HomeMy WebLinkAboutDURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON PLANNING AREAa . E-lvirol�i'_ enta=. A�
-� • • � ►,, ste� � ���.ssment' ,o
to
i
skUlf,
-Planning/ :�. r �y Area -
Al
v
Y
e*S
r1'
-S
\j f
i
. al
�h ti 1
/lr1
s.:. " ' �3/may y—„vim '.� _ //'�y`^j�� i ii �//i /�r 7 • .. • :t'.
,y { � - � �,.j��'K �"'" �'�•�.tFM--' 'rY.U"�... r .+r Tri+^j I'�'.r<� �- � .J
~ + f � • �'',"'1► —» lit �'''.."_`''f* ^_"��•—r�.—: -"N'r �.� « _� +.. �r !;�
`'7;: � � y��,i�J _ _ y. <•- a � .f ►/.;jam•'-� � _ �. ". .. a _ . � � \ . q
fro . � � /.r •�.
.r
y . r• w { � :' .i � ..� � �' � .ri ?- :1C" �,•%✓„•,v r � �c 'sµ.`�,.., ; .� + 'M , � � � i'r i j} r- � . `' `' . Y . �.
� ri' ,� ..'�'_ •.�, �r.i y;- 'L+.�.F- � .a .;.r.,u- •.!».- . � 'C: iVi2” - s"�'i`'J7 -'� -f`' � ��R +t',j.. � •�_ 4'' �. '
All�_..t'w {r nrr + '� {u i'' .'il ♦.'i yr ^k��,,
4 J � �:. .•r= _� eta', 'v 41`"+�•.... � u'S. a \" •:` y} 1�•Ak ? �•tr 1 i ;.. � �; �' r
fri, v, \ 4 '_'+` w-_ i_•'tc +C'+ �, mac'.. -'G •'r- L ..""- _"(a, •• - .[' �� h
t 1
+
t 1
,,
' {�
ii f-r�t��r�`
'j '•i
- -ws, f, �.:'•.t...'_
• .L k:L [ v
y _ _ ti_ ` '
r� 4�«S nyk
f
f fir F .
�u-.i-r.��.Lr&'..w:K.r.�
•` .s
J.. ,r,:-
/_-`• 7'� :,W ..r.+. } - .
�..ie a�.a��.r r+�..:i....'.r.i:._..: .++....�:ly`r .i+a N! ���T.•+.ti�4�-��.:.�+�.weyr,
1 i r
rJ++wr.f..ii.�.-G
- t
�w .?e.�+w..,y.��
� Y ,
Y+
- F. �
�e err i' .t'4� - •• t A :Iv�l
+iiu
jT
�' c. r
j._
� y'
..::'R �.
., .v+r`.. ..-•�.•i:
_'�;' .. ._ '-�,e t, y�1 ''!• �L��• .. .e:�/
~... ..:r .t. .4•.Y
t.. ..
COUNTY OF BUTTE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Ed McLaughlin, Chairman
District 4
Hack McInturf Hilda Wheeler
District 1 District 3 `
Jane Dolan Len''Fulton
District 2 District 5
PLANNING COMMISSION ,
Karen Vercruse, Chairwoman
District 3
Carl P. Walter Bob' -Lynch -
District 1 District 4
Nina Lambert
.;District" 2 District 5
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Bettye Kircher
Planning Director
Bill Turpin Steve Streeter Starlyn,Brown
Senior Planner Senior Planner Senior Planner
David Hironimus Laura'Tuttle
Associate Planner. Associate Planner
Craig Sanders
Planning Technician
Lynn Richardson Susan Sears Jill Clark
Senior Stenographer- Senior Stenographer Stenographer Clerk
**
Cover designed .by.Cra�:.g Sanders..**
I
•MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE
DURHAM -DAYTON -NELSON PLANNING AREA
• l ,
BUTTE COUNTY,
Prepared for:
Butte County Planning Department
Prepared by:
Wade. Associates
735 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 145
Roseville, California 95678.
In Association with:
Holton Associates
Berkeley, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
I.
Introduction
1
II.
Geology
7
III.
Soils
17
IV.
Hydrology
27
V.
Water Quality
37
VI.
Climate
44
VII.
Air Quality
47
VIII.
Noise
52
IX.
Vegetation and Wildlife
59
X.
Energy Resources
79
XI.
Cultural Resources
85
XII.
Existing Land Use
89
XIII.
Existing County General Plan and Zoning
96
XIV.
Transportation
108
XV.
Public Services
119
XVI.
Recreation
134
XVII.
Demographic and Economic Data
138
XVIII.
Housing
1.41
Appendices
146
i
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE NUMBER
TITLE
PAGE NUMBER
I -I
Regional Location Map
2
I-2
Planning Area
3
II -2
Geology
V.
III -3
Soils
21
IV -1
Sacramento River Basin
28
IV -2.
Butte Basin
29
IV -3
Hydrology
30
VIII -1.
Noise Contours Southern .Pacific
57
Mainline
IX -1,
Vegetation and Wildlife.
61
X-1
Energy Resources
80
XI -1
Cultural Resources �'
87.
XII -1
Land Use
90
XII -2
Land Use Durham, Dayton, Nelson
91
XIII -1
General Plan
99•
XIII -2
Zoning
103
XIV -1
Transportation
110
XV -1
Public Services
122
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NUMBER
NAME
PAGE NUMBER"
II -1
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale
11"
II -2
Fault Zone Evaluation
12.
III -1
Soil Characteristics
18-20
V-1
Groundwater Tests
39
V-2
Groundwater Tests (Department
41
of Water Resources)
VI -1
Avg. Monthly Rainfall/Temperatures.
44
VII -1
Air Quality Data
50
VIII -1
Typical Sound Levels
54
VIII -2
Land Use Compatability for Noise
55
IX -1
Sensitive Plant Species
69
IX -2
Sensitive Animals
72
XII -1
Land Use
94
XIII -1
Adopted General Plan Elements
96
XIV -1
Major Road Classifications
112
XIV -2
Proposed Bridge and Road
114
Improvements
XVII -1
Age of Housing Units
142
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A Master Environmental Assessment is a data base that inventories
existing environmental conditions, natural resources, existing
development, public facilities and services and any other significant
information required to describe the character of a specific region or
area. They are commonly used -by public agencies as the basis for
developing more specific plans or policies and as a reference for the
environmental review process. Subsequently, initial studies, negative
declarations, and environmental impact reports (EIR's) can be more
focused using information from a Master Environmental Assessment.In
addition, the Master Environmental Assessment can often serve as the
environmental setting portion of environmental impact reports prepared
for projects in the area. This helps cutdown on the cost and time of
preparing those EIR's.`
Butte County commissioned this Master Environmental Assessment as the
first step in preparing a comprehensive plan for the Durham -Dayton -
.Nelson Planning Area. The next step after this assessment will be the
adoption of goals and objectives for the planning area using this
information, followed by the formulation of planning alternatives,
and ultimately the creation -of an Area Plan to the County General
Plan.
The Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area,'located in the western central
portion of'Butte County, is comprised of approximately 135 square -miles
of unincorporated.land, (Figure l-1, Regional Location Map). The
Planning Area is generally bounded to the north by the Chico Urban Area,
to the west by the Sacramento River, to the south by Butte Creek and the
Western Canal,, and to -the east by State Highway 99, (Figure I-21
Planning.Area Map). Three rural communities in the Planning Area,
Durham, Dayton and Nelson, .sit'as islands among vast acreages of
agricultural land. Durham, as the largest community, provides the
greatest selection of commercial and social services.
A. Key Development•Issues
The Planning Area is essentially a rural agricultural region with very
little non-agricultural industrial or-commercialactivity. Growth in
the region has been slow relative to the balance of Butte County and
the rest of California.
Precise evaluation of growth in the Planning Area is difficult because
of a lack of historical data. The Planning Area is a, single Census
Tract within the Chico Metropolitan Statistical Area, (MSA), which
covers all of Butte County. The MSA and the Census Tract were .estab-
lished for the 1980 Census, and consequently, there is little data
available.on the Planning Area prior'to 1980.
There are two key -issues that will affect growth and potential
environmental impacts in the Planning Area'. -'First; the agricultural
economy of the entire country.is undergoing major changes reflecting
Figure I - 1
2
a
--� SHASTA CO. LASSEN CO.
TEHAMA CO.
GLENN CO. PLUM AS CO.
_ BUTTE CO.
1
CHI O
SITE
ti
Lake SIERRA CO. 00
Oroville J -c
COLUSA CO.
U Z
I YUBA NEVADA CO.
MARYSVILLE CO.
/ PLACER CO.
1
SUTTER �/ Lake
1 CO. Tahoe
YOLO CO.. I
rNA CO. EL DORADO CO.
U.S.50
ACRAM NT
SACRAMENTO
-REGIONAL LOCATION MAP �
3
4
global economic shifts and technologic innovations. On the local level
this will affect.the viability of many agricultural activities.
Marginal agricultural activities may cease, may need to change to other
crops, or may need supplemental sources of income to continue..The
degree and character of affects of local economic shifts in the Planning
Area is -beyond the -scope of.this Master Environmental Assessment.
However., it should not be assumed that agriculture in the region is
static or .that operational characteristics, environmental effects, and
relationships with.urban uses will remain unchanged over time.
The second issue is the gradual conversion of portions'of..the region to
residential uses .in response to employment.growth in areas outside of
the Planning,Are.a. .The Planning Area offers a rural setting and
agricultural -based lifestyle that is appealing to many people.
Furthermore, the area -is within very easy commuting.range of Oroville
and Chico, as well. as the other urban areas in Butte County. Employment
opportunity growth '-in these areas, and in the Planning Area itself, will
attract people who would like to settle on small farms:, or large
suburban lots ..Consequently, there will 'be market pressure to subdivide
portions of the Planning Area .to accommodate additional population.
• B. Summary of Environmental Considerations:
Changes in land use in the Planning Area are likely to involve
additional residential development and, possibly, changes in
agricultural production -arid practices. The Durham-Dayton-Ne.l.son Planning
Area has several existing conditions that can be expected to.,..affect.or
be affected by these changes. This section briefly summarizes the key
environmental considerations and the likely affects.
Loss of Agricultural Soils:
Urbanization in the Planning Area has the potential to remove from
production prime agricultural soils.. The soils in the area offer a
range of potential for agricultural production. .There are soils that
can accommodate residential and other urban uses quite well without
giving up any prime:soils. However, the existing communi.ties.are
historical farm centers that were initially located to be in proximity
to agriculture: Consequently, continued.urbanization of these
communities will.further encroach on good agricultural land.
Soils formed in the .Chico Alluvial Fan are the best in the Planning
Area, and are also in the areas most likely to experience growth
pressure emanating from the Chico urban area to the north. The
evaluation of development potential in such areas must proceed
carefully. The soils maps are very general in nature, and specific
soils analysis should be conducted in areas proposed for urbanization.
r�
Potential Conflicts in Land Use:
Urban uses are not compatible with agriculture in many instances due tc
aerial'sraying,'noise and dust attributable to agricultural operations.
Conversely, urban use often -encroaches on agricultural activity in the
form of.roaming dogs and trespassing on farmlands. Consequently;
agriculture should be buffered from intensive urban uses. Careful
planning for both residential and agricultural activity can ensure that
both exist -comfortably in the Planning Area.
Loss. -of Open.Space% Change in Rural -Character:
Urbanization will -i.nevitably change the character of the area to a
certain degree. However, within the range of urbanization that is
likely to occur -in the Planning Area, (relatively low density
residential and clustered commercial with higher density residential
uses in the existing communities)., the impact would reflect personal
..perceptions more than a quantifiable change. The Planning Area will
remain essentially an agricultural based, rural environment.
Local i zed 'Flood i ng
The Planning Area has been developed over a period of decades for
agricultural production which involves, in most cases, the leveling of
land and the elimination of random drainage patterns. As a result, the
area has localized ponding and 'relatively slow surface drainage.
Urbanization requires rapid runoff of storm water and exacerbates the
flooding potential inherent in the area. Additional urbanization can be
expected to ultimately require infrastructure :improvements to.provide a
master drainage system in the existing urban areas, notably Durham..
Encroachment in Wildlife Areas:
Further urbanization of the Planning Area can be expected to encroach on
the remnants of the native vegetation and wildlife habitat areas.
Whether the urbanization is placed directly in a wildlife habitat area,
or not, the increase in population will ultimately affect the viability
of the area as a wildlfe habitat to some degree. However, most habitat
areas remaining in the Planning Area are fairly well defined, and
careful planning of the location of new urbanization relative to the
habitat areas can help to mitigate the impacts.
Loss of Oak Woodlands:
The native valley oaks are now limited to a few locations within the
Planning -Area and few stands retain the understory and associated plants
characteristic of the mature forest. In most instances the depletion of
the valley oak forest is a result of agricultural practices rather than
urbanization. Continuation of agricultural practices and increased
urbenization.can be expected -to further deplete the remaining trees.
However, regeneration of.the valley oak forests is possible with
A
appropriate management practices irrespective of additional
urbanization.
Public Services:
Public services to support urban densities are deficient in the Planning
Area. -Fire protection is provided by the County.and the California
Division of Forestry and is geared to rural and suburban fire
protection. There are -,no Sheriff's patrol services within the Planning
Area and -response services are severely limited. The.•elementary and
intermediate schools are at capacity. Water is abundant and available
from groundwater sources,'but there is no public sewer system.
Traffic Impacts:
The*Planning Area is served by a system -of two-lane roads. Although the
roads are not yet at capacity, additional growth could generate
sufficient traffic to cause localized traffic congestion with a
resu.l.ting reduction in safety and convenience. As a result of continued
growth in the Chico area State Highway 99, along the northest boundary
of the Planning Area, is being upgraded from two to four lanes.
II.GEOCY�I_
II. GEOLOGY
A. Topography
The Planning -Area lies on an alluvial plain gently sloping to the
southwest at average.grades.of less than one percent. Along waterways
in the extreme eastern portion of the area there W_re slopes of up�to nine
percent. In the western part of the study area along the Sacramento
River, flood plain overflow channels have been formed that have
relatively steeply: -sloped -sides and elevation changes•of 10-15 feet.
Elevations in the study area range from.85 feet in the southwest corner
to 230 feet in the northeast along State Route 99.
B. Geology
The weste'rn portion of the Planning Area (approximately.that area west.
of Seven Mile Lane, constituting virtually all of Rancho Llano Seco) is
covered by recent river sediment deposits laid down primarily by the
Sacramento River. Recent stream sediment deposits are also found along
Butte Creek and along the Cherokee Canal and Dry Creek in the eastern
part of the Planning Area. Figure II -1, Geology Map, shows the geologic
units, and Figure III -1, Soils Map, shows corresponding soil types.
Table III -1 -describes the soil characteristics in the area.
The majority of.the Planning Area is made up of relatively recent
alluvial fan sediments deposited by streams flowing from the Cascade and
Sierra Nevada Ranges. The most recent sediment deposits are those of
the Chico Alluvial Fan which cover the northern portion of the Planning
Area. The alluvial deposits are mostly silt, sand, gravel and clays,
formed in consolidated and partially unconsolidated lenses and layers
covered over by humus or sandy clay topsoils.
In the northeastern part of the Planning Area impervious volcanic flows
alternating with volcanic sand and gravel deposits known as the Tuscan'
Formation are exposed. The two major extensions of the Tuscan Formation
into the Planning Area occur along the northeastern boundary, along
Highway 99, and at the eastern boundary at the intersection of State
Highways 99 and 149.
The Tuscan Formation, along with underlying metamorphic bed rock of the
Sierra Nevada uplift, descend and extend southwest underlying the more
recent surface alluvial deposits of the Planning Area. Soil depths
reach 200 feet.near the Sacramento River, (Butte County General Plan
Seismic Safety Element, 1977). The depth varies over the Planning Area
but site specific depths can be determined from well logs. Sedimentary
rock created from cretaceous marine sediments underlie the more recent
continental deposits at various depths. The volcanic sand and gravel
layers of.the Tuscan Formation are the prime water bearing layers of the
area.
