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
The fields where it grows are very wet in winter and spring, baked hard in summer: This plant is not a State or
Federally listed species. The'California Native Plant Society has>it listed as a rare plant. The project site does not
have the type of habitat needed for this plant. The historic cultivation of the orchard on-site would preclude this plant
from becoming established.
The project site is not located in a deer herd winter range (Butte County Deer Herd GIS coverage). The project would
not have a significant impact on the deer herd range.
This project would not have a significant impact to the loss'of wildlife habitat because the property has been cultivated
as an orchard. Department of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5
are not required to be paid by the applicant.
The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Mitigation Measure: None Required
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES:
Impact Discussion:
The subject property is.located in an area identified as having a low archeological sensitivity. This project is located in
an area that has been extensively altered from a natural state through land clearing, grading and use as an orchard and
home site. Archeological resources have, either been removed or disturbed to such an extent that they are no longer.
significant:
There is always the potential for undiscovered archaeological resources to be uncovered during excavation activities.
Staff recommends that a mitigation measure be included that will require that all construction activities cease in such
an instance. Ground disturbance would not resume until clearance is provided by a qualified archaeologist.
Mitization Measure #3
Place a note on the map or additional map sheet stating: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural
resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.;
structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte County
Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State, law requires immediate
notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
l
■ Rntte Countv Department ofDevelovment Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■
1
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
X
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
X
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c.' Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological -
X
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
X
outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact Discussion:
The subject property is.located in an area identified as having a low archeological sensitivity. This project is located in
an area that has been extensively altered from a natural state through land clearing, grading and use as an orchard and
home site. Archeological resources have, either been removed or disturbed to such an extent that they are no longer.
significant:
There is always the potential for undiscovered archaeological resources to be uncovered during excavation activities.
Staff recommends that a mitigation measure be included that will require that all construction activities cease in such
an instance. Ground disturbance would not resume until clearance is provided by a qualified archaeologist.
Mitization Measure #3
Place a note on the map or additional map sheet stating: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural
resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.;
structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte County
Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State, law requires immediate
notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
l
■ Rntte Countv Department ofDevelovment Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■
1
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State
law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains."
Plan Requirements: This note shall be required to be placed on the Parcel Map or on a separate instrument recorded with
the Subdivision Map.
Timing: This measure shall'be implemented during site preparation and construction.
Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and
appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action.,
4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES:
Would the proposal:,
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known'earthquake fault, as delineated
,
on the.most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
X
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
,
Geology Special Publication 42.
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
X
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
reading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
X
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system
X
,
where sewers are not available'for the disposal or waste
water?
Impact Discussion: -
The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate .
Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII.The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone, but is in an after shock
epicenter region. The nearest a . ctive fault, the Cleveland Hill fault, is located approximately 19 miles to the southeast
of the site. The Butte County.GIS Fault Lines theme shows that an inferred fault is located approximately 22 miles to
the west of the site.
62
w Rlrtte. C:onnt-v nenartment of Develonment Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Theintensity 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. However,. strong seismic ground
shaking is closely related to the proximity of active fault lines. Although there is insufficient data to predict these
forces, the closest mapped Fault -Rupture Zone is the Cleveland.Hills fault zone, which is located approximately 19
miles to the east of the project site. The Cleveland Hills fault line is the only fault line in Butte County that is
recognized under -the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones - Act to pose a threat from fault rupture. However, new
structures placed on the site are required to meet the seismic standards of the Uniform Building Code.
Seismic risk is not limited to faults which have been currently identified. Some earthquakes originate from unknown
sources sometimes characterized as "background seismicity" or "floating earthquakes". The Butte County Master
Environmental Assessment indicates that it is reasonable to assume that background seismicity could produce
earthquakes as large as Richter magnitude (modified Mercalli intensity scale) 6.5 virtually anywhere in Butte County.
There is no current evidence that an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.5 would occur at this location. Earthquakes at
this magnitude are generally felt by all persons, but damage is generally slight to minor, with fallen chimneys and
cracked plaster the most prominent damage. Richter magnitude 6.5 is not subjectively characterized on the intensity
scale, but a magnitude 7 is generally characterized by negligible damage, especially in buildings of good design and
construction. Considerable damage can occur in poorly built or badly designed structures. However, the impact
would be less than significant.
