Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout88-064RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN AND BUTTE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has initiated a change to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, Chico Area Land Use Plan, for a change from Commercial to Low Density Residential and from Low Density Residential to Public for that property identified on Exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a private land owner, Richard Jones, has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, fora change from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural-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-4 and B-2 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed General Plan amendments and subsequent development could not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendment at which all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed Low Density Residential and Public General Plan amendments as shown on exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3 complies with the policies of the Butte County General Plan specifically: 1. The General Plan Amendment to Low Density Residential is the first step in allowing conversion of existing houses to small professional offices. 2. Sma11 professional offices are compatible with surrounding residential uses and will not generate objectionable noise or traffic. 3. The General Plan Amendment to Public will recognize the public nature of the water supply system, churches, and nonprofit organizations. 4. All development will be conditioned to meet the requirements set forth in the Nitrate Action Plan. WHEREAS, The Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed Agricultural Residential General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit B-1 complies with the policies of the Butte County General Plan specifically: 1. The project will allow land uses which are compatible with the recommendations of the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Advisory Committee. 2. The project has access to adequate public facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does he~eby adopt and certify the Negative Declarations for the General Plan Amndments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 7T FURTHER RESOLVED, that the land use designation change from Commercial to Low Density Residential, Low Density; Residential to Public and Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential for those areas identified on Exhibit A-1, A- 2, A-3, and B-1, 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 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Government Cade Section &5359, 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 24th day of May 1988, by the following vote: AXES: Supervisors Fulton, McLaughlin, Vercruse and Chairman McInturf NOES: Supervisor Dolan ABSENT: Nane NOT VOTING: None HASKEL MCINTTIR~', CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of S rvisors ATTEST: MARTIN J. NICHOLS Chief Administrative Officer a Clerk of the Board By :~ a E~ `~ P ~ ~L s~'~ ~fZO M Lc~I~J D~S1z`j TZESI D~IUT~ /l~~ -Y'o 'F'U F3t..~ L FILE NO.~ -~Oc MAP AMENO~NG CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN Resalution BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BUTTE COUNTY 80ARD OF SUPERVISORS Date ~"RdN1 Low ~~NS ~ ~~~ ~.Es~ aENT~A+~ -rv ~ur~i c FILE NO. 4`~'O ~ MAP AMENDING CHICO AREA LAND USE PLAN BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Resolution Dade ~ RvM CbM M ~ TzCI AL '~'O LOW T~r~StTy ~~s~ UE~JtIAt FILE NO. ~~ D t MAP AMENDING CHICC AREA LAND USE PLAN Resolution BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Date BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS / `4 AP#'FNDiX I` .. C~UP~TY C)F Bt1TTE EN~IiRO~M~lV~"~4L CHECKLI~`f FORM {To be completed by Lead Agency) Log No. 85-03-12-03 AP No. Various i. BACKGROUND File No. 84-70C 1. Name of proponent BUTTE COUNTY BANNING COMMISSION 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable): Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 3. Project description: East Avenue__s~eea.fie _Plan _____ _ MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNiFICAf~iCE Yi;S MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have 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 resirict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important ' examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? ............................ ^ © ~. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of Ipng- .erm, environmental cows%;~ short-term im;~G~t L~ iheenvironment isonewhich occurs in a relatively brief period of lime wnile long-term =mpacts will endure into the future.).......,. ^ ^ ~ 3. Does the project have impaciswhich are indi,.c,:atiylimited, butcumulativeiyconsiderable? f A pra~ect may impact on two or more separate ~ esources where the impact on each resource :s relatively small. but vener~ the effe:,t of tnE seta! of those impacts on the environment is ~nrficant.)......_. _. ... ..................................... © © ~ 4. Does the project h&~~ ~r.t•i,vru:,entsl effeGa .-.: ~,ch will cause substantial adverse effects on i':uman beings, either area?y or indireclly~ .............................................. © ^ ~ Ill. ©ETERMIilfATtQN::. , ... .~-^,.let~d by tt-~ ' _u~ Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I'+.NE find the prop:~se ~ l.r~.~c.; t CGULD NOT r~a~e a significant effect on the environment,and a N1=GATIVE iECLARATION will '.~: °-c pared. 1 ',VE find that attn~.i::y'~ 'r : ,; ,posed project c _ ~.:!d have a significant effect on the environment, there will not ~e a significant effect ir. t*~~; case h?cause tfse MtTiGATION MEASlJRESdescribed on the attached sheet have CeEn added to the prc,lrct. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION vrili be prepared. ! WE lEnd ;tie propovru ~.~:u!+.•.:t MAY have a ~+w~:~iicant effect an the environment, and an IrNVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is ~t.::,: r~.::. COUNTY OF Bl1TTE, PLAAffVIjVG DEPARl'MENT ~. _ €~Iarch 9, 1988.... ~,: --- - - ~_._ LauY a~ ~ =_ _ C~~ ~- x'at~Planner .~'~..~ . Fie~v~~wed by. D;~T 4 . .~ 3V. CNVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .t ail 'YES" ar,d 'fUiAYE3E' .ins... ,; ~ rCrtt,u~_~. ,,f, ..'t:.,.;ti, ; ..n, t. EARTH. Will the proposal result in signifrcanr YES f4AAYBE NO a. lJns:aUte earth conditions or in chances in geologic scabstructurra? .................. .. ^ ^ ~ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil's ........... . .... .. ^ ^ E~ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ............................ .. ^ ^ ~ d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ... .. ^ ^ e. increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? ...................... .. ^ ^ t. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay.rnlet orial<e? ................................................................. .. ^ ^ ~ g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urUan areas? ........ .. ^ ^ h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides. mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? ....................................... .. ^ ^ ~1 2. AIR. 4"dril the proposal result in s;~bstantia2: a. Air emissions or deteriarafion of ambient air quality? .................................. © ^ b. the creation of objectiona! odors, smoke or fumes? ................................... ^ ^ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, ar temperature. or any change in climate. locally or feglOr;ally? .......................................................................... ^ ^ 3. UJATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. C."a•~ges in currents, or the course or direction of 1•lcter r*:o~.~ements in eitl•;er marne or fresh :~aters? ...................................................................... .. ^ ^ b. C~har:ges in absorption rates, drainage patter:;s, or the rate and amount of surface ruro;f? .. ^ f~ ^ c. f~3esd for off-site surface drainage improvements. including vegetation removal. ~ra~-plization or culvert instaliation~ ...................... ... ................... .. ^ ~ ^ d. r.~~_•,~•ons to the course or flow of f!ooc :voters? ........ ......................... .. ^ ^ e. C~a~,ge in the amount of surface water in any water body ~ .......................... .. ^ ~ ^ f. D'sscharge into surtace waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including bud no: limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ........................... .. ^ ^ ^ g. Alte~~aon of the direction or rate of floe: of ground vr•aters? ......................... . © ^ h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters. either through drrect additions o• ^ withCrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ........... .. ^ ~, i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avai[abte for public water supplies? .... . .. ^ © L~1 f. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as floadi:ng? ........... .. ^ ^ 4. PLANT ~.iFE. Will the proposa! result rn substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plar;ts {incl;~din; tees, shrubs. grass, crops. and aquatic plants)` ... ...................................... .. ^ ^ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unrque, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... .. ^~ c. fntraduotion of new species of plants into an area. or in a barrier to the normal ^ ^ ~ replenishment of existing species? ................................................. .. , d. Reauction in acreage of any agncultural crag,? ...................................... .. ^ ^ ~~ r :;..,fiit.~iAl_ LIFF• 4'•!tl! the l~rul~os:ii r~~s,rlt rn sril~~:,,ntiFrl. YES MAYBE NO a. c,t,isn~e in the d~ve~s~ty of specres. or nurztbers of any species at animals (birds, land ^ ^ ~ animals including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthic organisms ar insects)? ........... b. Reductron in the numbers of any unique, rare ar endangered species of animals? ...... ^ ^ ~ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrierto the migration ar movement of animals? ............................................................... ^ ^ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ......................... . ............. ^ ^ ~ 6. NOISE. Will the proposa! result in Substantial: a.lncreases in existing noise levels? .................................................... ^ © ~j 6. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ............... . ........................... © ^ 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce significant light and glare? ............... ^ ^ ~ 8. t_ANO USE. 1i':ilf the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ........................................................................ ^ ,~ ^ 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? .................................. © ^ ~ b. pep€etion of any non-renevrable natural resources? . .................................. ^ ^ ^ .I). RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited tn_ oil, pes±ic~des, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions ? .... ^ ^ b. Poss~bie interference with an emergency response p:2n or emergency evacuation plan?.. ^ ^ C] f1. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population? .................................................................... ^ ~ ^ 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing. cr create a demand for additional housing? .............................................................................. ^ ~ i3. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposa result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movenent? .............................. . ^ ^ t b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ...................... ^ ^ ~, c. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems' ................................ ^ ^ d. Signi#icant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ............................................................................. ^ ^ LI e. Alterations to waterborne, tali ur air trot#,c? ........... . ......... ..................... ^ ^ [~ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclists or pedestrians? ................. ^ ^ .. ~. • t4, i'Ul3l.tC SERVICES. lh'ill the proposal hav+; rtn ~:fTect t~;.-•„t. ~,r !_-salt Sri :t i!r~r~ci for ne~•c or ~iltc~r:-,; ~a~,~:~.r!onient s~~rr!~e•s: YGS fUtAYBE NO ^ ^ a. Fire protection? ...................................... ............................... b. Polrce protection? ................................ . ............................... ^ ^ c. Scftioois? ............................................. ............................... ^ ^ t.li ~ d. f arks or other recreational facilities? .................. ............................... ^ ^ , e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ...... ............................... ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ t. Other governrnentalservices? ......................... ............................... ,, t5. ENERGY. Wilt the proposal result in: a. Use of substarttiai amounts of fuel ar energy? ..... . .................................. ^ ^ I~ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the ...... ~ ^ development of new sources of energy? ............ . ........................... 16. UTILITIES. Wilk the proposal result in a need #or new systems, or substantial alterations to the follotiving: a. Power or natural gas? ............................... ............................. .. ^ ^ b. Communications systems? ........................ . ............. . .................. .. © ^ CyJ c. Water availability?~ ................................................................ .. ^ ^ C~. d. Sewer or septic system ? ........................................................... .. ^ ^ ^ e. Storm v:ater drainage? ................................ ............................. .. ^ E1 ^ f. Solid waste and disposal? ......................... .......................... .... .. ^ ^ r` ~. 17. HIJfIRAN I•fEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. {:reai!Or Of an, health hazara Or pOter't~81 hez!th h?_2~C; !r~:~C!';"1!r;~ Zli'^' ! '"%:?I"~: ' .... - ^ ^ b. Exposure of people to potential hea~tn hazards? ... ................... . ........ ... . ~ ^ 7&. AESTIiETlCS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction o€ any scenic vista or viear r,f•~.r to the public. or will the proposal result in the creation of an aestnercaily offensivF ~i:~~ ~,~vn to public view ? ..................................................... ... .... `~ ^ ' 19_ RECREATIOi~f. Will the proposal result in an Impact upon Ehe quality or quantity u! rx!sur~y recreational opportunities? ............................................................. ^ ^ ~1 2fl. Cl1LTURAL RESOl1RCE5. a. Wrll the proposal result in the alteration o€ or the destruction of a prehistoric nr histonC ^ ^ h -[ ~ archaeolog+cal site? ..... ............. .......................... C b. Will the proposal result !n adverse pnys!cal or aesthe!!c effects tp a prehistoric or rrrstorrc © ^ ^ bu~lding.5tructure or object? ...... ..... ...... ................... c. Qoes the proposal have the potential so cause a phys.cal change :vh ich would afir~,;t .:r rrr{uc; ^ ethnic cultural values? ............................................................. d. Wrli the proposal restr!ct ex~st!ng rrlsg!n;;s r~r sacr:.d t:ses v:!4h!n thy: potantsr~l ~rnpiict ^ ^ area? ............................................ ..... .. ......................... I,i:,r,il~~~,l[lN l3f f_NVIRONME=NIAI_ !~_VAI_UATIUN f-i lc' idp. f34-'%OC 1b= Full development under the existing or ~.~roposed zoning districts will result in a signiffcan.t amount.of di=ruptian and compact.ion of the soil surface. This impact is unavoidable in the urban area. When the Gr-eenline was adopted in 1982, the f3aard of supervisors determined that compact growth in the urban area was necessary to preserve agricultural soils on the west side of town. This impact was identified acrd analyzed i n the 1 982 Chico i.Jrban Area E IR . tda mitigation is necessary. 1e. The bulk of soils in tine planning area are Redding Clay Loam. A small Pocket of Yina E..aa,t, has been mapped near North Avenue. These soils have an erosion potential ranging from none to moderate. The level terrain and low rainfall rates redr,,.,ce the erosion potential. 2a: Professional offices and low density residential uses do not normally generate significant volumes of air emissions or impact ambient air quality. Emissions generated by vehicles will be reduced. Under the existing zoning, as many as 15,132 vehicle trips could be generated dally. If the planning area is rezoned as proposed, buildout traffic would be reduced by 94b trips daily. A bike lane has been proposed on the north side of East Avenue. As the lane is constr^ucted and linked wit'- City facilities, more area residents will use their bicycles. Increased use of bicycles may result in a reduction in traffic Toads through the corridor. 