Y
t
An area of older continental deposits made of silt, sand, clay and
gravels extends into the Planning Area from the east. This is part of
terrace formed as an ancient floodplain of the Feather River just south
of the Shippee Road and Highway 99 intersection.
C. Significant Mineral Deposits (Sand and Gravel-)
The only significant mineral -deposits found in the Planning Area are
sand and gravel. The.three areas that have been worked commercially are
deposits from earlier mining operations. The first is along Butte Creek
in areas of old dredge tailings west of State Route 99. The second is
on Dry Creek just west `of State Route 99. The third is at the
confluence of the Cherokee and Western canals (Figure II -1, Geology
Map). The accumulation of sand and gravel deposits on Dry Creek are a
result of hydraulic mine tailings from the Cherokee Gold Mine. The
other major sand and gravel deposits in the Planning Area occur as bars
in the Sacramento River channel: To date none of these have been
commercially developed.
D. Geologic Hazards
Of the possible geologic,hazards in Butte County, landslides and
vulcanism are not likely in the Planning Area. Slopes are too gentle
for landslides to occur and the nearest active volcanic area (Mount
Lassen) is 50 miles to the northeast. Seismic activity and its
secondary effects, ground subsidence, expansive soils, flooding and
erosion are all considered possible hazards in the Planning`Area.
Flooding is discussed in Section.IV, Hydrology.
Seismic Activity
The only known active fault in Butte'County, the Cleveland Hill Fault,
is about 10 miles east of the Planning Area., The fault is part of the
Foothill Shear Zone, a series of northwest trending faults extending
northward into the Oroville.area.
In August, 1975 movement occurred along the fault producing an
earthquake of 5.7 on the Richter Scale. The ground acceleration at
Gridley.was 0.1 times the acceleration of gravity. Gridley is on valley
sediments similar to most of the Planning Area.and is a comparable
distance away. The, fault is estimated to have the potential for
producing a maximum. credible earthquake of 6.5 to 6.7 on the Richter
Scale. (Butte County General Plan Seismic Safety Element, 1977)
Other active faults that could affect the Planning Area are found to the
east and southwest. All but one are estimated not capable of producing
greater. than a maximum seismic event of intensity VIII on The Modified
Mercalli Scale. The Midland-Sweitzer fault could produce an intensity
IX. The Modified Mercalli Scale describes potential earthquake
intensity in terms of the effects of a seismic event on structures and
ground displacement. Table II -1 presents a chart of the Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale. Table II -2 presents a listing of active and
potentially active faults, possible effects, and locations. The Butte
County General Plan Seismic Safety Element provides a more complete
description_of the active faults that could affect the Planning Area.
Potential Seismic Activity:
The Planning Area is surrounded by nine known potentially active faults.
The Willows fault and the Foothills Shear Zone.are within five miles of
the .Planning Area. The Butte County General Plan Seismic Safety Element
lists five of the potentially active faults capable of maximum estimated
Modified Mercalli Intensity of IX or more. (Table II -1)
The estimated maximum Modified Mercalli Intensity rating throughout
Butte County.is.VIII. Local variations from VII to IX, a moderate
earthquake hazard, are possible.. (Butte County General Plan Seismic
Safety Element, 1977). Structures constructed in compliance with the
modern standards of the Unified Building Code can be'expected to survive
an intensity VIII earthquake with virtually no damage. Estimated
averages are shown in Table I•.I-2.
A possible concealed fault is thought to extend from Dayton to Richvale
directly under the Planning Area although its existence has not been
field checked. (Jennings, Charles W., Fault Map of California,
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975). Fault mapping is done
by recorded siesmic activity -or features visible on the surface. This
technique does not allow for the discovery of concealed, potentially
active faults that have no history of seismic activity. It is possible
that undiscovered faults exist in .or near the Planning Area.
Q
10
Table II - I
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931 (1956 Version)
Masonry A, 8, C, D. To avoid ambiguity of language, the quality of masonry, brick or
otherwise, is specified by the following lettering.
Masonry A. Good workmanship, mortar and design; reinforced, especially
laterally; and bound together -by: -using steel, concrete, etc.
designed to -resist lateral forces.
Masonry B. Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not -designed in
detail to resist lateral forces.
Masonry C. Ordinary.workmansh•ip and mortar; no extreme weaknesses like
failing to tie in at corners, but neither reinforced nor designed
against horizontpl forces.
Masonry D. We'a'k Materials, such as 'a dobe; poor mortar; low standards of
workmanship; weak horizontally.
I. Not felt. Marginal and long -period -effects of large earthquakes.
II. Felt by persons. at rest, on upper floors or favorably placed.
III. Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of.light trucks.
Duration estimated. .May not be -recognized as an earthquake.
IV. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation of m jolt
like's heavy ball striking the walls. Standing motor cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors
rattle.. Glasses clink. -Crockery clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frame
creak.
V. Felt outdoors; direction estimated, Sleepers awakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled.
Small gnstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing, close; open. Shutters, pictures
move. Pendulum clocks stop, start, change rate.
VI. Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors.. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes,
nlassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved
or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small -bells ring (church, school). Trees,
bushes shaken visibly, or heard to rustle.
VII. Difficult to stand: Noticed by drivers of motor cars. Hanging objects quiver. Furniture
broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of
plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices also unbraced parapets and architectural
ornaments. Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and
caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.
VIII. Steering.of motor cars affected. Damage to masonry C`;' partial collapse. Some damage -
to masonry 8; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of
chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, tower's. elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on
foundations if not bolted.down; loose panel walls thrown out.. Decayed piling broken off.
Branches broken.fro■ trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in
wet ground and on steep slopes.
IX. General panic. Masonry D destroyed; -masonry C heavily damaged sometimes with complete
collapse; masonry 81'seriously damaged. General damage to foundations. Frame stuctures, if
not bolted, shifted off foundations. Frames racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground
pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected,
earthquake fountains, sand craters.
X. Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built
wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments.
Large landslides. Water thrown on -banks of canals, rivers, lakes etc. Sand -and mud:
shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Nails bent slightly.
XI.' Nails bent greatly. "Underground pipelines completely out of service.
XII. Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. lines of sight and level distorted.
Objects thrown into the air.
1. Original 1931 version in Wood. H.O. and Neumann F. 1931, Modified Mercalli Intensity
scale of 1931: Seismolo ical Society of America Bulletin, V 53, No. 5, p 919-987.
--------------r-�-----------------------
2. .1956 version prepared by Charles F. Richter, in Elementary Seismology, 1968, p 137-138,
W. H. Freeman C Co.
11
•
12
>
>
o
0
0
0
T
W
W
W
W
LL
W
A
N
T
Y
Y • I
N
y y'
7
N
C
W
A
V O O: �
C
M
•.. -Y
Y
•N
N L)
•r.
•.••
y
•••qi
rYi
••Yn
4 p I
Y Z 7 I
O
L)
M O
! N
L
O y
SCL
M
O f•
! f•
C L
Y y
!
O
!
N y
O
L
Y
!
!
'
N-
11.1 N
O
q
O A
O W m I
d N
f N
♦ N
# W
N W
W N
♦
♦,
1A
♦ 7
C
O
I
N
Ol
O
- WI
�
•
Pf
m
Lo I
O
OI
Ol
O
O
+
O
Q I
T
I
1!1
J
OI
01
1
I
OI
Ol
O
OO
1
S I
O
O
J
N
1lf
N
1
I
1
N
1fl
2 W I
ON
N
N
QI
♦
♦
♦
#
+
O'
O
O
♦
+
O
O
O
O
O
n
Y i
01
O 1-1
'
S ti
D1
01
O
01
N
rn
T
01
x
O Q-
m
Ol
N
Ot
Ol
b
Vf
O1
01
N
o1
U
W S ! I
N
10
N
m
m
m W Y I
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
!
• W z H I
N
I
1r1
N
m
m
1
1!1
Vf
1
I
1
1
1
►L)�XI
-J
O
O
O'O
N v o QI
N
W Q L) i t -
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
...•
'
Y W I
X
X
O
6
6
I
�
O W a I
w
1•.1
w
w
1•••
f•1
r•1
r
r
I
n•1
••a
w
w
W I
-
ai
•xa
1--1
�
"" z
W I •
1--1
W
Y
W I
! J > >I
I
1.X•1
N
rn
rn
o SI
WI
W H O I
tp
N
N
J
J
J
N I
Q= N I
n
O
1r>
O
u1
n
O
O
O
O
O
`O
•
O',
O
°
0 4 x I
1n
10
+
m
N
1n
N
N
a
a
s
♦
♦
.c
•o
z 1
'
x !
of
� Wf
of
6 W ml
m
W x I
OI•
�I
N
WI
�I
tui
4 S S I
J
n
.O
M
m
N
frf
t7
n
J
N
to
10
� I
'
10
n
n
m
n
10
n
n
10
N
m
n
n
m
n
A
O
W
2
•'
p
o
o.
u •..
o
rn
a,
J
d
A
z
Q
d
z d
N r-1
Ol
N
Q
>
N
N
Y
Y
d
� •••1
•C
d
J
'
W
•L
•L
Y
C
d
d
'
'
Y
Y
d
A
Y>
C
C
•L
•L
O-
O
N
N
T m
O W O
S
Y
d
z
d L
N
t
.1
♦+
C
�
•Y
A O
o
m C
A O
x
N
T
A Ol
Y C
Ol
C
2
Ol
N
L Ol
L C
Ol
C
Ol
O C
I O
Ol
T C'
W
Q
Ol
01
r•• J
1L J
1 Y
d Ol
L O
O
y C
Y a+
~ O
••-1 O
C
Ol J
O
I -
IL
•.� C
y C
A
rti C
N J
J
O
y ••-I
J
O J
O
O
•••• J
I- ,
x O
O
'
�
1
1 •�•
Y ••-•
C
>
N d
W
m W
C d
d
d
I •-•
>
•^•
C N
A d
N
� Y
V Z
L•
�!
q 0
L O
N
N~
d
O ••-1
N •••1
A •-1
Q
D .+
C
O. Y
N!
N ti
N I
C �•
L
C
U •••.
••• Z
i Z
d•
L ti
Z
d. !
N~
d
C Z
W H I
Y •..
•q
A O
6 0
d ••+
C
O
O!
d A
M
m
rti !
C O
U
J J I
> Z
H!
w
f 10
T ••••
O
L N
y
N Y
N!
N
y 0
O J
••-1 O
'• J
A
C O
y o
y N
N O
A O
'O
Ol 1rf
p N
.•. N
7 n
O
6 Q I
•� O
w O
A
A
A
7 0
O
C •+
O N
A
A
p
'
� W I
L) r-•
! m
x ♦
N ♦
♦
7 ♦
� ♦
N 10
V ♦
m ♦
V 4
! ♦
S ♦
N
13 '
Liquefaction and Subsidence:
Liquefaction and subsidence are effects secondary to earthquakes, a
result of natural and man-made causes. Liquefaction can cause
foundation and road failures and pipeline dislocation. Liquefaction
occurs when unconsolidated soils lose their structural strength and
behave like a heavy fluid (or slurry). It is most likely to occur in
fine, even -grained, unconsolidated soils (sand) that are saturated.
Layers of unconsolidated sand and gravel laid down by streams and the
Sacramento River in old channels and flood plains are found at various
depths throughout the Planning Area. These areas are susceptible to
liquefaction particulary during the wet winter months. Locations of
areas for specific development constraints can only be done on a site-
specific basis from well logs and soils reports. Soils groups with a
high liquefaction potential are identified in Section III, Soils.
Subsidence is a phenomenon that occurs when fluids or solid materials
are removed from beneath the surface of the earth. This can be a result
of extractions by man or by natural processes. -The result is a vertical
displacement of the surface as the ground settles to fill in the empty
spaces) created below. Land subsidence can cause damage to engineered
structures that rely on gradients to function properly, such as storm
drains and sewer lines.
In the Planning Area the two major extractions of concern are extensive
groundwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation and domestic water
supplies, and natural gas extraction. Natural gas extraction is limited
to three areas in the Planning Area, ( See Figure X-1, Energy.Resources
Map). The Durham gas field is the only area that may have potential
subsidence.
Groundwater withdrawal as a cause of land subsidence is of concern over
virtually the entire Planning Area, particulary in areas with silt and
clay deposits. Parts of the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys with
similar geologic structures (.alluvial deposits) have experienced
extensive subsidence. However, groundwater levels in the Planning Area
have remained constant due to a vast recharge zone (Department of Water
Resources, Well Logs). The chances of subsidence occurring remains low.
Any major water extractions proposed for the area should be reviewed as
to their potential -for drawing down the water table, although their
effect has proven insignificant in the past.
Expansive Soils:
Expansive soils are a geologic hazard that occurs in clay bearing soils.
The soils expand and contract as a function of moisture content.
Expansive soils can break concrete slabs and shift building foundations
and displace or even crack pipelines.
14
The Butte -County General Plan Safety Element and The'Soil Conservation -
Service General Soils Report for Butte County indicate that much of the
Planning Area.i"s classified as having a high potential for expansive
soils. -Most of. the rest of the study area falls into the moderate
category.The Basin Soils (Stockton -Sacramento Association and Landlow-
Marvin Association) found in�the southern and western parts of the
.Planning Area "are -of particular concern due to their high clay content.
(See Figure III=1., Soils Map) Expansive soils.can be detected by
observation of desiccation cracks on bare soil surfaces in.dry weather "
and through site specific soil analysis..
Geologic hazards are discussed in a generalized manner in this section.
Site specific investigations by certified professionals would be
required to determi.ne local development constraints.
I
15
II. Geology
Bailey, Edgar H*., ."Geology of Northern California Bulletin 190
"Hydroge'ology and Lan .Su sience, Great Central Valley, California"
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966
Burnett, J. L. and'Jennings, C. W Geolo is Map of California - Chico
Sheet 1:250,000, California Division of Mines and Geology, 1962
Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission EIR for the Spheres of
Influence for the City -of Chico, 1978
Butte County 'Planning Commission Butte County General Plan: Safety
Element, 1977
Butte County Planning Commission, Butte County General Plan-' Seismic
Safety Element, 1977
California Division of Oil and Gas, Energy Map of California, Scale
1:1,000,0009 1982
Eco -Analysts, EIR for Greentree Estates, 1979
Fisher, Victor -California State University, Chico Geologist Phone
conversation August 1, 1985
Goldman, Harold B., Sand and Gravel in California: An Inventory of
Deposits, Part A, N. Ca ifornia Bulletin 180-A, California Division of
inti es, 1961 ,
Harwood, David S., Helley, Edward J. and Doukas, Michael P. Geologic
Map of the Chico Monocline and Northeastern part of the Sacramento
Valley, California. Miscellaneous Investigation Series I-1238 Scale
'1:62,500 U. S. Geological Survey, 1981
Jennings, Charles W., Fault Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 1
Scale 1:750,000 California Division of Mines and Geology Scale,.1975
McCarthy, David F.! Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations, Reston
Publishing Co., 1977
Olmsted, F.H. and Davis, G.H. Geologic Features and Ground -Water Storage
Capacity of the Sacramento Val a Ca ifornia, U.S. Government'Printing
Office, as ington: 1961
Sherburne, Roger W. and Havge, Carl J. Editors Oroville, California,
Earthquake, 1 August 1975 Special Report 124, Ca iifornia Division of
Mines and Geology, 1975,•
16
Soil Conservation 'Service, Report and General Soil Map Butte County,
California February, 1967, U.S. Department o ,Agricu ture
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps 1:24,000, Llano Seco,
Ord Ferry, Nelson, Shippee,-Hamlin Canyon, and Chico Quadrangles.
