Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION�,, DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (916) 538 -2430 - June 26, 1995 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Oroville Planning Commission will consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact associated with the With rezoning approximately 37+' acres from. AR -5 to MH -1 and a use. permit to allow a 240+ mobile home park. REVIEW PERIOD July 1, 1995 through July 31', 1995 MEETING DATE/TIME%PLACE August 14, 1995 at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897. PROJECT LOCATION. The project site is located 6,600 feet west of the Larkin Road/Oro Dam Boulevard West . intersection adjacent to the. west property line of the. Table Mountain Golf Course on the south side of State Route 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard West). PROJECT PROPONENT John and Linda Richards a c/o Bert Garland Development Enterprises 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661. The proposed Negative Declaration and project plans are available for public review at the Planning Department between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 1675 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897. Mary nn Imbiorski; Planning/Enterprise Zone Coordinator P6annin9 ®'tvisici;ci' JUiE ! ' g E�daa 9 Gaul sci€ DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLEF t 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET % OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965=.4897 • �����. ,. PLANNING DEPARTMENT..' , (916) 538-2430.,,,' NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT PROPONENT John and Linda Richards - ZC95-01/UP95-16 4 c/o Bert Garland, Development Enterprises r k� 2240 Douglas. Boulevard, Suite 100 ' • ,',t=r ` Roseville, CA 95661 30 • LOCATION OF PROTECT The project site is located 6,600 feet west of the Larkin Road/Oro Dam Boulevard W intersection adjacent to the west property line of the Table Mountain Golf Course' on the south side of'State Route. 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard West), Butte County, Oroville, CA: t PROJECT DESCRIPTION , Rezone of approximately 37+ -'acres from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - 5 Acres) t6,MH- 1 (Low DensityMobile ,Home) and a u'se permit application to allow a 240+- unit mobile home park. . ' `• '.' �. DECLARATION On June 26, 1995, the Planning Department determined that the above project will'not have a significant effect on'the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement of Y Y an Environmental Impact Report. The determination was based on the following findings::. '. I.., �' An Initial Study has been conducted ,by the Planning Department evaluating "the potential adverse environmental impacts, and declares there is no evidence before .,the Department that the proposed project will have, the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources.t ' 2. The project will not have the potential to degrade the quality'of the environment, " substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife, cause a fish or wildlife species to. drop below self-sustaining' levels, .threaten to' eliminate a plan or. animal community, reduce the number or- restrict the'range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important'examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. ', , BALDWIN CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC. NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE NO. ZC95-01/UP95-16 PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES 3. It will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term environmental impacts. 4. It will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 5. It will not have environmental' effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 6. No substantial evidence exists that the project will have a negative effect on,the environment. 7. Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study shall be incorporated into the .project design and approval. Written comments shall be submitted no later than -twenty-one (21) days from the posting- period. Appeal of this determination must be made during the posting period. POSTING PERIOD: JULY 1, 1995 THROUGH JULY 31, 1995 SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: City of Oroville Planning Department 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville,.CA 95965-4897 (916) 538-2433 The Initial Study may be examined in the Planning Department, 1675 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897 during regular office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mar Ann I iorski " P ening/Enterprise Zone Coordinator 1 Ave. 1 .0o, Wyandolle i Ave. f 1 t A Ice, v— nn.n THERMALITO,1., y �AI•`I'ER11AV I.ghll.vnsll)•30.M Win c.o.wi R�`C121;ATI 0N 191615]] 1313. N„ of ar.: Bay :I AREA 1 ual:) e. Brrailr: MAME. L" • ] lrngro lwr ry. ells'. rest, ]0160!' UNICOM Thrrmalito '� '' a' 1 1))e I I �f I � lift e rhay I NORTH I / 1114 �,,..!::•�•!'...• .............: A �_ �.• .. Q��.�IA� �"' •��1.i/ BOAT AAMi AVENUE wlS w Av. �rNELs Y - VENUE TH R11r1A-L TO An. s l A' N Sul, &W w Plumes Avv. wee Ar.. Plums Are `o 1 Thr .liln Pnr.rr 1'I: I AOAI AA P TIIIF.RMALITO FOREBA RECREATION AREA Mut, h r,l r,e,a YuM ul Arr. r,uu A,. Ar. � Arr. AND VICINITY— D I G�EV . 4^�a wwgw � TQC I'munw � ► 1, C,. i , 1 ra,a noA c. � G.rlr An / SA. A p,+lrwil• 9 { � Irrwlwe P ,., L N. , Twee•ol 1 P.% r i AREA ; 1 3�E 1 flh I E $�" U. m Ah. P CIFC. WqY W� N 'd yv > . Sluwl o m L J� 11 laM C1 �', O m 1, .tr I xln.l• •r wn ; ao o D iL Ku,el �� P r.........„ i plp / W f O � � o 1. :1 GI o.l, neM�- tC' r Il,« . sir .r O, z i Twee•ol 1 P.% r i AREA ; 1 3�E 1 flh I E $�" U. m Ah. P CIFC. WqY W� N 'd yv > . Sluwl o m L J� 11 laM C1 �', O m 1, .tr I xln.l• •r wn ; ao o D iL Ku,el �� P CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY 1. L'inkside Place Rezone and Use Permit Application• 2. City of Oroville Planning Department 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897 3. Mary Ann Imbiorski Planning/Enterprise Zone Coordinator (916) 538-2433 4. The project site is located 6,600 feet west of the Larkin Road/Oro Dam Boulevard intersection adjacent to the westerly property line of Table Mountain Golf Course, south of State Route 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard West). 5. John and Linda Richards c/o Bert Garland Development Enterprises 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 6. General Plan Designation: Urban. Residential Low Density 7. Zoning: AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - 5 Acres). 8. Project Description: Rezone of 37.4 acres of land from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - 5 Acres) to MH -1 (Low Density Mobile Home); and a use permit application to allow the establishment of a 240+- unit mobile home park. (0`1 M5.1 cq cr• I b • 4 k, ,,144. 9. Surrounding Land Use: North, south, and east - vacant land. West - Table Mountain Golf Course. The project site is on the gently rolling alluvial fan that extends from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains into the greater.Sacramento Valley. The entire site is gently sloping with grades of 0% to 5% with elevations varying from 264 feet += to 278 feet +- above sea level. Soils consist of a shallow layer, 6 inches to 12 inches, of clayey loam topsoil which overlays 1 foot to 5 feet of gravelly clay. The Greater Oroville Region is seismically, active with the Cleveland Hills Fault producing a measurement of 5.9 on the Richter Scale in 1975. The epicenter of that ' earthquake was located approximately 10 miles to the southeast of the project site. Surface water runoff currently enters a natural depression at the southeast corner. of the property. CITY OF OROVIL'LE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY _ F LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 2 OF 12`PAGES i T Animal life within the site consists of' birds, rodents, reptiles, rabbits, and occasionally a coyote. 'The project site is within range of the Bald Eagle, and ' endangered species, but it is not likely that they would hunt in *this'area due in part, to air and ground traffic. Hawks hunt in the area -and a breeding pair of coyotes has been reported each spring. Vegetation consists of seasonal grasses and weeds. The greater Oroville Area has a• population of approximately 50,000 persons. The ' incorporated areas lists a population of 12,639. Oroville provides services to smaller population areas such as Thermalito, Palermo, Kelly -Ridge, Wyandotte, and Berry • Creek with upper division schools, medical, and commercial. .Oroville 'is the county seat for Butte County and all major county offices are located, within the City, Limits. . Employment ,is generally found within ,the fields of wood products, government + services, manufacturing, agriculture,'and tourism: The current city government is actively engaged in the improvement of the'business climate in an effort to attract F new employment opportunities. ,. a The Union Pacific Railroad provides, rail service and the Oroville Municipal Airport is an excellent noncarrier aviation facility. State Highway 70 connects Oroville to Sacramento to the south; Chico and Reno to the north. Interstate 5 is located' approximately 30 miles west of the site. Oro Dam Boulevard West (State Route 162) provides, access to the site. Public' services will be providedby the City of Oroville. The nearest fire station is located on Lincoln Street (4.4� miler , is manned 24 hours a day, and has a response time of , 8 minutes. The Oroville Police Department patrols this area and responds- call Utility services'are provided by Thermalito Irrigation District (domestic water),' Pacific Gas and Electric Company (power and 'gas), Pacific Telephone Company (telephone), Oroville Solid Waste Disposal- (garbage),, and the City of- Oroville'.. a (sewer). 01 z The project site is in ari area of very -low arch aeologicalsensitivity since it has been , subject to agricultural cultivation over the years. �1O�_­ Other Public Agencies Whose Approval` f'Required (i.e. permits, Ifinancing approval; or participation agreement): ' Encroachment permit from Cal -Trans, State Department of Housing and Community Development approval for the mobile home',*' ome.*a r - park, ,Re ional Water Quality Control Board Permit. r' , A LU C ,App oval :': CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 3 OF 12 PAGES ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Land Use and Planning Population/Housing x Geological Problems x Water x Air Quality x Transportation/Circulation x Biological Resources Energy/Mineral Resources x Hazards x Noise x 'Public Services x Utilities/Service Systems x Aesthetics Cultural Resources x -Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of ..this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. x I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND. INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 4 OF 12 PAGES on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant effect" or "potentially significant unless mitigated", an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze on the effect that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project. CITY OF OROVILLE 1 Gni` ��- Mar nn Imbio ki June 26, 1995 PI nning/Enterprise Zone Coordinator CITY OF OROVILLE ' j ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST•AND INITIAL STUDY ' LINKSIDE,PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 5 OF 12 PAGES ' 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. The Oroville General. Plan was amended in 1987 changing the land use designation on this site from Rural Residential to Low Density Urban Residential., A zone change from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - 5 Acres) to PD/R-1 (Planned Unit Development/Single Family Residential) was also approved by the City. The applicant failed to submit a final development plan within one (1) year of approval, therefore, the zoning remained AR -5. The project as.now proposed is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the current and proposed City of Oroville General Plan. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. - At -completion of this; project, approximately 600. - persons will reside -in�an area that is currently vacant: The project will be phased ' as the market demands, therefore, the impact on population will occur over. several years. ' i. Fpproxima� tely 240 single family units will occupy the site upon project completi . Since4the projects a.retirement community, not alltph*' of the housing marketa will'be.impacted. - ' 4 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. O`roville is located in Seismic Zone III+as,defined in the Uniform Building Code. There are four (4) active earthquake faults in Butte County that affect the Oroville•Area; the Cleveland Hills Fault, the Midland Sweitzer Fault,, J the San Andreas Fault (North Section), and the Russell Valley Fault. All these faults ' are considered active due to geologic, historic, and seismic'data. The only recently active fault in this area was the Cleveland Hills Fault which was , responsible for the earthquake in Oroville on August 1" 1975. This movement, apparently the result of crustal strain, developed.in the Foothill Shear Zone. The v f .Cleveland Hills Fault is located approximately 10 miles to the southeast of the ` project site, stretches north to northeast, and is _about 10 miles long. The 1975 ;. ..earthquake had a magnitude of 5:7 on the Richter Scale and centered in Palermo five (5).miles south of Oroville. The Foothill Shear Zone*is a potentially active fault that runs north through the , eastern foothill area. The effect of earthquakes•in the Oroville Area in addition to ground shaking, may result in landslides, liquefaction, differential settling, seiches, r, and dam safety. These situations are not unusual and no unique hazard exists. ,. Wind -and water, erosion could occur on a temporary basis during the various phases of construction, however, since the -project 'is -to be •constructed 'in phases •this. impacvshould be'minimal. - • !lip,.. ' CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 6 OF 12 PAGES MITIGATION: a. Structures shall meet the seismic safety..standards of the Uniform Building Code. b. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of wind exceeding 15 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour. C. Cover all disturbed soil surfaces with straw during periods of wet weather. d. Fugitive dust emissions related to construction activities must be controlled at all times by applying dust suppressants to exposed earth during clearing; ...