Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-014.,. ~*~`4 ~l''*.~ `°~"~ ~'~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;al :~~ •* ` ' '~' COUNTY OF B1JT3"E; STATE OF CALIFORNIA r + • •~~ i : y~1 ';*~v~ C~U~~*.~ resolution No. 89-0.14 i~irass~*y RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARADTSE AREA LAND USE MAP AND THE BUTTE GOUNTY LAND USE MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN. WHEREAS, a private person (Barney Barnett) has petitioned the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Paradise Area Land Use Map for a change from Commercial to Low Density Residential for that property identified on Exhibit A, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, a private person (Clara Lamb) has petitioned the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County Land Use Map for a change from Grazing and Open Land to Agricultural-Residential for that property identified on Exhibit B, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held hearings on these proposed amendments at which all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has read and considered the initial studies for a Negative Declaration regarding environmental impact as shown on Exhibits A-1 and B-1; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed amendment to the Paradise Area Land Use Plan and the Butte County Land Use Plan are consistent with the elements of the Butte County General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the land use designation changes from Commercial to Low Density Residential, and from Open and Grazing to Agricultural-Residential for those areas identified on Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by reference, are hereby adopted and approved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as amendments to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, said amendments to be the land use policy for the County of Butte in the affected area for all findings pursuant to law. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors finds that the initial studies and Negative Declarations prepared for the General Plan Amendments, identified as Exhibits A-1 and B-1 are adequate for these projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 65359 that the General Plan be endorsed to show that the above amendments have been approved by this Board. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to Government Code Section 55360, a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Councils of the Cities of $utte County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on the 14th. day of February 1989 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, McTnturf, Mc~aughlin, llercruse and Chairman Fulton NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT voTTNG: None ~ ~_ LE FULTON, HAI Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: MARTTN .7. NTCHOLS Chief Administrative Officer and C rk of the Board By i ~-r-7 m r-~ rz--~ I ;~ FR-40 ~..~~ - ~ , T._.~ ~, ~' L R-C r ~~ ~- ~~ . :,,~_ ~._ ~R 1, ~ _ " f,~ ',~ 1 _ I f I i ~ '~ , ~ ,e p2dJ FCT ~ - . _ _.. ,~_ . ~l LacATio++~ ,, H.C ;; ~R_ C ~ ~ .r ~• I 25 30 2600 `~ ~ _ ±~` 36 31 ~~ • ~~ ~~ - ,~ ti~ << ~~ ,, ~ti ~ ~ ,, - `;ti ~` ,~ ,~ „ ~~ .~ ~+ . ~ ~ `, ~~ ti .~ ~ ~ . ~ ~i ,o i w ~~ r :; ~,, ,, ;, ., ,. - - - ,, .. _. - - - •~ -- ~:~ `: Y 4 .) • , ~ ___~_,, ... ~~.. ~__ _ _ _ __ ______ _ ___~_ _ _, _., ,~~ _ _ r M 5-H~ I >~: AR-MH-3 g~~ z a, 3 FILE (Va. 55' Z~-'44 (f~TNI BtJTTc GGUNTY PLAN~VlNG COMMISSION HEARING DATES F~~ ~ 1989 - APQlr1CANT= RAQNE~I T3auNE-rT G4~1NEtR~ SAMIr N rcIE~UE~T~ G.P. A;-~+~MENT~ E~(1STIt~~G ZON~~ PPti~- SCALE 2~ZOtJ.~ FRpM coMu~~RGxA~ 'tc~ LDR ~ >=R.oNI `PAC To Pr2MH- 1_ I~'= Sd~~ ! \ ` ! ~ \ r _ r ~ ! f 1 f ~ ~~~ 3f 32 ~ I ~~~' +- 6 5 ~y+ 4 yl ,1 t~ .\ `~ \Z c ` s ~ a `\ ~ \~ \I ~~~~ I 1 \ . ~ I I ~ \ y I -` }`~--32~ L33----- ------- ------ ~~ ~4 ---- EI II II II I i 11 tl II II I I !I II 1 ~I i ~ Ij 11 II M ,~ I I !' _ ~~\ q ~~ I ~ ~ `i i I ! L ~~ ~ ~ I l ~~ ~ I ~ ,, ' 1 PTZo~ EC.T 'LO C~"r I O N ,~..,, 6 5 _ 7 8 P ~~ IN4~ \ A- 5 ~' 937 ia7i 5 4 1 B _. ~ 9 li 1 /I 4~ ,tom' ~, 2.a-13 a3 , FILE No. Sa ~- ~ ~ ' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATES P~8 ~1 Ig89 APPLICANT= CLAup, L~MU O~VNER~ s~M~ ~ REQUE~T~ GEN~zAC_. PL.1~1J EXISTING ~ONE~ A~- 5 SCALE AN~t/r~]DM~T F2b M G12.~ZI N6 +~ OPF~] 'To ~ --1ZE51 I " = ~UU' APPENDIX r COUNTY C'AF' $iJ'~TE ENV = RONMENTAL CHE CKL = S T F ORM {Ta be completed by Lead Agency) LOG N0. 8$-09-12-01 AP No. 55-29-44 File No. 89-12A & B I. SAC:KCR0i7ND I. Name of proponent BARNEY BARNETT 2. Address of proponent and representative {if applicable): 3. Project description: General Plan Amendment and Rezone _. __-. II M.A,.NDATORY F"TI~TD2N~S OF' S2GiYZF2CAIVCE 1. goes the project have the potential to degrade the c}uali.ty 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 major periods of California history ox prehistory? 2. 