Upper Sacramento River Task Force for The Resources Agency, State of
California, Sacramento River Atlas, 1978
./
RIW "
T 2TN
ROE
12
~
w 1
1
-
ICOHASStT
if
1 i
BUTTE /PENT —
RE T
COLLE
E P
or
r"
•
T26N
'
1
I
d
..f
JONESVILLEI
WARICNARDSON
E
�
T26N ~
:SPRINGS o�
T20N
o-
e
�srso ur[ ,�
� =
KIa ICR
6
•ILSOb L,POINO
P0.
'
CNI<0
suoclPu
NORO ulroRT
M0110 NY/T
Y
010�� �'•� •
./
RIW "
RIE
ROE
12
w 1
1
-
ICOHASStT
BUTTE /PENT —
RE T
COLLE
E P
or
0
0 P O
1
o
_
d
..f
JONESVILLEI
WARICNARDSON
;y,, C v.`.�, ..�`.. •'t'r
�
T26N ~
:SPRINGS o�
. RYA
o-
e
�srso ur[ ,�
� =
KIa ICR
6
•ILSOb L,POINO
P0.
'
CNI<0
suoclPu
NORO ulroRT
M0110 NY/T
Y
010�� �'•� •
!0 '
/
WClT
vp
•t
TO
rsussoor
ARRC �
/t.
- A
A
� • �I 191
ROE
w 1
1
BUTTE /PENT —
COLLE
E P
i
0 P O
1
..f
JONESVILLEI
'`;, `f
;y,, C v.`.�, ..�`.. •'t'r
�
T26N ~
. RYA
- 1 .Hf
f - v .i1•'
TOWS
�srso ur[ ,�
P .d -
i
WClT
vp
•t
TO
rsussoor
ARRC �
/t.
- A
A
�.I
. ,•
F'�
°
i
roves," -
_ n ,
61
'I
T26N
'
C
INSKIP
THEFMALITO
/
RICHVALE
it
• ..
PlcNvnLe
wear ■
AowL
` xrclrrL i
ORT k
i,
.
r
~
IRLING� ..
_I
1 I f6
L.1
5
PPINCITON
NNY. �
BIGGS
BIGGS
•
To
/
Pay
_
casco. J
OPIDLCY caLua.
Na,. GRIDLEY
RTE
.-
ARE
.
t•••••
EAST GRID EY
-
.
� •
FVINS RCIY[R Pr
e'•;
C
,.
5T22N
'�bp�
JARBO GAP
�%•
70 �
,IPE+gd
..I��
•
Pa fE11�6P
. r
RIW
RIE
BRUSH CREEK
R4K
ROE
..f
JONESVILLEI
'`;, `f
;y,, C v.`.�, ..�`.. •'t'r
�
T26N ~
. RYA
- 1 .Hf
f - v .i1•'
TOWS
�srso ur[ ,�
P .d -
'x . t...•,
,.7
vp
•t
..�•
rsussoor
ARRC �
/t.
- A
A
�.I
. ,•
F'�
°
i
•'��>
r•
_ n ,
61
T26N
I
INSKIP
M .'7
it
~
IRLING� ..
_I
Ter N
L.1
5
/
casco. J
PULGA
RTE
.-
ARE
.
v
-
e'•;
C
5T22N
'�bp�
JARBO GAP
�%•
70 �
,IPE+gd
..I��
•
Pa fE11�6P
. r
-
BRUSH CREEK
r
t
�
t
�•,
TRIM
J
1
HER NEE
•
BE RY CRE K
j
r
l.J
r
^�
I.
�
c"v
•, I /
� V b
J
T`
,T
!
l
i
~P
yb
t
7
T
AT
FEATHER NER
FA LLS' b%
. "i t
L
I
4
/1
o•
P
•1
/
T2 ON
, 7•
r • w'1
�
A •I
[
109..
�l
i arr[ 1
I .
ROY/ll
�1
R
0 OCROJ
9 R CRV /R
r
.f
l- L
FORGE TOWN
_ , CLIPPER
MILLS
�6f LLE
arR[
gMEDI t
oROto
�' ..
•
.,. ., -
naN
HURL ON
.
,W AND TTE
ERNO
'
RTC RBE "
BUTTE. -COUNTY',
TIBN�J.
e•r
+
� '`
K7%1`"•,aPr•*. �. � • u
DUFHAM',DAYTON�NA
BANGOR
a
a
/
PLANNiNG `AREA°
�.
k
ONCUT
•
moi/\ N
e. ��
TI $1
e
k:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
such waiver .sha.11 not.cohstitute a waiver of any other or succeeding
breach of this agreement, whether of the same or any other covenant,
condition or obligation.
19. All notices hereinafter shall be in writing and shall
be sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
TO COUNTY: Planning Director-
County
irectorCounty of Butte
#7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 959.65
TO CONTRACTOR: David Wade
735 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 145
Roseville, CA. 95.678
20..Th,is document represents the entire and integrated
agreement between County and Contractor and supercedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by
both County and Contractor. All provisions of this agreement are
expressly made conditions. This' agreement. shall be governed by the
laws of the State of California.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
1' 1
.12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have set their
hands this day of June, 1985.
DAVID WADE AND ASSOCIATES
By
DAVID WADE
COUNTY OF BUTTE
By
LEN FULTON,.Chairman of the
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
MARTIN J. NICHOLS, Chief Administrative
Officer and Clerk of the Board
By
-67
1
9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
] (1
12
13
14
15
16
1/
18
19
`0
21
22
2 �i
95
2Fi
27
28
#:. "e Co. Planning COMM
a -
JUN 11 1985
0roville, lc4litmia
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BY.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this .18 day of June, 1985,
by and between the County of Butte,. a political subdivision of the
State ;of California (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and David
Wade and Associates, an independent contractor (hereinafter referred
to as "Contractor").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, County is in the process of preparing an area plan
in the Durham -Dayton -Nelson area of the County and desires technical
services in the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment for
said area; and
WHEREAS, Contractor is qualified to perform such special
services;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties do hereby mutually agree as
follows:
1. Contractor agrees to provide County with the following
special services:
(a) Preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area in conformity with the
specifications and itemized outline set forth in Appendix "A" and
Appendix "B", attached hereto and incorporated. herein.
(b) The preparation of maps or other graphics for.each
of the 18 subject areas found under Specifications on page 2 of the
Request for Proposal (attached hereto as Appendix "B")
(c) Noise exposure contours for both near and long
term levels of growth and traffic activity shall be developed
utilizing the provisions of Government Code'Section 65302(g) and
the Noise Element of the Butte Cou,n,ty General Plan.
1 2. Contractor shall assume the cost of all independent
2 testing necessary to complete the Master Environmental Assessment.
3 3. Contractor shall submit to the Butte County Planning
4 Department prior to September 18 , 1985, a draft copy of the
5 Master Environmental Assessment. Contractor shall make any changes
6 to the Master Environmental Assessment deemed appropriate by the
7 Planning Department.
8 4. Contractor agrees that its key personnel shall not be
9 replaced or reassigned to other duties without prior written approval
10 of County.
11 5. County shall pay Contractor as compensation in full,
12 for all services performed by Contractor pursuant to this agreement,
13 the sum of $12,500. There shall be three equal payments. The
14 first payment shall be made thirty (30) days after the date of
15 this agreement. The second payment shall be made sixty (60) days
16 after commencement of this agreement. The final payment shall be
17 made after submission to and acceptance by the County of the
18 Master Environmental Assessment document.
19 6. It is understood that time is of the essence. Further,
20 it is understood that in case all the work called for under the
21 agreement is not finished or completed within the number of working
22 days as set forth in Paragraph *7 of this Agreement, damage will
2!1 be sustained by County, and that it is and will be difficult and
24 and impossible to ascertain and determine the actual damage which
25 County will sustain'in the event of and by reason of such del.ay;
26 and it is therefore agreed that Contractor shall pay County the
97 sum of.Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each and every calendar
28 day's delay in finishing the work in excess of.the'number of
-2-
I working days prescribed; and Contractor agrees to pay said liquidated
2 damages as herein provided., and in case the same is not paid, agrees
3 that Co.unty may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or that
4 . may become due Contractor under this agreement.
5 7. This agreement shall commence on-June 18 1985; and
G .shall terminate upon completion of the work to be performed, but no
7 later than one hundred eighty (180) days thereafter.
8 8. Either party may terminate this agreement at any time by
9 giving the other party 15 days written notice of such termination.
10 Contractor shall be paid for all work satisfactorily completed prior
11 to the effective date of said termination.
12 9. If Contractor shall violate any of the terms or provi-
13 sions of this agreement, County shall have the right to terminate
14 this agreement effective immediately upon County's written notice
15 thereof to Contractor.
16 10. The parties hereto, may, by mutual written,agreement,
17 change the scope of the services or the amount of compensation
1S set forth hereinabove in this agreement.
19 11. Contractor shall not assign, transfer, or sublet this
20 agreement or any interest therein without the prior written consent
21 of the County.
22 12. No reports, maps, documents, or other material produced
23 in whole or part under this agreement shall be subject to an
`''1 application for copyright by or on�behalf of Contractor.
25 13. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and sa.ve harmless the
98 County,. its officers; agents and employees, from any and all claims,
27 demands; damages, costs, expense or liability arising out of this
28
agreement or occasioned by the performance :or attempted performance
_3._
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
99
23
94
2 ri
26
27
28
0 •
attempted performance of the provisions hereof, including, but not
limited to, any act or omission to act on the part of the Contractor
or his agents or employees or other independent contractors.
14. Contractor shall, during the entire term of this
agreement, be construed to be an independent contractor, and shall
in no event be construed to be an employee of the County.
15. Contractor and County shall each designate a project
representative who shall be totally responsible for coordinating
the efforts of the respective party with regard to the performance
of the work as set forth under this agreement. Project represen-
tative for Contractor shall be David Wade and project representative
for County shall be Starlyn Brown. Project representative may be
,changed upon the .mutual agreement of the County and Contractor.
16. The County shall:
(a) Provide full information as to the requirement
for the project.
(b) Assist Contractor by placing at his disposal
available information pertinent to the project
including previous reports and other data relative
to the plan, all of which Contractor may rely upon
in performing his service.
17. For any work directed by County which -is not delineated
s
in this agreement, a supplemental agreement or amendment to this
agreement shall be entered into delineating the additional work,
associated provisions, and compensation for same prior to Contractor
performing said additional work.
18. In the event that either County or Contractor shall at
any time or times waive any breach of this agreement by the other,
-4-
l
2
3
4 .
5
6
7
8
9
1(1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
`0
21
99
23
24
95
`'6
`?7
28
such waiver shall not constitute a waiver of any other or succeeding
breach of this agreement, whether of the same or any other covenant,
condition or obligation.
19. All notices hereinafter shall be in writing and shall
be sent by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, addressed
as follows:
TO COUNTY: Planning Director
County of Butte
#7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
TO CONTRACTOR: David Wade'
735 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 145
Roseville,. CA 95678
20. This document represents the entire and integrated
agreement between County and Contractor and supercedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements; either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by
both County and Contractor. All provisions of this agreement are
expressly made conditions. This agreement shall be governed by the
F
laws of the State of California.
-5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
121
22
24
95
26
27
28
• .-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereunto have set their
hands this `O day of June, 1985.
DAVID WADE AND ASSOCIATES
By
DAVI ADE
COUNTY OF BUTTE
BY .4
ED McLAUGHLI�, V64,0?�iiir�of the
Butte Couny Supervisors
ATTEST:
MARTI J NiHOLS, Chie A ministrative
Off' ' n r Cler f t /;�ar
RG�n/1 i /f�l
APPROVED AS TO BUDGETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND FISCAL CONTROL
DELBERT M-. SIEMSEN JAMES L. JOHANSEN
Butte County Counse Butte County Auditor
By-r�i'444 c BY
APPROVED
RISKv-MANAGER
Approved as to� cal
and Budgetary G ntrol
Auditor' Department _ 6—
Sly
_By
5225 LINCOLN VILLA WAY.e FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 e
(916)967-1801
Butte Co. Planning Comm,
MAY 31 1985
May, 27, 1985 "
Orovilles Californla
Ms. Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Star:
Thanks f or the opportunity _t o pr-ep are a proposal for --the
Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area. While my firm
was not se"lected
for this project I understand that you selected
the firm that you
believe meets your current needs.
I appreciate your interest and please continue to
consider Planning
Answers for future projects.- In the meantime-if I can-be of any .
assistance to, you, please feel free to call.
incerely,
Sincerely,-
7
Dennis Castrillo
Planning Answers
To w n & c o u n t ry p la n n i ng • e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t u d i e s •
pe r m i t a s s i s t.a n c e
May 211.1985
Mark Radabaugh
Terra Research Associates
P. 0. Box 3294
Chico, CA 95927
Dear Mark:
coun�
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
PHONE: 534-4601
In response to Butte County's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation
of a Master Environmental Assessment for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning
Area, five proposals were received. Two of these responses were deemed non-
responsive. In accordance with the provisions of the RFP, the Planning Department
staff performed an in-depth analysis of the 3 remaining responses, carefully
evaluating each one against the established evaluation criteria. The point
totals were given below for each evaluation factor listed within the RFP'on
Page 6 under Evaluation Criteria.
David Wade The Planning Planning
and Assoc. Group Answers
b 27 22 24
C' 14 13 16
d 18 18 13
e 56, 6 67.2 70
f 30 20 25
g 9 8 8
h 20 20 20
Total 174.6 168.2 176
Oral presentations were then held to allow staff to more fully explore specific
details of the responses, to provide additional input into staff's evaluation,
and to provide the consultants with the ability to more fully explain the
details of their responses and to ask questions.
Mark Radabaugh
Page 2
May 21, 1985
On the basis of this process, the Planning Department recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that David Wade and Associates be selected as the County's
consultant for this project. On May 21, 1985, the Board accepted that
recommendation and directed staff to proceed with contract negotiations.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
Director of Planning
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
SSB:lkt
Buti~fe Co. Planning Comm _
MAY 2 i 19$5
9roville, Galifornla
TERRA Land Use and Environmental Planning
RESEARCH Cartographic / Graphic Presentation
ASSOCIATES Environmental Legal Analysis
P.O. Box 3294 Chico, CA 95927 916-345-0447
May 20, 1985
Ms. Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
Butte County -Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
0rovi11e, California 95965
Subject: Request for Evaluations of'Durham MEA Proposals
-Dear Starlyn,
We would like to request a copy of the Planning Department's
evaluation of each proposal submitted -regarding preparation of
the Durham Planning Area Master Environmental"Assessmen.t'.'..We
assume that this evaluation was completed before Wednesday, May..
15 according to the evaluation criteria and weighted factors
described in you Request for Proposals and is presently
available.
Sincerely,
-Mark Radabaugh
Co -Principal
LAND C)F NAl URAL W E A L 1 1-4 A t I D BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
PHONE: 534-4601
May 21, 1985
David Wade & Associates
The Jeffery Building
2830 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Dear David:
We are happy to announce that your firm has been selected as the County's
consultant for the preparation of the Master Environmental Setting for 'the
Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. In accordance with the provisions of
the Request for Proposal, we are currently preparing a contract for your
review and signature which will be forwarded to you in the next few days.
We look forward to working with you in the near future on this project.
We are,confident that your work will start our new advanced planning program
off in the strong fashion that we desire.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
I Director.of Planning
Starlyn S. Brown
,Senior Planner
SSB:lkt
R.
Mav 21, 1985
Jim DeAguilera, Director
The Planning Group
P. 0. Box 544
Truckee, CA 95734
Dear Jim:
nr�
coaft,
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
PHONE: 534.4601
In response to Butte County's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation
of a Master Environmental Assessment for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning
Area, five proposals were received. Two of these responses were deemed non-
responsive. In accordance with the provisions of the RFP, the Planning Department
staff performed an in-depth analysis of the 3 remaining responses, carefully
evaluating each one against the established evaluation criteria. The point
totals are given below for each evaluation factor listed within the RFP on
Page 6 under Evaluation Criteria.