The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that -the site has a moderate potential
for liquefaction: The impact would be less than significant for the development of single family residential structures
constructed in conformance with.State Building Code. .
The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that
• there is a low potential for landslides in this area. No impact is anticipated.
The Erosion Potential Map of the Safety Element of the =Butte County General Plan indicates that the soil erosion
potential for the project site is low. Gentle slopes predominate on the site of approximately 1% to 2%. Standard
construction techniques are required as part of the construction, process of this site, which would help prevent
significant soil erosion, impacts. It is expected that the development of the site including roads, driveways, septic
leachfields, and houses would impact more than one acre of land and would therefore require a Construction storm
water permit from the California Regional Water, Quality Control Board. Storm water permits are intended to
minimize water quality impacts of development. As this is a'statutory requirement, no mitigation is necessary. A
condition will be included as part of any approval recommendations for the project.
•
No impact is anticipated from instability, landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.
The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project- site has a moderate expansive soil
potential. This will be taken, into account at time of building permit application for future residences and the
foundation design will reflect the shrink/swell characteristics of the soil. No impact is anticipated.
The Butte County Environmental Health Department does not object to the use of septic systems on the property.
Percolation tests were conducted on the site and sewage disposal areas are identified on the tentative parcel map.
Septic systems installed on the site are required -to comply with the County Improvement Standards. No impact is
anticipated.
Mitigation Measure: None required
■ Rutte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 0
�J
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
'
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal
X
of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
'
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
X
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
X
uarter mile of an existing or proposed schools?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
X
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a,
significant hazaid to the public or the environment?
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
.X
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the projectarea?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
-
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
X
working in the project area?
g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
X
plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or, where
residences are intermixed with willdlands?
Impact Discussion:
The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous,materials and would not create any hazardous
materials. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated.
The project site is located next to an area designated as Orchard and Field Crops by the County General Plan.. Lands
so designated may be developed with intensive agricultural uses such as orchards. Chemicals that may be harmful to
humans could be used in the orchard and present an impact to future residents of this parcel map. The Spray Drift
Task Force Study (1997) established -that the negative impacts of agricultural chemicals can extend in excess of 300
feet from the active spray area. In an effort to protect the health, safety, and welfare of future residents it has been
determined that a 300 -foot buffer between potential agricultural uses and potential residential structures is necessary to
reduce impacts of agricultural chemicals and sprays. Mitigation Measure #1 has been set forth to address this issue.
• The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and does not
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur.
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 0
•
•
,
Project Name- Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
" The project is not located within a State Response Area for wildland fires and wildland fires are not a high concern in
the area. The nearest fire station is Station # 45 (full time), located approximately 3,000 feet away, to the north in
Durham.
Mitigation Measure: See Mitigation Measure #1
A o. Y"r"nnT nCA'V A1V" IV A rrV l2 nTTAT.TTV• -
ZDV 111 L1_V i/vv a - t -
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal'
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Previous
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
X
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer.volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
X
preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
-
permits have been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
'
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
X
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
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
X
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
X
systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
L 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
X
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
X ._
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
- injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
X
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflbw?
X '
Impact Discussion:
All wastewater generated by the future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual, on-site septic systems.
The Butte County Environmental Health Division does not object to the use of septic systems on the site. Septic
systems placed on the site must meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Division and
Chapter 20, entitled "Subdivision Ordinance," of the Butte County Code. No impacts to surface water or ground water
are anticipated due to the proposed use of septic systems on the site.
J.
r
.m Butte Countv Department of Development Services n Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Domestic water supply for the future dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater is
readily available in the area.
•
This project would ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as houses, accessory structures,
and driveways. A minor increase in surface -water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created
from the impervious surfaces. The Butte County" Department of Public Works.is requiring a condition that the peak
flow runoff from the site not increase' as a result of the development. A system to detain runoff water will have to be
designed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the Public Works Department. Adherence to the standards of
the Butte County Public Works Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts on area drainage.