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 relativzly brief period of time while long-tern impacts will endure into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually 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.) 4. Does the project have enviranraental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. D ETERM 11VAT~ ON {To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: YES MAYBE 3f0 ~~ ,f R r IIWE find the proposed project COU'.~D NOT have a significant effect on tYee environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will. not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. COUNTY OF BUTTE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Taura M. Tuttle, Assaciat~: Planner EXHIBIT ,q i °•~°~°~ IV. ENV=ROI~MENTAT. 2MPACTS (Explanations of all "YE5" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached sheet(s). 1. EARTH, Will the proposal result in significant: YES MAYBE Na a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? - b. Disruption, displacement, compaction ar overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? '~ d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologit or physical features? '~" r• e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on ar off site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which raay modify the channel of a rivet ar stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Lvss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? ` h. Exposure of people or property to geologit hazards such as earthquakes, n landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? - 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ~` b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke ar fumes? c. Altexatian of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, locally ar regionally? '~ 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course ar direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? k b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount r~ of surface runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization 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, ox in any alteration o£ surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h. Change in the quantity ar quality of ground waters, either through direct additions ar withdrawals, or through interception at` 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 hazards such as flooding? ' 4. PLANT LIFE. Wi11 the proposal result in substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? 6. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ' c. Tntraduttion of new species of plasats into ;an°-area;~~ or, in~ a -baxriex to •~ ~ •-~~_ the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acxesge of any agricultural trop? ~' 5. I LIFE. Will the proposal zesult in substantial: YE5 MAXBE YO a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, 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 in a barrier to ~, the migration or movement of animals? d. Detexioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increases in existing naise levels? b. Exposure of people tc severe naise levels? 7. I,IGiiT AND GLARE. Will the proposal product significant light and glare? $. I,AM) USE. Wi11 the proposal result in a substantial alteration a£ the present or planned land use of an area? ~:~._ 9. NATURAL RESOiTRCE5. Wilk the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any naturak resources? .~- b. Depletion o£ any non-renewable natural resources? ` I0. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but net limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation} in the event of an accident oz upset conditions? ~ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan ar emergency evacuation plan? r. 11. POPULATION. Will the proposak alter location, distribution, density or ~,~ growth rate of the human population? --+-- 12. HOUSING. Wikl the praposal affect existing housing, or create a demand :~ for additional housing? ~~' I3. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Hill the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? ;+ - b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new garicing? c. Substantial impact on e:isting transportation systems? ~~ d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? lk. PUBLIC S~ttVICES. Will the praposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ' e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? ~„~ _g.. i5. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: YES J MA1'SE NO ,{ a. Else 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. IITILITIE5. Will the proposal result in a need £or new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b. Cormnunications systems? ;: c. Water availability? ;~ d. Sewer or septic systems? e. Storm water drainage? k f. Solid.waste and disposal? '~ 17. HEIMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard (excluding mental health) ~ ---~~ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? v I8. AESTHETIC. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view apes to the public, or will the proposal result in the ~~ creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ~ 14. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an iu~pact upon the quality or ~ quantity of existing recreational opportunities? zo . CULTlIRAT, RESOURCES . a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a , prehistoric or historic arcY+aeological site? ~~ ! b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects X to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. goes 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? ' ` DISCUSS=Old ~F ENV=RQI~FMENTAL EVALU.AiT=ON See attached. -4- DISCUSSIGN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION File No, 89-12A & B ia: Unstable earth conditions could be caused by oversaturation of slopes, or large-scale grading activities without the necessary retaining wall or attention to angle of repose to protect cuts and fills from movement. Large-scale grading, as described, would require a grading permit from the Department of Public works. This permit would ensure that all disturbed areas are left in a stable condition. No impact is anticipated. lb: The amount of disruption and compaction of the soil's surface is dependent upon the number of lots created after approval of the Rezone. The total number of lots is unknown, although the applicant indicates that three lots are being considered. Under a worst-case analysis, five lots are anticipated, as follows: One lot at 2.5 acres surrounding the house and gallery, one lot of 1 acre immediately south fronting on Pentz Raad, three lots of.l acre each fronting on the 60- foot easement. If each of these lots were developed with a typical homesite and the 60--foot easement improved, approximately 2 acres of ground would be overcavered, or a fatal of 18% of the entire lot. This impact is not significant. le: Erosion is a concern in the foothill regions of the county because of loose soils; high rainfall rates, and areas of steep slopes. This property contains each of those characteristics. Erosion will be controlled through the use of the grading ordinance. In addition, designating the 100-foot leach--free area as a building setback area provides a 100-foot buffer between the proposed residential development and areas of slopes exceeding 30%. ' lf: One objective of the grading ordinance is to minimize changes in drainage basins and water quality in receiving waters. Implementation of the grading ordinance will minimize the potential for siltation of Dry Creek. lh: The Big Bend earthquake fault is located approximately 2000 feet east of the project site. Construction to the standards in the Uniform Building Code should provide adequate protection to future residents and the integrity of structures. 3b: Potential changes in absorption rates and amount of surface runoff are dependent upon future development plans for the property. Assuming the property is developed with five lots, some earthwork or drainage may be required on the western three lots to slow surface runoff and minimize erosion. The specifics of land terracing or provision of drainage along the easement will be addressed at the time of the tentative parcel map and building permits. 3c: The property touches Dry Creek at its most northwesterly corner. No off-site drainage work is anticipated. 3i,15c: Property is located within the Lime Saddle Community Services District which provides community water. The district had a shortage of water in the last few years which led to a ban on additional -5- i hookups. Although the ban has been Lifted, the number of hookups available is extremely limited. Only one additional hookup has been guaranteed by the district. The district has attempted to increase their water supply through the drilling of new wells. A number of these wells have come up dry and/or have not tested out to meet the requirements of the Health Department'. Lime Saddle is now exploring the possibility of constructing a tank and reservoir south of this property supplied by a pipe and pump from Lake Oroville surface waters. The availability of water or lack thereof will limit future development options on this property. 4a; The property is covered with brush, including Manzanita and Ceanothus, and has medium tree cover consisting of Pine and Oak. Underbrush has been cleared in the vicinity of the hawse and gallery, where urban ornamentals have been planted. There are no known rare or endangered plant species listed for this property. 5c; According to the maps supplied by the Department of Fish & Game, this property is not located within the usable deer habitat. No impact to migratory species is therefore anticipated. 