Oral presentations were then held to allow staff to more fully explore specific
details of the responses, to provide additional input into staff's evaluation,
and to provide the consultants with the ability to more fully explain the
details of their responses and -to ask questions.
On,the basis of this process, the Planning Department recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that David Wade and Associates be selected as the County's
consultant for this project. On May 21, 1985 the Board accepted that recommendation
and directed staff to proceed with contract negotiations.
David Wade
The Planning
Planning
and Assoc.
Group
Answers
b
27
22
24
C11
14
13
16
d
18
18
13
e
56, 6
67:2
70
f
30
20
25
g
9
8
8
h
20
20
20
Total
174.6
168.2
176
Oral presentations were then held to allow staff to more fully explore specific
details of the responses, to provide additional input into staff's evaluation,
and to provide the consultants with the ability to more fully explain the
details of their responses and -to ask questions.
On,the basis of this process, the Planning Department recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that David Wade and Associates be selected as the County's
consultant for this project. On May 21, 1985 the Board accepted that recommendation
and directed staff to proceed with contract negotiations.
Jim DeAguilera, Director
Page 2
May 21; 1985'
Thank you for .submitting a response to our Request for Proposals for the
preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment for the Durham•Dayton•Nelson
Planning Area and for your interest in the planning process in Butte County.
We regret that we are unable to respond positively to you, however, you will
be retained on our mailing list and will be advised of future opportunities
with our County.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
Director of Planning
;� t
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
SSB:lkt
•
•
Mav 21, 1985
Dennis Castrillo
5225 Lincoln Villa Way
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Dear Dennis:
BEAUTY
_.._.. 55-3397
PHONE: 534.4601
In response to Butte County's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the preparation
of a Master Environmental Assessment for the Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning
Area, five proposals were received. Two of these responses were deemed non-
responsive. In accordance with the provisions of the RFP, the Planning Department
staff performed an in-depth analysis of the 3 remaining responses, carefully
evaluating,each one against the established evaluation criteria. The point
totals are given below for each evaluation factor listed within the RFP on
Page 6 under Evaluation Criteria.
Oral presentations were then held to allow staff to more fully explore specific
details of the responses, to provide additional input into staff's evaluation,
and to provide the consultants with the ability to more fully explain the
details of their responses and to ask questions.
On the basis of this process, the Planning Department recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that David Wade and Associates be selected as the County's
consultant for this project. On May 21, 1985 the Board accepted that recommendation
and directed staff to proceed with contract negotiations;.`,
David Wade
The Planning
Planning
,and Assoc.
Group
Answers
b
27
22
24
c
14
13
16
d
18
18
13
e
56. 6
67.2
70
f
30
20
25
g
9
8
8
h
20
20
20
Total
174.6
168.2
176
Oral presentations were then held to allow staff to more fully explore specific
details of the responses, to provide additional input into staff's evaluation,
and to provide the consultants with the ability to more fully explain the
details of their responses and to ask questions.
On the basis of this process, the Planning Department recommended to the
Board of Supervisors that David Wade and Associates be selected as the County's
consultant for this project. On May 21, 1985 the Board accepted that recommendation
and directed staff to proceed with contract negotiations;.`,
Dennis Castrillo
Page 2
May 21, 1985
Thank you for submitting a response to our Request for Proposal for the pre-
paration of a Master Environmental Assessment for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson
Planning Area and for your.interest in the planning process in Butte County.
We regret that we are unable to respond positively to you, however, you will
be retained on our mailing list and will be advised of future opportunities_
with our'County.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
Director of Planning
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
SSB:lkt
•
LA N0 OF NATURAL W F A I r APIC BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
PHONE: 534-4601
May 21, 1985
Mark Radabaugh
Terra Research Associates
P. 0. Box 3294
Chico, CA 95927
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your submittal of a response to Butte County's Request for
Proposals.(RFP) for the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
for the Durham•Davton•Nelson Planning Area and for _your interest in the
County's planning process. .
Yourresponse was deemed to be non-responsive to the requirements of the
RFP and was therefore dropped from further consideration.for the following
reasons:
1. A budget indicating the person who will perform the work, the
number of hours, and total expenditures for each of the major
work items identified in the schedule was not provided as
required (page 4; paragraph 8, Schedule and Costs).
2. The percentage of time that each person involved in the project
would devote to the project was not included as required (page 5,
paragraph 3, Personnel and Experience).
We are very sorry that we are unable to respond positively to you, however,
you will be retained'on our mailing list and will be advised of future
opportunities' with Butte County.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
Director•of Planning
.�''1�.�••i: �t(.�1,.--- ;moi 11,.�'�,.1�..�._-_.-•
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
SSB:lkt
LAND Vis. IAIURA! WFA T11 Ai!1) B`AUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397'
PHONE: 534.4601
May.21, 1985
Chris Word
Oscar Larson and Associates
P. 0. Box 3,806
Eureka, CA 95501
Dear Mr. Word:
Thank you for your submittal of a response.to Butte County's Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
for the Durham-Dayton•Nelson Planning Area.
Your response -was deemed to be non-responsive to the requirements of the
R.F.P. and was therefore dropped from further consideration for the following
reason:
1. Only one of the two -required R.F.P.'s was received; (page 5,
paragraph 4)
We are very sorry we are unable to respond positively to you; however, you
Will be retained on our mailing list and will be advised of future opportunities
with Butte,County.
Sincerely,
B. A. KIRCHER
Director of Planning
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner -
SSB:lkt
i
Inter-Departinen oil ;Memorandum
�
�o` � Ni�
To: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Planning
SUBJECT: Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area Master Environmental Assessment
DATE: May 14, 1985
At the April 2, 1985 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, your Board
approved and authorized for distribution a Request for Proposals. Proposals
were solicited for the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
covering the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. Fivefirms responded.
Two of those who responded did not meet the technical requirements of
the Request for Proposal for a variety of reasons. Of the remaining
three firms whose bids could be considered, prices ranged from a low of
$10,500 to a high of $12,500. The budget for the project is $12,500.
The Planning Department competitively evaluated each of the firms that
responded in accordance with the point rating system in the Request for
Proposal. In addition, each of the top three candidates was interviewed
and each presented a sample of the graphics which were a part of their
previous work.
Based upon.this evaluation, the Planning Department recommends that the
firm of David Wade and Associates be selected to prepare the Master Environ-
mental Assessment for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. David Wade
and Associates presented an outstanding proposal. The proposal included
an excellent graphics system, outstanding experience, qualifications and
recommendations, depth.of personnel, and a commitment to do a professional -
quality job. David Wade has worked before for the County in association
with J. Lawrence Mintier in the preparation of sphere of influence reports
for the Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission. As a result of
this proposal and a successful previous association, the Planning Department
can, without qualification, recommend David Wade for selection as the
County's consultant to prepare the Master Environmental Assessment for
the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. The Planning Department requests
that the Board authorize contract negotiations with David Wade.
SB:lr
a
t w
"Co. Planning owai, '
4
MAY 91985
Califomia
PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • CULTURAL SURVEYS INTERIOR DESIGN
P."O. BOX 664 CARSON CITY, NEVADA 89702 • 702-883-4900
-May 3, 1985
Ms. Starlyn Brown ,
` Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
ap Oroville, California 95965-3397
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for the material relative to the Master Environ-
mental Assessment Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. We will.
not be submitting a proposal on this project. However, we are
interested in being advised of future planning, environmental,
general plan, zoning, recreation, industrial, commercial,
redevelopment,.historical and similar projects. .
After more than 20, years 'of direct work for public
agencies, I've joined Design Concepts West to try a new
approach to helping local governments to get their plans and
programs accomplished. In my most recent work, I worked with
Ben Hulse, Director in Yolo County, to restate and modernize
that County's General Plan, including 25 years of policies and
Board directives. I also completed the Southport Area Plan and
integrated E.I.R. for the County and the Port of Sacramento.
That comprehensive plan included schedules, fiscal devices, -"
environmental and fiscal mitigation and a link between indus-
trial development and housing.
DESIGN CONCEPTS WEST
Ms. Starlyn Brown
Page 2
May 3,-1985
I'd appreciate an opportunity to visit with you and your
director in the near future. We plan to open our Sacramento,
office in the next few weeks, so I'll send you another note
then.
Thank you for keeping our group in mind when you are look-
ing for help on planning and environmental projects.
Sincerely,
DESIGN CONCEPTS WEST
eel(Robert L. Wall
Planning Director
RLW:mjs� r
Enclosure
I
4 I
Butte Co. Planning Coram.
,
MAY 7 1995
0MV91e, CAW"
JONES .& STOKES ASSOCIATES, INC. / 2321. P STREET / SACRAMENTO, CA. 95816
9161444-5638 .
- May, 2, 1985 .
'aStarlyn- S . Brown
Senior Planner
'
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Star:
I was pleased to see that you are now in Butte
County, but'I
do not•knovvi how the Lassen County Planning Department will-manage
without you. I have also changed jobs and am now working for.
Jones &•Stokes Associates in Sacramento..
Although we originally•submitted a proposal for the Durham-.
Dayton Area EIR, our workload currently .prevents us
from.submit-
ting another proposal at this time.
t Please keep us on your list of consultants
interested in..
providing environmental services and 'let's try to
get together
the next time.you are in Sacramento or„I am in Oroville.
Sincerely,'
.°
' :ti =+,., h�i.+ti i 4`E1 , w.. y.. .6 •..'.y}, � h- w . moi.. i - ,. -. ..
- - .. w. ..-'.�"iC,_...,...+
Ron Bass
'. •�. ��.
AA.a.
i•. f ! - " �. L 1, ._ 'F
i,� p`•r f� i f
LUMKIV TUHU, OVr1 L I IVUPINIC, %,MLI rUnIVIA :I -#U IV 19101 OJ/-/ IU3
Kreines & Kreines
58 Paseo Mirasol
Tiburon, CA 94920 ,
415435-9214
Ms. Starlyn Brown
Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville,.CA 95965-3397
April 29 1985
Dear Ms. Brown:
We would like to inform you that Kreines & Kreines will not submit'a
proposal for the Master -Environmental Assessment on the.Durham-
Dayton-Nelson Planning Area. We discussed this project with our
subcontractors and have determined that we.will-not be able to submit
a proposal that is within your budget of.$12,500.
We regret that.we are not able to respond positively to you. We hope
that you will retain the firm of Kreines & Kreines on your list of
consultants and that we will have another:ppportunity to serve the
County of Butte.-
Thank
utte."Thank you for thinking of us.
Sincerely,.
Ted Kreines, AICP
President
KREINES & KREINES
A California Corporation•
{
�° °
butte Co. ?Iannin9
Qrovillee �,e►ii
i
April 30, 1985
0
Bufte Co. Planning Comm.
MAY x.1985
Orville, C►aHfornla
Ms. Starlyn Brown
Senior Advanced Planner
Butte County
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965=3397
Subject: Master Environmental Assessment.for the
Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for sending EIP'Associates a copy of the subject Request for
Proposals and for discussing the project with me. After careful consi=+
deration, we have decided not to pursue this contract. We remain very
interested in working with Butte County and we look forward to.the
opportunity to respond to your future consulting needs.
-Sincerely,
J
Debora mbelman'
Business Development
DZ/mjg
Environmental Impact Planning Corporation, Offices in Oakland and Sacramento
319 Eleventh Street Environmental Studies
San Francisco, CA 94103 Land Use and Community Planning
415 864-2311 Wind Tunnel Analysis
OTT OTT WATER ENGINEERS, INC.
BUNCO. Planning Comm,
2334 Washington Avenue Redding, CA 96001 916/244-1920
�.
14A1 1,985
April 30, 1985
Starlyn S. Brown, Senior Planner
Butte County
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Regarding: RFP for the Master Environmental Assessment of the
Durham, Dayton, Nelson Planning Area
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for considering Ott Water Engineers, Inc. (OTT) for the
preparation of`the above MEA. ,Although we are well qualified and
experienced, our current workload is such that we could not give
the assessment work the full attention it deserves.
Again, thank you for considering us. Please keep us in mind for.
any work that you may have coming up. I sincerely hope that we
have the opportunity to work together in the near future..
ere
V
James C. Pe ersoQ P.E.
Regional Manager j
cah
• Anchorage Bellevue Redding -
0 . 0
Plaxir�ig Associates
Environmental and Urban Planners
Randall J. Hauser, AICP -
Principal
DC -02
April 24,_1985
Starlyn Brown
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965-3397
Dear Ms. Brown:
i
I would like to thank you very much for your request for a proposal
from us to prepare the Master Environmental Assessment for the
Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. The prospect of working with Butte
County is very attractive. However, due to our current work load we
will not be submitting a proposal.
We continue to be extremely interested in working with the the.County
and request that you keep our firm on your consultant list. Enclosed
for your reference file is an updated summary of our qualifications
which describes our areas of expertise. Please let us know if we might
in any way be of assistance to you in the future.
ncerely,
Randall Hauser, AICP
Principal
RH/dm
r ti � ' � � 1 � E . • '
662 Azalea Avenue
P.O. Box 1527, Redding, CA 96099
Butte Co. Planning Comm.
'PR 26 1985
Oroville, Galitornia
916/221-0440
CD
950 INDUSTRIAL WAY
SPARKS, NEVADA 89431-6092
(702) 358-6931
A Professional
Engineering Corporation
RICHARD W. ARDEN P.E.
President
RONALD D. BYRD P.E.
Executive Vice President
JOE W. HOWARD P.E.
Vice President
HARRY. ERICSON L.S.
Vice President
LARRY J. JOHNSON
JOE L. MURIN P.E.
April 23, 1985
Starlyn S. Brown; Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
R -e-:- Request: for Proposal
Durham=-Dayt'on—Ne=Ts-on- PTanntn-g�-Area
Master Environmental Assessment
Dear Ms. Brown:
i
We regret we must decline your invitation to submit_a propo-
sal on the above referenced project. We sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to .be of service to the Butte County Planning
Department and would like to remain on your mailing list for
future solicitations. Again,.thank you.
Sincerely,
SEA ENGINEERS/PLANNERS
�UJ
oe W. Howard, P.E.
Vice President
Project Manager
JWH:cros
Butte Co. Planning Comm
APR 2.6'1985
Oroville, Calitorau4
ESA 1291 E. HILLSDALE BLVD.
FOSTER CITY, CA 94404
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (415)573-8500
April 23, 1985
Ms.. Starlyn Brown
Senior. PIanner
County. o.f Butte
7 County Cenxter Drive_
Oroville; CA 95965
RE: Durham Dayton Nelson Master. Environmental Assessment
Dear Ms.' Brown:
ESA greatly appreciates rece:v.i-ng..your Request for Proposal for preparation
of a Master Environmental Assessment for 'the Durham Dayton Nelson Planning
Area. Unfortunately, we will not be submi tti. ng a proposal to conduct this
work due to our current workload.
ESA.would,. however; very much like to remain dfi,the County's list of envi-
ronmental planning and traffic engineering consultants, hn order to better
acquaint you with our firm, I have enclosed ',`copy of a general. -ESA brochure
detailing the firm's organization, technical capa6il-i.ti. es and experience.
We look forward to receiving. notification of your future consulting needs.
Sincerely, n n
D.J..Side.l
Manager of Marketi:ng
Encl.
llulfeCo. Planning
APR 2 4 19'7
Greville, Calitu„�a
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
SAN FRANCISCO NOVATO LOS ANGELES
Sedway Cooke Associates
Urban and Environmental
Planners and Designers i
San Francisco Los Angeles
April 16, 1985
Ms. Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
Seven County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for your submittal to us of the Request for Proposal on the master
environmental assessment for Durham/Dayton/Nelson planning area.
