Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-234 BOARD_ OF_ SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF BUTfE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 87-234 RESOLUTTON OF THE BOARD 6F SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE OROVILLE AREA LAND USE PLAN, CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN, AND AMENDMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, a private person, Jere Bolster, 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, for a change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial for that property identified on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a private company, Cook Associates, representing various owners, has petitioned the Butte County Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, Oroville Area Land Use Plan, for a change from Agricultural Residential to Low Density Residential, for that property identified on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendments have been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has considered the contents of the Initial Studies (Environmental Checklist - Appendix F) and Negative Declarations for the proposed amendments as described above attached hereto as Exhibits A-2 and B-2 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendments at which all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed Commercial General Plan amendment as shown on Exhibit A-1 complies with the site designation criteria set out in the Land Use Element, the Circulation Element, and all other elements of the Butte County General Plan, specifically: 1. The project is conditioned to meet the requirements set forth in the Nitrate Action Plan. 2. The project will allow Iand uses which are compatible with surrounding development patterns along Highway 32. 3. Residential uses to the southwest will be protected from excessive noise levels by noise mitigation measures attached to the rezone implementing the General Plan Amendment. 4. The project site has direct access to Highway 32, a major arterial; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors find the proposed amendment as shown on Exhibit B-1 complies with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and Comprises an overall internally consistent whole, specifically: 1. The project complies with the policies of the Land Use Element and the Housing Element as applied to existing development. 2. The Iand in its present state is not suitable for agricultural residential use. 3. The project site has direct access to Kelly Ridge Road, a designated collector. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does hereby adopt and certify the Negative Declarations for the General Plan Amendments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the land use designation change from Medium Density Residential to Commercial and from Agricultural Residential to Low Density Residential for those areas identified on Exhibit A-1 and B-I, attached hereto and incorporated by reference are hereby adopted and approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as an amendment to the Butte County General Plan 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 pursuant to Government Code Section 65359, the General Plan of the County of Butte is endorsed to show that the above amendment has been approved by the Board of Supervisors. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on the 1st day of $ept,, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Fulton, McInturf, McLaughlin, Vercruse and Chair Dolan NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None Board of Supervisors ATTEST: MARTIN J. NICHOLS, Chief ~~ative Officer and Clerk of the Board By a ` 4 ~F~C Aplo w,kAi. ' ~ F S.`.` Y V~I i-io EXIHI6NT A/ t Y - -.... { T i ' rWN~ C.r DNS •tF-.~ Q V AN A •+~c.n~,Dr'r-~.~.s`-T L a c..a-r ~Q N ~`~~;~ n~.a~-:._c Nt FILE No. ~.~>'s.< BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATES _ ~ 1 ~ N APPLlCANT:JL~.L 4o~.s-x- ~ OIIVNER~""~~~., ti REQUEST= .~ p~..._. EXISTING ZONE=~ s2 SCALE 1" _ A oo' rn N 1M ~..~ T to ~ v n. ~ t-J A ~ Z tt Q. t Os T ~ ~ `Ke ~.O eh ~y, a ~ ~ a a-~~ ~,,.. ~~ ..., s ~ -tee c. z ` 'r _ / ~1LO ~ LG~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - "~ ~ ! ~ ~ \ ~ _~ f ~~ ~ . ~f , } _ ~ ~ ~ ~ -_ i ~aq 54 A ~ ~O q • 5 5 - A, ~,.,, FILE Flo. ~i7 -1,3 A. ~ d-- ~tJTTE COU~T1f PLA~I~i~G COt+~IV~[SSION ' k~EA-~dIN~ GATES= ~, to ~ ~4PP~.IC~i6~T~ C.o ~ 01~~EP~ ov RE~t~E~T• r~.~.~.--~ `" _'" EX~STlf~G ~O~E~ A'~: t SCAtE _ , {, .. ni~l~rNttl a is . (;t1tIN'fl' (ll~ lill'l'1'I: 1:NV[ii(1Nr11:N-1'nl. (:111?{:K1.15'I' 1'ORM tic ccim~~l c~~tccr by f.ca nkcncy) t o ( Log # 87-03-13-02 _.. 11P # 42-14-7 3 ,114 I. Itnc;t(t,ROtINI~ File No. 87-38A & B Name a l' prop~~nc:nt. J_ERE BOLSTER .~. _--_ -- ._.. L. Address uI' proponent and representative (if applicable) J~re-. Bolter __. ___ __.