6a: vehicular noise along Pentz Road is noticeable on the east side of this property. If a one-acre parcel is proposed south of the existing gallery, it would be appropriate to require future residences to be set back 1p0 feet from the Pentz Road right-of-way. 8: The land is currently designated for commercial use on the Paradise Area Land Use Plan, and zoned PAC. This General Plan designation and zoning was requested by the owner in 1977. The PAC, was used to allow a mix of land uses on site, including the single-family residence, the Shibui gallery, and art school. Approximately one-quarter of the facilities proposed far the gallery and art school have been constructed. The Barnetts have scaled back their plans far the property, and do not anticipate any expansion of the art school at this time. Redesignation of the property to Low Density Residential and Rezone to AR-MH-1 would conform to General Plan and zoning designations on both 5ide5 of them. The only property which is designated Commercial is located immediately north' along the Pentz Road frontage, and is developed with the Quail Trails Store. Approval of the project would allow the owner to apply for a Tentative Parcel Map or Tentative Subdivision Map and reduce his property holdings. In terms of environmental impact, there should be less of an impact from rural residential development than there could have been under maximum buildout of the art school. 12: Asingle-family house is now located on the property, as is one on the parcel immediately to the south. Division and development of the lard may expose these residents to additional noise, commotion, and traffic. Given the intensity of development, this impact is not anticipated to be significant. 13a,f: Future traffic generation is dependent upon the number of lots created. Atypical single-family house will generate 10 vehicle trips -6-. per day. All of these trips will access Pentz Road through one of the existing road approaches constructed at the property line. At the time of the land division request, future traffic can be calculated as to its impact to Pentz Road, At that time, a determination will be made as to whether any improvement to Pentz Road will be required. 14a,b,c,f: Future will ultimately re. services. As this town limits to the north, impacts are development on the water tenders, and use of the property for single-family residences salt in an increased demand for governmental property is immediately adjacent to the Paradise west and adjoins the fringe of the urban area to the not anticipated to be significant. Future property will be assessed fees for the provision of for school construction. 16d: Future development will be dependent upon septic tanks and leachfields, as there is na community sewage disposal system in Paradise. Prior to the creation of any lots, each proposed lot shall be tested to ensure that a septic system can be installed. 20a: The property has a high sensitivity for archaeological resources. In other words, the property may have been used in earlier times by native Americans. The area of use is most likely to be in the immediate vicinity of Dry Creek. The potential impact to archaeological resources was discussed at the time the parcel was divided (1987) into two lots of approximately 6 and 11 acres each. The Planning Department and Public Works files have been checked to determine whether or not a survey was ever prepared and submitted. There is no evidence that a survey was prepared or clearance received from the Northeast Information Center. It is therefore requested that the applicant contact the Northeast Information Center at California State University, Chica, to determine whether a survey should be prepared. Alternatively, if the applicant's engineer has evidence that clearance was previously received, a copy of the clearance should be submitted. Recommendation Approval of the General Plan Amendment and Rezone will have minimal, if any, environmental impact. Potential impacts at the time of land division include development adjacent to a sensitive bluff, development on steep lands generating erosion, and potential for noise impacts to future residents. All of these impacts can be addressed at the time of land division, when parcel design is known. -7- r:. . Applicant: Barney Barnett DATA SHEET A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION File No, 89-12 Log X88-09-12-01 1. Type of Project; General Plan Amendment and Rezone. 2. Brief Description: General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Low Density Residential, and Rezone from PUD to AR-MH-~.. 3. Location: On the west side of Pentz Road approximately 500 feet south of Wilderness Way, Paradise. 4. Proposed Density of Development: Low density residential, approximately 6 dwelling units per acre. 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: 2+ acres or 18%. b. Access and Nearest Public Roads: Frontage on Pentz Road. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Septic tanks and leachfields. 8. Source of Water Supply: Lime .Saddle Community Services District. 9, Proximity of Power Lines: To original parcel. 10. Potential for, Further Land Divisions and Development: Assuming developed property is divided into a 2-1/2 acre lot and no new interior roads are built, 5 or 6 lots are possible. B. ENVIRONMENTAI, SETTING Physical Environment 1. Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Foothill ridge top, dropping off into steep-walled canyons to the west. b. Slopes: 10-30% on east half of the property, 30-50% on west half. c. Elevation: 1250 to 1650 feet above Sea Level. d. Limiting Factors: Slopes over 30%. 2, Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Aiken, 60-140" deep, yellowish- red, Loam/clay, moderate to slow permeability, well draining with moderate permeability on soils from 4"' to 20" deep. b. Limiting Factors: Lava cap, lack of percolation, steep slopes on westerly portion of property. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake zone: Big Bend Fault 2000 feet east. b. Erosion Potential: Slight along Pentz Road, high west of building sites. c. Landslide Potential: Low to moderate. d. Fire Hazard: High. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate along Pentz Road, low west of building sites. 4, Hydrology -8- a. Surface Water: Dry Creek at west property line. b. Groundwater: Limited resource. c. Drainage Characteristics: Surface drainage west to Dry Creek at west property line. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 50-55". e. Limiting Factors: Availability of water through Lime Saddle Community Services District. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Highly scenic canyon views to west, 5. Acoustic Quality: Good, with exception of road corridor. 7. Air Quality: Good. Biolo ical Environment 8, Vegetation: Pine, Oak, Manzanita, rocky ground at lava cap. No rare known to occur on the property per Data Base. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Good as a resin densities and ample cover, limited migration area. Ceanothus, grasses, bare and or endangered species are California Natural Diversity t of low residential water. Outside of deer Cultural Environment 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Area: xigh, no evidence survey previously prepared. 1].. Butte County General Plan Designation: Commercial. 12. Existing zoning: PAC. 13. Existing Land Use on Site: Single-family home, Shibui gallery and art school, small outbuildings. i4. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: Quail Trails store and church to north, Quail Trails mobile home park to east, open space to west, open and single-family to south. b. zoning: Town of Faradise, AR-MH-1 (north and south), H-C to the east. c. General Plan Designations: Commercial north and 1 parcel on east, Law Density Residential north and south, Agricultural-Residential and Open and Grazing to the west. d. Parcel Siaes: North: 19, 1.3. East: 8. West: 19. South: 3,84. e. Population: Low density. 15. Character of Site and Area: Fringe of Paradise urban area. 16. Nearest ~3rban Area: Paradise town limits at west property line. 3.7. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Lime Saddle Community Services District, Feather River Recreation & Park District. 3.8, Improvement Standards Urban Area: n/a 19. Fire Protection Service: a, Nearest County (State) Fire Station: #33, 7-1/2 miles north; #35 (seasonal), 4-7,/2 miles northwest. b, Water Availability: 20. Schools in Area: Paradise Unified School District. LMT/sjs _g_ APPENDIX F C~kJNTY OF BLITT7E ENV'=:~?.ONN.FEN'~.AL CHECKL.=ST FORM {To be completed by Lead .Agency) LOG Na. 88-09-07-03 AP No. 28-1.3-03 T. G ~" CLARA LAMS 1. Name of proponent 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable): Cara Lamb 4.40 01y~m ~.ad Drive Las Angeles, CA 90043 __ 3. Project description: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT from Grazin & D en Land to Agricu~.t~ra -Res~denta.a ,1~,. - Ni,ANLa,.~ ~.CiRY F=1`~g]~NGS oF' SaC~ly=F_ Z Ate. CE YES rEAYBE NO_ 1. 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 rare of a rare ortant examples of major periods liminate im i l ~[ p ma or e or endangered plant ar an of California history or prehistory? 2. 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 lima while x long-term impacts will endure into the future.) .. 3. Does the project havQ impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A projer_t may 33npact 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 an the environment is significant.) ~,. Uoes the project Dave environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse e££ects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ~t_ n~:Tl~:]R1M7C1~! 7C=UF.T (To be cnmpletad by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: IIWE find the proposed project COUit} NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find that although the graposed project COULD have a significant effect an the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEAS(FR.ES described on the attached shear have been-added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will he prepared. 11~ find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect an the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. DATE: (~CtO~Cr 25, x,.988 EXHIBIT ~-~ CAUNTY OF BUTTE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT By: David R. Hiranimus Associate P Wrier Re iewed by:., zv. E ~ (Explanations of all "YES" and "MAY$E" answers are required on attached sheet(s). 