Although we will not be submitting•a proposal.on this study, we are most in-
terested in your programs and would, appreciate being` solicited for. future
studies.
Thank you again for considering our firm.
Sincerely,
SEDWAY COOKE ASSOCIATES
Paul H. Sedway, AICP
Principal
Y
Butte Co. Planning CeM
APR 2 2 1985
Oroyille, "f.Qrnl4
350 Pacific Avenue, Third Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 433-0966
® Engineers ,
® Planners -
Economists
® Scientists
March 18, 1985 "
R244.A8
Ms. Starlyn S..Brown
Senior Planner _.
Butte County Planning Department
7 County,Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for.sending us your request for..proposal for
the Master Environmental Assessment of the Durham, Dayton,
and Nelson Planning Area. Unfortunately, our staff members
who are most familiar with this type of study are committed
to other project assignments during the approximate time
frame for which your study will be conducted. Although
we are unable to propose on this very interesting project,
we would like to remain on your consultant's list.to
receive any future RFP's from your office.
We wish you success in your consultant selection process and
inthe completion of your project. Thank you for considering
CH2M'HILL.
Sincerely,.
Ed Christofferson
Supervisor -"
Business.Development
ld
Butte Co. Planning Comm
APR 19 1985
Qroville, California
CH2M HILL, INC. Redding Office 1525 Court Street, P.O. Box 2088 Redding, California 96099 916.243.5831
Rapp &. Firer ell*
Landscape Architecture, Planning and Urban Design
415 North EI Carnino'Real
San Clemente; California 92672
Telephone (714) 498-9100
CA License 1103
April 12, 1985
Ms Starlyn.S. Brown
Senior Planner
Butte•Cou.nty Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
(916) 534-4601
Re: RFP - .Durham-Day.ton-Nehson Pi an.ni ng. Area
Ma-ster..EnO ronmental Assessment
Dear Ms Brown:
Thank you for your invitation to submit.a Request For Proposal
for the the Durham-Dayton-Ne.lson.P1'ahning Area (Master Environmental
Assessment). Our work loadlh'as increased to the point that
we cannot, with good conscience, take. on any additional project
responsibilities.
Accordingly, we will not be submitting our proposal with regrets
and hopes that we will'be in abetter position to serve you
in the future:
Very truly yours,
RAPP & FRENCH
Keith'.A. French, ASLN
Pres=i dent
KAF/js
a v., o i
O
OUKA
TO Chris We rd; Oscar Larson &'Assoc.
M Stariyn Brown
OF
E
71ME PHONE
❑ Please Coll E) Was In
ll ❑Will Call Again ❑ wants to See You
Note and ❑ Reply
❑ Comment ❑ Re-route [, Signature
❑ Return ❑ Approval
E) Investigate ❑ Forwarded
F1 Contact Me ❑ File Per Request
MESSAGE: wP haves arrarhPd tern naw man=e
since it-came to our attention that the maps
previously sent out with 'the D N RFP may
not have clearly'defined the boundaries of
the Planning Area.
By
G
Albert J. Beck, Roberta Mundie C.H:N.M.B. Assoc.
Q:='Eco-Analysts, l 414 Mason St., Suite 601, 2789 - 25th St.
$! •114 West 7th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94110
Chico, CA 95926.
Fred Barber
Rapp and French
Western.Ping.. & Eng.
.415-N. E1 Camino Real
11712 Quartz Drive
San Clemente, CA 92672
Auburn, CA 95603
Bio Systems Analysis, Inc.
Eric Taylor
Golden Gate Energy Center
G.Y:W. McCutchan
Bldg. 1065, -.Fort Cronkhite
667 So. Brea Canyon Rd,
Sausalito, CA 94965
Suite 27
Walnut,CA 91789
Kenneth Cassaday
Land Use Services
Melissa Thompson
P. 0. Box 1236
Terra Engineering
ter.
Quincy, CA 95971
93 rise Drive
Sacramentoo,, CA 95925
Ott Water Engineers Randy Anderson
2334 Washington Avenue Comma Asst. Resource Devel.
Redding, CA 96001 3101 I Street, Suite B
Sacramento, CA 95816
The Spink Corporation Don Crawford & Assoc.
P. 0. Box 2511 804-B North Irwin St.
Sacramento; CA 95911 Hanford, CA 93230
Sea Planning Group J. Laurence Mintier
950 Industrial Way 2104 Murieta Way
Sparks, Nevada 89431 Sacramento, CA 95822
EDAW, inc. Hawkins/Mark-tell
1725 Montgomery Street P. O. Box 31
San Francisco,. CA 94111 Redwood City, CA 94064
Sierra Eng. Assoc., Ltd. Bendix Environ. Research
P.. 0. Box •279 1390 Market St., Suite 902
San Andreas, CA 95249 San Francisco,'cA 94102
Raymond Vail and Assoc. Planning Analysis & Devel.
1410 Ethan Way 530 Chestnut Street
Sacramento, CA 95925 Sari Francisco, CA 94133
Sedway/Cooke' Torrey & Torrey Inca
350 Pacific Avenue One Sutter St., Suite 707
San Francisco, CA 94111 San Francisco, CA 94104
1
Wagstaff and Brady
1824-B Fourth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Woodward -Clyde Consultants
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Will Shaw & Assoc.
225A Cannery Row
Monterey, CA 93940
Planning Answers
5225 Lincoln -Villa Way.
Fair Oaks, CA 95628
Eliot Allen & Assoc.
5006 Commercial St., SE
Salem, Oregon 97305
The Planning Collaborative
Pier 33 North
The Embarcadero
San Francisco,.CA 94111
Anshen & Allen
461 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phillip J..Carr
Land Use Planning Consultant
1036 Yuba Street
Redding, CA 96001
EMC
P. O. Box 414
Monterey, CA 93940
Eihnard Diaz, Pln. Manager
SNI
P. 0. Box 1128
Red Bluff, CA 96080
J' mes Martin
arry Seeman Assoc.
'L
2606 Eighth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Planning Associates
P. '0. Box 1527 . .
Redding, CA 96099
Michael Rice
Environ. Science Assoc.
1291'E. Hillsdale Blvd.
Foster City; CA 944.04
Collins Planning Research
1017 Mayette Drive
Chico,.CA 95926
Larry Fites
P. 0. Box 308
Grey Eagle, CA 96103
Jim Cook
Natural System Research
13217 Sylva Road
Montague; CA 96064
Chambers Consultants &
Planners
P. 0. Box 356
Stanton, CA 96080
The Planning Group
P. 0. Box 544
Truckee, CA 95734
Jones & Stokes, Assoc., Inc.
2321 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95816
Kay Foster
DKS Associates
1419 Broadway, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
Jim Harnish
1210 G Street, Suite #2
Sacramento, CA 95814
EIP
319 - 11th Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
CH2MHILL Kreines & Kreines
P. 0. Box 2088 58 Paseo Mirasol
Redding, CA 96099 Tiburon, CA 94920
Mark Radabaugh Cook Associates
P. 0. Box 3294 2060 Park Avenue
Chico, CA 95926 Oroville, CA 95965
Angus McDonald & Assoc. Oscar Larson & Assoc.
2150 Shattuck Avenue Chris Werd
Berkeley, CA 94704 P. 0. Box 3806
Eureka, CA 95501
EIP (Deborah Zimbetman) Greg Zitney
319 Eleventh Street WESCO
San Francisco, cA 94103 14 Galli Drive, Suite A
Novato, CA 94947
Williams, Kuebelbeck & Robert Wall
Assoc., Inc. Design Concepts West,
611 Veterans B1vd.,Su., 205 P:'0. Box 664
Redwood City, CA 94063 Carson City,.Nev. 89702
Pla ing Answers
Denni astrillo
601 ni rsity Ave, Su. 150
S crament CA 95825
Sharrah-Nolte
725 Jefferson
Red Bluff, CA 96080
Allison Massa
1836 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
David Wade
4930 T c , ,._t X333
Sacramento, CA 954t6
Earth Metrics
859 Cowan Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
E
From: Starlyn Brown, Senior Planner qb
Butte County Planning Department
RE: Clarification of the Request for Proposal for the Master Environmental
Assessment, Durham•Dayton•Nelson.Planning Area
Date: April 11, 1985
It has come to my attention that there is a need to clarify an item contained
in the above referenced document. On page 2, under Specifications, the instructions
indicate that one of the topics that must be addressed in' the Master Environmental
Assessment is Hydrology - including water quality and areas subject to flooding
(page 2, item 2): Regarding the water quality aspect of the topic, the County
will require 15 wells within the Planning Area' to be tested for nitrates,
chlorides and ph. The location of the wells to be tested will be determined,
bythe Planning department following consultation with the County Department
of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health. It is expected that the
results of the testing and a brief analysis of the test results will be presented
in the Master Environmental Assessment.
Ron Barnes from Monarch Laboratory in Chico has indicated that the approximate
cost per test would be $9.00. He further indicated that it -may be possible
to arrange for a small discount due to the number of tests involved. This
information is included only for the purpose of providing approximate per
test costs. There is no requirement for you to use this laboratory, and you
are encouraged to utilize the services of the testing facility of your choice.
Water quality information for the Durham Irrigation District, which provides
domestic water service for a portion of the Durham community, should also
be included within the Master Environmental Assessment. General Analysis
testing has been performed every three years on this system, bacteriological
quality testing has been performed weekly, and the District has recently completed
testing for volatiles as per AB 1803. I have been informed by Gunther Stern
of the State Department of Health, Redding, that all this information is readily
available through that office.
n
Page 2
April 11, 1985
1
I hope that this information'will be of help to you in the preparation of
your response to the Request for Proposals for the preparation of a Master
Environmental Assessment for the Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area. If you
have additional questions, please,do not hesitate to contact me.
SB:lkt :
•
RE: Clarification of the Request for Proposal for the Master Environmental
Assessment, Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area
Date: April 11, 1985
It has come to my.attention that there is a need to clarify an item contained
in the above referenced document. On page 2, under Specifications, the instructions
indicate that one of the topics that must be addressed in the Master Environmental
Assessment is Hydrology - including water quality and areas subject to flooding
(page 2, item -2). Regarding the water quality aspect of_the topic, the County
will require 15 wells within the Planning Area to be tested for nitrates,
chlorides and ph. The location of the wells to be tested will be determined
by the Planning department following consultation with the County Department
of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health. It is expected that the
results of the testing and a brief analysis of the test results will be presented
— -in the Master Environmental Assessment.
Ron Barnes from Monarch Laboratory in Chico has indicated that the approximate
cost per test would be,$9.00.. He further indicated that it.may be possible
to arrange for a small discount due to the number of tests involved. This
information is included only for the purpose of providing approximate per
test costs. There is no requirement for you to use this laboratory, and you
are encouraged to utilize the services of the testing facility of your choice.
Water quality information for the Durham Irrigation District, which provides
domestic water service for a portion of the Durham community, should also
be included within the Master Environmental'Assessment. General Analysis
testing has been performed every three years on this system, bacteriological.
quality testing has been performed weekly, and the District has recently completed
testing for volatiles as per AB 1803. I have been informed by Gunther Stern
of'the.State Department of Health, Redding, that all this information is readily
available through that office.
county
LAND OF
NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
04W
7 COUNTY.CENTER DRIVE - O.ROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397
�•�- •� °' `�,�
PHONE: 534-4601
From: Starlyn Brown, Senior
Planner
Butte County
Planning
Department
RE: Clarification of the Request for Proposal for the Master Environmental
Assessment, Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area
Date: April 11, 1985
It has come to my.attention that there is a need to clarify an item contained
in the above referenced document. On page 2, under Specifications, the instructions
indicate that one of the topics that must be addressed in the Master Environmental
Assessment is Hydrology - including water quality and areas subject to flooding
(page 2, item -2). Regarding the water quality aspect of_the topic, the County
will require 15 wells within the Planning Area to be tested for nitrates,
chlorides and ph. The location of the wells to be tested will be determined
by the Planning department following consultation with the County Department
of Public Health, Division of Environmental Health. It is expected that the
results of the testing and a brief analysis of the test results will be presented
— -in the Master Environmental Assessment.
Ron Barnes from Monarch Laboratory in Chico has indicated that the approximate
cost per test would be,$9.00.. He further indicated that it.may be possible
to arrange for a small discount due to the number of tests involved. This
information is included only for the purpose of providing approximate per
test costs. There is no requirement for you to use this laboratory, and you
are encouraged to utilize the services of the testing facility of your choice.
Water quality information for the Durham Irrigation District, which provides
domestic water service for a portion of the Durham community, should also
be included within the Master Environmental'Assessment. General Analysis
testing has been performed every three years on this system, bacteriological.
quality testing has been performed weekly, and the District has recently completed
testing for volatiles as per AB 1803. I have been informed by Gunther Stern
of'the.State Department of Health, Redding, that all this information is readily
available through that office.
'Page 2
April 11, 1985
I hope that this information will be of help to you in the preparation of
your response to .the Request for Proposals for the preparation of a Master
Environmental Assessment for the Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area. If you
have additional questions,,please do not hesitate to contact me.
SB:lkt
COUNTY OF BUTTE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
DURHAM•DAYTON•NELSON PLANNING AREA
MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
,Butte County -Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
916 - 534-4601
STATEMENT OF WORK
In concert with the policies of its Land Use Element, Butte County has
instituted an Area Plan process and implemented a work program leading
to the development of Area Plans to the County General Plan for'each
community or area of the County. The Area Plan process includes the
following steps:
1. Preparation of Master Environmental Assessment (MEA).
2. Adoption of Goals and Objectives for the Planning Area.
3. Preparation of Planning Alternatives Study.
4. Selection of Preferred Alternative.
5. Preparation.of Draft Area Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
6. Adoption of Final EIR and Area Plan.
7. Implementation (including zoning in compliance with the plan).
f
As a first.step in this process, the .County of Butte is now accepting
proposals -for the development of a Master Environmental Assessment (MEA)
for the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. The MEA is to be an
in-depth inventory and study.detailing the physical, environmental,
social, and economic elements and constraints of the Planning Area.
This document will, serve as the data base for the preparation of Goals
and Objectives, the Planning Alternatives. Study, and ultimately for the
Draft and Final Area Plan for the Planning Area. It will also serve as
the environmental setting portion of the Environmental Impact Report
required by law for the Area Plan. Following adoption of the Area Plan,
the MEA will be used by the agency or citizens for Initial Studies,
Negative Declarations, and as the environmental setting portion of..,
Environmental Impact, Reports for individual development projects within
the Planning Area.
In general, it is expected that a consultant(s) will provide a draft and
subsequently a camera ready final copy of the document together',with
appropriate graphics. Although the County Planning Department -will make
available all pertinent data on file with its office, it is anticipated
that preparation of the MEA will require considerable independent
research, data gathering., and consultation efforts by.the chosen
consultant(s).
19
MA •Page 2
Specifications
The MEA should include a brief description of the document and the
intended ways in which"it will be used. The document should include a
map of the Planning'Area in a regional setting as well as a map
depicting its precise location and boundaries.
The -MEA shall.specifically address the following topics. The expected
level of detail for each topic will be directly proportionate to that
topic's importance within the Planning Area.
1. Soils
2.
Hydrology.- including water quality and areas subject to flooding
3.. Geology
4. Air Quality
5.- Noise:
6. Climate
7. Vegetation
8. Wildlife:
9. Energy Resources - including the availability and location of gas
and electrical lines
10. Cultural Resources f
11. Existing Land Use:
12. Existing -County General Plan and Zoning Designations
13. Transportation.-,
14. Public. Services and Facilities
15. Scenic and Open Space Resources
16. Recreation
17. Housing-.includfing condition of existing housing.survey
18. Demographic/Economic Data
R E A � -
Page 3
•
At least one reproducible base map, drawn at a scale approved by the,.
Planning.Department shall be prepared in concert with the preparation of
the MEA. Ultimate map size within the document will be 11" x 17".