-- _---- _ 15Q3 nita Avenue .~_~___,-- Manza ~ -~.~ --- - --- _ _ _ .Chico, CA~95926 ~__..-.__. 3. l'rnject clcsc-riPtian General Plan Amendment & -L - Rezone _._. __ 1in'I ! -._ .... rlnNlln'Ct3RY_ l~ I Nil E N(~ti (ll? S i (ANT I~l (:nib . a. I-crc:ti thr• pr~~act kt,tvc the ltc?tcntiitl to degraclc the c{~illity of thc• c~nvironmcnt, substantially reduce t}tc }tithitat. crf~ a fitih or wildlife species, cause a lish or wildlife: population to drop below self° sust.a i n i tt~; 1 cvc 1 s , threaten to eliminate a pl ant or ;tnimal community, reduce the number or restrict the ran~;c oi~ rt rare ar endangered plant or animal or climinittc important axamples of the. major periods c,f California Kist-nry or prehistory? - YI:S MAYiiI: N(} -..... !~. lmcs the pro jeer }rave the Potential to achieve - ~}t{~.rt-term hcneftts to the cietrament of long-term, _ csnvi ronmental l;oals'? {A short-term impact oil the` c•nvirnnment is one which oCCUT5 in a relatively brief pc:riacl oi' time while lonl;-tcrm iml?acts wi11 - c~ndurc into the future.) --_ -- ~•. Imes the project have impacts which are individu- al ly l imitccl, but ciimt,lativeiy considerable? (A prajcc~t mxy impact an two or more separate resources where the intpact on each resource is relatively small , httt whcr•c: the effect of the total of those impact:; ntt the: environment is sil;nifieant.} ___ -..-._- _~ ._~. ../ rl. Ilc,t~, thc~ I~roierct have enviT•nnntc:nta7 effects whir}t will cause sithstctntial adverse effects on human y lx:Inl;s, either directly ar indirectly? ~ --•-- /~ 1/4ti1: 1 incl the pr<>1~nsecl project COU[.l) NOT have a signii-rant el-l-ect ~,n thc~ c~tyvirnntncnt, cincl a Nl:GA1'lUli i)}iC1.11RA'i'I()N wi11 he I~t•eparc•cl. t /tat: l' i ucl that a 1 t}toii};h the prop,~tiecl pro j r.rt cool d }rave a s i ~n i I' i - rant c1'fcct on t.hc cnvironmr.nt, there will Hat be a sil;nit'icant e1'1~ect in thiti case because the p11TlGAT'10N MIiASURIiS de~crihrd c~ct t h~• a t t achccl she~rt. have horn added to _thc pro j cct . n Nli(~n'I' 1 VF. Ill:s;1.111tn'CI(1N tri I 1 hc• prc•pat•c:cl. 1/tv1~. lin~1 lire I,rulu,scd proiact rtA1' Itiive. a sii;nificant c•1-feet nn t he• r•n~ i t'cltttncnt , ~tuc1 tin liNV1 it(tNrliiNl'nl, Ih1PAC'l' Ria'012'f is rc:yeti re•ei. Itl:'I'l:l?rll [~n'i: l (~N {'l'am he cotnpletecl by the lead Agency) tttt the: h:t~iy ol- this initial evaluation: April l4, .1987,. . _.. ~ - ___.-_ C(111N'i`Y Ol~ R111'Tli, 1'LnNN}NG lylil'nlt'i'rtliN'1' _ ~ ~ Laura M. Tu e, Assoc' to Planner ~~ Reviewed hy: .__- ~~-. ___-__..-- _. __ _.- . .~ ~IV. ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPA~:-3 _ anatLOns fl a "yes" and "maybe" answers are required xp on attached sheet(s)) yES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a -Unstable earth conditions ar in changes in • x geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or •.. l? ~ - overcavering af.the soi . c. Change in topography or ground surface • ._~~ ~ relief features? - ~ ~ ~ ~ • d. ficatczn of any Destruction, covening~ ar modi ? a • tures .unique geologic or physical fe : e. `Increase in wind or water erosion•~`of. soils, - ? ~ ~ •. on or off-site either .- - _._ f. . Changes- in deposition ar.erasion o~:;:beach - deposition sands,'or changes in siltation, or erasion which may ~mod~.fy •the~ channel of a river• or stream or -the :bed •~o.f • the ocean- or _ - - _ g. any bay, inlet- o~• lake?~:: ~• - . Lass 4f prime••agriculturally productive.soils auts-ide designated urban areas? h. - 'Exposure of people or property•to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudj - slides,~~ground failure or similar hazards? '- 2. AIR. Will the- proposal• result in substantial: -"•'• _ • a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient - b. air ualit _ q y? The creation of objectionable-odors, smoke ~ ~- .. • or fumes? .. c. Alter~tian of-air movement, moisture, or temperature, ar any change in climate,_ locally or regionally? -- 3. WATER. Will the praposal~result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or ~ direction of water movements in either -~ _ b marine or fresh waters? Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, . ar the rate and amount of sur~~ace runoff? - c Need for off-site surface drainage improve- . .. meats, including vegetation removal, channel- ? ~ - ization or culvert installation .... - d. Alterations to the course or flow of -flood - - ~ • ~ - waters ? e. Change in the amount• a~:surface water in any ' .~ water body? - f. -~- - Discharge into surface waters, or in•any quality, including of surface• watpr i - .. on alterat but not limited to temperature,•~dissolved ~ ~ g oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow .- _... . of ground waters? _~i_. h. Change in the quantity or quality of•grQUnd waters, wzth- - either through direct additions or drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? • i. _ - ..Reduction iii the amount of water otherwise ? ."