Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-154~~ ~ •~ _ 4 ~ A D F E VISORS ~ BO R ~ SUP R . ,; ., ~* ~5' ° *~ COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA . •_ :N rt~a._ f!nrTw7~~ Resolution N0. 86-154 A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CHICO AREA AND OROVILLE AREA LAND USE PLANS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE r COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a private person, Arnold Pacific Properties, has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, Chico area land use plan as shown on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65350 et seq. initiated a General Plan amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, Oroville area land use plan as shown on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS the proposed General Plan Amendments have been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS the Butte County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the environmental review study checklists (exhibits A-2 and B-2) prepared on the proposed General Plan amendments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has recommended adoption of these General Plan Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds the proposed amendment as shown on Exhibit A-1 complies with the commercial and medium density residential site designation criteria of the Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds the amendments will promote orderly development and be compatible with surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds the land use designations will specifically correlate to the carrying capacity and classification of the surrounding circulation system; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that the amendments (A-I, B-1) together with all applicable elements of the Butte County General Plan comprise an overall internally consistent whole; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the land use designations from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential to Commercial and Commercial to Medium Density Residential as shown on Exhibit A-1 and Commercial to Low Density Residential as shown on Exhibit B-1 are hereby adopted and approved by the Butte County Board of Supervisors as an amendment to the Butte County Land Use Element, said amendment to be the land use policy for the County of Butte in the affected area for all findings pursuant to law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the initial studies and negative declarations prepared for the General Plan amendments are adequate fox this project for complicance with the California Environmental Quality Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 65359 that the General Plan be endorsed to show the above amendments have been approved by this board. BE IT FURTRER RESOLVED, pursuant to government Code Section 65357 a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the city councils of the cities of Butte County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, this 18th day of November,1986, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, McInturf and Chairman McLaughlin NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Wheeler NOT VOTING: None C ED McLAUGHLIN, C IRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: MARTIN J. NICHOLS, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board BY ~'l -2- .' ~`~ 'ra ~n dc~~ n'1 m n e ~y~G L ~ Q C m z ~ a on ~~u .. .D r ~ ~ a z z z . ~ ~ ~ ~ A R n m .. s ... O C L '17 ~/` ~ m . z 0 G N a a ~' Z ar ,m w 0 :17 (?I~ , ~~ F ~~~ ~ P 'f f b L ~^ a < ,<~ fbfbA ~~r as>Pa~ 1 > Y a Y as ~ t,i .r s J a 7 `~~ a< ~> L '~ - V 7 v V f ~' v b>af P ^< baP ~><>A. YJLP J> L i b f r>~ < bP y ffe ]A '! fv ,. yPbf b ~Y L a'j ^ f f 9 ..::>: iI ~L%•:•: Y sv ~~ d~ c~' m P ' to D d D ~~ f 1p1 ~ ~ p 3 D ~° r 3 r~ r ~ ~ ]0 70 l0 3 0 0 '~ 0 T m A ~ \~ ~ ~'"~, _, , .~__ ' „ , .~ _, -~ `~- i ~~~ 0 0 IiNVIRONPi1sNTAL Ck}}?CKLI57' DORM (to he completes] by Lead Agencyj Lag #86-03-26-02 l . BACKGROIINU ~~ # 06-15-71, 72, 66 --- File No. 86-35A&B 1. Name of proponent _~ ARNOLD PACIFIC_PROPF,~RTTFS _~ 2. Address of Irrol7orrent anti representative. (if applicable) A~}a_ca1.~..~c~ 1._~_.P~~e.~.t~:es_..---.----___w.__ Jerr~r D. Anders ~~.-. _4811 Chi~~enda~.e__Dr~.v~__ _.