Where appropriate, written information presented within the text should
be accompanied by maps, tables, figures, and other similar relevant
information so that the document will be readily understood by decision
makers and the public.
The consultant(s) will have 120 days to complete the document.. However,
a draft copy of the completed document shall be submitted to the
Planning Department no later'than the 91st day to allow time for staff
review of the document. After staff approves the document as to
content, and after staff determines that the draft conforms to the
requirements of this Request for Proposal, the document shall be
returned to the consultant(s) for finalization. It is expected that the
consultant(s)shall make any changes to the document deemed appropriate
by the planning staff and incorporate such changes in the final camera
ready document.
Conditions and General Requirements
All reports, pertinent data and materials are the sole property of the
County of Butte and may not be used, reproduced or released in any form
without the explicit written permission of the County of—Butte.
Consultants(s) should expect to have access only to public reports and
public files of local government agencies in preparing the proposal or
reports. No compilation, tabulation, or analysis of data, definition or
opinion, etc. should be anticipated by the consultan-t from the agencies,
unless volunteered by a responsible official from those agencies.
A request for proposal does not commit Butte County to award a contract,
to apply costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal to this
request, or to procure a contract for services or supplies. Butte
County reserves the right to accept or reject all proposals received as
a r.e.sult of this'RFP, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to
cancel in part-, or in its entirety, the RFP if it is in the best
interest of Butte County to do so.
Consultant(s) selected will have to
and will be required to submit such
revisions of their.proposals as may
participate in contract negotiations
price and technical or other
result from negotiations.
The schedule for this report establishes October.8, 1985 as the date for
the final document to be submitted to the Planning Department.
Liquidated damages for delay in the amount of $50.00 per day will be'
assessed for failure to meet this deadline.
. `ILII E A
Page 4,
Pre -contractual expenses (those expenses incurred by proposers prior to
the.date of award for any agreement) shall"not be Butte County's
obligation. Proposals shall not include any such expenses as part of
the price proposed'in response to.this RFP. Butte County shall be held
harmless and free from any and all, liability claims or expenses.incurred
by, or on behalf of, any person or organization responding to this RFP.
No prior, current or post award, verbal agreement(s) with any officer,
agent or employee of Butte County shall affect or modify the terms or
obligations of this RFP, or any contract resulting from this
procurement.
Budget, Payments and Financial Conditions
Butte County has a budget of $12,500 for the completion of the MEA for
the Durham -Dayton -Nelson Planning Area. At the time of contract
negotiations, a payment schedule will be agreed upon between Butte
County and the consultant(s).
Butte County will not provide financial assistance to the consultants)
beyond the negotiated fees, and will collaborate with the consultant(s)
and give all reasonable cooperation yin the collection of information.
The financial form of the contract which results from this RFP will be a
cost plus fixed fee with a maximum price. All applicable costs can be
charged to'this contract within the fixed price limit. Appropriate
charges may include wages and salaries, overhead, travel, materials, and
subcontractor costs. A schedule of proposed costs should be included
detailing each item listed. A breakdown of overhead, travel and
subcontractor costs is required:
Organization and Submission of Proposals
Proposals should follow this general outline:
A. Methodology
This section should describe the approach that will be taken to
accomplish the work described within this Request for Proposal.
This section should also include information on the organization of
the document and strategies for obtaining or confirming required
inventories and data.
B. Schedule and Costs
The schedule for the -production of the MEA, as well as a budget
indicating the person who will perform the work, the number of
hours, and total expenditures for each of the major work items
identified in the schedule, is required.
MEA
Page 5
•
C. Program Management
The consultant must prepare an explanation of the program management
system used to assure that the project is completed within the
scheduled timeframe and the quality will be maintained thr.oughout
the preparation of the MEA.
D. References
A list of from three to five former clients (include addresses and
phone numbers) for whom the consultant has performed services
similar to those described in this RFP should be included.
E. Personnel and Experience
A list of'personnel who'will be working o`n this project, percent of
time that each person will.devo.te to this project, and a resume of
their relevant experience and background, must be submitted for each
professional who will participate in this work program.
All.bids should include a total price. Complete proposals must include.
two complete sets and are due in the Office of the Butte County Planning
Department by 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 1985, and should be sent to:
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
7 -County Center Drive
Orovi.11e, CA 95965.
(916) 534-4601
The following is the proposed tentative schedule of events for this
procurement.
Activity
Approval of RFP
Mail RFP
Proposal due date (by 5:00 p.m.)
Oral presentation of top proposals
Recommendation of Planning Department
taken to Board for final decision
Board of Supervisors authorizes Chairman
to execute contract
Work to begin
Draft to be submitted to Pl-a.nning Dept.
(no later than)
Final camera ready MEA submitted to
Planning Department
Tentative Date
April 2, 1985
April 4, 1985
May 3, 1985
May 13-15, 1985
May 21, 1985
June 4, 1985
June 10, 19.85
September 9, 1985
October 8, 1985
MEA •
Page 6
Evaluation Criteria
All proposals teceived'by the deadline specified will be examined by the
Planning Department staff. If deemed responsive, they will be further_
examined and rated as described below.
Evaluation Factor
B. Specific outline of steps to be taken
to accomplish the requirements of the
statement of work,,resources to be used
on the project
C. Relative allocation of resources in
terms of quality and quantity to key
tasks including time and skills of
person assigned to tasks
D. Planning experience, including experience
in the development of similar documents
E. Price
F. Qualifi-cations of the project leader and
.assurance of involvement in the project
G. Education and specific experience of a
project team to be a=ssigned
Relative. Weight
(Maximum Points)
15
10
10
35
15
5
H. Ability to comply with the required
performance schedule 10
Bidders shall be awarded points for the overall price of their proposal.
Points_shall be assigned for price according to the following
definition. The lowest cost'propos;al shall receive 35 points. If two
proposals tie, they shall each receive -the same allocation points for
their respective -standing. Proposals other than the lowest proposal
shall receive points in decreasing proportion, to the ratio, of their
total cost -to the lowest total cost in a proportionate ratio according
to the following formulas.
R = The Ratio = Total Cost of the Proposal
Total Cost of the Lowest Proposal
Points = (2.0 - R).x 35
(For values..of*R between 1.0 and 2.0)
Points = 0-. ,
(For values of R equal to or greater than 2.0)
kEA •
Page 7
The Planning Department staff will perform an in-depth analysis of all
timely and responsive proposals, carefully evaluating each one against
the established evaluation criteria. The Planning Department staff will
then entertain formal oral presentations from the top candidates to
provide additional input into the evaluation process. The oral
presentations will be followed by a question and answer period during
which the Planning Department staff may question the prospective
consultants about their proposed approaches. The top firms will be
ranked as a result of the oral presentations and a recommendation
formulated., This recommendation will be presented to the Board of
Supervisors on May 21, 1985 for their final decision.
Summary:
Deadline for Proposals:
5:00 p.m. May 3, 1985 (It is the consultant's responsibility
to insure timely delivery to the Planning Department..)
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(91.6) 534-4601
s
DURHAM -DAYTON -NELSON PLANNI'NG'AREA"
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area, located in the western central
portion of the.Co.unty, is comprised of approximately 135 square miles of
unincorporated land. The Planning Area is generally bounded to the
north by the Chico Urban Area, to the west by the Sacramento River, to
the south by Butte, Creek and the Western'Canal, and to the east by State
Highway 99. Three rural communities, Durham, Dayton and Nelson., which
sit as islands among vast acreages -of agricultural land, are located
within the Planning Area;; Durham, as the largest community, provides
the greatest selection of commercial and social services. Major
shopping and trade will, usually occur within the cities of either Chico
or Oroville.
d
Due to the area's excellent agricultural soils, the Planning Area has
become an abundant producer of agricultural products. Primary crops.on
the rich alluvial soils in the northern portion of the Planning Area
include almond, walnut and prune orchards as well as.numerous field
crops. Extensive rice fields and other shallow rooted crops are located
on basin soils located in the southern portion of the Planning Area.
The Planning Area has a typical Mediterranean climate with- hot, dry'
summers and cool, wet winters. Annual precipitation in the form of rain
averages 18" on the western border of the Planning Area along the
Sacramento River to almost 28" along the eastern boundary.
Waterways include"numerous sloughs and intermittent streams as well as
Butte Creek and.the Sacramento River. The Planning Area is traversed by
numerous irrigation water conveyance facilities such as Crouch Ditch and
the Cherokee and Western Canals.
Main transportation routes include the, Sacramento Northern and the.
Southern Pacific Railroads which pass through the center of the Planning
Area, and .State Highway 99 which forms the eastern boundary of the
Planning Area.
Present population within the Planning Area is estimated to be 4200
people or 3% of the County's projected 1985 population of 162,979. The
Planning Area has been experiencing an annual growth rate of 3.34%.
From all indications, the growth pressure on this area will continue.
Total estimated holding capacity under the current General Plan is
12,000 persons.
V3HV ONINNVId
NOSl3N•NOIAVO•WVHHM
AlNnO3 31ine
ir
7 W -
If
V.4
Ni
,;i� ..: r -A�'�a•y:e.. ••� - 2 i • • .� t .. _ r e _._L._ ,f•,•.:' _- _ _ •`�'•: '�... ,,;� � ( 1 \ iia �
J" JIL �
..q,q
* 2-6
/ ......... .
cn
uj
7_4
x Z
ao-
1c)
a A
YI 1_7
T _x
�L-4-
....... . . .
L
Inter-Department®I Mem®rnndum
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: B.A., Kircher, Director of Planni
�&
su9JECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - DURHAM -DAYTON -NELSON PLANNING AREA
DATE:. March 28, 1985
Attached is a Request for Proposal for the preparation of a
Master Environmental Assessment for -the Durham -Dayton -Nelson
Planning Area.
The Master Environmental Assessment will provide the County
with an inventory and study of the physical, environmental,
social and economic elements of the Planning Area. It is a
data base of information covering such subjects as.soils,
hydrology, air quality, vegetation, transportation, population,
public services and existing land use.
Preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment is authorized
by the California Environmental Quality Act through Section 15169
of the "State EIR Guidelines," as well as within the "General
Plan Guidelines" authored by the Governor's Office of Planning
and Research as per Government Code Section 65040.2.
The amount budgeted within the Planning Department's Profes-
sional and Specialized Services Account is $12,500. This
money must be encumbered through the execution of the contract
to prepare the Request for Proposal prior to July 1, 1985.
BAK/sb:ss
Enclosure
STATEMENT OF WORK
In concert with the policies of its Land Use Element, Butte County has
instituted an.Area Plan process and implemented a work program leading
to the development of Area Plans to the County General Plan for each
community or area of the County. The Area Plan process includes the
following steps:
1. Preparation of Master Environmental Assessment (MEA)..
2. Adoption of Goals and Objectives for the Planning Area.
3. Preparation of Planning Alternatives Study.
4. Selection of Preferred Alternative.
5. Preparation of Draft Area Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
6. Adoption of Final EIR a,nd Area Plane
7. Implementation (including zoning in compliance with the plan).
As a first step,in this process, the County of Butte is now accepting
proposals for the development of a Master Environmental Assessment (MEA)
for the Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area. The MEA is to be an
in-depth inventory and study detailing the physical, environmental,
social, and economic elements and constraints of the Planning Area.
This document -will serve as the data base for the preparation of Goals
and Objectives,.the Planning Alternatives Study, and ultimately for the
Draft and Final. -Area Plan for the Planning Area. It will also serve as
the environmental setting portion of the Environmental Impact Report
required by law for the Area Plan. Following adoption of the Area Plan,
the MEA will be. used by the agency or citizens for Initial•Studies,
Negative Declarations, and as the environmental setting portion of
Environmental Impact Reports for individual development projects within
the Planning Area.
In general, it is expected that a consultant(s) will provide a draft and
subsequently a camera ready final copy of the document together with
appropriate graphics. Although the County Planning Department will make
available all pertinent data on file with its office, it is anticipated
that preparation of the MEA will require considerable independent
research,.data gathering, and consultation efforts by the chosen
consultant(s).
MEA
Page 2 • •
Saecifications
The MEA -shouldinclude a brief description of the document and the -
intended ways in which it will be.used. The document should include a
map of the Planning Area in a -regional setting as well as a map
depicting its precise location and boundaries.
The MEA shall specifically address the following topics. The expected
level of detail for each topic -will be directly proportionate to that
topic's importance within the Planning Area.
1. Soils
2. Hydrology - including water quality and areas subject to flooding
3. Geology
4. Air Quality
5. Noise
6. Climate
7. Vegetation
8. Wildlife
9., Energy Resources - including the availability and location of gas
and electrical lines
10. Cultural Resources
11. Existing Land Use
12. Existing County General Plan and,Zoning Designations.
13. Transportation
14. Public Services and Facilities
15. Scenic and Open Space Resources
16. Recreation
17. Housing - including condition•of existing housing survey
18. Demographic/Economic Data
MEA
Page 3 • •
At least one reproducible base map, drawn at a scale approved by the
Planning Department shall be prepared in concert with the preparation of
the MEA. Ultimate map size within the document will be 11" x.17".
Where appropriate, written information presented within the textshould,
be accompanied by maps, tables, figures, and other similar relevant
information so that the document will be readily understood by decision
makers and the public.
The consultant(s) will have 120 days to complete the document. However,
a draft copy of the completed document shall be submitted to the
Planning Department no later'than the 91st day to allow time for staff
review of the document. After staff approves the document as to
content, and after staff determines that the.draft conforms to the
requirements of this Request for Proposal, the document shall be
returned to the consultant(s) for finalization. It is expected that the
consultants) shall make any changes to the document deemed appropriate
by the planning staff and incorporate such changes in the final camera
ready document.
Conditions and General Requirements
All reports, pertinent data and materials are the sole property of the
County of Butte and may not be used, reproduced or released in any form
without the explicit written permission of the County of Butte_..
Consultants(s) should expect to have access only to public reports and
public files of local government agencies in preparing the proposal or
reports. No compilation,, -tabulation, or analysis of data, definition or
opinion, etc. should be anticipated by the consultant from the agencies,
unless volunteered by a responsible official from those agencies.
A request for proposal does not commit Butte County to award a contract,
to -apply costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal to this
request, or to procure a contract for services or supplies. Butte.
County reserves the right to accept or reject all proposals received as
a result of this RFP, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to
cancel in part, or in its entirety, the RFP if it is in the best
interest of Butte County to do so.
Consultant(s) selected will have to participate in contract negotiations
and will be required to submit.such price and technical or other
revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations.
The schedule for this report establishes.October 8, 1985 as the date for
the final document to be submitted to the'Planning Department.
Liquidated damages for delay in the amount of $50.00 per day will be
assessed for failure to meet this deadline.
MEA
Page 4 •
•
Pre -contractual expenses (those expenses incurred by proposers prior to
the date of award for any agreement) shall not be Butte County's
obligation. Proposals shall not include any such expenses as part.of
the price proposed in response to this RFP. Butte County shall be held
harmless and free from any and all liability claims or expenses incurred
by, or on behalf of; any person or organization responding to'this RFP.
No prior, current.or post award, verbal agreements) with any officer.,
agent or employee of Butte County shall affect or modify the terms or
obligations of this RFP,.or any contract resulting from this
procurement.
Budget, Payments and Financial Conditions
Butte County has a budget of $12,500 for the completion of the MEA for.
the Durham•Dayton•Nelson Planning Area.. At the time.of contract
negotiations, a'payment schedule will be agreed upon between Butte
County and the consultant(s).
Butte. County will not provide financial assistance to the consultant(s)
beyond the negotiated fees, and will collaborate with the consultant(s)
and give all reasonable cooperation in the collectid-n of information.