3b,c: The existing drainage situation is described in the Specific Plan under Section III, Item C, Infrastructure. Full development under tl-~e proposed zoning districts will requirs: urban improvements. All 'rmprovements shall meet the requirements of the Nitrate Action i'lC,n. Development of properties north of East Avenue will require the improvement of existing ditches in the Pleasant Valley Drainage ~ District. Improvement of these ditches and other facilities should not result in any significant environment=i impacts. 3e= Urban dr~a i Wage facilities w i l l canvey~ storn•rwater runof f throLrgf 7 a system of channels and pipes to Sycamore Creek. Improvements are maintained within the f~Eud Creek system through assessments levied w i th i n CSA #2~# , 3h- Groundwater underlying the planning area has been found to be contaminated with nitrates. As a result, all urban development shall be required to connect to Community water. All development shall comply with the Nitrate Action Plan, reducing the potential of furthEr contamination of groundwater. Full development permissible under the zoning districts will require extension of community sewer. 4c: Vegetation through the planning area includes annual grasses, urban arnamentois, and a smaTf F:iwi farm. Furt#~er urbanization of this area will increase species diversity. landscaping will be regr_, i red a } ong majr1r raced Corr i d~,rs and to screen and s1-,ade parking area. -7"^ lil: ~ _ r CI . -~c1 r'rs ~ t~ ._ I i :7rrr; ,~~_ _~r.lr' .~r: v anr~ ~~ c, r..~:;anr• _ t_r,. =s;'d5 .. •r • -r' ~_ =. ~sre ilr~ty I ri ~[•~:. i Cu s,rr E3 # [_i •~ I I"s t. Isar"cjtw~t wig.-,r i C'i_i taro 1 ~~,:r-~•._i is 1r.~Gat;ed art the nartt-~ side or East Avenue, east ut- Cactus. it is i~Eanted in a.kiwi orchard. All of these par~~ls are taa small . i;o be' considered economic ur-3 i is . Agr i c~a 1 taro 1 uses "r nc l ~rde the k i w i arr_I-tar~d, w~ [~~ 1 esal e• nursery, and warehous'r ng. Canvers i on of these uses i.o urban uses will not significantly impact the agricultural industr^y. 6a,b: The existing noise situation is described in Section 3, item e. wraperties fronting on East Avenue between North and Mariposa are subjected to noise levels of 65 to 70 decibels Cdl3). The Noise Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that 60 dB is a maximum acceptable community noise level in residential areas. Based on General Plan policies, these frontage properties are not suitable t~or 1Gw density residential units. They have therefore been proposed far R-P zoning. The R-P zone would allow conversion to professional off ices. T~re bulk of the planning area has been proposed for R-'E zoning. Future residential uses will be protected from high noise levels thraugl~ implementation of plan policies. These policies include i~uilding crientatian and design towards minor neighbprhaod streets, iarge setbacks from public roads, and the provision for solid fencing c.n the rear and sides of residential lots. Residential and ~r^ofessianal uses will be separated with buffers and a 6.5-foot solid board fence. f~'~~ise ~~eneraCion will be less under the recommended zoning than could t-:ave been generated under existing zoning. The proposed zoning will rc--suit in 4i~ fewer housing units and 946 fewer vehicle trips. 8: The .xisting land uses are listed by acreage in Section >II of the -~ec' ti i c F 1 ar.. i f-le bu 1 k of the 1 85 acres i s designated Low Gens i ty t=t_•~ i dcr~t i a 1 Tl~~r; second- 1 argest 1 and use i s Fob l i t. The existing ~~eneral Flan designations wilE rrot be significantly modified. Fr'rperties now in pul7lic or quasi-public uses, including churches, o-:w ; i t-~c:~~.,se= ar,ra i~r[e E; i r i Scout office, w i l l t-se designated #ar publ i s _ ... _~ 1-•e ,-c--,v i rzdFr'~ o r tr•re corn i dar rya i 1 1 rota i n i is l._ow Gens i ty Rr•= i r~~-rZt= : 1 3 += ener^.a l F i an designation . Exist ins zoning along the corridor includes a large area of R-4 Cl~laximum Gens~ty residential) and S-R Csix dwelling units per acrel. The R'-4 zoni^g c'istrict is incompatible with the underlying General F'1 ar-r d,~w i ~r~Ut . ~'•r; . f=roper•t i es now zoned R--4 w i 1 l be rezoned to R-1 Gr =?-#{. Fronta~[e ~,rapert i es from i*lOrtt's to I~lar i poses w i 1 1 be rezoned to F'_p . [~ropert i ~ ; row i n pub t i c use will be rezoned to P-C~ . i~o change i s r..eco;~mendF~s st_ ~ ast and Ceres . 1"t're 1 and use, Genera 1 t=' 1 an and zoning are rr-:;~orc i al . i'l , 12: P.dopt :._-' cif tt-re recommended zoning wau 1 d reduce tl'-[e number of house= wh i rh cr'~[.~ ! ci hE constructed i n the corridor from t , 076 to 604. -this red~cti.~-, in hGUSing units corresprnds to availability rsf infrastructure as required by Housing Element paticies. Future res 'r den N i a l ~..=.e~ w ; 1 l b~: ub,ject to the deve 1 Dement ~~o i i c i es Gf the tipcc i f ; c P t a~ !-'' .~r~ t--'c 1 i ~~ i es address or i entat i an of structures, access , and i e; ,:~ . l ;g , .~nri ~'~I~av i de 4 or~ density bGrtuses . -~- ~.... i <_=l_ i n~~r ~~S~~~L.FS i Tl~ al on9 tk~e f r~ntage Gf l=ast Avenue tram N:~r•t]-~ to i~ia~~ i I_~os:~s cau k ~~ convert tc~ c~t~ ti i ce uses . Rerrsov i ng t]-~ese star-•uctures f rangy tt se I-~aus i ng stock comp 1 i es w i th the Genera 1 f' 1 an po 1 i c i es . These two btocks are subject to high noise levels and are not suitable +or single-family residential uses. 13= If all properties within the planning area build out to their zoned density, traffic would average 45,132 vehicle trips per day. If the same properties are reznnEd to R-1, R-P and P-©, traffic wot,.rld average 14,986. Traffic is reduced under the Specific Pian. The traffic capacity of East Avenue and other arterials will be protected by the Specific Plan. Encroachments will be limited along East Avenue to minimize conflicts between through traffic