___-__~ _ 5910_Auburn Blvd. Sacramento, µCA 95$41__---_--------____~. ..Citrus Heights, CA 95621 3. Yro~ect. des r•ilst ion _ Gen~ra~__Plan Amendment and Rezone ~.~s" ~~ ~~. ~. . . ~-~, ~~yT,<,~ ,~~.:.l3~ W' ;•~'_ ^ry l~ AiANI)A"['(1R!' I~INIt1N[;5 [)E~ ~€[;NTI~k(',1t~+:1; 1'T:S A9AY)3E NO a. hoes the prosec:t have the pc>t.c~ntial to degrade the cltlality oE` the environment, suhst~rntiall)~ reclucc~ the habitat of a k~ish o7- tailcil.ife species, cause a fish or wil.dlii'e pol~fulatiun to drop belcsw self- strstaining levels, t:hrettten to el.im~nate a plant az- animal ~amutunity, reduce the nun-hcr or restrict the ranbe o€' a rare or endangered plant. r3r animal ar eliminate important exarupl.es of the major periods hi t • ? s ot y .~ cC Californi~i history ar pra:~ _ }], ilaeti t]](; pro~e~t 11aVf' t}7 E: }lfltent1F11 tU aC.h7El~e ' long-term, short-term benefits to the detriment oi ctrvironnrental goals? {A shout-term impact on t}re cnviranment i~ one which OCE:I~rs irs a relatively bt•ie}" period of time while lank-term impacts will. cnclure i nta the future . ~ . W .... _~... c. Uoes the project !Cave iurpac•ts tahi~~lr are incl7utdu- ally limited, htrt cllmulativcly consiclcrahle^ {A project may irnpa~t on two ur ntorc separate resources sdhere the impact an each ri::suurce is relatively small , but where the cffcrt ak- the' total ai` those impacts otr the f~nvironmcnt is sis,ni!'ictrnt.l ._..__. __.~, d. flocs the prc~.ji`~t hart t.rrvirr.rnmental cflec~ts wlrich wi ] l Cause ,trhtitant i a } adverse c I`t`c~cts on human hcinc;s, either' ~lirectl~' coo' indirecCl)r° II [. 1)E;'1'I:T:MfNA'1'€(1N ('Cu hr c~otnplc~tE`.d Ist• the- I,c~tca llt,cnc}'~! (>n tl'tr._-basis of this rrrrtt;rl rv:7luatiun: ti !/Wli find rlii: proposed lire, i~e-t [:c1111.11 N[r'1' have ~r sil;ni fir~lnt eE l~ect ---- nn the r.nt~ i r'onment , and .r Nl:t,r1'1'11r1? 11};('T.A€tA"fl ON tdi € 1 ho prepa-•eu. l/1+~1'. t incl thtrt uithart~;h ihc• l~rcypcrti~•el praje~t E~ctuid have it sii;ni Ci- e~;rnt effect urr thE~ CnV 1 ['f7rrnS!'nt , tl~~ere wi l 1 not be tr s i E;ni t•icant. cI €~ect in tkri:s c';*5~~ hec<urse~ the P1€'1'1[~A'1`ION t~1k;R4i1R1:~~ described c•n the ,rtr;t~'hc~tl shoot huvc• Ir~•c~n trcldc•ti to t}tc~ pres_jt~t. A NT?GATTVIi frliGl.!11tA'f i [~r`d ~.~ i l 1 he prepa r~•,l . ]/lYl's Find tltc~ prcrl~c~~ti.•d ifrc~j~•rt P1r11 lrttve. a sil.;nifirant effect ott ~~- the cot"11'(lrlnt~'llt, utu.l an k:N~`llt+tNAII N'1'AI. TAtT'A[:'!' ItT:]'Ol:'1' is reduired. IlA'I'l;: ~lll ~ 1986 [:llli`d'I'Y (ll, €ilJ'I"1'1:, I'T,ANN~iI+f[~ IIIiPAR`{'Pi]N'1' Laura M. T ~~~ le, Associat, Planner . .. _ - - - • IV . ~ ~ ENVI R©NMENTAL i a .: ACTS_ xp anat~.ons o all "yes" on attached sheet(s)~y and r'maybe" answers are required 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in signa.ficant: a. i3nstable eart}~ conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or avercavering of the soil'? c. Change in topography or gror.~nd surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique gea~.agic: or physical features? - e. Increase in wind or water erasion of soils, either an ar off site? f. CF-ianges in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or ;.ranges in siltation, deposition ar erosicrt which may modify the channel of a river or strea3~t or the bed of the ocean or any ba~~, inlet or lake? g. Loss of prime agr~icultuxally productive soils outside designated urban areas? h. Exposure ot= people or propert~T to geologic hazards' such as earthqu~.kes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure or sirni.lar hazards? 2. AIR. iNill the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient aix quatit.y? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any chans;e in climate, locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in sr~hstantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of sur.€ace runoff? c. Need far off-si.te sr.rrface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? e . Change in tFir. amor~nt o:E surf ace water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but riot ].incited to temperatur€;, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the di_recti.on or rate of flow of ground waters? YES MAYBE ND h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters, either through direct additions ar with- drax.Tals , ar through interception af- an aquife~• b~ uu~'s or ~xca~rations? i. Fteduc:tion in the amount. of ~ti~ater a'therW3.se available i~or public°. ~~rater supplies? . j. Exposure n~ people err property to water related ]laz:ir.ds such as flooding? --~ T_ ... -- _.