_ available for public water supplies j. Exposure of people or property to water •~ related hazards such as flooding? _..C -2_ - YES MAYBE NO 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a.~ange in the diversity of species, ar number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of new species of plants rota an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crap? 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will- the proposal result in substantial:• a. C ange in the diversity of species, ar numbers of any species of animals (birds, 1 and. animals including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthac organisms or insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique,' rare or endangered species of animals? c. introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a,barrier to the. migration ar movement of-animals?-. _- d. Deterioration. to existing fish ar wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a: increases in exacting noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? M~f~-- L _ 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce _..~ -:s~gni scant lig t and glare? $. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a ~ - su stantial alteration of the present ox planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in su stantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A rlsc o explosion ar the release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? lI. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, istri ut~.on, density, or growth rate of the human population? 12. HO[~SING. Will the proposal affect exacting housing, or create a demand for additional housing? -3- r~ • ~ YES ~[AYBE i~0 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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 exist~.ng transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of pevpie and/or goods? ~. -._ ~ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? --- f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Pi7BLIG SERVICES. Wi11 the proposal have an effect upon, ar xesu t in a need fox new or altered governmental services: a. Fire protection? ~ l~ b. Police protection? .. - c. Schools? ~ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of gublic facilities, including roads? ~ ~ - f. Other governmental services? ~ - l~. ENERGY. Will the proposal xesult in: a..:_. Lase 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 e~~rgy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial. alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? „~... b. Communications systems? . c. Water availability: ~,-, d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? ~C 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. teat o~ n of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ~, b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ..,~ 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the p strut ion 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? - ._„~ -4- _ V. YES I~1.AYBE NO 3.9. RECREATION. Will the proposal, result in an, impact - ` .~ . upon t -~e quality or quantity of existing recreational i ? ~~' es opportunit ~~--. -~• Zfl. CULTURAL RESOURCES. .. , ~ ` a. ill t e proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or l i ? ~~ i ~ s te ca historic archaeolog b. Will the proposal result.in adverse physical ~ ~~. or aesthetic effects to .a prehistoric ar historic building, StTUCture Or object? c. Does the proposal. have the potential t.o cause a physical change~which..would affect unique - X ethnic cultural values? _ d. Wi1l~the proposal restrict existing rel%gious • or sacred uses within the potential impact; ;~ - ._ _ area? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL'EVALUATION Fi1~~No. 87-38A & B .See attached. _~_ ~~ I~l[SG-U~~Qt~ R~FNY~~Q~ENT~-L EYA~,~ ATiON FILE NO. 87-38A and B t~enera# Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial on 2 acres located to the west of Highway 32,. The project area is in two distinct parcels, one of which is already zoned C--2. The other parcel is zoned S-R and will require a Rezone tq C-2 prior to commercial development. ~.gcuss i on of Ch~.~..,~'c , ~#~ID>x ibt The property is currently developed with one single-family house end an orchard. Conversion to cammercial use is expected to disrupt. and overcover the majority of the soil surface. " 1e: Sails on site are of the Farwell Loam Series, which has a slight ®rosfon potential. Erasion is only of concern if drainage is not properly gccommodat®d and runoff is generated onto ad,Joining properties. ... .. 