No water courses exist on the site or on adjacent properties, therefore the project would not affect the water quality of
any water course.
The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone as shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 08, 1998.
The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur with respect to
these natural hazards.
Mitigation Measure: None required.
4.9 LAND USE:
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project is not compatible
with this criterion, unless the applicant redesigns the project to comply with the 300 foot agricultural buffer as,
provided for under Mitigation Measure #1.
• 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity.
R„tte Cnnnty Denartment of Development Services m Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant :
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Physically divide an established community?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan,
X.
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c. ' Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
X
natural community conservationplan?
Impact Discussion:
The proposal would divide a 6.35 -acre parcel into four one -acre parcel of 2.35 -acre remainder. This density is
consistent with the SR -1 zoning of the site. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is Agricultural
Residential. Consistent zoning for this designation calls for 20 acre minimum parcel sizes or larger. Zoning less than
20 acres in size can be found consistent if the Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed in the General Plan
can be met. Theses criteria are:
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities.
The property abuts agricultural lands to the south and west. Development of the project has he potential to
adversely impact ongoing and future agricultural use of these abutting lands. The project is not compatible
with this criterion, unless the applicant redesigns the project to comply with the 300 foot agricultural buffer as,
provided for under Mitigation Measure #1.
• 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity.
R„tte Cnnnty Denartment of Development Services m Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• The site has soils that are suited for individual septic tank and leachfield systems. The Butte County,
Environmental Health Division has not indicated any limitations for the,property for either sewage disposal or
water availability. The project meets this criterion.
s
•
3. Availability of adequate fire protection services.
The site is approximately 3,000 feet from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is
considered adequate to serve the proposed development. The project meets this criterion.
4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to serve the area.
The site abuts a paved, county -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle
approximately 40 additional daily trips represented by this development. The project meets this criterion.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools.
Commercial services and schools are located between '/� and 1 mile from the property. This is adequate to
meet the needs of a development of this density.
The County designated this area as Low Density Residential in 1971. In 1992 as part of the Durham Dayton Nelson
Plan, the designation was changed to Agricultural Residential. The -Durham Dayton Nelson Plan includes an Urban
Reserve Policy Statement that regulates urban development within the plan area. This policy includes �a statement that
any parcel that is now less than 20 acres in size which was .legally created, pre-existing, and non -conforming may be
developed, according to its zoning. This property is 6.35 acres in size and -may be proposed for development in
accordance with its SR -1 (Suburban Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) zoning, under the Durham Dayton
Nelson Plan.
The proposal would not physically divide anestablished community because the division of a 6.35 acre parcel in
relationship to the Durham community boundary/division.
The sizes of the proposed parcelsare consistent with the SR -1 zone and with the Agricultural Residential General Plan
land use designations.
The property is not'within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would
occur.
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES:'
Impact Discussion:
The proposed project would"not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are little or no mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on mineral resources.
■ Rntte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■
7
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
he proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document -
rE
Incorporated
in the loss of availability of a known mineral
ce that would be of value to the region and the
X
nts of the state?
in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
X
plan, specific plan, or other land useplan?
Impact Discussion:
The proposed project would"not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known
mineral resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are little or no mineral resources. Therefore,
the project would have no impact on mineral resources.
■ Rntte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■
7
-
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map,, File # TPM 03-14
Mitigation Measure: None required '
4.11 NOISE: "
Impact Discussion: i
The project site is not subject,to any significant noise source nor will the development of four additional homes on
four acres create significant new noise. The project site is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses,
which is not significant and would not -have an impact on the.future residents of the site.
Construction activities -on the site would`teivorarily generate higher noise levels on and adjacent to. the project site
-intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not have a significant impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature; and due to the low density of the
existing residential development in the' area. It is anticipated that in a'small development such as this, the •homes will
j'- be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the relatively small increment of traffic'added to the local roadways, the project would not -significantly .�
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels,because'no significant noise "generators are near the
project site.
The project is not located iii the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.
• w �. 4 '
Mitigation Measure: None required
■' Rntte County Dei)artment of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
-
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?.