and turning traffic. A continuous left-turn lane will be constructed between North and Mariposa to servc3 properties proposed for R-P uses. All developers will be required to contribute a pro rata share towards the installation of traffic signals along East Hvenue. Building setbacks in the plan will ensure that the roads can be widened without purchasing a great number of structures. All R-P uses will be required to provide off-street parking. Parking sha]1 be ]orated to the sides and rear of structures, screened frnm adjacent public streets. To promote efficient use of land, incentives are prnvided for the construction of centrally located parking lots. i4a-f: The Specific Plan properties are located within the. urban area. Development will increase demand fvr urban services. The need for increased public services was addressed in the 1982 Chico Urban area Land Use EI:R. ProviSian of urban services will be addressed on a cnmmunity-wide basis. No mitigation measure is recommended. 16c: According to Gene Grant, manager of Cal Water, water lines can be extended to serve the plan area. 16d~ Full development wiii require community sewer. If sewer service is not available, land uses will be limited. Partial development of the properties wiii be passible, provided that the Nitrate Action Flan i s corny l i ed w i th . 16e= Stnrmwater drainage shall be provided to all properties. The properties shall form a drainage district, annex to P3easant Valley Drainage District #23, or annex to the City of Chico far drainage services. 16f: Solid waste is picked up by private haulers. F•Jo impact to their ability to provide this ser~vice is anticipated. 18: Adoption of the Specific Plan should promote improved aesthetic- through the corridnr. Specific policies address landscaping, and screen 'r nc,~• of par'•l: i r3g areas and dumpsters . E:antra 1 an tk-~e s i zF and F~l acement of s i gas, and under±~r°ound i ng of ut i 1 i t i es shout d ~~rav i de +-." an uncluttered view. -7- 20a = 1 i~~~ i i k. e i i l~~~oc,d ci r i rnp~_rc:r i r~!:~ ar^cl-ra~~_~ I ;;~_s i rd 1 r t>= r,~io ~:..~•c i n th i s area ; s i ow. To ensure ti-~at no r-esrlurces art: rornF:~r'c.~m i se~~, a records sr arch s!-~ail be required of all dev~?lopers along the corridor. The records search-;~+toui d pr.ov i de the t~iorfi!-ieast I n f orn,at i on Center N i th the opportunity to review the sites' sensitivity for resources and recommend a survey if necessary. Y -8- AppEicant: Butte County Planning Commission DATA SHEET A. Project Description B. File No. F35-70C Log ~ 85--0.~- 1 2-l1 :3 9. Type of Project: Specific Plan. 2_ Brief Description: General Plan Amendment to the Chico Urban Area Land Use Platt and Butte County General Plan; Rezone From U, R-4 and S-R to R-1 and P-©; and Rezone from S--R and R-4 to R-P. 3. Location: Generally= frontage properties on East Avenue from; Norti-4 to Mariposa and properties within 700 feet of East Avenue from Mariposa to Manzanlta. 4_ Proposed Density of D+3velopment= See Specific Plan. 5_ Amount of Impervious Surfatcing: Extensive. 6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s3= East Avenue, North, Ramada, Ceres, Floral, Mariposa, Ceanothus, Marigold, Cactus and f~lanzan i ta. 7_ Method of Ser~eage Disposal: Septic systems in interim; sewer in future. 8. Source of Water Supply: California Water Service Company, individual wells. 4. Proximity of Powc~:r Lines: l:n immediate vicinity. 10_ Potential fpr further 'land divisions and development= Extc?ns i ve. Environmental Sattins~ Phvsicai Environment: 'k_ Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Level valley land. b. Slopes: '1 . c. Elevation: 2i0-250 feet above Sea Level. d. Limiting Factors: Slope does not facilitate drainage. 2. SOil5 a. Types and Characteristics: Primarily Redding Clay Loam, t~-20", underlain by 3-4' of greatly compacted material, t2-24" 1-Hardpan, gravel under hardpan. Sail near North avenue is Vina Loam, a deep, well-draining soil. b. Li~niting Factors: Soli imposes limitations far drainage, arsd sewage disposal. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthq~ralce Zone: Moderate. b_ EroSior-a Potential= None to moderate. c_ Landslide Potential= None. d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified. e. Expansivc~ Soil Potential= Moderate to high. 4 . ~lydro 1 ogy -9- r a. Surface Water: iyat~.rral'drainages flowing east to west, north of East Avenue. b. Groundwater: Tested for nitrates, levels exceed federal standards. c. Drainage Characteristics: Poor natural drainage. d. Annual Rainfall Cnormal)= 24"_ e. Limiting Factors: Groundwater is not suitable for domestic use. 5. Visual/Scenic Equality= Poor. b. Acoustic Equality- Fair to poor. 7_ Air Lluallty= Fair. Biolo is vivo a t: 8. Vegetation Urban ornamentals, annual grassland, vernal pgols north of planning area, Meadowfoam north of planning area. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Poor. Cultural Environment- 10_ Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area= Moderate to low, including unknown. 11_ Butte County General Plan designation: Low Density Residential, Public. 12. Existing Zoning: S--R, R-4, P-~, U, City of Chico. 13. Existing `Land Use pn-site: Single-family, multi-family, commercial, educational. 14_ Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: City of Chico residential, commercial, public and vacant. b_ Zoning= Various. c. Gen. Plan designaticans: Various. d. Parcel Sizes: Various, generally r;,ir~imum size to west and South. e. Population: Low and medium density west, south and east, sparse to north. 1 5 _ Character of S i to and Area: Lirban ar •ea . 