2a: iJse of the properties for-cammercial activity can generate two ..:-different kinds of air pvllutian impact, point and nanpoint. Point "__ sources include repair garages, paint chaps and some food establishments. Nonpo#nt sources inciude vehicle emissions. Point - -~--sources shell meet the requirements of the Air Pollution Control .District at the time of building permit issuance. Nonpoint sources ears only be controlled at the regional ar nation8l level. 3b,c,16e: Construction of a new commercial building on property now planted in an orchard and development of parking lots will generate a significant amount of storm water runoff. There are no community drainage facilities in the vicinity nor any community service areas far the provision of facilities. Drainage will have to be prow#ded on site. Drainage trenches are one means to provide a temporary solution to drainage. the ultimate solution would be to tie into areawide facilities. Development on site will need to meet the requirements of the Nitrate Action Plan which will include signing an agreement to participate in future drainage districts. 3h~IEic: WeI1s in the vicinity of Oak Way have been tested by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and found to be contaminated with nitrates. Nitrate levels in these wells have exceeded 60 milligrams per liter, far in excess of the federal standard of 45 milligrams per Liter. i~itratc~s pose a serious health hazard to infants, pregnant women and the elderly. The primary danger Pram drinking water contaminated with nitrates is the fact that the n#trates limit the oxygen absorption capacity of red blood cells. California Water - Serv#ce Company lines should be extended. _~_ if California Water Service Company lines are not extended, there is a potential to expose future tenants of the property to health hazards, 4a: Vegetation on site includes an old orchard on the northerly parcel and urban landscaping at the homesite. Trees will need to be removed prior to development. Since the habitat on site is man made, not natural, this impact is not significant, 4d: R 1-acre orchard will be converted to urban use. This impact was i~ully addressed in the Chico Urban Area Land Use Plan Environmental impact Report, 1982. Conversion of agricultural soils to alternative uses_-is unavo`sdable within. the urban area. - 5d: Surrounding development to the west of Highway 32 has compromised the wildlife value of these properties.--Further-development of these properties wil3 have no measurable impact on wildlife habitat in the Chico Urban Area- 6a,b: The C-2 zoning district allows a number ofi uses such as cocktail lounges, bowling alleys and repair garages," which may generate excessive noise levels. Absolute noise and-peal< noise levels are one factor to consider in making a noise impact assessm®nt. A ' second Factor is the duration of the noise, and the time at which it ___ occurs. Mare benign commercial. uses, including an equipment rental shop or retail store, may generate objectionable-noise only because `_.:. .they are open .for" long periods of time and may generate high levels of _... _. -.traffic. Single-family and multi-family residential uses are located to the - `north and west..; A buffer.shouid be developed between the commercial and residential"'lots so that noise exposure is reduced. A noise --- buffer may include a solid masonry or stucco wall or a large. -landscaped berm. 7a: Exterior security lighting may spill over onto ~ad~jacent properties. As noise and light levels in a neighborhood increase, more requests are made for~ changes in land use designations. _ 8:" The present land use is a single--family residence and 7-acre - orchard. i'he General Pian designates those properties for medium density residential uses. The project is a General Plan Amendment and Rezone tv aliaw commercial uses on site. The General Plan Land Use Element identifies six site designation criteria for consideration in a Commercial General Pian Amendment. These are. 1. Needed for commercial development within 20 years. 2. Good road accessibility to service area or traveling public. 3. Adjacent to or near utilities, Walkways and commercial development. 4. Less than 20~ slopes. -7- !~ b. Adequate fire and police protection. b. Ndequate water supply and sewage disposal capabilities. Conversion of this sand to commercial uses would not comply with site designation criteria .3 and 6. Criteria ~ and 5 can be met through project design. Sped tically, safe access by means of providing a iett~^turn packet and approved driveway approach will be necessary. -See Item 13 for traffic comments, and item '14 for fire comments. !~: Single-family residential uses are located to the northwest and southwest of the project site. These adjoining residences may be negatively impacted if bath parcels develop with commercial uses. --impacts to neighbors include increased traffic, noise, glare and ...genera! activity generated by the project. 