__.._ _.___. -~.. Y>rs r~AYBE No 13. TRANSPORTATION/CTRCULA'TIt~N. ~ViII the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects an existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ,~ c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ~„ e. Alterataans to waterborne, rail. qr air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians~7 ~( 14. PUBLIC SERVIGFS. N]ill the Isrcposal have an effect upon, or T•esi~It i.n a ?~eLd ~'or new or altered governmental services: ti ? on a. Fire protec b. Police protection'. .~ c. Schools? ~. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. ~4aintenance of- public facilities, including roads ? ~/ f. Qther gover~~mcntal services? 15. ENERGY. 1~TilI the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel .or energy? b. Substantial. increase in demand upon existing sources o.f energy, ox require the development of ener ? f ~ gy new sources o . 16. UTILITIES. ~~Yill the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the fallowing: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communi.catians systems? _ ~„ e. Water avai.lab:il ity: d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid Waste and diSpOSaI? I7. HUr'fAN HEALTH. Wi1I the proposal result in: a. Great~on of any health ha•ua.rd or potential health hazard (excluding mental health? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? l8. AESTHETICS. Will i,kle proposal res~~lt in the a struction of a~ay scenic visa or view open to the public, ar wi.ll the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically a.f.fensive site open to public vie;a" DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP d6-15-71,72,66 Pra.iect Description= Relocation and expansion of a mobile home park to make way far a new 14.82-acre shopping center. Twelve acres will be converted to urban uses. 1b: The project will disrupt and avercover an additional 12.27 acres on site. Construction activities will disrupt additional lands from read widening and installation of utilities. 1e: Gentle terrain and law rainfall rates minimize erosion concerns. 2a: Air emissions will result from point and non-point sources. Paint sources (dry cleaning establishments, gasoline stations} are effectively controlled through the Air Pollution Control District's permitting requirements. ton-point sources, principally vehicles, are much mare difficult to control. Increased traffic will generate increased emissions. The net traffic gain over the no-project alternative at full buildout i5 644 vehicles daily. 3b,16e: Impervious surfaces (rooftops, pavement) will generate stormwater runoff. Full urban improvements will be required to accommodate drainage demands. 1'he property is within Shasta Union Drainage District, which has adequate capacity. Approximately 12.27 acres fall within the Cussick Avenue drainage fund. A $9a0 per acre fee will be assessed. 'f he increase in surface water runoff is not significant for an urban area. 4d,bd: Twelve acres of almonds will be uprooted and converted to urban uses. Associated impacts were addressed in the Chico Area Land Use Plan EIR, 1982. ~i-here is no alternative to conversion of agricultural sails to urban uses within the urban area. Agricultural soils are protected outside of the Chico Area Greenline. 6a: Commercial activity and traffic will generate noise. Sensitive receptors in the area include the mobile home park immediately north and day Partridge School 1E70t) feet east. A b-foot solid masonry wall should be constructed along the entire northern boundary to protect adjoining residents from noise, Whether any mitigation measures are necessary to minimize noise impacts to Jay Partridge School will be determined by Chico Unified School District. 