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground
X
bome vibration or ground bome noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the
X
ro'ect?
d:.. A -substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
,
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
X
without the ro•ect? •
'
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
X '
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
I '
f. For a project within the vicinity of aprivate airstrip,
Y
would the project expose'people residing or working in
1 X
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Discussion: i
The project site is not subject,to any significant noise source nor will the development of four additional homes on
four acres create significant new noise. The project site is subject to noise generated by adjacent residential uses,
which is not significant and would not -have an impact on the.future residents of the site.
Construction activities -on the site would`teivorarily generate higher noise levels on and adjacent to. the project site
-intermittently during project development activities. This construction noise would not have a significant impact on
nearby residents because the noise would be intermittent and short-term in nature; and due to the low density of the
existing residential development in the' area. It is anticipated that in a'small development such as this, the •homes will
j'- be custom built and will not develop at the same time.. Build out may take a year or two.
Because of the relatively small increment of traffic'added to the local roadways, the project would not -significantly .�
affect future traffic noise levels.
The proposal would not expose people to severe noise levels,because'no significant noise "generators are near the
project site.
The project is not located iii the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur.
• w �. 4 '
Mitigation Measure: None required
■' Rntte County Dei)artment of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■.
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-114
4.12 HOUSING:
• Impact Discussion: .
Butte County population has grown at a•rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years.
Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171.' The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.16% per year.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
poiential to add an estimated 10 people to Butte County (four dwelling units x 2.414 persons/dwelling-unit). This is
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of approximately
2% per year. The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the proposed density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area. r +`
The project would not displace individuals 'or housing. No impact would occur.
Mitigation -Measure: None required
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: `
`
Potentially, Less Than Less Than No Reviewed
Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under
Impact with Impact Previous
" Mitigation Document
Incorporated
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction"of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous .
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
• 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
X
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
b. Fire protection?
X
r
housing elsewhere?
X
• Impact Discussion: .
Butte County population has grown at a•rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years.
Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171.' The growth rate for
Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6%, or 1.16% per year.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would create four new parcels for residential development. This project has the
poiential to add an estimated 10 people to Butte County (four dwelling units x 2.414 persons/dwelling-unit). This is
not considered a significant amount and is consistent with the estimated growth rate for the County of approximately
2% per year. The project would not significantly affect the population of the area because the proposed density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area. r +`
The project would not displace individuals 'or housing. No impact would occur.
Mitigation -Measure: None required
4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: `
`
Potentially, Less Than Less Than No Reviewed
Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under
Impact with Impact Previous
" Mitigation Document
Incorporated
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction"of replacement housing X
elsewhere?
C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X
construction of replacement
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous .
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
• 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
X
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services?
b. Fire protection?
X
r
c. Police Protection?
X
d. Schools?
X
e. Parks?
X
L Other public services?
X
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■
•
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
Impact Discussion:
A less than significant impact is expected to these public service concerns, except as discussed below.
The -project site is located in an area designated as a low/unclassified fire hazard area by the Safety Element"of the
Butte County General Plan. The Butte County'Fire Department/California Department of Forestry states that
cumulative development in rural areas would impact their ability to provide fire protection services. This agency
states that the installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems in residential structures, the use of fire
resistant building materials and the availability of water supply systems would reduce the demand for fire protection
services. As a mitigation of project approval, all.new dwelling units on the site .are required to be equipped with an
automatic fire suppression sprinkler system unless the parcel is connected to a pressurized community water system
and has afire hydrant available to serve the parcel in accordance with CDFButte County Fire Department standards:
Public water does not currently serve the parcel. Fire sprinklers would not be required for the existing home on the
remainder parcel.
J
The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. 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 fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits
for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the
Durham Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development
impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined
and calculated as of the date of application for'the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do
• not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by
state legislation.
The project would result in the potential development of one residence and would not create significant impacts to area
parks and facilities:
A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services due to the limited impact of one additional
residence.
Mitigation Measure #4:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, serves the parcels."
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the time of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting anon -site inspection
n . Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 0344
4.14 RECREATION:
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution of four new residential parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant
specific mitigation for area.parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park'and Recreation District. has adopted
impact fees that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative
impacts to recreation services.