13: Since the development plans are not known for this property, traffic estimates need to be made from the range of uses permitted in the E/-~ zoning district. After excluding those uses which have a high water demand trestaurants, last-food establishments, health clinics and hotels), Permitted uses are estimated to generate between 417 and 1,573 vehicle trips Per day. A typical office would generate 417 trips, white a shopping area would generate 15U1} trips Per day. the State Highway Patrol has expressed a concern with the traffic which may be generated by the project. They request that traffic __ circulation Patterns be studied and evaluated in con,lunctian with any --future development on the property- Ihey note that the corridor is __ .. . heavily traveled and at times congested. . •~ 13b: Utf-street parking will need to be provided at a ratio of one __ space per ~Di1 square feet for retail uses and one space per 3flti square teat for protessional offices. Other parking standards are found in Butte t;ounty Gode Section ~4-35. 13c,t: Additional traffic generated by this property onto the Highway 32 corridor could generate significant traffic safety problems. At the very minimum, the applicant should consider the installation of a common driveway, left-turn pocket or left-turn lane and approved driveway approach. Specific conditions of approval will be at the discretion of CalTrans, which has jurisdiction over the State Highway. it the State identifies a need for other improvements or traffic signals through the corridor, the applicant shall contribute a pro rata share, i4a: Eire protection is provided by the California Department at Forestry. Ihey do not now operate a station west of the railroad tracks. i^ederal guidelines allow a train to block an intersection in excess of i5 minutes. However, a standard structure can be engulfed _ i n as t ew as ~s rr- i nutes . l-he i ack of f ire protect i an i n the West L:h i co Hrea is severe. in order to address this problem, I;DF has requested a pro rata contribution from all developers located west of jhe Esplanade. Provision of community water and hydrants would also serve to on set tire-related impacts. -8- t l4b,e= Development and occupancy of this property will result in increased calls for pniice protection and demands for road maintenance. Because this property is within the urban area, albeit on its fringes, this impact is not considered significant. 14c: Construction will be subject to school improvement-fees. 16d: Individual septic systems have been proposed to serve development on these lots. Use of septic systems will"be subject to the approval of the Environmental Health Department and the requirements of the Nitrate Action Plan. Sewage will be limited to t,L100 gallons per acre per days ,High-water -land uses .will not be permltted..on septic tanks under tl7e Nitrate Action Plan: Uses which may be considered include retail and general`offlces.=-=- 17b: The Regional Water Quality Control Board has tested wells in the area and found them to be contaminated-with nitrates.- By not extending California Water Service Company lines, future tenants and occupants of the property will be exposed to potential health hazards.:- - . 20a: A records search will tae required from Chico State.Universlty.to,.. determine whether or not`an archaeological survey°should be prepared.- The applicant should contact t~he'U~fversity directly at:the.address Included in the cover letter and request that a copy of the results.. be _. sent to the County P tanning Department , , ; -..._..__ .. ,.--.._.::. , r-r MANDATORY FINDINGS ~F SICN~E#~ANGE : , ~ .. _.. _.. ___._. a: There is a potential for impact to archaeological re-soc.irces, A - record5~~search will be required to determine whether or not a survey shad be prepared. - 4 -9- ~~ Applicant: Jere Bolster Assessor's Parcel ~ 42-# 4-73,'E # 4 Log # 87-03-'13-02 File No. 87-38A and 8 DATA SHEET a. 1 . 1 ype of Pro,je~ct: General Plan Amendment and Rezone. 2. Brief Description: General Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential to Commercial an 2 acres and Rezone from S-R (Suburban-Residential) to C-2 (General Commercial) on #,06 -- . . .acre . - 3. Location: On the southwest side of Highway 32 approximately 200 feet north of Oak Way, Chico. 4. Propassd Density of Development: Urban. 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Low percentages. ' 6. Access and Nearest Public Roadts): Frontage an Highway 32. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Septic tank proposed. $. Source of Water Supply: California Water Service Company (7). 9. Proximity of Pow®r Lines: On site.- ' _.._: 9Q. Potential for further 1a~nd divisions and develiopment: ._.._ - Extensive . __..:~....:...~..