7: Glare Pram parking let lights may spill over onto adjacent properties. Butte County Cade requires orientation or shielding of lights so glare is not a problem. $: The following table summaries General Plan, zoning and land use changes which will result from this project. -6- Existing Project Potential Cac.) Cac.) Difference Comm. G.P. 14.82 4.79 +10,03 C-2 Zane 14.82 9.62 + 5.2 M-D-~ R G. P. 1 4.46 1 1 .72 + 2.74 R-4 Zone 14.46 1.76 +12.7 R-3 Zone 0 3.44 - 3.4 R-2 Zone 0 0 0 L-D-R G.P. 0 12.77 -12.77 S-R Zone 0 7.07 - 7.07 "U'" Zone 0 7.39 - 7.39 Buildout Commercial 14.82 13.071/ + 1.75 ResidentialCd.u.) 187.98 2012/ -13.02 Traffic3/ 8439 7795 +644 Land Use Commercial 14.82 5.99 + 8.83 M-H-P 14.4b 11.02 + 8.44 Orchard Q 12.27 -12.27 29.28 29.28 i/Commercial - C-2 Zane.:+ Cammercial General Plan + R-4 Zone 2/Residential ~ All AP Ob-15-bb, 06-15-71Cptn) 3/Cammercial trips = 442.6 per ac. Residential = 10 per unit. Overall, the project will intensify the existing and proposed land use on Site. A zoning/General Plan confiict will be eliminated. AP Ob-05-72 and 06-15-66Cptn) are zoned C-2 and designated Medium density Residential. Over seven acres of Unclassified zoning will be rezoned R-4. An existing used car lot (Chuck Patterson) and trailer sales wi]1 be removed. i"uture tenants of the shopping center include Sprouse-Reitz, Thrift' and Albertsons. 12: The mabile home park accesses off of Henshaw Avenue. There are approximately 101 mabiles an 11.02 acres. Park density is 9,165 d.a.,t./acre. Porty-two mobiles will be relocated onto AP 06-15-71, and 25 new units will be installed. Proposed density is 8.71 d.u,/ac. (figures approximate). A Use Permit is required to expand and relocate the park. 13a-d,f: The project could generate 8439 vehicle trips daily: 14.82 ac. Commercia] x 442.6 per ac. = E~559.33 14.46 ac. R-4 x 13 d.u./ac. x 70 trips per d.u. ~ 1879.8 -7- Current traffic generation is estimated at less than 1500 A.D.T. Traffic counts in the vicinity are: Renshaw/Cussick: Renshaw/Esplanade East/Esplanade: East, West of Esplanade= East, East of Esplanade: Esplanade, North of East: Esplanade, South of East. 1210 A.CI.T. 2660 1a1so 14630 1 53611 1$490 Depending on trip origin and destination, traffic leads could increase Pram 8 to 45~ on adjacent roads. Most of the traffic is anticipated to use East Avenue west of The Esplanade and The Esplanade. The Highway Patrol has commented that East should be widened to four lanes with turn lanes at Gussick, Alamo and Guynn. To offset traffic impacts, the following improvements are r recommended: 1. Widen East Avenue along project frontage to four lanes with a continuous left-turn lane. 2. Contribute a pro rata share to install a traffic signal at East/Cussick. 3. Reduce the number of curb cuts on East Avenue to three, with a minimum of 300 feet between cuts. 4. Deed a 1-foot no-access strip along East Avenue to Butte County, breaking for approved access points. v. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk along Esplanade frontage. 5. Improve Renshaw frontage to full Gounty standard along the entire mobile home park frontage. 7. Install curb, gutter and sidewalk along Renshaw along the entire mobile home park frontage. S. Pay a pro rata share to ]mprove Renshaw road approach at Esplanade. 9. Access to shopping center from East Avenue only. 10. Abandon existing access onto Esplanade. 11 Deed a 1-foot na-access strip along Esplanade to Butte County. -~- 14a: The California Department of Forestry has indicated that fire hydrants will be required. The property is within the West Side Fire Station Improvement Fund area. Mitigation fees of $75 per residential unit have been requested of all developers in the area to purchase and staff a new fire station. 14b,d-f: Increased demand for governmental services can be accommodated in the urban area. 14c: Residential development within Chico Unified School District is subject to school improvement fees. 16c= California Water Company has indicated that water service is available. Mains will have to be extended to serve the development. 16ds The mobile home park is currently on septic systems. Densities are more than three times greater than the 1 d.u.t12,000 square feet allowed by the Nitrate Action Plan. Community sewer will be required to servo the development. Extension of sewer will be growth inducing to the remainder of the Stiles Orchard tto the west and south}. 18: The orchard offers a scenic view to passersby. Urbanization will change the vista. To make the view as aesthetically pleasing as possible, great care should be given to landscaping, signage and architectural style. Butte County Code requires 5~ of the lot area to be landscaped, with an additional 10-foot strip along the East Avenue and Esplanade frontages. Signs should have similar styles and coloring. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would limit the size of signs, All trash receptacles should be screened Pram view. IIc~ Cumulative impacts to transpartatian, drainage, fire systems, etc., will be minimized with full improvements as described in the Initial Study. -~- Applicant: Arnold F~acific Nroperties A. Pro_;Lct Uescr i at i or-3 Assessor"s Parcel # 06-15-i'1,72,66 Lag # tib-€~.~-26-G2 IUATA SHEET" 7 . "Type of Project: general F'l an RnlPndment and Rezone. 2. Brief Description= Genera! Pian Amendment from Low Density Residential to lyledium Density Residential, Medium Density Residential to Commercial, Commercial to Medium Density Res i dent i a1 ; Rezone from S--k to R--~}, R-3 to C-2, R-4 to G-2, U to R-4. 3_ Location= Between l=ast and Neroshaw Avenues, from 240 to 1050 feet west of The Esplanade, Chico. 4. Proposed Density of Development= Urban densities. 5. Amount cif Impervious Surfacing: Extensive. 6. Access and Nearest Public RoadCs): Access from East, Esplanade and Renshaw. 7_ Method of Sewage Disposal: Septic existing; sewer proposed. $. Source of Water Supply: California Water Service Company. 9. Proximity of Power Lines= Tn immediate vicinity. 10. Potential for further land divisions and development: Project will allow construction of" a shn}.~ping center, relocation of 42 mobile homes and installation of 25 new mobile homes, B. Environmental Settinc_,,~ Physical Environment: 7 _ Terra i n a. U"enerai ~~opograph i c Charactcar: Leve l va l ~E ey l and . b. Slopes: U-2~. c. Elcyvation: 17'5•-1 B(7 `. d. Limiting F'artors: None. 2. Soils a. -types and Characteristics: Vince Pine Sandy Laam. Deep, well draining soil, well suited to agriculture. b. Limiting Factors: f~otential for liquefaction; subsidence. S. Natural Hazards of the Land a_ Earthquake Zone: P~loderate Class VITT. b. Erasion Potential: Slight. c. Landslide Potential: IVone. d. Hire Hazard: Unclassified. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Law. 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: None in immediate vicinity. b. Groundwater. l]verlies area of high groundwater withdrawal, c. Drainage Characteristics: Within SUlUAD. _~~_ d. Annual Ra!'snfal 1 f normal ): 22-2~F". e_ Limiting Factors= Nitrate concerns limit. use of septic tanks. 5, YisualfScenic Quality: ur~:hard offers respite from urbanization. 6. Acoustic Duality: Poor alc,ng East and Esplanade. Fair gear Renshaw. 7. Air ©:..aality: fair to poor in immediate vicinity. BioioAical Environment: 8. Vegetation: Urban landscaping an 18 +i.. acres, almond orchard on 1~+ acres. 9_ Wildlife Habitat: Limited to birds and rodents. Cultural Environment: 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area= Low. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Commercial, l~ledium Density Residential, Low Density Residential. 12. Existing Zoning: R-~}, R-3, S-R, U, C-2. 13, Existing Land Use on-site: Chuck Patterson car iot, mobile Name parks trailer sales, orchard. 14. Surrounding Area a. Land Uses: South: orchard; West: orchard, residential; North: orchard; residential; East: commercial. b. Zoning: R-4, R-3, S-Ft, ASR, ~-2. c_ Gen. Plan designations: Medium Density Residential, L.ow Density Residential, Commercial. d. Parcel Sizes: 'I!3 td 53 acres. e_ Population: fled i urri density area . 15. Character of Site and Area: Dre.hard pocket in northwest Chico. 16. Plearest Urban Area: City of Chlco. 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: City of E~hico, SUUAC7, CUSD. 98. Improvements Standards Urban Area: Fuii improvements required. 19_ Fire Protection Service: a . IVeare:st Goianty ( State 3 F ire Station = #42 , 3 m i 1 es ; #44 , ~+ miles; #~F1, 5 miles. b. Water Availability: Engine capacity and hydrants. 20. Schools in Area: Chico Unified ~;r_hoal District. _~~_ BUTTE COUNTY PLAN ARiNG DATES= 23 pub ~9~hh ~PLICANT=g~C.PG. OWNER= RPN :QUE T= G~t~1ER~L P~~ EXISTING Z !~>c 1~1DMENT FROM co Ms~-~Ru A~ ?d r.., i) • 1Z (dq-ot- 3ro~25 FILE No. _ ~' MISSION J~ ^OMPAN NE= (ZT- ~ SCALE ~~ l" = P 40~ A1'PT:NI}l X F COl]NTY (}F BU'1'TI: ENVIRONAIENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (to be completed by Lead Agency} Loy #>~6-o7-i~-o~ 1. BACKGROUND AP # ~~-~~-25, -36 File ~ 87-5 1. Name of proponent BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable) But e Coun't~r~.1.