+ Mitigation Measure: None required i
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
•
x
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
Would the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
.Im_pact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other'recreational facilities such that substantial
(i.e., resulfin a substantial increase in either the number of
X
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?'
b. Include recreational facilities or require the constriction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
X
adverse physical effect on the environment? .
Impact Discussion:
The project's contribution of four new residential parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant
specific mitigation for area.parks and recreation facilities. The Durham Park'and Recreation District. has adopted
impact fees that are collected at time of building permit application. These fees will adequately address cumulative
impacts to recreation services.
+ Mitigation Measure: None required i
4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
•
x
Potentially :
Less Than
Less Than
No
Reviewed
-Would.the proposal:
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e., resulfin a substantial increase in either the number of
X
.vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
X
management agency for designated roads or highwa s? _,
c. Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an -
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
X .
in substantial saf6ty risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible .
X
uses e.g., farm equipment)?
'e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
_
X
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
X
g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
X
bicycle racks)?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■
71
U
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 A _
Impact Discussion: F
The project,has the potential to generate approximately 40 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle
trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single
family residential use in urban areas, although in rural and semi -rural areas the number of vehicle trips generated by a
dwelling unit is usually less. This number of vehicle trips would not significantly impact the local circulation system.
All the roads in the project area have a level of service of "C" or better (Butte County Master Environmental
Assessment - Existing Conditions) which indicates that vehicle circulation is acceptable.
Each of the four new parcels will have frontage on a private road that will be constructed to serve'the development.
Construction will meet County standards. The private road connects with Goodspeed. Street, a County maintained
road. There is adequate site vision in both directions on Goodspeed.
Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b), requires -two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have
adequate room to provide two spaces each, and, therefore, the project presents no impact relative to,insufficient
parking capacity. ._
This Tentative Parcel Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative
transportation as no bike paths or bus routes would be affected by the development. ,
Mitigation Measure: None required
4.16 UTILITIES AND' SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant'
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
Reviewed
Under
Impact
with
Impact
Previous
Mitigation
Document
Incorporated
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
X
applicableRegional Water Quality Control Board?
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?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction.of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies' available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
X
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
,
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
s
X
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to theprovider's existing commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
X
to accommodate theproject's solid waste dis osal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and
X
regulations related to solid waste?
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division Ni Page 20 ■
721-
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14 ;
Impact Discussion:
Sewage disposal for the ,new dwellings on. the project site would be handled by individual on-site septic systems. The
project would not have an impact on any wastewater treatment facilities. Adequate soil for the installation of a home
on each parcel has already been proven to the satisfaction of the Butte County Division of Environmental Health.
Domestic water supply for the new dwellings on the site would be obtained from individual wells and groundwater, in, =
the area`is of a quality and quantity to, serve the project.
The project would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount that is
not significant and is consistent with projected growth rates. According'to the Butte County Public Works
Department, the Neal Road. Landfill is expected to 'reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018.. The project
would not have a significant impact on solid waste' disposal.
No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to' solid- waste due the
insignificant increase in solid waste generated by one additional home.
Mitigation Measure: None required
. t
.3
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division m Page 21 ■
• Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS• OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065):
The project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable
with respect to cumulative impact to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.2 Agricultural Resources, 4.3. Air .
'Quality, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.7 hazards/Hazardous Materials, and 4.13 ,Public Services. Cumulative
impact to these areas will be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measures #1 through #4 as itemized
under Section 5.0 - Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements: Since some aspects of the project do
not comply with required mitigations, specifically the 300 foot agricultural setback required as Mitigation
Measure #1, the project is proposed has significant impacts that are unmitigatable and potentially significant
and, therefore, require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if the project' cannot be
- appropriately designed to allow for the setback..
x -
V
r
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■
Would the
proposal:. , Potentially Less Than _ Less Than' No Reviewed
P p Significant Significant Significant Impact Under
Impact with Impact Previous
Mitigation - Document
- Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X
.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 histo or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
rojects and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
. cause substanti
al adverse effects on human beings, either'
X
'
directly or indirectly?
The project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable
with respect to cumulative impact to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.2 Agricultural Resources, 4.3. Air .