16. Nearest Urban Area= City of Ghico sur~i~oui~ds planning area. 17. Relevant Sphere-~s of Influence: CSA #23, CARD, CSA #40, City of Ch i ca. 18_ Improvements Standards Urban Area= Full urban improvements will be required by plan. 19_ Fire Protection Service= a. Nearest County C State ) F ire Station : #42 , 7 ~-1 /2 to 2 miles. b. Water Availability: Engine capacity, hydr~rnts. 24_ Scl-~aols in Area: Chico Uni+ieC School District. -10- 7 i__ ~~ ~G 24 19 30 ~...~ ~~ f .©c~+~-c ~ o ~..3 SR-I '_ C .` i3 u ~ c ea ~.,. ~ •~f~l~l ".iii '. i 1:ti1'[ [~sl~?ll:~'I~:11, (;[iFt:i~l.l.`~•I~ 1~(}l:A~ (tc~-l~t~ ~t~st~~~lc~ted 1z~~ l.i~,id~~~:i~ncyl I _ li:'1(:1;(,knl_l~lt I.og $7-12-02--02 ~p ~ 39-24-40 File No. 88-20 1 . '~ar?c n t- proponent RICHARD JONES ___ ~. Ad~3:•L.ss of pr-opanent and representative {if applicable) Richard Jones _-_ g- P.O. Box 11637 _ 20 -. Oakland, CA 94511 _-~ Chico CA 95 ~ - 3. Project description General Puri e - 1I. p?ANDATCIR}~ }:1N[r[N{;5 f)1_~ SC(~NII~TC:Ai~CF. Y$S 1'!AY~T: N() a. Does the project 13avc 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 ani~tal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the. major periods X of C'alifot-nia history or prehistory? .~ h. Uaes~the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the ent•i:•anment is ane which occurs in a relatively brief ltcriod of time while long-term impacts will X endure into the future.) ~ -- ---~- ~. IaY'°_.ti_. c. ;tons the project have impacts which are individu- a ally limitccl, but cumulatively considerable? (A project mt->~ impact on two or more separate resources 4tih~re the impact on each resource is relatively but where the effect of the total of those s:~all , i^tnacts on the environment is significant.) •~ ~ ___ d. [1r:~s thr. project have environmental effects which r.il1 c,-usc substantial adverse effects on human K -. hc:;:gs, either directly ar indirectly? -^ .,.^ 1I [ . :1~1'I()'`; {'I'o he completed by the bead Agency) ]rf:"1 'F:P"': `: _ _ {tn tl:_ '..:s is of this initial evaluation: 1'..i: [ind the proposed project COIILD NOT have a significant effect --__- ~~-. ; 1•~c~ t~n~ i rnnmcnt , and a NEGA'I'IVI; I]I:Cl.A1tATION wi i ] he prepared. 1; .. t. r~ittd rhat althatjgh the proposed project could have a signifi- ~;:~3t ~~t"[-ecr on the environment, there will not be a sil;ni ficant ~•` "~ t in this cast because the P1ITIGA'FTON b~I:ASUR1:5 described un ti:.• ,:tt.a~hed short ha~~c been ad~fcd to the project. A NF.lIATl~r[: I t: t t.:1f':1~1~ l {l:~ t~~ i 1 1 he preps roil . ;,,~; rho ;>ropoticd project ~tAY have a signific:~nt efl-ect on ., . t i:l~ c~st~~ i ronistcnt , :tntl an E:NI'I lt(t\P11:N1'/ll. IAtPAC7' RI:P(t.It7' is roifui rc•cl. [t:l~[ 1~.: December - 21_,_._1,8-7_ {;{ll !V"I'1' O1= RUTTF , PI.itNNTNG 111:i'r'11:'['h11:N'I• Paula Leasure, Associate Planner IV. ENVIRONMENTAL I tCTS xp anata.o s at a'~~"yes1P and "maybe" answers axe required on attached sheets}) • YES MAYEE 1. EARTH. Wi11 the proposal result in-significant: a. ~fnstable earth conditions or in c~ianges in geologic substructures? - b . Disruptions , ~ disp~ ac~ments , compaction or • -~ overcovering of.the soil? - c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ~ ~ - d. Destruction, covering ar mod~.f~c~txan of any .unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? f. Ghanges~ in deposition or-erosion of~ beach sands,~or changes in si].~ation, deposition or erosion which may modify-the channel of a river ar stt~e'am or the hed of the oce~~n ar any bay, inlet' or~ lake'?. g. boss of prime-.~griculturally productive soils outside des ign~3ted urban areas ? h. Exposure of people or property .to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Wi11 the proposal result in substantial: --~ a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes ? - - ~ - c. Alter~.tion of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in ciimate,_ locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in cuxrents, 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 for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal, channel- ization or culvert insta:ilation? / d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood watE'rs? . e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ~ - f. Discharge into surface- waters, or in~ any` alteration of surface-Ovate-r duality, including but not limited to temperature,~•dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flaw of ground waters? h. Change in the quantity or quality of.ground waters, either through direct additions or wa:th- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? i. Reduction iit the amount of watex othexw~ise available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water -~" related hazards such as flooding? -2- . rro - / .. G ./ ~~ YES MAYBE NO 4. -PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantia3: a. ange in the diversity of species, or 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 pl'~nts into an area, or in a barrier to the nora~a.l replenish- ment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ~ ~. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a.-~~ange i.n the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shelf fish., benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction in t~..~e numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals i4 c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal. result in substantial: a.~ncreases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce ssgnz scant light and glare? 8. LAND USE, Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RE50URCES: Will the proposal result in su stant~al: 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 invo?ve: a. A ris~ o explosion~or the release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, ail, pesticides, chemicals or radiation} i~n the event of an acciclen!