-. - . grading, earth moving, and other site preparation work. i > 4. WATER. Compaction and overcovering of the soil with impermeable surfaces will result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. The. course of flood waters may be altered.' . MITIGATION: a. Install curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and underground drainage facilities. b. Off-site drainage improvements shall comply with the recommendations in the Thermalito Drainage Study. C. Install a water retention pond at the southeast corner of the project to receive storm water runoff. d. Applicant shall meet all applicable requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 5. AIR QUALITY. Air quality could be adversely affected during the construction of improvements. Upon completion of improvements, air quality could be reduced in this area due to increased traffic and discharge from home heating systems (wood burning.stoves, fireplaces, etc.). An air quality study should be performed to determine the total emissions from the proposed project and submitted to the Butte County Air Quality Management District. This study should determine the impact (both immediate and cumulative) the project will have on the air quality at the project location, and Butte County. Stationary, mobile, and indirect source emissions and control measures. CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 7 OF 12 PAGES Diesel emissions are suspected carcinogens and also increase the particulate load in the air, therefore, large off-road diesel equipment used for grading at the site should be maintained in good condition. MITIGATION: a. An Air Quality Study shall be performed per the requirements of the Butte County Air Quality Management District. b. If required, obtain a Permit to Construct from the Butte County Air Quality Management District. c. Fugitive dust emissions related to construction activities shall be controlled at all times by applying dust suppressants to exposed earth during clearing, grading, earth moving, and other site preparation work. d. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall .cease during periods of wind exceeding 15 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour. e. Provide a detailed landscaping plan for all open spaces for review and approval by the Parks and Trees Department and the Development Review Board. f.. The Butte County Air Quality Management District requests that all wood burning devices installed in any residence be EPA Phase II certified. g. The Butte County Air Quality Management District recommends low NOx waterheaters be installed in any residence built 'in the project area. Y h. Street design to maximize access to existing transit lines. i. Street design to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops. j. Site design to maximize bicycle access to and within the project. k. Install an electrical outlet at the front and back of all residential units for electrical yard equipment. 1. Synchronize traffic signals along streets impacted by the development. CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 8 OF 12 PAGES M. Orient building structures and install landscaping that takes advantage of passive solar design principles. o. Implement buffer zones between potential sensitive receptor's boundary and potential pollution sources. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. The construction' of 240+- single family housing units could generate as many as 2400 vehicle trips per day. This estimate is probably high due to the nature of the development and the ability of the residents to walk to the Table Mountain Golf Course. If the estimate is accurate, Oro Dam Boulevard West would not approach capacity. The peak -hour traffic count at the project- site would be 240 vehicles per hour with Oro Dam Boulevard West having a peak. capacity of 1300 vehicles per hour. The major hazard would be associated with ingress and egress onto ,Oro Dam Boulevard West. MITIGATION: a. All mobile home sites shall be served by interior roads. b. Ingress and egress to the site shall be limited to a joint entrance/exit driveway.. C. A dedication to Caltrans of right-of-way at least 50 feet from centerline of State Route 162 is required. d. Collect traffic impact fees to fund future improvements needed due to cumulative impacts from development. e. Install a left=turn channelization on State Route 162 as well as standard public road approach tapers and radii at the proposed primary main entrance. f. Obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any work conducted in the State right-of-way. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Construction on the site will result in the migration of rodents, reptiles, and ground. nesting birds to adjacent vacant lands. There will be no impact on animal life since this site is located about a mile northwest of a 5,000 acre wildlife area. A Wetlands Study done by a previous property owner shows two very_ small vernal pools on the property comprising 807 square feet of the 37.5 acre site. Because of AI - CITY• OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSI6E PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 9 OF 12 PAGES the total", acreage involved, loss of 807 square feet of vernal pools is considered "no - impact" on biological .resources. , In addition, the City :currently has a "wetlands a bank" consisting of two acres: This "bank" is the result of the recent improvements made at the, Oroville -Municipal Airport which caused the ,loss- of 3-1/2 acres of wetlands which were replaced by 5-1/2 acres of wetlands. Domestic pets will be introduced into the area•. ' • MITIGATION: ` a. - In addition to . the City Leash'• Law Frelative to domestic animals, the' restrictions set down by the Homeowners' Association will require control of I . < 'domestic animals and will"enforce those restrictions. ti 8. , ENERGY AND MINERAL. RESOURCES. ' -The .,proposal will "cause, increased consumption of petroleum products since' motor vehicles are the most likely means ` of transportation. Since the project site is only 3=1/2 miles from downtown,.. the increase is not considered "significant. r Materials used' in construction of ,.4 improvements will constitute a one-time commitment of natural resources. The proposal will result in increased consumption of electricity and natural gas. Services will have to be extended underground to provide service to individual lots. Quantities of energy will 'be consumed, 'but "this project will have a less -than - significant effect on the energy: consumed within the area, the County, or the State. MITIGATION: a:.. Construction shall meet the, requirements 'of the State of California b Department of Energy requirements. - b. See other mitigation measures•listed under "AIR". i 9. ` , HAZARDS. The site is located'near the .Oroville Municipal Airport but not under ` take -off or a'—'pproach path`s'? MITIGATION: } - None. j 10. NOISE. Area noise levels will `increase during construction of improvements. The +" increase will be: short-term in nature and should'not create problems .due to the location of the project. Long-term noise increases will result upon occupancy of the..' { • ,� r • •� a �, •� ,t f s. ." - . CITY OF OROVILLE- ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY r LINKSIDE TLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 10 OF 12 PAGES > residential units. Traffic noise will be the primary source but should not exceed' typical vels_foa -residential area. Changes in future' uses of the Oroville Municipal.Airport3may affect project residents: MITIGATION: f a. Construction activity shall be confined to the hours prescribed in the City'sf Noise Ordinance; 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through, Friday, rand 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays: b. Install noise buffers along the northYboundary of the project site i.e. berms; solid fence, dense landscaping, or a combination thereof. c. Park residents.shalhsfgn avigation easements: f ..., 11. PUBLIC SERVICES.; The Oroville Fire Department currently responds to incidents in this area. In addition, the Fire Department has, entered into a mutual aid, agreement with the California Division of Forestry (CDF). The Oroville Police Department'also currently patrols this area. No major problems are anticipated from development on this site since it is a controlled access retirement community. The project should have no -impact on area schools other than those offering adult ' classes. This site was selected because of its proximity to Table Mountain Golf Course: F Course play is well below capacity and regular use by project residents will provide funds to • improve the facilities. Impact on the City park 'system should be nonexistent. M.r - The impact on the Public Works Department should be minimal and relating only to Y sewer maintenance since the interior streets are private and will be maintained by the park. Inspection services will be required as the park develops but these costs will be -offset by inspection fees: The only other. department impacted by, this project"is.the Planning Department; here again, the impact is offset by fees collected for the . zone `change and use f permit applications. -• MITIGATION: As the City continues to grow and more projects, are proposed, �it will be necessary for the City to hire additional personnel to maintain an efficient level of service. j ^ • S � .ii ,` ie \I. 1'' I jr• 'fes N t.._J , • ° CITY OF OROVILLE A ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY. , LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS �. PAGE 11 OF 12 PAGES r 12: UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. The project site is currently, serviced,by all utilities and,capacity is available to provide service to the site. Certain utilities require, developer financed extensions .to provide service to individual parcels.,f Pacific Gas and Electric Company provides power and gas which are available in Oro Dam Boulevard West. Pacific Telephone' Comp any provides communication service. Therinalito Irrigation District has a 10" water main located near the entrance of the \ golf course and sufficient water supplies are available to rrieet*domestic water needs and fire' flow requirements. Sewage treatment 'is provided by the Sewerage Commission - Oroville Region ,(S.C.-O :R.)- and..has sufficient capacity. to provide service. - MITIGATION: r. ' Extend utilities -as necessary to. provide service. 13." AESTHETICS: , The project is subject to review, and approval F by the City, ° Development Review Board., New light and glare will, be- introduced in the,area through street and landscape lighting. JThenew sources, of light_and _g_lare could affect airport operations. • a. MITIGATION:.~ \ '`• _ • .. , ,; J ; .. 1. Installation of`low profile and sodium vapor street lighting directed on-site away from adjacent properties and,roadways will minimize any impact on ✓ adjacent properties. 2. Street light installation shall, meet, the requireof the Public Works . Department+ and Pacific . Gas and` ElectricCompany, to assure"that' street lighting does not interfere with airport ~op'erations: -14. CULTURAL -RESOURCES. The project site is in a very, low area of archeological sensitivity; having been the subject of agricultural cultivation over the years. No cultural resources are known to exist -on or'in the proximity of `tFie`project site. C There are, however, a number of identified archaeological sites within the Oroville area and the following general provision will apply_to this site. 1 ri A4 E Should any'artifacts or unusual amounts`'of store, bone, or shell be uncovered during construction_ activities,.all work shall cease immediately. A qualified f archaeologist, shall then be retained for immediate investigation of the site and the' proper handling of artifacts. If any bone found within the site +' i CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE' 12 OF 12 PAGES appears to be human, the Butte County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted under State Law. 15. RECREATION. This project will have little, if any affect, on existing recreational opportunities in the Oroville Area. Table Mountain Golf Course is currently under played and the fees paid by project residents will assist in maintenance of existing facilities and possible future expansion of the course. No mitigation measures for recreation are warranted at this time. CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: John and Linda Richards c/o Bert Garland Development Enterprises 2. Address and Telephone Number of Proponent: 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 781-8000 3. Project Description: Rezone of a 37.4+- acre parcel from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential) to MH -1 (Low Density Mobile Home) and a use permit application to establish a 240+- unit mobile home park. 4. Guide Prepared By: Planning Department B. ISSUES AND SUPPORT INFORMATION SOURCES 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? PSI PSUMI LTSI '� NI C. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI d. Affect agricultural resources or operations? PSI PSUMI LTSI '� NI e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY 'LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 2 OF 11 PAGES 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? PSI PSUMI y LTSI NI b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (i.e. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI C. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a.. Fault rupture? ✓ PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Seismic ground shaking? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI C. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? PSI PSUMI ✓ LTSI NI d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? PSI PSUMI .LTSI NI e. Landslides or mudflows? " PSI PSUMI LTSI NI f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 3 OF 11 PAGES /PSUMI NI PSI LTSI g. Subsidence of the land? . PSI PSUMI LTSI NI h. Expansive soils? ✓ PSI PSUMI LTSI NI i. Unique geologic or physical features? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI' b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? PSI PSUMI LTSI ✓ NI C. Discharge into surface.waters or other alteration of surface water quality-(i.e. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI d.. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? �. PSI PSUMI LTSI NI e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction water movements? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 4 OF 11 PAGES f. Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater. recharge capability? ✓ PSI PSUMI LTSI NI g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI h. Impacts to groundwater quality? PSI PSUMI LTSI ✓ NI i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ PSI PSUMI LTSI NI 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ✓ PSI PSUMI LTSI NI c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? / ✓ NI PSI PSUMI LTSI d. Create objectionable odors? t PSI PSUMI LTSI NI CITY OF OROVILLE + ' ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY'' PNKSIDE TUDY- LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 5 OF 11 PAGES 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increased vehicle'trips or traffic congestion? PSI ✓ PSUMI - ' LTSI NI . > b. • Hazards to safety, from design features (i.e. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (i.e. farm equipment)? f '. PSI ; PSUMI, LTSI ` NI ' c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? R PSI PSUMI' LTSI. ✓ NI d. Insufficient parking capacity ori or off-site? . , PSI PSUMI LTSIy' NI r . e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? PSI L PSUMI - r LTSI . NI •J.1- Conflicts with adopted policies supporting transportation t (i.e. bus ' - turnouts, bicycle racks)?, ' PSI- PSUMI LTSI �NI " g.l Rail, wat� e�rrborne,' or air.t affic-impacts?'=', PSI, PSUMI LTSI m' • 16 .Y. .7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, tli"reatened, or rare species, or their habitats (i.e. including•but not limited to plants, fish; insects, animals, and birds)? s A. PSI PSUMI LTSI . V`NI b. Locally designated species (i.e. heritage trees)? f CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 6 OF 11 PAGES PSI PSUMI LTSI ✓ NI C. Locally designated natural communities (i.e. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI d. Wetland habitat (i.e. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? PSI PSUMI LTSI /NI e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? PSI PSUMI LTSI / NI 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI C. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and residents of the State? PSI PSUMI LTSI /N I 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil,. pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? PSI PSUMI ✓ LTSI NI b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? PSI PSUMI LTSII N CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST°AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE,AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 7 OF, 11 PAGES °,-1 c. r The creation of any health' hazard or- potential health 'hazard? gee PSI PSUMI LTSINI t tt.-=E�xposu�reofpeople to existing ounce`s of, potential health hazards? PSI PSUMI A LTSI �/NI 41 , e: Increased fire hazard in areas'with flammable brush, grass, or trees?. r PSI PSUMI LTSI NI • r 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: t • - v a... Increases in existing noise levels? PSI r ° . PSUMI LTSI NI t b. Exposure to people to severe noise levels? . PSI f PSUMI..: LTSI �NI ,11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,- or result in a' need for new or altered governmental services in any of .the following areas, a. ,. Fire -protection? .. • _ PSI PSUMI t LTSI NI b• Police, protection? i- F ,.` PSI-,. ,PSUMI' l LTSI NI c. Schools? PSI PSUMI LTSI �' , NI d. Maintenance of public facilities including roads? PSI' PSUMI LTSI . , ,/ NI , CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 8 OF 11 PAGES e. Other governmental services? PSI PSUMI / LTSI NI . 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following facilities? a. Power or natural gas? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Communications systems? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI C. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI d. Sewer or septic tanks? PSI PSUMI LTSI NI 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? PSI PSUMI /NI LTSI b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? / PSI PSUMI LTSI NI rc.~!Create light and`glare?j 7PSUMI PSI LTSI NI 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? Y CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 9 OF 11 PAGES PSI PSUMI LTSI NI b. Disturb archaeological resources? PSI PSUMI LTSI* NI c. Affect historical resources? PSI PSUMI LTSI ✓ NI d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? PSI PSUMI LTSI ` NI e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? PSI PSUMI -LTSI �NI 15 RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks.or other recreational facilities? PSI PSUMI ✓ LTSI NI b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? Y PSI PSUMI LTSI. NI 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential 'to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a, fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, .threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a.rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of "the major periods of California history or prehistory? CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATION PAGE 10 OF 11 PAGES 17. PSI PSUMI LTSI ✓ NI b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? PSI PSUMI LTSI r/ NI C. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a' project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) PSI ✓ PSUMI LTSI NI d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PSI PSUMI LTSI V NI EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or. other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15062(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a. Earlier analyses.. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review... b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effect from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in . an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation. measures based on the earlier analysis. C. Mitigation measures. For effect that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated", describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or "refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. f/ CITY OF OROVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND INITIAL STUDY LINKSIDE PLACE REZONE AND USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS PAGE 11 OF 11 PAGES LEGEND: PSI (Potentially Significant Impact) PSUMI (Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated) LTSI (Less Than Significant Impact) Ni (No Impact) M Y d Mr. Papadakis said that on Page 7, Line 40, regarding his recommenation for a 50 CNEL, he had mentioned in that recommendation that he felt that this should be set to protect the airport environment similar to what environments are protected at sometimes great cost to the city, whereas here there is no cost in acquiring property to protect the environment -- it is there and it is just ALUC's legislative action that will protect that environment, and that he would like to have that included in the minutes. He had spoken longer that just one sentence before he recommended the 50 CNEL. He would like to have it reiterated that ALUC should look at protecting the Airport environment. His comments should be on the tape of the meeting. His comments were significant enough that they should be included in the minutes. Approval of the minutes was continued to the next meeting in order to include the comments of Alternate John Papadakis more fully regarding the 50 CNEL. V. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA John Papadakis mentioned a radio program in which Mr. Bob Linscheid of City of Chico Economic Development, spoke about future development west of the Chico Airport and holding the area east of Hicks Lane for industrial uses and the area west of Hicks Lane for residential uses. Mr. Papadakis was concerned that Mr: Linscheid is not aware of ALUC and he recommended that staff inform Mr. Linsheid's office of ALUC's role regarding land uses surrounding airports. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS A. City of Oroville Rezone #ZC96=01 (Linkside Place) on AP 030-260-021 and 026: - Mr. Lucas said that the project is going through a complete redesign. No action need to be taken because essentially the applicant has withdrawn the project. ALUC will review the project when it is resubmitted. It was agreed that although one acre parcels might be acceptable, there are many other factors involved in consideration of the project, and ALUC should not be involved with discussing the project until it is again submitted for consideration. Chairman Gerst noted that the project has been redesigned and will be resubmitted for consideration. B. Butte County Tentative Parcel Map #97-03 (Fedarko) on AP 047-250-147 and 150. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission September 18, 1996 2 . BU7C7CIE cC®�� A-IDE�POE T LAND �IE cCOMIMSSIOl� + • Department of Developmentservices • 7 CountyCenter Dnve, Oroville, CA 95965 • • TO: Lisa Purvis Wilson, Planning Manager, City of Oroville • FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner, Butte County ALUC DATE: September 18, 1996 RE: City of Oroville Rezone #ZC96-01 (Linkside Place) on APN 030-260-021 & 026. Dear Lisa, The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission staff has received the fetters faxed on September 4, 1996 indicating that the above mentioned project is presently being completely redesigned and. the applicants request for a continuation to the October meeting. This item was continued from the June 19, 1996 meeting to the September 18, 1996 meeting for a consistency determination based on previous project designs that are not being pursued. Staff has not received these redesigned plans and does not . have the information necessary to review any proposed project pursuant to Government Code Section 21675.2(c) and as such, a continuation of the project is not appropriate and no action can be taken. At . such time the completed redesigned project is available for review, please submit the information to ALUC for a consistency determination. Pleas .advise the applicant of this process. The ALUC appreciates the cooperative efforts of your department and staff is available for any further assistance at 538-7601. Sincerely, Stephen Lucas Associate Planner klaluc/sep18-96. mtgAinkside. ttr • Butte County. • Airport Land Use Commission • +BUT'J[[']E COAIIRPOIlg"II' ]LAIC lk6E COMMdSSION •Uepartmento eve opmentervices • 7 CountyCenter Drive, Moville, CA 95965 • • AGENDA ITEM - VI. A TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: September 9, 1996 ITEM: City of Oroville Rezone #ZC96-01 (Linkside Place) on APN 030-260-021A 026: A request for consistency findings for a Rezone to'change the land use and zoning designations on a 37.4 acre parcel from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential -5 acre min.) to SR/PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow a 150 unit mobile home park and clubhouse on a 37.4 acre parcel located on the south side of SR 162 adjacent to'the west side of Table Mountain Golf Course in the Oroville area. This item was continued from the July 19, 1996 meeting to allow for project modifications by the applicant. At this time staff does not have a complete application to review and no further action is required. FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of September 18, 1996. SUMMARY: The City of Oroville has been processing the above mentioned project in various forms over the past year and a half and the ALUC has reviewed this project in two different configurations over the past year. The first project was reviewed in July 1995 for a rezone and use permit to allow a 240 unit mobile home park on the property. The second configuration was reviewed in June 1996 for a rezone to allow a 150 unit mobile home park. Both projects were found to be inconsistent with, the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. At this time, the applicant has requested a continuation of the project to the October meeting. The City has informed staff that the applicant has discussed a complete redesign of the project configuration that envisions .5 acre residential parcels and a nine (9) hole extension of the golf course on the property. Staff has not received these plans and does not have the information necessary to review any proposed project pursuant to Government Code Section 21675.2© and as such, a continuation of the project is not appropriate and no action can be taken. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission direct staff to send a letter to the City of Oroville and the project applicant indicating that the ALUC does not have complete information on the proposed project to make a consistency determination. Attached: A: Letter from applicant B: Letter'from City of Oroville C: Letter to City of Oroville k:A LU C/sept 8-96. mtgAinkside. rpt • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • �-� FAX Cover Sheet City of Croville - Planning Department From: Lisa Purvis Wilson ,U00 To: Stephen Lucas Date: September 4, 1996 Re: Linkside Place The owner's agent for the proposed subdivision of Linkside- Place was in yesterday and submitted the attached letter. He is requesting a continuation of the ALUC meeting from September to October for his project. His explanation for the continuance is that the project is being readied for a complete redesign to'/a acre parcels with conventional homes and extending the golf course by 9. holes into and around the 37 acre project property. This goal appears to meet ALUC's requirements, but will of course, have to be reviewed. ( If I can be of any- assistance, please let.me know. _ 09,,04,'96 11: 14 $513426 -I TT OF (-)R(:)A'IL Z002 09•/03 ' 96 14-29. I D CGt'1(1� PC I N�� FAX'-. 916-7 020 Pi`GE 2 r TRI ACommercini Re01 Estate Sorvlces In 270 MONVS Wodd kvido Se{11G111�W' 3, 1996 ' Ms. Mary Ann Jmbiorski City of Orovillc 1735 Mwitgomery Street Oroville, CA 9$965 Dear Mary Ana: Plcase extend the Airport T,_and Use Committee hearing for Linkside Plue until the October Sincerely, Bert Garland . Owner's Agent r TRI (Anum-1 ii! At'.11 61a1C 1't•tvitrt • .304, k; DnuQlai 131vt1.• 5vin, 700 • R(huvilk, (A 45iih1 • M14) 741.(01j) • tq,t,lol�� ,7y1.UflJQ - 9K1(.i7MMF.KIJAL :TCACll1UAKitK1; � V l'1lAN(lSC.0 - � ' +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION+- • Department of Development Services • 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 TO: Alan Campbell, City of Oroville, Director of Public Works Lisa Purvis Wilson, City of Oroville, Planning Manager FROM: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner ALUC DATE: July 31, 1995 SUBJECT: Butte County Airport Land Use Commission findings of denial for the proposed Rezone (ZC 95-01) of a 37.4 acre parcel (APN 030-260-021 & 26) located on the south side of SR 162 and adjacent to the west side of the Table Mountain Golf Course from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential -5 acre min.) to MH -1 (Low Density Mobile Home Park) and a Use Permit (UP 95- 16) to allow a 240+ unit mobile home park on the same property. ABSTRACT: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission considered the above described project at its regular meeting on July 19,1995. The Commission voted unanimously to deny the project as proposed and directed staff to notify the City of Oroville of the findings. _ The general consensus of the Commission is that the proposed rezone and use permit are inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and the draft Oroville General Plan as approved by the ALUC. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the proposed project is not in the public interest in that it does not provide for the orderly development of the airport environs and is not in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the flying public or those people on the ground. DISCUSSION: The authority of the ALUC is derived from the statutes set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose for creating the ALUC is stated in Section 21670(a) which states; ft is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and 2. It is the purpose of this article to protect the health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public use airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. To meet these goals the ALUC was given the powers and duties outlined in Section 21674 to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports and to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The ALUC has many tools to utilize for the implementation of these powers and duties when reviewing projects in the vicinity of airports which include the individual airport comprehensive land use plans (CLUP), the general plan of the local jurisdiction, and the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH) developed by the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. OROVILLE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN The comprehensive land use plan developed for the Oroville Municipal Airport is designed to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general for a period of at least twenty years. The Oroville Airport Land Use Plan (OALUP) was adopted in 1985 and due to the expansion of the airport, the adoption of a new Master Plan in 1990, and the rapid growth of the Oroville area, the plan is now in need of a comprehensive update to ensure the future viability of the airport. The ALUC has determined that the proposed project is not consistent with the goals of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that the density of the project is too great. • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission AIRPORT LAND USE PLANNING HANDBOOK The residential density issue is also raised in Chapter 9 of the ALUPH which indicates that residential development in Traffic Pattern Zones (the equivalent to the Overflight Zone) is acceptable from a safety perspective if less than 4-6 units per acre and units are clustered to allow for more open space in the event of an emergency landing scenario. The ALUPH recommends that developments in the Traffic Pattern Zone provide 10% to 15% usable open space. OROVILLE GENERAL PLAN The ALUC has recently reviewed (3/15/95) the Oroville draft General Plan (OGP) for consistency with the OALUP. The finding of consistency was based on the policies presented in the OGP, policies that offered airport protection while maintaining the economic viability of the surrounding business park. The OGP Land Use Element designated these parcels as Medium Density Residential with densities.of 2-6 units per acre. The proposed project exceeds this density and this -parcel should realistically be viewed at the lower end of this density range considering the proximity to the airport and the desire of the City to protect its economic interest. Objective 5.50b in the OGP Circulation Element, Section 5.50, Orovillve Municipal Airport, states the City should: "Protect the Airport's ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airport impact area" and Policy 5.50c states the City should: "Protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit schools and other uses resulting in large concentrations of people. " Furthermore, with respect to the Overflight Zone, the Circulation Element clearly states that: "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings." This density concentration issue is critical considering the National Transportation Safety Board indicates 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. The OGP also states that: 'there is no reason to add housing near the airport when there are alternative locations 'in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not generate pressure for limiting airport use. " It is clear from this statement, that the draft OGP has taken steps to protect the airport and it for these reasons the Plan was approved by the ALUC in March. However, this proposal for a 240+ unit mobile home park does not meet the intent of the OGP or the desires of the ALUC. The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Oroville (local agency) when making a decision on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved, the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the Initial Study prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items. Item B6g indicates that the project will not result in any air traffic impacts without any discussion as to how this decision was arrived at. The ALUC finds that a 240+ -unit mobile home park with an estimated 600 residents within the Overflight Zone and 3200 ft. from the runway will ultimately have the potential to restrict the use and potential growth of the airport because the project may: , , a. Create an increase in airport related noise and operations complaints; and • Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission e 2 b. Act as a growth inducing magnet that may encourage other land owners to propose high density uses on parcels in the Overflight Zone. 2. Item 69d indicates the project will not result in the exposure of people to health hazards because the project is not under take -off or approach paths. The ALUC finds that: a. The project site is located under existing traffic patterns for left hand, downwind approaches to runway 30 & 01 for flights arriving from the north and for missed approaches on runway 30 and 01. Although these approaches are not the primary traffic patterns, they are utilized and have the potential to impact the project site with both noise and safety concerns; and b. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook indicates that the most serious accidents, in terms of risks to people on the ground as well as to the aircraft occupants, are those in which the pilot, among other variables, is unable to select a reasonable forced landing spot because of the nonexistence of such a spot. A large concentration of people located in the Overflight Zone poses a threat to residents on the ground from accidents as well as passengers on the plane that may not be able to avoid a concentration of buildings on the ground in the event of a crash landing. The National Transportation Safety Board indicates that 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. Reducing the density of the project, clustering the dwellings, and installing all infrastructure underground would be necessary to improve the safety of all persons. 3. Item 10b indicates that changes in future uses at the Oroville Municipal Airport may affect project residents, but this is not considered an impact because project residents will sign avigation easements. The ALUC finds that: a. The impacts of noise on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying aircraft that will fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large concentrations of people in the overflight zones. 4. Item 613c indicates that new light and glare will be introduced in the area and that these new sources of light and glare could affect airport operations. To mitigate this concern it is proposed that street light installation shall meet the requirements of the Oroville Public Works Department and Pacific Gas & Electric to assure that lighting does not interfere with airport operations. The ALUC finds that: This mitigation measure is insufficient as these two agencies are not experts in airport related lighting issues. All lighting requirements should be at the direction of the Caltrans Aeronautics Program, FAA, or other professional airport planning consultants. Section 2: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the proposed project is inconsistent with the following items and advises the City of Oroville to deny the project as being incompatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Oroville Municipal Airport. The project is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that: a. The project does not meet the OALUP's stated objective in Chapter One of promoting the orderly development of the Oroville Airport and the area surrounding the airport in a manner which safeguards the general welfare of the inhabitants in such areas, assuring the safety of air navigation, and maintaining the utility of the airport, and b. The project is a retirement community that will be predominately occupied by seniors. The OALUP specifically states in Chapter One that certain land uses are not compatible with airport activity such as "any uses which create concentrations of people in the airport area of influence,. particularly the young, elderly or infirmed." The ALUC finds that a retirement community/mobile home park is. inconsistent with this statement; and • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • - 3 M I -J C. The project density is found to be inconsistent with Exhibit 2 of the OALUP which indicates that mobile home parks are permitted in the Overflight Zone subject to ALUC review if they result in large concentrations of people or more than 4 units per acre. The OALUP density standard has been historically interpreted by the ALUC to mean a density of 4 units per acre is the maximum acceptable standard. 2. The project is inconsistent with Oroville Airport Master Plan adopted in 1990 in that: a. The Master Plan recommends in Section III, B, 2 that the current AR -5 zoning be maintained for a distance of 4000 ft from either side of runway 1-19 and that within this area, uses be restricted to those resulting in low concentrations of people, such as industrial, commercial, recreation, open space, and low density residential. The proposed project will create unnecessary large concentration of people at the proposed density. 3. The project is inconsistent with the ALUC approved draft Oroville General Plan in that: a. The project area is designated as Medium Density Residential with a range of 2-6 units per acre. The project exceeds this density standard; and b. The project is inconsistent with Objectives 5.50b &c in the Circulation Element that state that the City should "protect the Airport's ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airportimpact area" and the City should protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit uses r+esu/ting in large concentrations of people." The ALUC finds that the project does not meet either of these objectives and does not consider spot zoning a parcel to be infill as described in 5.50c; and C. The project will have the potential to create safety concerns and nuisance complaints from residents as predicted in the Circulation Element which states that the Overflight Zone "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason to for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings;" and d. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element statement that "there is no reason to add housing near the airport when there are alternative locations in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not'generate pressure for limiting airport use." 4. The ALUC finds the project to be inconsistent with the guidelines established in the Caltrans Aeronautics Program Airport Land Use Planning Handbook in that: a. The project exceeds the recommendations in Chapter 9 which indicate that a 4-6 units per acre standard for residential development in the Overflight Zone be maintained; b. The units should be clustered in order to provide the maximum amount of open space in case of an emergency landing scenario; and C. The project should provide 10% to 15% of usable open space for emergency landings. 5. Find that an emergency action plan that addresses potential evacuation of 600+ residents and fire control procedures in the event of an accident scenario was not prepared. 6. Find that a thorough project description was not prepared or submitted to ALUC for review and comment prior to the environmental documents being prepared. 7. Find that a current noise study was not conducted to determine the present levels of both community noise equivalency levels or single event noise levels that would be found at the project site. This lack of noise level information forces the approving authority to speculate as to the actual noise impact related to this project. - K:laluc\oromhp.fin • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • El ... +1LD lJ A d E COUNTY ll LSJLll4.PORd llaLgNAi' 'l/sIt COMMASSllON+ • Department of Development Services 0 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • (916) 538-7601 FAX (916) 538-7785 • AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner BY: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: June 27,1995 k REQUEST: City of Oroville Rezone of a�374 acre parcel (APN 030-260-21 & 26) located south of SR 162 and adjacent to the west side of Table. ountain golf course from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential -5 ac. min.) to MH -1 (Low Density Mobile Home Park) and a Use Permit to allow 240+ unit mobile home park on the same property.! • i RELATED ITEMS: None FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of July 19, 1995 it ABSTRACT: The City of Oroville is processing an application for a rezone and a use permit to allow a 240+ unit mobile home park on a 37.4 acre parcel located approximately 3000 feet northwest of the Oroville Municipal Airport primary runway. The project site is within the Oroville Airport Planning Boundary and more specifically, in the Overflight Zone of the airport and is subject to ALUC review. Staff recommends a reduction in density and the inclusion of airport protection conditions. OROVILLE AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN (OALUP) The proposed project is within Overflight Zone of the airport as indicated on the planning area map in the ALUP. This project proposes 6+ units per acre which exceeds the above standard. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (ALUPH) equivalent'to the OALUP Overflight Zone is the Traffic Pattern Zone, which the ALUPH'indicates is acceptable for residential development at densities of 4-6 units per acre. The ALUPH does recommend that units should be clustered in order to provide the maximum amount of open space in case of an emergency landing scenario. This project is the first large scale, high density development proposed on the western edge of the airport, an area that is open land and zoned by the County for 5 and 10 acre lots. Approval of this project may have the effect of encouraging other land owners to seek rezones to allow greater densities which may have the long term effect of . encircling the airport with residential uses such as the case with the Chico Municipal Airport. The ALUC may wish to oppose the rezone or recommend a decrease in density on the site and the clustering of the units. OROVILLE GENERAL PLAN (OGP) The ALUC has recently reviewed (3/15/95) the Oroville draft General Plan for consistency with the OALUP. The finding of consistency was based on the policies presented in the OGP, policies that offered airport protection while maintaining the economic viability of the surrounding business park. The OGP designated these parcels as Medium Density Residential with densities of 2-6 units per acre. The proposed project exceeds this density and these parcels should realistically be viewed at the lower end of this density range. Objective 5.50b in the OGP Circulation Element, Section 5.50, Oroville Municipal Airport, states the City should "Protect the Airports ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airport impact area" and Policy 5.50c says the City should 'Protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit schools and other uses resulting in large concentrations of people." Furthermore, the Circulation Element clearly states that the Overflight Zone "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings." This density concentration issue is critical considering the National Transportation Safety Board indicates 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. 0 Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission 0 The OGP states that "there is no reason to add housing near the airport when there are alternative locations in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not generate pressure for limiting airport use:' It is clear from this statement, that the draft OGP has taken steps to protect the airport and it for these reasons the Plan was approved by the ALUC in March. However, this proposal for a 240+ unit mobile home park does not meet the intent of the OGP or the desires of the ALUC and should not be'approved as submitted. Environmental Review The City has prepared an Initial Study and recommends that Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures be adopted. The Initial Study checklist fails to list the ALUC as an approving agency nor did the City contact the ALUC for comments during the project review period. The Initial Study itself fails to address the potential impacts to the airport in the following areas: (bolded type is ALUC staff response) Question B6g: Would the proposal result in rail, water, or air traffic impacts? Response: No impact. A 240+ unit mobile home park with an estimated 600 residents within the.Overflight Zone and 3200 ft. from the runway has the potential to create both an increase in airport related complaints/lawsuits and act as growth inducing magnet that may encourage other land owners' topropose high density uses on parcels in the Overflight Zone. Question 69d: Will the proposal result in the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Response: The site is located near the Oroville Municipal Airport, but not under take -off or approach paths. No impact. A large concentration of people located in the Overflight Zone poses a threat to residents on the ground from accidents as well as passengers on the plane that may not be able to avoid a concentration of buildings on the ground in the event of crash landing. Clustering of dwellings should occur to allow for maximum open space in the event of a crash landing. Question B10b:,Will the proposal result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels? Answer: Changes in future uses of the Oroville Municipal Airport may affect project residents. No impact. Response: Park residents shall sign avigation easements. The signing of avigation/overflight easements is not always a permanent protection from noise related complaints. Avigation easements have been successfully challenged in courts and airports have been required to alter operations. Question B1 3c: Would the proposal create light and glare? Response: New light and glare will be introduced in the area through street and landscape lighting. The new sources of light and glare could affect airport operations. Mitigation: Street light installation shall meet the requirements of the Public Works Department and Pacific Gas & Electric Company to assure that street lighting does not interfere with airport operations. This response is adequate, however, airport operations questions should be referred to aviation consultants with the Caltrans Aeronautics Program. The responses included in the Initial Study failed to fully recognize the potential health hazards of living in an overflight zone as described by the Division of Aeronautics, the OALUP, the OGP and the National Transportation Safety Board. Additionally, the proposed project cannot be fully reviewed for environmental impacts at this time because staff has not received a detailed site plan for the mobile home park. Staff recommends that additional information be provided and that answers to critical questions be expanded. Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission 0 This proposed rezone from one unit per 5 acres (AR -5) to six units per acre (MH -1) and a use permit to allow 240+ mobile homes has.several areas of concern that are not addressed by City of Oroville staff. The concerns are: 1. The project density is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that the OALUP sets a maximum density of 4 units per acre; and 2. The proposed use is inconsistent with the draft Oroville General Plan in that airport protection policies in the plan relating to appropriate uses and densities are not followed; and 3. The Initial Study does not provide a complete project description and offers incomplete responses and requires additional information for a full analysis; and 4. The proposed rezone is a "spot zone" and has growth inducing effects that are not addressed by the City of Oroville.. RECOMMENDATION: There are two possible recommendations the ALUC can forward to the Oroville Planning Commission; 1. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the rezone and mobile home park use permit are inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and.the draft Oroville General Plan as approved by the ALUC and the proposed land use is not in the public interest in that it does not provide for the orderly development of the airport environs and is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the flying public or those people on the ground. 2. The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the proposed rezone and mobile home park use permit are inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and the draft Oroville General Plan as submitted. Additional information and project modifications are necessary in order for the Butte County Airport Commission to make a recommendation for approval or denial. The following conditions are required for an approval recommendation. 2a. - Provide a thorough project description and prepare more thorough responses in the Initial Study that fully address ALL potential health and safety concerns related to the project. 2b. A detailed site plan shall be submitted that shows densities of less than 4 units per.acre and utilizes a clustered development configuration that allows for maximum open space in the event of emergency landings. 2c. Provide an emergency action plan that addresses potential evacuation of 600+ residents and fire control procedures in the event of an accident scenario. 2d. Provide a noise study that reflects the current airport traffic patterns and frequencies of flights. 2e. Provide conditions to utilize sound proofing in all new residential development within the Overflight Zone. } 0 Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission 0 +BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION + •Department of Development Services • 7 Countyenter Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 • • AGENDA ITEM-VI.B TO: Honorable Chair and Airport Land Use Commission FROM: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner BY: Stephen Lucas, Associate Planner DATE: June 6,1996 REQUEST: Review for consistency findings and comments the City of Oroville Linkside Place development located south of SR 162 and adjacent to the west side of Table Mountain Golf Course. The applicant desires to rezone the 37.4 acre parcel (APN 030-260-021 & 026) from AR -0 (Agricultural Residential -0 ac. min.) to SR/PUD to allow 150 unit mobile home park and clubhouse. RELATED ITEMS: None FOR: Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of June 19, 1996 SUMMARY: The City of Oroville is considering an application for a rezone to allow a 150 unit mobile home park on a 37.4 acre parcel located approximately 3000 feet northwest of the Oroville Municipal Airport primary runway. The project is primarily intended to provide housing and recreational opportunities for persons of retirement age and will result in a density of 4 units per acre and provides approximately 15 acres (40%) of open space. The project will have a single access point to SR 162. The project site is within the Oroville Airport Planning Boundary and more specifically, in the Overflight Zone of the airport and is subject to ALUC review. This project was reviewed by the ALUC in July 1995 at which time the project was proposed for 240 units. At that time the ALUC found the project to be inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan and the Oroville General Plan as approved by ALUC. The Commission also determined the project was not in the public interest in that it did not provide for the orderly development of the airport environs and was not in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the flying public or those persons on the ground. ANALYSIS: In general, the authority of ALUC is derived from the statutes set forth in Chapter 4, Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 21670) of. the State Aeronautics Act (Division 9, Part 1 of the California Public Utilities Code). The California state legislature's purpose for creating the ALUC is stated in Section 21670(a) which states; 1. Itis in the public -interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state -and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems; and 2. itis the purpose of this article to protect the health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public use airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses. To meet these goals the ALUC was given the powers and duties outlined in Section 21674 to assist local agencies in ensuring compatible land uses in the vicinity of existing airports and to coordinate planning at the state, regional, and local levels so as to provide for the orderly development of air transportation, while at the same time protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. This project has been reviewed by staff for consistency with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan, the Oroville General Plan, the Oroville Airport Master Plan, and the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Staff also reviewed the environmental documents and other relevant information available on the project. These items are analyzed below and are the basis for the findings in Exhibit A. • Butte County* Airport Land Use Commission • Oroville Airport Land Use Plan (OALUP) The airport land use plan developed for the Oroville Municipal Airport is designed to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general. The Oroville Airport Land Use Plan (OALUP) was adopted in 1985 and due to the expansion of the airport, the adoption of a new Master Plan in 1990, and the growth of the Oroville area, the plan is now in need of a comprehensive update to ensure the future viability of the airport. The proposed project is within Overflight Zone of the airport as indicated on the planning area map in the OALUP. The OALUP Land Use Guidelines found on page 14 indicate that mobile home parks or courts are permitted in the Overflight Zone with ALUC review. The parameters for ALUC review are -based -on the'density of the project. In the Overflight Zone, the density trigger is 4 units or more per acre for residential uses. This project proposes 4 units per acre which is equal to the above standard. However, the project is in conflict with the OALUP's stated objective in Chapter One of "promoting the orderly development of the Oroville Airport and the area surrounding the airport in a manner which safeguards the general welfare of the inhabitants in such areas, assuring the safety of air navigation, and maintaining the utility of the airport." Furthermore, the OALUP specifically states in Chapter One that certain land uses are not compatible with airport activity such as "any uses which create concentrations of people in the airport area of influence, particularly the. young, elderly, or. in firmed." This project is not consistent with these goals/objectives.in that the proposed use is in an area subject to overflight of aircraft and is intended to be a retirement community. The retired residents will be exposed to an identified safety risk and are more likely to be home during the day exposing these residents to more frequent noise exposure which may result in increased noise complaints. This situation does not promote the orderly development of the airport environs. Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook The residential density issue is also raised in Chapter 9 of the ALUPH which indicates that residential development in Traffic Pattern Zones (the equivalent to the Overflight Zone) is acceptable from a safety perspective if less than 4-6 units per acre and units are clustered to allow for more open space in the event of an emergency landing scenario. The ALUPH recommends that developments in the Traffic Pattern Zone provide 10% to 15% usable open space. This project appears to meet these minimum standards. Oroville General Plan (OGP) The ALUC has recently reviewed (3/15/95) the Oroville General Plan for consistency with the OALUP. The finding of consistency was based on the policies presented in the OGP, policies that offered airport protection while maintaining the economic viability of the surrounding business park. The OGP designated these parcels as Medium Density Residential with densities of 2-6 units per acre. The proposed project is within this density range, but considering the proximity of the site to the airport, should be realistically reviewed at the. lower end of this range. Objective 5.50b in the OGP Circulation Element, Section 5.50, Oroville Municipal Airport, states the City should "Protect the Airport's ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airport impact area" and Policy 5.50c says the City should "Protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit schools and other uses resulting in large concentrations of people." Furthermore, the Circulation Element clearly states that the Overflight Zone "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings." This density concentration issue is critical considering the National Transportation Safety Board indicates 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. The OGP states that 'there is no reason to adU housing near the airport when there are alternative locations in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not generate pressure for limiting airport use." It is clear from this statement, that the draft OGP has taken steps to protect the airport and it for these reasons the Plan was approved by the ALUC in March. However, this proposal for a 150 unit mobile home park does not meet the intent of the OGP. • Butte County Airport Land Use Commission • 04 Oroville Airport Master Plan The Master Plan recommends in Section III, B,2, that the current AR -5 zoning be maintained for a distance of 4000 ft. from either side of runway 1-19 and that within this area, uses be restricted to those resulting in low concentrations of people, such as industrial, commercial, recreation, open space, and low density residential. This project is within 3200 feet of the runway and is not within the Low Density Residential range of .2 to 2 units per acre. Environmental Review The City has prepared an Initial Study and recommends that Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures be adopted. The Initial Study does not address the potential impacts to the airport in the following areas: (bolded type is ALUC staff response) Question 1 b: Would the proposal conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Response: No Impact. The project is within the Planning Boundary of the Oroville Airport and is subject to ALUC review for consistency findings and comments related to State Aeronautics Law and the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. This responsible agency participation is not discussed. Question 1c: Would the proposal be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Response: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There is no discussion of how this medium density project is compatible with rural residential five and ten acre zoning on parcels to the north, west and south. Will the project create impacts not customarily associated with large lot rural residential uses such as increased traffic, noise, lighting, etc.? Question 6g: Would the proposal result in rail, water, or air traffic impacts? Response: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The response indicated an impact to air traffic, but there is no discussion in the response as to what the airport related impacts are or how this impact is mitigated. A 150 unit mobile home park with an estimated 300 residents within the Overflight Zone and 3200 ft. from the runway has the potential to create both an increase in airport related complaints/lawsuits and act as growth inducing magnet that may encourage other land owners to propose high density uses on parcels in the Overflight Zone. Question 9d: Will the proposal involve the exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Response: Less Than Significant Impact. A large concentration of people located in the Overflight Zone poses a threat to residents on the ground from accidents as well as passengers on the plane that may not be able to avoid a concentration of buildings on the ground in the event of crash landing. A reduction in project density and the clustering of dwellings should occur to allow for maximum open space in the event of a crash landing. The Initial Study does indicate avigation easements shall be signed by each parcel owner before building permits are issued. This mitigation should be required of the current property owner so that perspective parcel buyers will be informed of the avigation easement and be forewarned of the potential danger. However, the signing of avigation/overflight easements is not always a permanent protection from safety and noise related complaints. Avigation easements have been successfully challenged in courts and airports have been required to alter operations. The responses included in the Initial Study do not fully recognize the potential health hazards of living in an overflight zone as described by the Division of Aeronautics, the OALUP, the OGP and the National Transportation Safety Board. • Butte County* Airport Land Use Commission • Conclusion This project is the first large scale, medium density development proposed on the western edge of the airport, an area that is open land and zoned by the County for 5 and 10 acre lots. Approval of this project may have the effect of encouraging other land owners to seek rezones to allow greater densities which may have the long term effect of impacting the airport with residential uses such as the case with the Chico Municipal Airport. This project consisting of a rezone from one unit per 5 acres (AR -5) to four units per acre (SR/PUD) and the development of a 150 unit mobile home park has several areas of concern to airport protection policies. These concerns are: The project is inconsistent with the draft Oroville General Plan in that airport protection policies in the plan relating to appropriate uses and densities are not followed; and 2. The Initial Study does not fully recognize or discuss the potential impacts associated with development in the Overflight Zone of the Oroville Airport; and 3. The project is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Master Plan in that the density exceeds the Low Density Residential designation recommended in the Master Plan; and 4. The proposed rezone is a "spot zone" and has growth inducing effects that are not addressed by the City of Oroville and may have an unknown impact on airport use and development. RECOMMENDATION: The Butte County Airport Land Use Commission finds that the Linkside Place project is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan, the Oroville Airport Master Plan, the Oroville General Plan and that the Initial Study does not fully address airport related safety impacts and the proposed land use is not in the public interest in that it does not provide for the orderly development of the airport environs and is not in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the flying public or those people on the ground as indicated in the .findings in attached Exhibit "A". Attached: A: Findings B: Initial Study C: Location Map •Butte County* Airport Land Use Commission • 4 EXHIBIT A BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDINGS FOR LINKSIDE PLACE The following findings have been prepared at the direction of the ALUC and are for the consideration of the City of Oroville (local agency) when making a decision on this project. If the City decides to not follow the direction of the ALUC and allow a project to be approved, the City may override the ALUC decision with a 2/3 vote of the City Council if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the State Aeronautics Act as stated in Section 21670. As detailed in the ALUPH, overriding findings cannot be adopted merely as matters of opinion, but instead must be supported by substantial evidence. Section 1: ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS A. Find that the Initial Study prepared for the project is inadequate in that it does not fully address the potential impacts of the project in the following items. 1. Item 1 b indicates that the project will not conflict with applicable policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project without any discussion of the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan. 2. Item 1 c indicates the projectwould result in potentially significant impacts to surrounding land uses unless mitigations are incorporated into the project. The ALUC finds that there is no discussion of how this medium density project is compatible with rural residential five and ten acre zoning on parcels to the north, west and south. ALUC finds that the project may create impacts not customarily associated with large lot rural residential uses such as increased traffic, noise, and lighting. 3. Item 6g indicates there would be a potentially significant impact to air traffic unless mitigations are incorporated. There is no discussion in the response as to what the airport related impacts are or how this impact is mitigated. The ALUC finds that a 150 unit mobile home park with an estimated 300 residents within the Overflight Zone and 3200 ft. from the runway will ultimately have the potential to restrict the use and potential growth of the airport because the project may: Create an increase in airport related noise and operations complaints; and b. Act as a growth inducing magnet that may encourage other land owners to propose high density uses on parcels in the Overflight Zone adjacent to the project. 4. Item 9d indicates the project will have a less than significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to health hazards because avigation easements will be recorded for each parcel prior to issuance of building permits. The ALUC finds that: a. The project site is located under existing traffic patterns for left hand, downwind approaches to runway 30 & 01 for flights arriving from the north and for missed approaches on runway 30 and 01. Although these approaches are not the primary traffic patterns, they are utilized and have the potential to impact the project site with both noise and safety concerns; and b. The Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook indicates that the most serious accidents, in terms of risks to people on the ground as well as to the aircraft occupants, are those in which the pilot, among other variables, is unable to select a reasonable forced landing spot because of the nonexistence of such a spot. A large concentration of people located in the Overflight Zone poses a threat to residents on the ground from accidents as well as passengers on the plane that may not be able to avoid a concentration of buildings on the ground in the event of a crash landing. The National Transportation Safety Board indicates that 22% of all serious or fatal accidents occur within one mile of an airport. Reducing the density of the project, clustering the dwellings, and installing all infrastructure underground would be necessary to improve the safety of all persons; and • Butte County a Airport Land Use Commission • C. The impacts of noise and safety on project residents will not simply vanish by the signing of avigation easements. The residents will be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise levels from low flying aircraft that will fly directly overhead of residential areas. Avigation easements are not an absolute assurance that airport operations will not be impacted. Easements have been successfully challenged in a court and resulted in the obstruction of airport operations. The only manner to ensure airport viability is to not place large concentrations of people in the overflight zones. Avigation easements, if utilized, should be signed by the existing property owner to ensure that all new residents are aware of the airport impacts associated with the parcel they may purchase. Section 2: PROJECT FINDINGS A. The ALUC finds the project is inconsistent with the following.items and advises the City of Oroville to deny the project as being incompatible with the viable, responsible operation of the Oroville Municipal Airport. The project is inconsistent with the Oroville Airport Land Use Plan in that: a. The project does not meet the OALUP's stated objective in Chapter One of promoting the orderly development of the Oroville Airport and the area surrounding the airport in a manner, which safeguards the general welfare of the inhabitants in such areas, assuring the safety of air navigation, and maintaining the utility of the airport and b. The project is a retirement community that will be predominately occupied by seniors. The OALUP specifically states in Chapter One that certain land uses are not compatible with airport activity such as "any uses which create concentrations of people in the airport area of influence, particularly the young, elderly or infinned."The ALUC finds that a retirement community/mobile .home park is inconsistent with this statement; and 2. . The project is inconsistent with Oroville Airport Master Plan adopted in 1990 in that: a: The Master Plan recommends in Section III, B, 2 that the currentAR-5 zoning be maintained for a distance of 4000 ft from either side of runway 1-19 and that within this area, uses be restricted to those resulting in low concentrations of people, such as industrial, commercial, recreation, open space, and low density residential The proposed project will create unnecessary large concentration of people at the proposed density. 3. The project is inconsistent with the ALUC approved Oroville General Plan in that: a. The project is inconsistent with Objectives 5.50b &c in the Circulation Element that state that the City should "protect the Airport's ability to provide service within the community by ensuring compatible development within the airport impact area" and the City should `protect the Overflight Zone by limiting new housing to infill, and at a density not to exceed four units per gross acre, and prohibit uses resulting in large concentrations of people." The ALUC finds that the project does not meet either of these objectives and does not consider spot zoning a parcel to be infill as described in 5.50c; and b. The project will have the potential to create safety concerns and nuisance complaints from residents as predicted in the Circulation Element which states that the Overflight Zone "is an area in which low altitude flights cause noise complaints. Safety is another reason to for limiting residential density and concentrations of people. Low intensity development increases opportunities for emergency landings that do not hit buildings; ' and • Butte County • Airport Land Use Commission • D C. The project is inconsistent with the Circulation Element statement that `there is no reason to add housing near the airport when there are alternative locations in the Planning Area that can provide a superior environment and where development would not generate pressure for limiting airport use." 4. Find that an emergency action plan that addresses potential evacuation of 300+ retirement age residents and fire control procedures in the event of an accident scenario was not prepared. 5. Find that a current noise study was not conducted to determine the present levels of both community noise equivalency levels or single event noise levels that would be found at the project site. This lack of noise level information forces the approving authority to speculate as to the actual noise impact related to this project. Klalucyun l 9.96Vink.rpt • Butte County• Airport Land Use Commission • Ratte ount PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916) 538-7785 June 6,. 