The financial form of the contract which results from this RFP will be a
cost plus fixed fee with a maximum price. All applicable costs can be
charged to this contract within the fixed price limit. Appropriate
charges may include wages and salaries, overhead, travel, materials, and..
subcontractor costs. A schedule of proposed costs should be included
detailing each item listed. A breakdown 'of overhead, travel and,
subcontractor costs is required.
Organization and.Submission of Proposals
Proposals should follow this general outline:
A. Methodology
This section should describe the approach that will be taken to
accomplish the work described within this Request for Proposal.
This section should also include information on the organization of
the document and strategies for obtaining or confirming required
inventories and data.
B. Schedule and Costs
The schedule for the production of the MEA, as well as a budget
indicating the person who will perform the work, the number of
hours, and total expenditures for each of the major work items
identified in the schedule, is required.
MEA
Page 5 • •
C. Program Management
The consultant must prepare an explanation of the program management
system used to assure that the p.roject is completed within the
scheduled timeframe and the quality will be maintained throughout
- the preparation of the MEA.,
D. References.
A list of from three to five former clients (include addresses and
phone numbers) for whom the consultant has performed services
similar to those described in this RFP should be included.
E. Personnel and Experience
A list of personnel who will be working on this project, percent of
time that each person will devote to this project, and a resume of
their relevant experience and backgr.o.und, must be submitted for each
professional who will participate in this work program.
All bids should include a total price. Complete proposals must include
two complete sets and are due in the Office of the Butte County Planning
Department by 5:00 p.m. on May 3, 1985, and should be sent to:
Starlyn S. Brown
Senior Planner
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(916) 534-4601
The following is the proposed tentative schedule of events for this
procurement.
Activity
Approval of RFP
Mail RFP -
Proposal due date,(by 5:00 p.m.)
Oral presentation of top'proposals
Recommendation of Planning Department
taken to Board for final decision
Board of Supervisors authorizes Chairman
to execute contract
Work to begin
Draft to be submitted to Planning Dept.
(no later than)
Final camera ready MEA submitted to
Planning Department
Tentative Date
April 2, 1985
April 4, 1985
May 3, 1985
May 13-15, 1985
May 21, 1985
June 4, 1985
June 10, 1985
September 9, 1985
October 8, 1985
MEA •Page 6
Evaluation Criteria
•
All .proposals received by the deadline specified will be examined by the
Planning Department staff. If deemed responsive, they will be further
examined and rated as described below.
Relative Weight
Evaluation.Factor (Maximum Points)
B. Specific outline of steps to be taken
to accomplish the requirements of the.
statement of work, resources to be'used
on the project 15
C. Relative allocation of resources in
terms o-f,quality and quantity to key
tasks including time and skills of
person assigned to tasks 10
D. Planning experience, including experience
in the development of similar documents 10
E. Price 35
F. Qualifications of the project leader and
assurance of involvement in the project 15
G. Education and specific experience of a
project team to be assigned 5
H. Ability to comply with the required
performance schedule 10
Bidders shall be awarded points for the overall price of their proposal.
Points shall be assigned for price according to the following
definition. The lowest cost proposal shall receive 35 points. If two.
proposals tie, they shall each receive the same allocation.points for
their respective standing. Proposals other than the lowest proposal
shall receive.points in decreasing proportion, to the ratio, of their
total cost to the lowest total cost in a proportionate ratio according
to the following formulas.
R = The Ratio = Total Cost of the Proposal
Total Cost of the Lowest Proposal
Points =•(2.0 - R) x 35
(For values of'R between 1.0 and 2.0)
Points = 0
(For values of R equal to or greater than 2.0)
MEA
Page 7 • '
The Planning Department staff will perform an in-depth analysis of.all
timely and responsive proposals, carefully evaluating each one against
the established evaluation criteria. The -Planning Department staff will
then entertain formal oral presentations from the top candidates to
provide additional input into the evaluation process. The oral
presentations will be followed by a question and answer period during
which the Planning Department staff may question the prospective
consultants about their proposed approaches. The top firms will be.;
ranked as a result of the oral presentations and a recommendation
formulated. This recommendation will be presented to the Board of
Supervisors on May 21, 1985 for their final decision.
Summary:
Deadline for Proposals:
5:00 p.m. May 3, 1985 (It is the consultant's responsibility
to.insure timely delivery to the Planning Depa,rtment.)
Starlyn- S. Brown
Senior Planner
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(916) 534-4601
DURHAM -DAYTON' -NELSON PLANNING AREA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Th'e -Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area, located in the western central
-portion of the County, is comprised of approximately 135 square miles.of
unincorporated land. The Planning Area is generally bounded to the
north by the Chico Urban Area, to the west. by -the Sacramento River, to
the south by Butte Creek and the Western Canal, and to the east by State
Highway 99. Three rural communities, Durham, Dayton and Nelson, which
sit as islands among vast acreages of agricultural land, are located
within the Planning Area. Durham, as the largest community, provides
the greatest selection of commercial and social services. Major
shopping and trade will usually occur within the cities of either Chico
or Oroville.
Due to the area's excellent agricultural soils, the Planning Area has
become an abundant producer of agricultural products. Primary crops on
the rich alluvial soils in the northern portion of the Planning Area
include almond, walnut and prune orchards as well as numerous field
crops. Extensive rice fie -Ids and other shallow rooted crops are located
on basin soils located in the.southern portion of,the Planning Area.
The Planning Area.has a typical Mediterranean climate.with hot, dry
summers and cool, wet winters. Annual precipitation -.in the form of rain
averages 18" on -the western border of -the Planning Area along the
Sacramento River to almost 28" along the eastern boundary.
Waterways include numerous sloughs and intermittent streams as well as
Butte Creek and the Sacramento. River. The Planning Area is traversed by
numerous irrigation water conveyance facilities such as Crouch Ditch and
the Cherokee and Western Canals.
Main transportation•routes include the Sacramento Northern and the
Southern Pacific Railroads which pass through the center of the Planning
Area, and State Highway 99 which forms the eastern boundary of the
Planning Area.
Present population within the Planning Areais estimated to be 4200
people or 3% of the'County's projecied 1985 population of 162,979. The
Planning.Area has been experiencing an annual growth rate of 3.34%.
From all indications, the growth pressure on this, area will continue.
Total estimated holding capacity under the current- General Plan is
12,000 persons."
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
1163 EAST SEVENTH STREET
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926
(916) 891-3004
March 21, 1985
Butte County Planning•Commission
Attention: Rick Rodriguez
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
RE: Project Review for File #85-48 .
y Area Plan- to. the -County, General_ Plan
Gentlemen:
Co wennin9 Cam
MAR 2 2 1985
OrO419, Calif..a,
Chico Unified School District has received and reviewed the above
referenced project. Although the majority of this area is not within
CUSD, the northern tip is within the boundaries of CUSD.
Based on'a discussion Steve Streeter had with Neil McCabe, it is our
understanding that while the proposal is more restrictive in some
areas, it will also result in increased residential zoning in some
areas. Students from this area would attend either Parkview or
Rosedale Schools. At the present time Rosedale is severly impacted to
the extent it will not be able to house the projected students for the
fall of 1985 in the existing facilities. Parkview School, while not
presently impacted, will have an enrollment of 480 in September, 1985,
which is only 33 students short of its practical capacity. At the
present time there are no plans to build new schools in this area.
While the District does not oppose residential development, the
District also needs to continue to be able to adequately house all
students and maintain a high quality of education for all students.
Sincerely,.
Robin G. Thompson
Business Manager/Comptroller
RGT:vv
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—TRANSPORTATION A*Y - ` GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowmor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 3
P.O. BOX 911, MARYSVILLE 95901
Telephone (916) 741-4498
Butte Co. Planning COMM
41R. 2 0 1995
March 19, 1985 QrOV1119, Califorsk
03 -But -32/99 '
Durham Area Plan
Mr. Rick Rodriguez
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA -95965
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Caltrans, District 3, has reviewed the proposal to initiate an area plan for
the community of Durham.
The environmental assessment for the Area Plan should, to the extent possible,
identify the amount and type of .traffic (passenger car or truck) to be
generated by various development scenarios in the area. Traffic volumes that
could be generated on State Routes 32 and g9 and where the traffic would enter
the State highways should also be identified.
The Plan should identify potential impacts to State highways and propose
feasible mitigation measures. We urge the County to adopt a plan to finance
improvements to State highways which are required as a -result of private
development.
If you have any questions on these comments, please contact.Jeannie Baker at
the above address, or telephone (916) 741-4498•
Sincerely,
W. R. GREEN
District Director of Transportation
By
Brian J. Smith
Chief, Environmental Branch
M .iE..C(1i'��TY..PLAia►.I�lG CO IP�ISSIO�a
COUNTY .CENTER DR IVF -.OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95905
PHONE: .534-4601
Butte Co. Planning Comm.,
TO:. Environmental -Health DATE -.March 6 1985
'Lynn Vanhart 2 1985.
Orovilla, CelitoTWAiRE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
. ENVIRONTMENTAL. EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the. following project: B.C. Board of Supervisors r AP Various
Log #85703-06-01, file #85-48 - To initiate an Area. Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of'Durham.• Location: Butte County P1an-
..ning Area. #8 (as per.the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Westefn Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.'
We are making an assessment of'possible environmental" impacts and will be
preparing an environmental.document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration.or an Environmental Tmpact.Report.
Please provide any factual statements,, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern,or expertise that relate to either
L physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may'generate. .
Please respond within.14 days of the above -noted date. If. no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from -the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
I-1EA.LTH
MAR ,. t 1985: .
Rick Rodrigu z 0roville; California
Planning Technician
Comments : `3 - 5 -74,o o 4, PKrf?jet
.A,f(nwacle �eUs'*1 S _A uta sft9anP I -aI aa 14
1 d
�cGd►Vrs.o�
(Write or type in.space provided & return this sheet.)
BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEP.ARPIENT
FIRE PROTECTION STA;;DARDS REVIEW •
DEVELOPMENT NAME. General Plan, Community of AP# Log # 85-03-06-01 File # 85-48
LOCATION Durham. DATE 3 / 15 / 85
• Calif. Department of Forestry
This project must meet the requirements in the Uniform Butte County Fire Department
Building Code amended to Butte County standards. Cooperative Fire Protection
r
In accordance with Section 13.00 (Fire Standards) of the
Improvement Standards, the water requirements for this RICHARD D. TILLER "
parcel/project are: (Applicable standards are checked).
Battalion Chief
( ) 13.01-1 Requirement Class 1. A water supply for
fire protection will not be required.
( ) 13.01-2 Requirement Class 2. A pressurized water
system with adequate numbers of hydrants is pre- OFFICE (916) 891.2789
ferred, but if this is not feasible, the following
option will satisfy the fire department require-
ment for water.
( ) a. Water storage tanks with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or more, equipped with direct all weather
access and fire department connection (S-29);
( ) b. In ground swimming pools equipped with a drafting connection or drafting access; or,
( ) c. A dry standpipe system plumbed to a reliable water source. Such standpipe system will not
exceed 1,000 feet in length.
There must be at least 10,000 gallons of water available and strategically located for each 10 dwellings,
or portions thereof. (Example: 11 dwellings would require two separated sources). Provisions must be
made to insure that the water stored is always available and accessible for use under all weather conditions.
( ) 13.01-3 Requirement Class 3. A pressurized community water system is required. Tentative hydrant
locations are indicated oy the attached preliminary map. Final locations must be -exactly indicated and
recorded on the final map -J
Number of hydrants required maximum hydrant to hydrant spacing feet, hydrant size
and installed according to Butte County Public Works specification
(bAand mune and mo ee
S-27 and requirements of local water agency. Required fire flows are gallons per minute.
Mitigation flows listed under other, conditions.
( ) 13.01-4 Requirement Class 4. Water for fire protection is required. The preferable system is a hydrant
system capable of meeting the fire flow requirements. If this is not feasible, a system involving inde-
pendent pumps, static water storage and dry standpipes may be substituted. Such a system is subject to
the approval of the fire department. The available water flow from such a system must flow
gallons per minute. The minimum volume of water in storage must be gallons. Provisions must
be made to insure the system provided is maintained to its design capacity.
( ) 13.01-5 Requirement Class 5. Pressurized water for fire protection is available within.1,000 feet of the
created parcels. In lieu of bearing the cost of installing a fire hydrant(s) the developer may pay into
the fire department hydrant fund. Pay in -lieu fee into hydrant fund based
wateA agency
on $1.25 per frontage foot. Frontage is indicated by the red line on the'attached map. Approximate fee
is $ Final frontage calculation to be made by surveyor 'and recorded on final map. Frontage
calculation will include both sides of -the street on included streets.
( ) Required water system for fire protection must be installed and operating prior to building construction.
( X) Other Conditions:
Unable to comment until type zoning is specified.
( ) Response times for the first 3 fire engines is as follows: CDF/BCFD
1. Station III = minutes
_ 2. Station # = minutes
3. Station = minutes
( ) In the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan, this project area is classified as a
fire hazard area A*WC0.p1AW1n9Ccmm
WILLIAM C. 7EIE
1AAR 18 985 County ire Warde
• attali n Chief
1/ Local water agency require. -eats for hydrants may be more restrictive.
BUTTE.'-COUNTY.?NO COMMISSION
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.
PHONE: 534-4601
TO: Jo lifienaonsa Beit®C°•� � DATE: March -6,'.1985
RE: PROJECT REVIEW . AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is.preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following project: B, C. Board of Supervisors AP Various
Log #85-03-06-01, file #85-48 - To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham.' Location: Butte County Plan-
ping Area..#8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte.County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River,
We are making an assessment of possible environmental' impacts and*will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated..
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that.relate to either
physical, social, or economic impacts that this project_ may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted dater If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning ��Technician
Comments : �°/?✓�
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
iamb pEVEfAf1GfBJT !til.
MAR 7 1985
-' P.O. BOX 300 DURHAM, CALIFORNIA 95938 916/342-6401
~ _RICHARD T. LANDESS,. Ed.D., District Superintendent
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIGHSCHOOL
NOEL BUEHLER
DONALD C. MCNECIS
PRINCIPAL
PHONE 3443-33-3281 PRINCIPAL
-_ _
P.O. BOX 700 -_ -.LL - - PHONE" 6481
= P.O.-.BOOXX 600_ ..
March -12, 1985
quite Co. PI.,,',,, lBb -
=
MAR 13 198-5
Mr. Rick Rodriguez, Planning Technician' '
9roviil�,lifs
. Butte County_P-Tanning Commission_,
s_ 7 County Center Drive -
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Mr. Rodriguez.
This response is•to°notify your office of the impacted condition which exists'
in the Durham -Unified School District. Our elementary and seventh,and eighth
grade facilities.are overcrowded. _ '
~-Changes made n'the general plan which would allow for additional growth in
the Durham area could further complicate the overcrowded situation. Our board
of trustees has recently taken a position to critically examine all parcel-,_
splits and :proposed developments. -
Please keep us informed of, changes in the general plan as they are being
discussed so we may share with you the impact that these changes will have on
our school system. -
Thank you -for your consideration. u
Sincerely
Richard T. Landess _
-Superintendent -
RTL:js _
enclosure
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
RUBY O. KIMMELSHUE-PRESIDENT , GREGORY A. VUGRENES-CLERK
RICHARD L. ANDERSON ARTHUR L. MOORE JERRY R. WILLIAMS
BUTTE..COUNTY..PLARNING COMMISSI I
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE'.- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 534-4601
Butte Creek Mutual Water District
TO: �_P.0. Box 1355 DATE: March 6, 1985
Cfiico; CA 95922 T= �-
RE: PROJECT .REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the. following project: B.C. Board of Supervisors ,,L AP Various
Log #85-03-06-01, file -#85-48 - To initiate an Area'Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham.` Location: Butte County Plan-
ning Area. #8 (as.per the Housing Element of the Butte County General -
Plan) The Durham area: _bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.