__ B ~ ~_ ~ t Phvs i cal Env i resnme~t: Terrain a. General Topographic Character: L®vel valley land. b. Slopes: 0-2~. c. Elevation: Approximately #73 feet above ~aea Level. d. Limiting Factors: None. , Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Farwell Loam, #-3 feet, granular, friable, retains moisture well, subsoil to 6 feet, level and smooth surface, gaud surface and subsurface drainage, well suited to agriculture. b_ Limiting Factors: None. Natural Hazards of the Lard a. Earthquake Zoo®: Moderate. b. Erosion Potential: Slight. e. Landslide Potential: None. d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified. e_ Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate. Hydra i ogy a. Surface Water: None in immediate vicinity. -b. Groundwater: Area of heavy groundwater withdrawal, nitrate concern. c. Drainage Gharacteristics: Outside of urban drainage district. -10- d. Anreuai Rainfal 1 Cnormal )= 22-24". e. Limiting Factors: Lack of drainage. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Urban. 6. Acoustic ©uality: Poor. 7. Air Quality: Fair to poor. 8_ Vegetation= Urban ornamentals on AP 42-14-73, old orchard on AP 42-14-114. 9. Wildlife Habitat= Limited by development in area. ttl. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area= Retards search required.. . 11. Butte County General Plan designation= Medium Density Residential. 12. Exlstins Zoning: C-2, S-R. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: One parcel-.vacant, one parcel developed with single-family residence» -. 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: North: orchards. :Northeast: residential and commercial. East: cortimertial. South: vacant. West: residential. b. Zoning: C-2, S-R, A-10, M-2. c. Gen. Plan designations. Medium Density Residential, ~- - Commercial, Law Density Residential. d. Parcel Sizes= 6,500 sq. ft. to 10 acres. -_- e. Population= Medium densities. t5: Character of Site and Area: Ur`~banized corridor along Highway 32. 1f,. Nearest Urban Area. Chico. t7. Relevant Spheres of Influence= CSA #24, City of Chico. 18. Improvements Standards Urban Area= Full improvements required. 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County tState) Fire Stations #44, 3-1/2 miles south; #42, 3f miles east. b. Water Availability: Engine capacity, hydrants. 2Q. Schools in Area= Chico Unified School District. -~~_ inter-D~partmen~a~i,' ~ernorandun't _.~! ro: Planning Commission ~aoM: Planning Staff sue~~cT: COOK ASSOCIATES .REZONE AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, FILE 87-33A & B onr~: May 1$, 1987 The attached initial study was prepared for the Rezone for Cook Associates, File No. 87-33A, on various properties in the Kelly Ridge area east of Oroville. The applicant requested rezoning from AR-1 to R-1 in order to recognize existing lots in Kelly Ridge Estates Unit 8. The easterly portion of the Rezone area carries a General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The westerly portion, however, is designated Agricultural- Residential, which requires zoning with at least a 1-acre minimum lot size. As a result of the initial study on the Rezone phase of the project, the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment from Agricultural-Residential to Low Density Residen- tial for the westerly portion of Kelly Ridge Estates Unit 8. If approved, this action would bring the existing lot size, the General Plan designation and the zoning all into conformity. Since the original initial study addressed the potential impacts of rezoning to the smaller properties and suggested the General Plan Amendment, the original initial study is sufficient for considering the General Plan Amendment and a Negative Declaration is recommended. DRH/s s cc: Cook Associates EXHI~lT [3~~ ni~l~€~.Nnl ~ r (;(~l)N'1'Y (}F 13111"I'1's i;NV 1 Ii~NAtI:N'l'A!. C11F'.CKI, [ S'f )~()f2M (t{,- lie rcinii~letccT~~ry I,cacT Rl.~c'ncy~ l,og # g7-p~-12-Oi 111' II Various lln(,h(;,~lcluNlt Fi~.e No. 87-33 1 . Narnc~ (, I' Pr-crPuncYnt ...__- . CODK._~~~9CZATES-.- --_---------..~.-...--- _._:. L. nclcires~ of Pr•nponcnt .rncl rr.Preti~nt.rtive (if app7icahle) .._ Caok . Assoc.~.ates ,....A~~n :.--. ~?au ~-. e~~ls.~____.._ ___2060 Park _Avenue.. __--~------------ .---- -------W_.-.__._..-_..__..~.._..__.~_.--- O~oville, CA 95965 - '.5. 1'r(7~ect cl(•scril}tic~n .. _.REZOTle_.------ --_.-__------~•--_-------------- --- Y1:5 P1AY R}~. Ntl MnNlln'f(}RY 1~ i N It I N4;ti l}I: `; I [.N l l~.i CIIIVCI? _.- --- ----- -- .,. 