1996 Lisa Purvis Wilson City of Oroville 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897 RE: Linkside Place development project on APN 030-260-021 & 026. Dear Lisa, We have received your request for comments and the Initial Study for the above referenced project and offer the following observations: 1. This property is located in an area that is predominantly in the County. This development will establish densities on the west side of the Oroville Airport that are inconsistent with the existing County zoning of AR -5, AR -10 and A-40. These zoning classifications are designed for rural residential uses utilizing 5, 10 and 40 acre parcels. This project may result in additional pressure to develop adjacent lands with similar densities. The Initial Study does not fully discuss this inconsistency issue under -the Land Use Section. 2. Property owners adjacent to this site have anticipated rural residential development in the area, how will this high density residential PUD be compatible with adjacent residential uses? Will any buffering of the site be incorporated into the project design to reduce any incompatibilities? 3. Will this project require sewer service to be extended -to the site, if so, what will the availability of sewer service to other parcels in the immediate area? Have growth inducing impacts been analyzed? 4. The project site. is also within the Overflight Zone of the Oroville Airport which would require ALUC review and possible recommendations as to the consistency of the project with the existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the airport. The Initial Study in Section 6 does not fully discuss the potential impacts to the airport which serves the greater County -area. The County General Plan calls for preserving the rural character of the area and in encouraging urban density development to occur within the established urban areas of the cities. This project does not conform to these goals and therefore County staff cannot support it as it is presented. Si cere , illiam Farrel, Director Department of Development Services ; DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (916) 538-2430 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Oroville Planning Commission will consider the adoption of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact associated with a planned unit development plan to establish a planned single family residential community consisting of a maximum of 150 units and club house facilities and a subsequent zone change from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - Five Acres) to PD/SR (Planned Unit Development/Suburban Residential - 10,000 Square Feet). REVIEW PERIOD June 6 through July 5, 1996 MEETING DATE/TIME/PLACE July 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located on the south side of Oro Dam Boulevard West, 6,600 feet west of the Larkin Road/Oro Dam Boulevard West intersection (adjacent to the west property line of the Table Mountain Golf Course). PROJECT PROPONENT John and Linda Richards c/o Bert Garland Development Enterprise 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 The proposed Negative Declaration and project plans are available for public review at the Planning Department between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897 - (916) 538-2433. Ma,'Ann Imbiorski Manning/Enterprise Zone Coordinator • DISCOVER GOLD ... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 NOTICE OF"NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT PROPONENT John and Linda Richards - ZC95-01 c/o Bert Garland 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100 Roseville, CA 95661 PROJECT LOCATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT (916)538-2430 The project site is located 6,600 west of the Larkin Road/Oro Dam Boulevard West intersection adjacent to the west property line of the Table Mountain Golf Course on the south side of the Table Mountain Golf Course; south of State Route 162 (Oro Dam Boulevard West), Butte County, OroVille, CA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone from AR -5 (Agricultural Residential - Five Acres) to PD/SR (Planned Unit Development/Suburban Residential - 10,000 Square Feet) to accommodate a planned single family residential community consisting of a maximum of 150 units and club house facility. DECLARATION On June 5, 1996, the Planning Department determined that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report. The determination was based upon the following findings: 1. The Initial Study has been conducted by the Planning Department evaluating the potential adverse environmental impacts, and declares there is no evidence before the Department that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources. 2. The project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population, cause a fish or wildlife species to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten. to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. JOHN AND LINDA RICHARDS NOTICE OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILE NO. ZC95-01 PAGE 2 OF 2 PAGES 3. It will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental impacts. 4. It will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. 5. It will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly. or indirectly.- 6. ndirectly.6. No substantial evidence exists that the project will have a negative effect on the environment. 7. Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study shall be incorporated into the project design and approval. POSTING PERIOD: JUNE 6 THROUGH JULY 5, 1996 SUBMIT COMMENTS TO: City of Oroville Planning Department 1735 Montgomery Street Oroville, CA 95965-4897 (916) 538-2433 The Initial Study may be examined in the Planning Department, 1735 Montgomery Street, Oroville, CA 95965-4897 during regular office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7g/Enterprise nn Imbiorski Zone Coordinator . CITY OF OROVILLE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Applicant: Bert Garland (Owner Dr. John Richards) 2. Address: 2240 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 100, Roseville CA 95661 3. Name/Address of Representative, if applicable: Same as above 4. Type of Project: Planned Unit Development (PUD) . 5, Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): Residential PUD with clubhouse. Located on the south side of State Route 162, approximately 6,600 feet west of its intersection with Larkin Road. Adjacent to the Table Mountain Golf Course. The project consists of 150 residential lots with 40% open space in large strips. Density is 4 units per gross acre. The clubhouse, approximately 6,000 square feet, will be comprised of several small meeting rooms and 1 gathering room for occasional events. Usage is limited to residents and their guests only. Estimated usage is 150 persons per day average. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 030-260-021 and 026 See additional project information at end of document. II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigation(s) will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the. environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared By: Lisa Purvis Wilson, Planning Manager /C)G Date 0 0 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The Environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a `Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation _ Population and Housing _ Biological Resources Geophysical _ Energy and Mineral Resources X Water Hazards X Air Quality X Noise EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Public Services X Utilities and Services Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation All answers must take into account of.the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 1) A brief explanation is required for answers except"No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific screening analysis. 2) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 3) `Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Earlier analyses, if any, are discussed in Section VI at the end of the checklist. 5) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to inform sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 2 Response: The proposed project is in conformance with the general plan and existing zoning ordinance. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources or operations. The proximity of the airport dictates that development on this parcel shall not exceed 4 units per gross acre. Due to poor quality soils, there is no agricultural production -in the area, only limited grazing to the north. As the location is at the boundary of the City/County limits and is separated from the airport by a golf course, this site has unique challenges for development. The balance is to meet the needs of the airport at current and future levels and to provide safety for potential residents to the maximum extent practicable. This site was annexed to the City with the intent to develop 243 units in 1986. An EIR was prepared and certified at that time. Mitigation: None 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Dr000sal`: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of 3 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: NONE PROVI DED 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would thel2rogosal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Be compatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X . d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soil or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? X Response: The proposed project is in conformance with the general plan and existing zoning ordinance. The project will not adversely affect agricultural resources or operations. The proximity of the airport dictates that development on this parcel shall not exceed 4 units per gross acre. Due to poor quality soils, there is no agricultural production -in the area, only limited grazing to the north. As the location is at the boundary of the City/County limits and is separated from the airport by a golf course, this site has unique challenges for development. The balance is to meet the needs of the airport at current and future levels and to provide safety for potential residents to the maximum extent practicable. This site was annexed to the City with the intent to develop 243 units in 1986. An EIR was prepared and certified at that time. Mitigation: None 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Dr000sal`: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of 3 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X Response: The proposed project is designed to serve the existing population and will not induce substantial growth in the area. The surrounding parcels are under the jurisdiction of Butte County. County zoning in this area is large parcels (10+ acres). 5-10 Mitigation: None 3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would thel2roposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving, a) Seismicity: fault rupture? X b) Seismicity: ground shaking/ liquefaction? X c) Seismicity: seiche? X . d) Landslides or mudslides? X e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X f) Subsidence of the land? X g) Expansive soils? X h) Unique geologic or physical features? X Response: Oroville is located in Seismic Zone III as defined in the Uniform Building Code. There are 4 active earthquake faults in Butte County that affect the Oroville area; Cleveland Hills Fault, the Midland Sweitzer Fault, the San Andreas Fault (north section), and the Russell Valley Fault. All these faults are considered active due to geologic, historic, and seismic data. The only recently active fault in this area was the Cleveland Hills Fault which was responsible for the earthquake in Oroville on August 1, 1975. The 1975 earthquake had a magnitude of 5.7 on the Richter Scale and was centered in Palermo, 5 miles south of Oroville. The Cleveland Hills Fault is located approximately 10 miles to the southeast of the project site.. The site is not susceptible to landslides, mudslides, or significant amounts of erosion. Excavation, grading, or filling activities will not create unstable soil conditions. There are no indications of soil subject to subsidence or expansion. Unique geologic or physical features do not exist on the project site. Construction of all buidings to Uniform Building Code requirements is sufficient safeguard. 4 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X Response: The project site is elevated above the 100 -year flood plain. All storm water runoff will be directed into onsite facilities, per public works requirements. The proposed project will increase the volume of surface water and will be directed to a retention basin onsite. There will be no impact to ground water quantity, quality, or rate of flow. Mitigation: Applicant shall construct a storm water retention basin onsite to store runoff. Submit design to Department of Public Works for approval prior to -any earthwork. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Thermalito Drainage Study. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: None 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X Response: The project site is elevated above the 100 -year flood plain. All storm water runoff will be directed into onsite facilities, per public works requirements. The proposed project will increase the volume of surface water and will be directed to a retention basin onsite. There will be no impact to ground water quantity, quality, or rate of flow. Mitigation: Applicant shall construct a storm water retention basin onsite to store runoff. Submit design to Department of Public Works for approval prior to -any earthwork. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Thermalito Drainage Study. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5 0 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation - Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to -an existing or projected air quality violation? _ X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Response: During various phases of construction, increased emissions from construction equipment will be temporarily present. There are no projected air quality violations. There are no sensitive receptors near the project site. Mitigation: Fugitive dust emissions related to construction activities shall be controlled at all times by applying dust suppressants to exposed earth during clearing, grading, earth moving, and other site preparation work. All Clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of wind exceeding 15 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour. All wood burning devices installed in any residences shall be EPA Phase II certified. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation 6 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X Response: According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9.8 car trips per day will be generated (9.8x150=1470). Due to the close proximity of the golf course, golf carts are expected to be the primary source of internal transportation and are allowed to cross directly into the golf course. Also, the anticipated resident is expected to be of the retirement age. Both factors will reduce the number of car trips to an estimated 6 (6x150=900). Access is directly onto State Route 162. Improvements are required by CalTrans. The project has been designed to use existing roadways, incorporate emergency access points, and provide sufficient off-street parking. The proposed project will not pose any hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists and will not adversely impact policies supporting alternative transportation. There are no rail or waterborne impacts. The site falls within an area in which traffic impact fees will be collected, as a joint project with Butte County: Mitigation: Left turn channelization shall be provided as well as standard public road approach tapers and radii on SR 162 for entrance/exit. Encroachment permit required from CalTrans shall be obtained. for any work in state right- of-way. If a second access is to be provided, it shall be approved by CalTrans as to location and improvement standards. Dedicate to CalTrans a minimum of 50' right-of-way from centerline of SR 162. All lots shall be subject to the North Oroville/Thermalito Traffic Imparct Fees pursuant to City Resolution #4608. Said fees shall be calculated and collected at time of building permit issuance for each parcel. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X . 7 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Response: No federally listed or locally designated endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats are present on the project site. Wildlife migration corridors will not be impacted due to this project. A wetlands delineation has been performed for this site which identified 2 small pools on the property comprising 807 square feet of the 37.5 acre site. The loss of 0.02 acres is considered no impact on biological resources. Mitigation: None 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X (c ) Conflict with the extraction of identified, significant mineral resources? X Response: All energy requirements will be met in the design of the project. There will be no impact to non- renewable resources. No significant mineral resources are known to be under the site. Mitigation: None 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (Including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increase of fire hazard areas with 91 • Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact flammable brush, grass, or trees? X Response: No hazardous substances will be generated by the proposed project. The location of the project will not interfere with the City's emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The project will not cause the creation of, or exposure to, health hazards. There will not be an increase in fire hazard areas. See Item 1 discussion and mitigation. Mitigation: An avigation easement shall be recorded for each parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise ' levels? X Response: The proposed project is within 1 mile of a municipal airport and is in the overflight zone. The proposed residential units would be exposed to higher than average levels of noise, especially single event noise from low flying aircraft. The project site also abuts a State Route. To mitigate the noise potential, construction of each dwelling shall be required to meet Sound Transmission Class rating. To further increase the foreknowledge of aircraft activity, each buyer of property shall also be required to sign an avigation easement. Mitigation: Residential units on the site must meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 45 or better. Solid fencing and/or berming alongSR 162 shall be installed to reduce the noise received onsite. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X E Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Response: Fire hydrants with a flow of 1,000 gpm are required as conditions of project approval. All services are currently provided to the project site. Therrhalito Union -School District has stated that payment of $1.84 per square foot at time of building permit issuance is required. Interior street maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. There will be no significant impact to fire, police, local roads, or schools. No significant increases in other governmental services are anticipated for this project. Mitigation: `None 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power and natural gas? X b) Communication systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Special districts? X Response: CalTrans Division -of Aeronautics Consultant stated that there is no "standard" for offsite lighting installation. If a complaint is received, CalTrans would investigate and try to resolve. Power and communication systems are present on the site. The City has adequate water treatment facilities and sewage treatment capacity to serve the project. Sewer will have to be extended from an existing 8" line located at the airport area (Chuck Yeager Drive). There are no plans for the sewer to provide additional connections beyond those for the project. The smallest line allowed in the City is 6". As the existing line is 8" and the topography is nearly flat (creating flow problems) the extension shall continue at the same size. This allows sufficient capacity for the project, and in the event of future failure, the golf course could also connect (golf course is currently on septic system). The sewer line would then be at capacity. Drainage facilities will be provided on-site to handle additional storm water flows. The local solid waste company has the capacity to serve the project. There will not be a need for additional special districts. Mitigation: In order to have the most effective open space areas in the event of a forced landing, all utilities shall be installed underground. All interior lighting shall be directed and/or shielded so as to not affect adjacent parcels, Oro Dam Boulevard or airport operations. 10 Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Sewer line extention shall be a maximum of 8" in size, designed to serve the project only. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the grogosal: a) Affect a scenic vistas or designated scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X Response: The project will not affect a .scenic vista or designated scenic highway. The project will be designed to meet the City's aesthetic and landscaping requirements. Additional City review is required after approval of the development plan. Additional light and glare will be created by the project and will be designed to be retained onsite. Mitigation: See Item 12 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have to potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Response: No paleontological resources have been found on the project site. The site has low archaeological sensitivity. No historic resources are known to be present on the project site. No known unique ethnic cultural values have been identified for this site. The area is not known to be a sacred religious site or used for existing religious purposes. Mitigation: None 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X Response: The proposed project will provide direct access to the Table Mountain Golf Course. Most of the increased residential needs will be to the golf course which has the capacity for the increased activity. In addition, park development fees are collected on each parcel at the time of building permit issuance. Mitigation: None 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California historyor prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? X c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). ►1 d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Response: No significant biological, historical, or pre -historic values were found to be associated with the site. The proposed project is located and identified in the current and prior general plans. Potential impacts from the project are minor and can be mitigated to below a level of significance. No significant cumulative effects were identifiable. The information gathered from the studies preceding purchase of the site indicated no direct or indirect adverse environmental effects on humans. 12 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: 1. Applicant shall construct a storm water retention pond onsite to store runoff. Submit design to Department of Public Works for approval prior to any earthwork. 2. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Thermalito Drainage Study. 3. Fugitive dust emissions related to construction activities shall be controlled at all times by applying dust suppressants to exposed earth during clearing, grading, earth moving, and other site preparation work. 4. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of wind exceeding 15 miles per hour averaged over 1 hour. 5. All wood burning devices installed in any residences shall be EPA Phase II certified. 6. Left turn channelization shall be provided as well as standard public road approach tapers and radii on SR 162 for entrance/exit. 7. Encroachment permit required from CalTrans shall be obtained for any work in state right-of-way. 8. If a second access is to be provided, it shall be approved by CalTrans as to location and improvement standards. 9. Dedicate to CalTrans a minimum of 50' right-of-way from centerline of SR 162. 10. All lots shall be subject to the North Oroville/Thermalito Traffic Impact Fees pursuant to City Resolution #4608. Said fees shall be calculated and collected at time of building permit issuance for each parcel. 11. An avigation easement shall be recorded for each parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 12. Residential units on the site must meet a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 45 or better. (Exterior walls) - 13. Solid fencing and/or berming along SR 162 shall be installed to reduce the noise received onsite. Plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 14. In order to have the most effective open space areas in the event of a forced landing, all utilities shall be installed underground. 15. All interior lighting shall be directed and/or shielded so as to not affect adjacent parcels, OroDam Boulevard or airport operations. 16. Sewer line extention shall be a maximum of 8" in size, designed to serve the project only. Monitoring Requirements : Measures 3, 4, and 12 shall be monitored for compliance during construction by the City of Oroville. No other measures require continued monitoring. 13 X X" VI. PROJECT DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: PUD Rezone for residential use 2. Proposed Density of Development: 4 units per acre 3. Access and Nearest Public Roads: Frontage on State Route 162 (OroDam Boulevard) 4. Method of Sewage Disposal: City sewer 5: Source of Water Supply: Thermalito Irrigation District 6. Proximity of Power Lines: Exist onsite 7. Potential for further land divisions or development: None B. Environmental Setting 1. Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Gently rolling alluvial fan b. Slopes: 0-5%, draining to the southeast C. Elevation: 264-278 ft above sea level d. Limiting Factors: none 2. Soils - Type and characteristics: Shallow layer, 6-12" deep, of clayey loam topsoil which overlays 1-5 feet of gravelly clay. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Seismic Zone III b. Erosion Potential: low C. Landslide Potential: none d. Fire Hazard: Nearest station is 4.4 miles away (Station 1) 4. Visual/Scenic Quality: Excellent 5. Acoustic Quality: Good 6. Air Quality: Good 7. Vegetation: grasses and low shrubs 8. Wildlife Habitat: Rolling valley grasslands containing birds, rodents, reptiles, rabbits and occasional coyote. The site is within range of the bald eagle, but it is unlikely any would hunt in this area due to air and ground traffic. 9. Archaeological and Historic Resources in the area: None 10. City General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (2-6 units per acre) 11. Existing Zoning: AR -5 12. Existing Land Use on-site: undeveloped land 13. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: vacant, golf course, airport b. Zoning: AR -5, AR -10, PQ, County C. General Plan Designation: Resource Management, Parks d. Parcel Sizes: predominantly large parcels over 5 acres. 14 14. Character of Site and Area: The site is located on the extreme western limit of the City. It is surrounded by large undeveloped parcels. The exception is the golf course and City airport - which are developed; but still consist of mostly open space. EARLIER ANALYSIS: 1. Wetlands Delineation Report, Huffman & Associates, Inc. June 1991, for Camray Development. 2. EIR, GDA Engineering, Surveying and Planning. 1986, for Linkside Place, a 243 Unit Planned Unit Development. CITY OF OROVILLE • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET, OROVILLE, CA 95965-4897 (916) 538-2430 FAX (916) 538-2426 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL• D • ••. TO: '�']�i�S �-pl,`, 1-,7 �9�a�o" i� �i '��.i1 y i.�,. �isFo� i=a ` • •• at �sNy.�f�k .�a• 7Z �41T.1` aV [ n �? 7 i ✓.','.'i 't FILE NO. ZC96-01 PROJECT: Change AR -5 zoning on 37.5 acre site to SR/PD (150 residential units with clubhouse). LOCATION: South of Oro Dam Boulevard West on the West boundary of Table Mountain Golf Course. APPLICANT: Dr. John & Linda Richards c/o Bert Garland Development Enterprises. Please return any suggestions, comments or recommendations to this office no later than FRIDAY. MAY 17. 1996. PERTINENT FACTS LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ADJACENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: Public Quasi and Residential EXISTING ZONING: AR -5 (Agricultural/Residential - 5 Acres) SURROUNDING ZONING: N,S, W: AR -5 Agricultural/Residential, E: P -Q Public Quasi .. EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: N, S, W: Vacant Land E: Table Mt. Golf Course COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: (Utilities - Please locate easements and facilities, i.e. transformers, etc.) 'o T. 19 N. R. 3 E.. M. D. B. B M. r,! #!o SOUTH THERMALITO Al-O.R. Ek.2 P9.176 L.2 -9j 30-26 J-7 L Assessor's Mop No. 30-26 County of Butte, Ca U11,;REVISED+ /2.91 .JM BUTTE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Applicant: City of Oroville Owner. Dr. John Richards & Unnda Richards Hearing Date: July 19, 1995 Ezisting Zone: M-2 (Heavy IndnsbriaQ N Regnest: Rezone of 37.4 acres from AR-5 (Ag Rc&S ac. min.) to MH-1 (Low Den Mobile Home Park) No Scale I Assessor Parcel No: 030-260-021 & 026 1 1 T. 19 N. R. 3 E. M D. 6 8r M 23 AY ,,, ,so SOUTH TH£RMAUTO M.O.R. Ok.2 P9.176 29 30-26 —7 Assessor's Map No. 30-26 County of Butte, Ca "(42, REVISED: 12.51