'Quality, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.7 hazards/Hazardous Materials, and 4.13 ,Public Services. Cumulative
impact to these areas will be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measures #1 through #4 as itemized
under Section 5.0 - Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements: Since some aspects of the project do
not comply with required mitigations, specifically the 300 foot agricultural setback required as Mitigation
Measure #1, the project is proposed has significant impacts that are unmitigatable and potentially significant
and, therefore, require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report if the project' cannot be
- appropriately designed to allow for the setback..
x -
V
r
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■
Would the
proposal:. , Potentially Less Than _ Less Than' No Reviewed
P p Significant Significant Significant Impact Under
Impact with Impact Previous
Mitigation - Document
- Incorporated
a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X
.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 histo or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
rojects and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will
. cause substanti
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• SECTION 5.0. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS:
Mitigation Measure # 1:
In order to protect residences of the Parcel Map from hazardous overspray from agricultural operations, and to comply
with Agricultural Element Program 2.2, redesign the parcels to locate all building sites at least 300 feet from the
southerly parcel line.
Plan Requirements: Submission.of a revised map showing compliance with the 300 foot agricultural setback.
Tinning: Requirements of the mitigation shall be completed at the time a revised tentative map is submitted which
conforms to the mitigation.
Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and Agricultural Commissioner shall•ensure compliance. -
Mitigation Measure # 2:
Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet
that states: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum with a goal of retaining dust on ;
the site. Follow the dust control measures listed below:
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement
damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
• areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per
hour.
C. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent
dust generation."
Plan Requirements: All requirements shallbe shown on grading and building plans.
Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods.
Monitoring: The Department shall ensure that measures are indicated on the plans. Public Works Grading and
Building. inspectors shall. spot check; Grading and Building shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air
Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints.
Mitigation Measure #3
Place a note on the map or additional map sheet stating: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural
resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.;
structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte' County
Department of Development Services. Should human, skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate
notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State
law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains"
• Plan Requirements: This note shall be required to be placed on the Parcel Map or on a separate instrument recorded with
the Subdivision Map.
■ Butte Countv Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■
Project Name, Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
• Timings This measure shall be implemented during site preparation and construction.
Monitoring: Should cultural resources be discovered, the Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and
appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and.determine appropriate action.
Mitigation Measure #4:
Place •a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map,sheet' '
that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with
'the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family
dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA .Standard',13D, unless a pressurized community water system, with hydrants that
meet Fire Department specifications, seraes,the parcels..
Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on the Final Map
Timing: Interior fire sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures at the time of building
construction.
Monitoring: Building Division plan checkers shall ensure that the building plans for residential structures include interior
fire sprinkler systems. Building inspectors shall ensure °all residential structures have a functioning interior fire
sprinkler system prior to the final inspection, by conducting an on-site inspection
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 0
•
1]
Project Name: Kathleen Parker Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM 03-14
5.0 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 C112M 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- L- 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.
8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA:
C112M Hill, 1977.
9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning,
1983.
10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA.
11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources: Chico Nitrate Study Mag 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.
Orovill6, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987.
13. National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency.
1989 and 2000.
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. .
7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES:
[X] Environmental Health [X]
Public Works [X]
Building Manager
[ ] BCAG [ ..]
ALUC [ ]
LAFCo
[X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ]
of Chico [ ]
City of Biggs
[ ] City of Gridley [ ]
'City
City of Oroville [ ]
Town of Paradise
[X] CA Department of Forestry [ ]
CalTrans (Traffic) [ ]
Central Reg. Water Quality
[ ] Department of Conservation [X]
CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ]
Highway Patrol
[ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ]
US Fish & Wldlife Service [X]
Agricultural Commissioner
[ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ ]
Oroville Union School Dist. [ J
Feather River Rec..Dist.
[ ] El Medio Fire Dept. [ ]
OWID [ ; ]
LOAPUD
[ ] PG&E [ ]
Pacific Bell [ ]
Palermo Union School Dista
[ ] Oroville Elem. School Dist [X]
County Assessor
■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■
7
U
r
r 1.
•
v,
y
y.
n
z' I
�-�3
I '
�'
�.-
�.
r