11(}t~ti t.krt• Pr(+jcc't iss,vc the p(~tenticlk to degrade the c}unlit}' (rf the c~nvironnrc~nt , substantially reduce the h.rhituE c, 1' .s fitih or wild"l ifc :,l~ecies, cause a I•islr (,r wilillifc~ lrt,i~ul~rticrrr to ~}rof~ below self- tirtyt~aininJ~, Ic~vcl~, Ihrcat.en to climintrtc a plant or ;rnirn.rl c-mm~u,nity, rcclucc The number or 7•astrrct. the ranl;(~ (,I .r r,rr(~ err enclan~ered Plant or ~rnimal ar c•l iu+irr,tt(~ irn[,(ir~ttrnt a~xtunples c7€- Ihr mrrjnr Pcricsds v ,+I' t',[I ifurrri,r lri:;t(t,}~ err Prehist{rr•y7 ---_- --- 1-~ 1~, }tor.; thc~ pr'rrjcct have the Pote[rtial to achieve tihnr't-tcris, hcrrcl'its to t.hc clctriment oi~ ]onl;-tersn, c:[rvirnnmcntat ~;oal5'? (A short-tern[ impact on the cnvirc,nrnent is nnc which occurs in a rclativel.y hric~t' 1>criod r,C time sahi]c lout;-term impacts will x endure into thr. futurr..i ~._. .. __ -. ... ~•. Itac:s ttsc Prcr,ic~c't h~rvc irrtpacts which arE; indivi,_lu- . ;rl ]y l imitc~cl, hrrt t-umulatively con~;icierah]c? (n Prc, jc~rt nrry impact. an two yr mclre separate. resources whe r•c; t he~ i mlzact nn each resource i s rel ~It ivc,]" 5m,rl ] , l,ut where: ti,c cfCe;cr. oC the total of thnsc EmPact:, nn thc~ c:nvirnr~ment is si}~,nificant..l ____. _.-..-- cl. I[(~e~s the l,roj(?(•t have cnvir•nnmcntal effects tdhicir wi 1 ! ~.-r,rrsc sr,hst,ant i[r7 t,dvcrsc cCfcr.ts on hunrtn hc~ini;s, c•ithcr clircct]y c,r indirrct.ly? .- -. --.-- 111 :'I'1'.NPI I NAT I t~N ('I'cy hc: camp } ctcd by t:hc: Lead nKenc:Yj tt~r I h+• I,;r:~ i ~~ ~~ I t h i •'~ i ~i i t i a l c~v,r 1 sra t i c,n X f/WI~, lin(l the prc,pr,secl project Cf}tlt,T} N~'1' have a significant. el'l~cct (,n the c•n~~ i r(>nmrnt , fsnd t, N1?Gn'I'1VIi I}ii(;l.nRn'1'1(3N wi 17 he l~reparcd. l /1Vi: I' i nel that ;, 1 thou},h the' 1}roPosecl Pro jest cool d havr ri sign [ f i cant c•Ile~it cut the environment, t-here r~i]L [x~t he a siF;nii~icant c~l~lc~rt in this (-ase becar.rse the F9lTi(~n"I'T~N MF.nSI#RF,S descrihc•d un th(• ;rtttre'i,e~cl tihc~c`t lt~ave lsccn €[ilclc(I to the: project, n NTi[ll1'I'1V1; Itl:(:i,nhn'I'I(1N wi 1 1 hrt hrc~Parc(]. I/tVl: f in+l t.}tc• l+i-c,P(rsc~(.l project M1tnl` have a significant effect ern . tlrr c•n~rirc~nn,(•nt, and an }iNVllt[}NA4}?N`1'Al, 1MI'nC'I' 12P1'{}!2'1' is roc}t,it'ed. I}A'i t.: March 12, 1.9$7- ----. _-.- _ C(}lIN'1'Y {1}~ E3tl'1"1'F, PLANNING 1}kiPAR'l'M1]}{N'l' _ ~` "~ ; David R. Hironimus, Associate Planner ltc v i coved by : •--~ - ~-- I V . ENVI RONMEN'~'AL lA4PA~ .. a xp anattons o~a~~"yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheet (s}} yE~ MAYBE NO _._. 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a.`T'Unstable earth conditions or i,n changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or •. ~~ overc.overi.ng of the sail? - C. Change in topography or ground surface ~ ._ Y relief features? ~ ~ L d. Destruction, covering ar madi.f~c~tan of any ? ~ e s : .unique geologic. or physical featur e.Increase in wind or water erasion of soils, either an or off-site? . f. Cliaztges in deposition or• erosion of~:beach sands, or changr:s in si.7.tation, deposition or erosion which may mod~.fy•the channel of a river-or stream ar the bed-~f~the ocean ar any bay , inlet ox lake? - _____ g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils ? auts'icie designated urban areas h. F.xpast~re of people or property .to geologic hazards 5t1Ch as earthquakes, landslides, mud= G X slides, groi.tind failure ax similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissi.arzs or deterioration of ambient air duality? b. The creation of ob~ectianable odors, smoke X or fumes? c. Alter~tioj~ of air movement, moisture, ar temperature, or any change in climate,_ x locally or regionally? 3. WAi'ER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Chan~~es in currents, or the course or c!i rec':ioE~ o i water rnoveiner~ts in e i.tiaer marine c7r fresh waters? b . Changes in absox'ption rates , drainage patterns , or tlke rate and amount of surface runoff? ~J c Need for af:f-situ surface drainage improve- . ments, including vegetation removal, channel.- XC• ization or culvert installation? . ~. d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? F Discharge into surface- waters, or in-any . alteration of surface"water quality, including but not limited to temperature,-dissolved ~G _ g. axyKeri or ttzrhidity? .~.l.teration of the direction ar rate of flow of: ground waters? li Change in tl~e duantityor duality of .ground waters, . ei Che ~- Ch rnuw9ti direct additions or with- cir-a.4~rals, or through interception of an agl.i i. Fer vy eats or excavations? .-. ~-- i . lteduct i on i.n the amount of water other rise ? ,_" avail~tl~lo Far public water supplies j . Expasur-e o t- people ar property to water relatec! hazards such as flooding? -2- . . ' : YES 3~IAYBE NO 13, TRANSPORTATION/GTRGULATION, Will tine proposal result in: a . Generation of substantial additifl~zal vehicle ~G movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or a ki ? r ng demand for new p c, Substantial impact on existing transportation ? G Systems d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation ox movement of people and/or ~ goods? . e. Alterations to waterborne, rail ox air traffic? ~ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, ~ C bicyclists ox pedestrians? 