~ o~• u,~se ~ conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ll. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, cTis~ri ution, density, or growth rate of the human ~ population? ,~__ 22. HOUSING. Will the proposal. affect existing housing, ox create a demand for additional housing? f _,.. YES MAYBE NO .. 13. TRANSPQRTATION/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 existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? r/ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail ar air traffic? f. Incxease in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need far new ar altered governmental services: a. Fire protection? V b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. ,Parks or othex recreational facilities? ~/ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? ~ iS. 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? ,/ Ib. UTIIITiES. Will the proposal result in a need fox new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? ,/ b. Communications systems? ~' c. .Water availabi~~ty: d. Sewer or septic tank? ~ e. Storm water drainage? ~ f. Solid waste and disposal? ~/ I7. I~UMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result ire: a. reation 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 n structzan of any scenic vista or view open to . the public, or will the proposal result i~n the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ,/ -4-. YE5 MAYBE NO 19. RECREATION. Will the p'r~aposal result in an impatct up~e quality ar quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ,/ 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. ill t e proposal result in the alteration of or .the destruction of a prehistoric or / historic archaeological: site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or - . historic building, stz~ucture or object? /~ c, Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values'? ,~ d. Will~the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? y/ V. DISCUSSION OE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION File No, 88-20 See attached. -5- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION File No. 88-2~ Project Description The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment Pram Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural-Residential and a Rezone fram A-5 to SR-1. The approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will facilitate a future subdivision. Therefore, per CEDA Section 15061{a)C1), the long-range potential impacts are generally addressed in this analysis. Further discussion and review of this project will occur after the submission of the Tentative Parcel Map ar Subdivision Map. The Planning Department has received four responses to the ten solicited. The four are as follows: 1. Public Works, John Mendonsa: "Na comments at this time." 2. Butte County Sheriff's Department= ~"The primary impact on law enforcement in this case would be an increase in density which will increase calls for service, taking away fram existing levels of law enforcement." 3. Durham Unified Schaal District, Donald McNelis, District Superintendent (paraphrased - speaking as a Schaal District Superintendent and as a member of the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Citizens' Advisory Committee )= A. The proposal is not consistent with the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Advisory Gammittee preferred alternative. B. The Durham elementary and intermediate school is rapidly reaching capacity. The District wi11 not be able to expand until financial assistance is received. It is estimated to be in 3-5 years. C. School well was ordered closed last year due to bacterial contamination. Additional development near the school may create further impact. D. Students would have to crass Durham-Dayton Highway. Safety needs should be addressed. 4. Durham Irrigation District, J.E. Morrison "The Durham Irrigation District identified several advantages to the GPA, rezone and subsequent development if recommendations of the District are fol1owed." {See attached letter.) -6- Discussion of Checklist Items 1b,e: Earth. Soils will be disrupted, compacted, and partially overcovered as a result of future development. During the construction phase of the project, water and wind erosion may occur. Standard engineering criteria for erosion control will be required at the time of subdivision. 2c: Air_ The removal of trees and the construction of a single-family residential subdivision will result in a slight increase in on-site temperature and reduction of moisture levels. The change will not be significant but is cited as a point of information. 3b,c,j: Water= Drainage within the Durham area will be affected by the pending residential subdivision. The grading and leveling of the area could alter percolation rates and direction of drainage flow. Off--site drainage structures will be necessary to minimize off-site flooding. At the time of subdivision a storm drainage solution must be developed that does not rely an leach-type drain trenches. Design will be subject to approval by the Butte County Department of Public Works. 4a,d: Plant Life. The current site is planted in Walnuts. The residential development of this area eliminate any economic farming potential. The app there will be minimal tree removal far streets and subdivision design must illustrate the location of retained. young and mature will probably licant states that houses. Tht? future trees to be 6: Noise. The noise levels experienced by the neighboring residential subdivision are low. The increase in area population, attendant noise, and area traffic will have a minimum impact. J<ncreased traffic capacity will also create noise levels. 