1. ~. Will the proposal result in significant: a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering ar rnadification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Yncreasa in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? v~_ MAYBE No K ~.. -- f. 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, 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, mudslides, ground failure nr similar hazards? G 2. SIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or daterioratian of ambient air quality? b. the creation of ob~jactionsble odors, smoke or fumes? c. Alteration o£ air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, locally or regionally? 3. ~~. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in x either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rata and amount Y of surface runoff? _L:. c. Need for nff-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channeiization or culvert instillation? d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? a. 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 oxygen or turbidity? ~;. Alteration of the direction or rata of flow of ground waters? x h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer x by cuts or excavations? i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ,j. Exposure of people ar property Ca water'related hazards such as flooding? ~~ 4. ~ Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reductions of the numbers of any Lu-ique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an~-area,~•~ar-.~an•.a,barrier;.ta;;,,_-...,...„,,.,, . ..,.. .,. .; .....,,,,-, the normal replenishment of existing species.` d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ;~;;C~" ;'- i~ -~^ 4 1 . ~ ~n ' ..i '1:. .. !.--' jf ....~ . ..v. .~. ..... .. ~ r. ..~. I a~i.. .. ., .. ,_, .. .r~ C 4 S, ANIMAI. LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: ~s.,_ MAYBE -~ a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, £ish and shellfish, organisms X or insects)? b. 'Reduction in the numbexa of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to x the migration or movement of animals? d. E7eterioratian of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. ~1ox~ 41111 the proposal result in substantial: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. I„~,G~A ~C~. Will the proposal pxoduct significant light and glare? 8. ~15~. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present ar plaru'-ed land use of an areal 9. i~QRE~O[1RCES. Wi11 the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resaurcas? ~y b. Qepl®tion of any non-renewable natural resources? /~ 10. ASK OF_lLP_g~. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or release of h,azardoua substances (including, but net limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals ar radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? li. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency ~ evacuation plan? 11. gQ~l lI,A~ION. Will the proposal alter location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population? 12. S G. W111 the proposal affect existing housing, ar create a demand X ar additional housing? ~.....~, 13. C Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? ~,~ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand far new parking? x c. Substantial impact an existing transportation systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or k movement of people and/or goads? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1&. PUB LIC SERVICES. Wi11 the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services: ~[ a. Fire protertian? b. Police protection? X c. Schools? d. Parks ar other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including raads3 x X f. Other governmental services? -3- ' 15. EN„~G~. Will the proposal result in: YES MAYBE NO ~ ~ a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or r/ require the development of new sources of energy? !~ ib, J~"7 T•7 Will the proposal result in a need far new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: X a. Power ar natural gas? ..~. d ^ b. Communications systemsT } ~~ L c. Watez availability? ~.. d. Sewer or septic systems? x e. 5tornt water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUM AN HFAL~. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard (excluding mental ~~ health)? X b. Exposur® of people to potential health hazards? 18. ~5 1'FiETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction 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? _L L 19. ~C 0 Will the proposal result in an impact upan the quality or ~„ quart ty of existing recreational opportunities? 2A. CUL TURAL R~SQURCES. a.. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a pxehiataric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure 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 x the potential impact axes? rixSOVSSZON OF ENV=RONMF,NTAI~ EVA~.1<J,~.4TZpN Sea attached. ..y_ DISCUSSIQN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION APB 28-13-03 lb,c,e,f; 3b,f: The goal of the applicant is to be able to divide the 27 acre parcel into three parcels that would be permitted under the existing A-5 zone but is not permitted under the existing general plan designation of Grazing and Open Land (40 acre minimum parcels). If the property is ultimately divided into three parcels, development of three homesites on the property would lead to some disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil which could lead to changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns-and the rate and amount of surface runoff. This in term could leas to increased erasion of soils both on and off-site and discharge into local streams. Because of the size of the properties and the standard development requirements in the Subdivision Ordinance, this should not be a significant problem. lg; 4d: while not on primary agricultural soils, division of the property into three parcels would effectively remove any potential for economically viable agricultural use of the land. Additionally, the subject property is located immediately adjacent to properties that are subject to Williamson Act;Contracts for grazing land with 160 acre minimum contract acreages. (See item #1 above and Items 8 and 11 below). Intrusion of residential uses into this area-could effect neighboring agricultural operations. lh: All of Butte County is within a moderate earthquake intensity zone VIII. The subject property is located approximately ~. mile south and southwest of inferred faults associated with the Foothill Shear Zone which.suppnrted the 1975 Oroville Earthquake. Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Code Standards for seismically active areas should provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. 5d: See the attached letter from the California Department of Fish and Game. 8,11,12: Amendment of the County General Plan to provide for agricultural--residential uses on the south side of LaPorte Road in this area could lead to additional requests from neighboring properties, removal of those properties from Williamson Act Contracts and a deterioration of the agricultural viability of the agricultural land in the area. These effects may be minimized since the existing parcel is a single ownership of only 27 acres and would not directly effect a large amount of agricultural land. Rural residential sized lots of 5 to 10 acres are in general occurrence from Bangor south to this property along the north side of LaPorte Road. Smaller lots do not generally occur on the south side of LaPorte Road between Bangor and the subject property, This project could trigger similar requests in the area and would represent the first parcels designed primarily for residential uses south of LaPorte Road in the immediate area. 13a,c,f: If three homesites are developed on the property, there will be an incremental increase in traffic and associated traffic hazards along LaPorte Road, a corresponding incremental increase in maintenance. 5 requirements. ].4: This project will represent an incremental increase in demand for public services in a rural area. 15a: The subject property is located approximately 20 miles from Oroville, and a similar distance from Gridley. These are the closest urban areas supporting mayor shopping and public services. This distance will require greater than normal expenditure of fuels for residents of the property to access the centers, or far services from those centers to access the property. 1&a,b,c,d; Power and telephone lines will have tv be extended to new building sites located on the property and additional wells and septic systems will have to be installed. 18c: Additional dwellings built on the property will change the predominantly open vistas that are now predominant in the area. Recommended Mitigation Measures to be attached to any subsequent Parcel Maps resulting from this pra~ect. 1. Place the following note on any subsequent Parcel Maps "Owner agrees, prior to issuance of building permits, to pay Deer Herd Mitigation Fees as may be required by county ordinance or resolution. Owner acknowledges that no such ordinance or resolution is in effect as of the date of this tentative map approval.. " DRH : j me 6 Applicant: Clara Lamb DATA SHEET A. PROJECT DL$CRIPTION AP X28-13-03 Log X88-09-07-03 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment 2. Hrief D®scription: From Grazing and Open Land to Agricultural- Residential 3, Location: On the south side of LaPorte Road at Kings Ranch Road approximately 3 miles southwest of Bangor, southeast of Oroville. 4. Proposed Density of Development: 5+ acres per dwelling unit 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Minimal 6. Access and Nearest Public Roads: Property fronts on LaParte Road , 7. Method of Sewage Disposal; Individual septic systems 8. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells 9. Proximity of Power Lines; To property I0. Potential for Further Land Divisions and Development: A subsequent parcel map creating 3 parcels is likely to result from this project. (Existing A_5 zoning) B. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Physical Environment 1. Terrain a. General Topographic Character: Rolling oak grasslands b. Slopes: Generally LO to 20-percent slopes with some. flatter areas scattered within the property. c. Elevation: From 400 to 500 feet above sea level d. Limiting Factors: Some areas of steep slopes 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics; Auburn sail series, generally well drained with moderate permeability on soils from 10 to 28 inches deep. b. Limiting Factors: Moderate permeability and shallow soils 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate earthquake intensities zone vIII b. Erasion Potential.: High c. Landslide Potential: Law d. Fire Hazard; Moderate e. Expansive Soil Potential: Low 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: A tributary of Wilson Creek borders the property on the north side of LaParte Road and crosses the mast northwesterly corner of the property where it lies 7 ! '. north of LaPorte Road. b. Groundwater; Unknown, potentially limited c. Drainage Characteristics: Property drains to the north and west towards tributaries of Wilson Creek. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 26 to 28 inches per year e. Limiting Factors: Potentially limited water supplies and setbacks from drainage ways. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality; Good 6. Acoustic Quality; Good 7. Air Quality: Good eiolo ical Environment 8. vegetation: Mixed oak grasslands with blue oak and digger pines, 9. Wildlife Habitat; Small birds and animals common to valley oak grasslands. Cultural Environment 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the Area: Low sensitivity area. 11. Butte County General Plan Designation: Grazing and Open Land 12. Existing Zoning: A-~5 (Agricultural, 5 acre parcels) 13.. Existing Land Use on Site: Mobilehome site on the property and open oak grasslands. 1~. surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: Scattered single family dwellings at rural densities. b. Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 acre parcels) c. General Plan Designations: Orchard and Field Craps to east, west and south with Agricultural-Residential to the north across LaPorte Road. d, Parcel Sizes: 5 to 10 acre parcels to the north acrass LaPorte Road with 20 to 100 acre parcels to the east, west and south. e. Population: Sparse 15. Character of Site and Area: Rural agricultural (Grazing) land. 16. Nearest Urban Area: Oroville, approximately 20 miles 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Nane 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: No 19. Fire Protection Service: a, Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station #55 in Bangor, approximately 3 miles and Volunteer Station #75 in Honcut approximately 8 to 10 miles. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only 20. Schools~in Area:- Palexmo Union School District and Oroville Union, High School District. 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE dEUKMEJlAN, Gommor ©EI~ARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME REGION 2 1703 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A RANCHO CORdOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 {9163 355-7020 Mr. Craig Stanton Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr, Stanton: Qu}fe f o. Planning Ccmert. C4~7 r 9 ?^ SEP ~ ~ i9'8$~ `' .~ ~$ Oroviile, California Thc~ Department o.E Fish and Game (Dli'G) has reviewed the Clara Laitlb General, Plan Amendment {GPA}, a proposal to change the designation of 27.5 acres ( zoned A-5 ) from Grazing and Open Land to Agricultural-Residential. Located southwest of Bangor, a portion or all of the property is within designated winter range of the Mooratawn deer herd. Subdivisions have adversely affected more than 40 percent of the winter range (i.e., critical and designated winter ranges) in Butte County. In an effort to resolve the subdivision/deer conflict in Butte County, the DFG has recommended a series of actions for the Board of Supervisors (Board) to implement. The DFG also identified "Designated Development Zones" where development may occur, provided certain 1~litigation measures are adopted and implemented by the Board, The GPA is within a Designated Development Zone. If a GPA change leads to a division of the property, the assessment of a mitigation fee would be approp riate, Until mitigation measures are adopted and implemented by the Board, the DFG would recommend denial. of any land division proposal. We have no recommendation concerning a GPA redesignation of the property. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Patricia Perkins, Wildlif a Management Supervisor, or Jim Bower, Associate Wildlife Biologist, at (916} 355-701Q. S ncerelY, Y ' J es Messersmith Regional Manager