14. PUBt~IC SERVICES. W~.11 the proposal have an effect upon, or resu t in a need for new or altered governmental services; ? ~ ~c' a. Fire protection ., b. Police protection': _..~.~' c. Schools? ~ X c d. Parks or othex recreational facilities? - X ~- e. A9aintenance of public facilities, including roads? k ~' :~. Other governmental services? ~,,.G 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a: use 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 16. UTILITIES. Wi11 the proposal result in a need for •~ new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water ava'i.lability: d. Sewer or septic tank? e. Storm water drainage? X f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17 ~IUMAN HEALTIi. Will the proposal result in: , a. reat~.on of any health hazard or potential health hazard {excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health x hazards? 1$. AESTHETTCS• ~ti.ll. the proposal result in the ~•Cruction 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? _4_ FILE 87-33 1b,3b,c,f: The subject property is already develop®d into a subdivision, and na additional impacts are expected from this pra~ect other than the potential for some redivision of a few of the larg®r tats. Additional drainage, should this happen, is not cansid®red to be a significant factor. 1hs The subject property is located near faults associated with th® Foothill Shear ~an® which supported the 1975 broville esrthquaite. Construction of structures to Uniform Building Code standards should provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. $s The parcels located on the easterly half of the project are in an area planned for Law Density Residential, which would permit the requested R-1 zoning. The parcels an the westerly portion of the property (those identified as AP 69-54-~1 through -~2} are in an Agricultural-Residential designation. The requested RM1 zone }s not considered compatible with the Agricultural-Residential designation. 13a,c,f: Additional traffic in the area will ba generated as the existing lots are built upon. This project will not create any additional tats other than as mentioned above, and would net represent a significant incr®ase in traffic in the area. 14: This project will not result in a significant number of new lots ar dwellings above those glready approved far the area. As such, a significant effect an the environment will not occur. 2~a: An archaeological survey has been performed an the subJ®ct property and clearance was recommended. This study was done in can unction with the approval of the subdivision in 19?9. 1, Delete AP 69-54-01 through -32 from the prpJect, or apP1Y for a E;eneral Plsn Amendment to Low Density Residential for that same area. References initial Study for Southern CaliFornia Financial Corporation Tentative Subdivision Map, Lag No. ?9-a9-19-rah _~_ 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Drainage swales cross the site, Storm drainage facilit#es already install®d. b. Groundwatart Generally deep, locally near surfrace. c. Drainage Characteristics. Lots 1 to 41 drain to the northwest along drainage swalesi Lots 42 to 51 drain downslape to the southeast towards Lake Orovllle. d» Annual Rainfall (normal)s 30-35°'. e_ Limiting Factors» drainage to the lake results in sedlmentatlan. 5. VisualrSaenic Quality: Fair, resid®ntial dev®lopm~snt area. ~i. Acoustic Quality: Fair, traffic noise dominates. 7. Air Quality: Goad, except dur#ng periods of stagnant valley air. 8. Vegetation: Foothill-Woodland, Grassland communities. Existing Oaks, grass®s, D}99er Pines. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Upper Sonoran Life Zane. Most nativ® wildlife has left the area due to development. Ba]d Eagle hgb#tat tv the east. i~.~,i,..ral Env l rQnmen~: 1D. Archaeological and Historical Resources in lihe area: High sensitivity area. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Low Density Res#dential and Agricultural-Residential. 12. Existing Zoning: AR-1. 13. Existing Land Use on-site= Single-family residential lots. 14. Surrounding Area= a. Land Uses: Single-family residential uses at urban to suburban densities. b. Zoning: AR-1 and Rl'-1. c. Ge-n. Plan designations: Law Density Residential and Agricultural-Residential. d. Parcel Sues: From 114- to 3/4-acre parcels within the project area, 1f2- to 2-acre parcels to the south, 7500-sq.-ft. to 1-acre lots to the north. s. Population: Low dens#ty residential. 15. Character of Site and Arease Oraville suburban ar®a and urban fringe. 16. Nearest Urban Area Oraville, approximately 5 miles. 1?. Relevant Spheres of Influence. OWID, North Burbank Public Utility District, Oravillg. 18. Improvements Standards Urban Areat No, 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station= Kelly Ridge Station approximately 1 tulle. b. Water Availability: OWID hydrants. 20. Schools in Area» Orav}#le Elementary SChaol District and Oravills Union H}gh School District. .. g ..