8: Land Use. The requested zoning of SR-1, one dwelling unit per acre, is only partially consistent with the recommendation of the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area Advisory Committee. The easterly portion of the parcel that is adjacent to Burdick and Durham-Dayton was recommended for SR-1. The westerly portion was recommended for SR-2-1 l2. 9= Natural Resources. There will be a short-term increase in the use of petroleum products during construction phases of the project. 11: Population. There is a potential for the development of 22 households. Utilizing the standard multiplier of 2.77 persons per household, there will be an increase of approximately 61 persons. 13- TranspartatianlCirculation. Vehicular movement will increase significantly on Burdick and Durham-Dayton Road. Estimating ten trips per day per dwelling unit, the project could generate 220 trips. _~_ the raads are substandard. Road accesses and improvements will be delineated by Public Works after submission of a tentative map. i4: Public Service5_ Fire protection is provided by the California Department of ForestryiButte County Fire Department, Durham Station. The station has two engines and two personnel. Durham also has a volunteer Fire Department of 12 persons who are called upon to aid in fire fighting. Impact should be minimal. Police services will be impacted in that the Butte County Sheriff's Department is already understaffed Crefer to Sheriff`s Department response). The Durham Schoal District is rapidly reaching capacity. P3ans are in progress to expand the Schoal facilities; however, that wilt oat occur for at least three to five years. 1"he Durham School Board is opposed to the GPA and Rezone. However, the required development fees of X1,54 per square foot of residential construction will help mitigate the school overcrowding problem. The raads adjacent to the project area are very narrow with no crosswalks. Public Works will comment with recommendations at the time of subdivision review. 96: Utilities. Utilities in the area will not be adversely impacted. However, the Secretary-lYlanager of the Durham Irrigation District has made a recommendation far annexation and construction of a public water system (see attached letter}. ~7aa Human Heatth. Agricultural spraying could create a health problem. However, the existing road at the west pagrcel line will create an adequate buffer. The parcels to the west are zoned A-5. II. MANDATGRY FINDINGS ©F SIGNIFICANCE c: There are several impacts which are cumulatively considerable, the majority of which will relate directly to development of a subdivision which will be allowed under the 5R-1 zoning. However, the adoption of recommendations as contained in the Staff Report dated January b, 1988, will mitigate any significant adverse impacts. PL/sjs -8- Applicant: Richard Janes AP # 39--24-04 Log # 87-12-02-02 File No. 88-20 DATA SHEET A_ Project Description 'i. Type of Project= General Plan Amendment and Rezone of 22.6 acres. 2_ Brief Description: General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural-Residential; Rezone from A-5 to SR-1 . 3. Location: Northwest corner of Durham-Dayton Highway and Burdick Road, Durham Planning Area. 4_ Proposed Density of Development: 1 d.u.lac. 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Unknown at this time. 6. Access and Nearest Public Roadfs3= Adjacent, 7. Method of Sewage Dispasail: Septic tanks. $_ Source of Water Supply: individual wells. 9_ Proxl:miity of Power Lines: Adjacent. 10. Potential for further land divisions and development Nane. B. Environmental Settin Physical Environment: 1.. Terrain a_ General Topographic Character: Very level Corchard land). b. Slopes: 0-2~. c. Elevation: Approximately 150 feet above Sea Level. d. Limiting Factors- Nane, 2. Soils a_ Types and Characteristics= Vina-Farwell Association, Area dominated by very deep, nearly level, moderately well to somewhat excessively drained soils. b_ Limiting Factors: None. 3_ Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone- Moderate Earthquake intensity Zone Viii. Approximately 2 miles northwest of Foothill Shear Zone. b. Erosion Potential= Nane. c_ Landslide Potential: None. d. Fire Hazard= Unclassified - urbanized area_ e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate. 4 . Hydro l oSY a. Surface Water: None on site. Butte Creek 6000` to the west. b,. Groundwater: Unknown. c_ Drainage Characteristics: Drainage is good. -9- d. Annual Rainfall 4narmal3: 22". e. Limiting Factors: 5. YisualJScenic ©uality: Goad. 6. Acoustic t~uality: Good. 7_ Air Duality: Good. Biolos~ical Environment: 8_ Vegetation= Planted in Walnuts. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Various birds and small animals. Cultural Environment: 1~. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: None identified. 7't. Butte County Gener-al Plan designation= orchard and Field Crops. 12_ Existing Zoning: A-5. 13. Existing Land Use on site: Walnut orchard. 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: Single-family residential, commercial and farming. b_ Zoning= A-5, SR-1, R-1, A-20. c. Gen. Plan designations: Low Density Residential and Agricultural-Residential. d. Parcel Sizes: Varies: 8 acres, 55 acres, 10 acres, several parcels of approximately 'i/4 acre. e. Populatiion: 15. Character of Site and Area: Light commercial, single-family, orchard tfarming). 16. Nearest Urban Area: Durham. 17_ Relevant Spheres of Influence: Durham Recreation District. 18. improvements Standards Urban Area: 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station= Durham Fire Station on Midway near Durham-Dayton Highway. b. Water Availability: Tank or truck capacity. 2Q_ Schools in Area: Durham Elementary, Intermediate and Wigh School. -10-