~u~,' nT 7 Count Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 3. Project description _ General Plan Amendment Tt. MANDATORY FINDINGS OI: SIGNIFICANCE YF-.S A'[AYBE NO ~~,~ ~[ ~~.~ +~ 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? . Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while Long-term impacts will endure into the future . ) ..~ ..~..~ ~... c. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _„_ 1~ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ____ III. DFTT?RAIINA'1'TON (`('o he c:amplete~] h}' the Lead Agency) On the basis oC this initial evr+luation: ~( I/W1 find the proposed prajert C'{}U 1,D NOT have a significant effect on the env i ronment , and a NT:GATTVF, DF.CI.ARA'1'TON wi I1 be prepared . 1/WE find that although the proposed project could have a signiFi- -~-- cant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ~:ase hecautie the P1TTI{;ATTON (111:ASURIiS described nn the attached sheet have h~c'n adcleel to the project. A NFC~ATTVF DTiC1.ARA~'TON +~i 1 l hc. prcparc~l. _ I/1V Ii Cind the I~ro~~osed 1}rc~ jert h1Al' helve a sibni Cicant effect on the environment, anal an IiNV I R(~NP11?N'['AI, IMPACT REPORT is required. I)A'1'i?: .__ ____.._.. - August..-1,_~986__.._._.~._-.__- - {;{111N'1'1' OT' BU'1'TT:, PLANNING DFPAR'1'PiF.NT (; 4' ' _ ~ David R, Hironimus, Associate Planner Itevii+4~ed by: ,~_ IV. ' .' ENVIRONMENTAL IMk..~TS xp anations o a 1 ''yes" on attached sheets}) and "maybe" answers are required YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a~nstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? ~{ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil.? ~~ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ~G d. Destruction, covering or mods..€ication of any unique geologic or physical features? ~( e. Increase in wind or water erasion of sails, either on or off-site? ~C. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach `~ sands, or changes in siltation, deposition ar erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? ~~, g, Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? ~ h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure or similar hazards? ~{ ~ Z, AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions ar deterioration of ambient air quality? ~( b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, locally or regionally? ~( 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? ~ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ~~, c. Need far off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization ar culvert installation? ~c_ d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? X f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any ~ alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? XG g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow X of ground waters? h. ground waters, Change in the quantity or quality of . either through direct additions or wzth- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ~ i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _~ j. Exposure of people ar property to water related [lazards such as flooding? ~ DC -Z- • , 13, YES MAYBE NO ~~ ~~ Xc. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? ~' f, Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? TRANSPORTATION/CTRCULATTON. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b, Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X~ X x~ 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altexed governmental services: a. Fire protection? ~ b. Police protection? _~ c. Scl~.aals? ~ ,( d. Parks off- other recreational facilities? _,~ e, I+4aintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? ~ 15. ENERGY. Wi11 the proposal result in: a. ise of substantial amounts of fuel .or energy? ~( b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ~C 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterati ons to the fallowing: a. Power or natural gas? ~ b. Communications systems? ~ c. Water availability: ~_ d. Sewer o,r septic tank? ~ e. Storm water drainage? ~~ f. Solid waste and disposal? yC G 17'. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal res ult in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ~ 1$. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the o structa.an of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X~--- _~.. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATI©N File No. 87-5 1b,c,e,f,3b,c,f,16e: While the proposed General Plan Amendment would encourage residential development, the net result would represent a decrease in impacts potentially brought about by development of the property as commercial under the existing General Plan designation. Drainage structures in the area were sized to handle residential type development, and the potential 10Q~ overcovering under the existing Commercial designation could impact those drainage facilities already in place. Adoption of the Low Density Residential designation for the subject property would ensure that the existing drainage facilities are adequate. 1h: All of Butte County is within a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The subject property is located approximately 1/2 mile east of a concealed fault associated with the Cleveland Hills Fault which supported the 1975 Oroville earthquake. Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Coda standards far seismically active areas should provide adequate protection to residents or occupants in case of seismic activity. 5d: Residential development of the property in conformity with the proposed General Plan amendment would be compatible with the area. However, the lights, noise, traffic and other disruptive factors associated with the potential commercial development on the property could affect the resident deer in the State Recreation Area immediately to the north. As Brach, this project would tend to reduce impacts to deer in the area. 6a,7: See Item 5d above. $: This project will represent a change in planned land use from commercial to residential. 10a: The proposed change from commercial to residential will reduce the potential for risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances that COLald be associated with commercial uses developed under the present General Plan designation. 13: The proposed General Plan Amendment to Residential would have the net effect of reducing traffic in the area and related hazards that are possible if the property were developed to commercial uses. The existing roads in the area are adequate to handle residential traffic. 14: Any development will have a potential to result in an increase in demand for public services in a rural area. The net effect of this project would be to reduce demand for most services but increase demand for school usage. 1bf: The proposed change from commercial to residential would have the net result of reducing demand for solid waste disposal facilities. -6- Applicant- Butte County Planning File No. 87_b Commission Lag # 86-07-14-01 C~~J'A SHEET A. Project Description 'l. Type of ProjBCt: General Plan Amendment. 2. Brief Description: From Commercial to Low Density Residential. 3. Location: On the nor^thea5t corner of Kelly Ridge Road and Royal Oaks Drive in the Kelly Ridge area east of Draville. 4. Proposed Density of Development: Up to 6 dwelling units per acre. 5. Amount of impervious Surfacing: Approximately 50~ potentially. 6. Access and Nearest Public RoadCs). Property fronts an Kelly Ridge Road and Royal Oaks Drive. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: iVarth Burbank Public Utility District sewers. 8~ Source of Water Supply:- Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District. 9. Proximity of Power Litres: To property. 1©. Potential for further sand divisions and deveioptRSnt: Potentially 6 dwelling units per acre, B . Env i ronme~nta Z Sett i ns~ Physical Environment: 1. Terrain a. General Tapagrr~phic Character: Relatively flat ridgetop in the Sierra foothills. b. Slopes: 0-'i0~. a. Elevation: 9200 feet above Sea Level, d. Limiting Factors= None. 2., Soi ls a. Types and Gharacteristias: Auburn 5oi'I Series, generally well drained with moderate permeability. b, Limiting Factors: Notre. 3. Natural Hazs~rds of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zane VIII. b. Erosicyn Potentials Locally slight, generally high for the surrounding areas. c. Landslide Potential: Low. d. Fire Hazard: High, e. Expansive Soii Potential= Low. 4. Hydrola9Y a. Surface Water: None on site; however, the head of a swats basins an the easterly portion of the property. -8-