We are -making an assessment of possible environmental` impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental.Impact Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either
physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate.any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
Rick Rodri,gu z
Planning Technician
Comments:
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
RUTTE..COUPITY ..AIM I NGCOMMISSION
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE-,OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 534-4601
Durham Mutual Water District
TO: P.O. Box 337 DATE: March 6, 1985.
Durham, CA 95938
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
..:ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following project: B.C.-Board of Supervisors AP Various'
Log #85-03-06-01, file #85-48 - To initiate -an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Communityof Durham.' Location: Butte'Count Plan-
ning Area. #8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by.Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south'by Butte.Creek and.the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.
.We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
.Negative Declaration.or an Environmental Impact.Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can.offer in your area of concern br expertise that relate to either
physical, social, or economic impacts that. this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is -
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are'no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.,
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,'
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning Technician
Comments:
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
BUTTE..COUNTY. .PLARN I NG COMMISSION
%'COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95065
PHONE: 534-4601
Durham Parks Recreation
T0: 2239_ Midway DATE: March 6, 1985
Durham, CA 95938 r
RE PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received,or generatedconcerning
the. following project:B_C. Board of Supervisors . AP Various
Log #85-03-06-0l,'file"#85-48. - To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham.' Location: Butte County Plan-
ning Area #8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte.County General
.Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by .Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the -Sacramento River.
We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative. Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise .that relate to either
physical, social; or economic impacts that this project may.generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be ,assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely, .
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning.Technician
Comments:.
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
RUTTE..COUNTY ..PLANN I NG � COMM I SS I Ohl
COUNTY CENTER. DRIVE-- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.
PHONE: 534-4601
Durham Irrigation District
TO: P.O.. Box. 98 DATE: March 6, 1.985
Durham, CA 9S938
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed ins preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the. following project: B,_C_. Board of Supervisors AP Various -
Log #85-03-06-01, file#85-48 -To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham.' Location: Butte County Plan-
ning Area #8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal.
and 'on the west by the Sacramento River.
We are making an assessment of possible environmental` impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
.Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to. -either
;.. physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.
Sincerely,
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
BUTTE COUNTY .PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY CENTER. DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 959_65
PHONE: 534=4601
Butte Creek Drainage District
TO: P.O. Box 3509 DATE: March 6, .1985
Chico,, CA 95927
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office.has received or generated concerning .
the. following project: B_C,. Board of Supervisors AP Various
Log #85-03-06-01, file #85-48 - To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham. Location: Butte County Plan-
ning Area #8.(as.per the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.
We are making an assessment of possible environmental' impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration.or an Environmental Impact.Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can.offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either
physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide.,
Sincerely,
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning Technician
Comments:
(Write or type in space provided .& return this sheet.) V
BUTTE..COUNTY..PLARN I NG COMM I SS I Off!
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.
PHONE:. 534-4601
TO:: Butte County Sheriff DATE: March 6, 1985
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following project: B.C. Board of Supervisors - AP Various
Log #85-03-06-01, file'#85-48 - To.initiate an AreaPlan to the County
General Plan for the'Community of Durham.* Location: Butte Compty Plan-
ping Area #8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.
We are making an assessment.of possible environmental impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report..
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you can.offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either
physical, social; or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance, you can provide.
Sincerely,
BUTTE COUNTY w1ING COMMISSION!
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95465
PHONE:. 534-4601 .
Glenn County
TO: 526 W. Sycamore Street DATE: March 6, 1985
Willows, CA 95988
RE: PROJECT REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning
the following. project: B. C_. Board of Supervisors AP Various
Log #85-03-06-01, file #85-48 To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for -the Community of Durham.' Location: Butte County Plan-
ning Area #8 (as per the Housing Element of the Butte County General
Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento -River.
We are making an assessment of possible environmental'impacts and will be
preparing an environmental document, either'a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions
you.can.offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either
r: physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response,is
generated by this inquiry, then it.shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide. -
Sincerely,
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning Technician
Comments:
(Write or type in space provided & return this sheet.)
COUNTY PPJPa I �1G COMPS ISS I ON..BUTTE.. C .
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95465
PHONE: 534-4601
City of Chico
TO: P.O. :Box3420 DATE: March 6, 1985
Chico, CA 95926
RE: PROJECT -REVIEW AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Enclosed is preliminary data bur office has received or generated concerning
the, following project: B.C. Board of Supervisors AP Var; ous -
Log #85-03-06-01, file{#85-48 - To initiate an Area Plan to the County
General Plan for the Community of Durham.' Location: Butte Count Plan-
ning Area. 8 (as per the.Housing Element of the Butte County General
-Plan) The Durham area: bounded on the north by Comanche Creek, on the
east by Highway 99, on.the south by Butte Creek and the.Western Canal
and on the west by the Sacramento River.
We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and'will be
preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Mitigated
Negative'Declaration or an Environmental Impact.Report.
Please provide any factual statements, ideas for'investigation, or opinions
you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to,either
physical, social,.or economic impacts that. this project may generate.
Please respond within 14 days of the above -noted date. If no response is
generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no
significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.
We appreciate any assistance you can provide:
Sincerely, .
Rick Rodrigu z
Planning Technician
Comments:
(Write or type in space provided &.return this sheet.)
• BUTTE\ •
Inter-DeparthWial ,Memorandum
• • �^ Qo $ v Irl
Bettye Kircher, Planning Director
FROM: Star Brown, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Area Plan Process r /
DATE: February 25, 1985
Despite their different needs and conditions, all cities and counties
in California must comply with.essentially the same body of state laws
and regulations in carrying out their planning programs. While state.
law specifies the basic content of the General Plan, it leaves the
format to local discretion.
In concert with the policies of the Land Use Element adopted by the
County in 1979, the Planning Department has instituted an Area Plan
process and implemented a work program leading to the development of
Area Plans to the County General Plan for each community or area of
the County. To date, Area Plans have been prepared for the Paradise,
Oroville, Concow, Gridley -Biggs and Chico Planning Areas. Through
the preparation of these Area Plans, staff has had the opportunity
to judge the effectiveness of the Area Plan process to facilitate
decision making and resolve conflict, while providing for the maximum
public involvement necessary to develop a reasonable, understandable
plan that protects, promotes, and accomplishes the desires of each
community. Based on this critiquing,, staff has refined the Area Plan
process to include the following steps:
1. Preparation of Master Environmental Assessment
2. Adoption of Goals and Objectives for the Planning Area
3. Preparation of Planning Alternatives Study
4. Selection of Preferred Alternative
5. Preparation of Draft Area Plan and Draft Environmental
.Impact Report (EIR)
6. Adoption o,f Final EIR and Area Plan
7. Implementation (Including Zoning in Compliance with the Plan)
The first step of this process is the preparation of a Master Environ-
mental Assessment (MEA). The MEA is an inventory and study of the
physical, environmental, social, and economic elements of the Planning
Area. The MEA generally includes, but is not limited to, inventories
of soils, geology, hydrology, air quality, vegetation,_wi'ldlife,
energy, cultural heritage, noise, existing land use, transportation,
population and public services. This document serves many purposes.
Bettye Kircher, Planning Director
Page 2
February 25, 1985
It serves as the data base for the development of Planning.Alterna-
tives and ultimately the Area Plan policy document. It.also serves
as the environmental setting portion of the EIR required by law for
the Area Plan. Following adoption of the Area Plan, the MEA may
also be used.by the agency or citizens for Initial Studies, Negative
Declarations, and as the environmental setting portion of EIRs for
individual development proposals. In this way it serves as a reference
and helps reduce the bulk and cost of project level environmental
documents. The MEA is also a valuable informational source, of
benefit to the public, other public agencies, and .organizations.
If prepared under contract to an outside consultant, the Master
Environmental Assessment for the Durham Planning'Area could be ex-
pected to take up to 4 months (with review of the draft document
occurring by the Planning Department at -3 months) and cost up to
$12,500. Included as apart of this document would be a reproducible
base map that would be used throughout the Planning Area Process.
SSB:lkt
FILE N0: '
APPLICANT: -'L,_
.
OWNER:
REQUEST! Td ln�r��9T�' e9,PL��9 ,��p- yo . 7f/a' ddv�-r y
eeoZr �i�P r�/E COI��jrJ�'irr pf �U,�'iy�►�J
AP NO:: wlelovs
/6D_'` .5 /"s!. �AliRe-Alm-rfs16 �sierG Isx,& 6,r7_
SIZE:
Q OF r/i'F i.C. GE�if�r4L " PG9�i'
z•.
LOCATION:
�dTTE !vd�rt-«-rlrirr� �9,2Er9� �r�E �v, �,e9
GY/ rf1E e'er C rg'E
EXISTING ZONING:„_, „ • ZA � ,i„„
ZONING HISTORY:
SURROUNDING ZONING:”
z
1
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
SITE HISTORY:
. t
F "
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
r •F .
` F *DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR RIEV `
& REQUESTS
/ ✓County Public•Works
IRRIGATION WATER
%-✓County Env. Health,
-%-✓_
Biggs- ridley Water Dist.
Ci ty' of Biggs
�- Butte Water Dist.
-City of Chico
Durham Irr. Dist.
✓City of Gridley-
-%-.Oroville-Wyand. Irr. Dist.
%-✓City of Oroville
7- Paradise Irr. Dist.-
ist.•Town
Townof Paradise
77-' Richvale "Irr. Dist.
%-✓ azF:e7e7 i County .
7 Table Mtn. Irr. Dist.
-.7-✓ tate ransportation Dept:
-j- Thermalito Irr. Dist.
TIC WATER
R=ATION FACILITIES
Berry Creek Water 'Co,-,✓Chico
Bloomer Mtn. Mutual Water Co:
Area Rec. & Park Dist.
Durham,Area Rec. & Park Dist.
Brush Creek Estates :`�:
_- Feather River Rec. & Park Dist.
Butte Water Distri-ct
-7.-,Paradise Rec. &Park Dist.
CA Water Service Co. (Chico
-7- Richvale Rec. & Park Dist.
.urban area & part of 0rovi l l e)
-T , State Parks & Rec . - Dept.
I Del 'Oro -Water Co . V' `�'-`` T •Fi'sh . & Game Dept.
(Paradise Pines) s"+State
y
/. Feather Falls(Louisiana
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Pacific)
/ Biggs Unified '
/ Forest Ranch Mutual
-T-
'Skansen
Butte Community College
_T7
-7- Gran Mutual Sub.)
Butte County. Sup . of Schools
Green Acres Glenwood Dr.-Chico)-7-
CA State University, Chico
-%-,Gridley Farm Labor .Camp
--7-,-Chico Unified
�- Lake Madrone Water Dist.,_.
Durham Unified
%-- Magalia Co. Water Dist.
_ Feather Falls Union
%- Merry Mtn. Mutual (Clipper
Golden Feather Union
Mills)
%- Gridley High
Mulberry Water (SE Chico)
-7-,Gridley Union
Northwe.eds Mutual (Forest Ranch)
-7- Oroville Elementary
�- Ramirez -Water
-7- Oroville Union High '
T Springs of Living Waters :'
-7— Palermo Unified
(Richardson Springs), -
_%_ Palermo. Union
Sti rl i_ng City
--f-'Pioneer Union
(D.iamond International).
Thermalito Union
/ Vista Mutual (Durham) -
COMMUNITY SERVICES f^
SEWERS
.°."
/ Lime Saddle Comm. Serv. Dist.
/ Richavle Sanitary Dist.
DRAINAGE
/ N. Burbank'Pub. Utility Dist.
/ ✓Butte Creek, Drainage" Dist.
(S. Oroville & Kelly Ridge)
ELECTRICAL POWER,
/ Skansen Sub. (CSA 21)
/ Pacific Gas,& Electric_
/ Sterling City Sewer Maint. Dist.
FIRE PROTECTION ;.
/ -Thermalito Irr. Dist. (CSA 26)
/ E1 Medio Fire Protect. Dist.`
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT I r.
__Lx-County_Fi,re Department-
f State Water Resources Dept.
State Division of Forestry,_-
7-7--.'U.S. Forest Service
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICTS
�_ U.S. Bureau of Land Management
/- Durham, Oroville-, or Butte County
,
POLICE PROTECTION
, OTHER
/. State Highway Patrol
2�15l;
Z C o u n ty: S h e r i f f* - ., ,
.�vrr� eer_,ex rw7cc-M WeWR .*isr-
■
T
r '
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 ..
RESOLUTION NO. 85-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE,BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTING
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO INITIATE AN AREA PLAN TO THE COUNTY
GENERAL PLAN'FOR THE COMMUNITY OF DURHAM.' -
WHEREAS, following the adoption of the'Butte County General Plan on
August 10, 1971 through Resolution 71-178 the community of Durham was rezoned on
August 14, 1973 through Ordinance 1385; and
WHEREAS,+the Planning Commission finds that the community of.Durham
has experienced considerable growth since 1973�•and,that the Butte County Housing
Element forecasts con ftnuea'growth for the area; and
WHEREAS,_ the Planning• Commis'sioh finds,that-'in. light of ,an ,increasing.
population and changing conditions, the needs of the•Durham,area have changed
since the original zoning was adopted,. and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has been witness to an increasing
amount of development projects in the Durham area; and'that d -h—ea r-ingslheld for
these.projects, residents have been increasingly.concerned over retaining the
individual character of.their community and the quality of their immediate
living environment; and
WHEREAS,the -Planning Commission finds that there, is a need to maintain
an up to date, long term, and comprehensive General Plan'for the'Durham area
which lays out goals,. objectives, implementing measures and standards specific
to that community.
NOW,'THEREFORE, BE -IT RESOLVED that.the Butte County Planning Commis -
bion does recommend and request that the Board.of"Supervisors initiate an
amendment to the County General Plan in the form of an Area Plan for .the
community of Durham.
BE IT FURTHER .RESOLVED that the Commission' firids that the preparation
of an Area Plan which provides'a framework for identifying important issues
affecting the community, a process for resolving those issues, -and a commitment
to allocating the necessary resources to make that process viable is in the
2
3
4
5
6
7.
8
9
10
`11
12
13
14
15,
16
17'
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
best interests of not only the community of Durham, but of the County as a whole.
BE ITFURTHER.RESOLVED that the Planning'Commission,f-inds that the
Butt I e County Land,,Use Element adopted October 30,1980call0for the Planning
Department, following.their preparation. of, area,plan map boundaries for each
community or geographical area of the County, to prepare detailed area plans
for the same.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission -finds that the
Planning -b t
epar mdnthas determined' boundaries' for the Durham -Planning Area and
that said boundaries are depicted as Planning Area 8. -on Map 1 of the Butte County
Housing Element adopted, -.June 19',- 1984.
.,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,,that the Planning Commission'requests that the
Board of Supervisors direct the Planning Department.to immediately'begin.work
on environmental'and other documents leading tothe preparation of an Area Plan
for the -community of Durham.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on.this 7th day of February, 1985, by the following
vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lynch, Vercr,use, Lambert, Walter, and Chairman Avis
NOES: No One
ABSENT: No One
ABSTAIN: No One
`ALAN AVIS, CHAIRMAN
Butte County Planning'Commission
.ATTEST: B. A. KIRCHER
Director of Planning
By
2-
��� �� � ,
v �.� � �
,.�
y --
y���19D
3DURHAM� DAYTON , Mf§bO . ; > :"
(QrigWal Maps) 74A a
lb
0
_ GTATE OF CALWOFiN-A - - �t�
OFFICE OF XA -%; '1.
PLANNING ANo RESEARCH A�� /,-.(I S.DOSfAui',—
4
5 ` •
= 100 TENTHMAR 22' 8 O
^ STREET
9
sACRAMENTOX CIA 65814 A L'
p �_
P.B.NETER lw
�t
5'
BU0Y ASSM OF ` GOVS
+1'rE .
BILL
7 OOUNPY LZN,.uER DR - T
OROVILLE M. 95965
o m