Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-158BOARD .OF__SUPERVIS,ORS GOUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 90-158 RE90LUIION OF THE BOARD OF SUPFRV]SORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENIItAL PLAN AlbIEI~IDMQ~TI Tn THE DURHAM-DAYTON-NELSON AREA LAND USE PLAN. WHEREAS, a private individual, Vine Wheelock, has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to amend the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, for a change from Grazing and Open Land to Industrial for that property identified on Exhibit A-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has been studied and reviewed by the $utte 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 reviewed and considered the contents of the environmental review study checklist (Exhibit A-2) prepared on the amendment 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 enviornment; and WHEREAS, the Butte Coun#y Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendments at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed amendment complies with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and comprises an overall internally consistent whole, specifically: 1. The amendment complies with the policies of the Bu#te County General Plan. 2. The amendment recognizes the preferred land use alternative for the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area. 3. The amendments provide for compatible development with existing land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. The General Plan Amendment to Industrial as shown on the attached Exhibit A-1 is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The General Plan Amendment is hereby adopted and 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 study and Negative Declaration prepared for the General Plan Amendment, identif ed as Exhibit A-1 is adequate for this project 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on the 6th day of November , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors McTnturf, Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Plc Laughlin NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Vercruse NOT VOTING: None ~~C ED M/C,LiAUGH ,CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board r BY dvd-~4o-av~ Fl~~ No. ~~B BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING DATES s~P~' 1~ ~ ~~v APPLtCANT~ ~Wh~~~Lac~Y OWNER= -5'~m~ REQUEST= G~XFR~L ~-~~~ EXISTING ZONE ~-~' SCALE ~rn~Na nn~-nrr ~i~4/!7 Bi4~~~rY6 y'.d~E.f/ 1.4~O,s T-v -z~~~-~rflsL .l "= Ste" ~1~1~ jZ~Lonl~ ~lZUM A -S 7'o p"1- ! . APPENDIY I ENV=RONMENTAL, of BUTTE . CHECKL=S'r FARM d.by Lead Agency) Lac Na. 90 -06-20 -06 AP No. 040-490-002 I• BACK~RgUND Pile No. 90-34 A & B 1' Name of proponent Vine Wheelock 2. Address of proponent and representati~re 1$].4 Durham Dayton Hwy, (if applicable); rl~,,.i...._ ,,. ..__ .. Johnny Aguiar i~vt~SG 3• Project description: General Plan Amendment and-~ e l• Does the project have v ti ~~ subs the potential to degrade the qualit of tantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species~cause~~o~ent, wildlife population to drop below self-sustaiuin a plant or animal coimmxnit g levels, threaten to eliminate or endangered plant or y' reduce the number or restrict the ran e rnia histo of Califo ry ornprehlistory~inate important examples of major periods 2• Does the pzoject have detriment of ion to the p°tential to achieve short-term benefits to the environment is ape whichnoccursein a gelatively brief-period ofcti.me while long-term impacts will endure into the future.) ~. Does the project have considerable? ampacts which are individually limited but cumulatively the (A project may impact on two or more sexarate resources where impact on each resource is relatively small, but where total of those impacts an the environment is significant.) ~e effect of the 4• Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects an human baings, either directly or indirectly? III. DETERM=N~T20N this initial evaluation:(To be completed by the Lead A enc g y). On the basis of ~-~ I/WE find the proposed project CUEfLD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DEC L4RATIUN will be prepared. I/WE find that althou on the environment ~ the proposed project CUULD have a the MITIGATION there will not be a significant effectsinnthisact effect MEASURES described on the attached sheet.have boon added tocthee project. A NEGATIVE BECLARATIafi will be prepared. -'~ I~WE find the proposed project MAY have a si and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is requirgr-ificant effect on the environment, HATE: Jul ~4 1990 YES MAYBE NO __ ~- -,~_ V -~ ~_ V ~~ CUEfNTy OF BT_f~E~ p~11`~ING bEPARTMENT ay: Thomas Last, Associate Planner Reviewed by; ,. Paula Leasure, Senior Planner' IV. Ei~7V=R~NMENTAL. ~M~PAC'L'S _ (Explanations of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached sheet(s). 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: YE5 MAYBE NO a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or avercovering of the soil? ,V/~ c. Change in topography or ground surface relieF features? V d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase zn wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? f. Ghanges in deposition ar erasicn 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 prima agriculturally productive sails outside designated urban areas? h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, , `~ landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? ~/ 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: ' / a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? y b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? i~ c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in _ / climate, locally or regionally? j/ 3. WATER. Wi1.1 the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine ox fresh waters? VVV b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount V G of surface runoff? V c. Need for off -site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course ar flow of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, incl~iding 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 or quality of ground waters, either through / direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer V/ by cuts ar excavations? i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water , / supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants V {including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? V / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of l / plants? V c. Introduction of-new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _~_ 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result. in s<<list.ai~t ial: YE5 htAYBE YO a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals J (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, organisms 1~// or insects)? / b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, care or endangered species of V animals? / c. Introduction.af new species of animals inco ai- area, or in a harrier to ~ / the migration or movement of animals? d. Aeteriaration of existing fish or wildlife kiabitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Tncreases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal prnducr: significant light and glare? / 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the V present or planned land use of an area? YY 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of 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 / not limited to, ail, pesticides, chemicals ar radiation) in the event ,V/ of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency ,~ evacuation plan? II. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population? 12. ROUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? I3. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? G 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 andlor goods? v e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards`ta motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services: a. Fire protection? b. Palace protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads: f. Other governmental services? -3- I5. ENERGY., 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 require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water availability? d. Sewer or septic systems? ~G e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTfI. Will the proposal result in: i a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard {excluding mental health}? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTi~TIC5. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic / vista or view open to the public, ar will the proposal result in the V/ creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ~ i9. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality ar quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 2Q. CULTURAL RESOURCES. / a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or destruction of a Av// prehistoxic or historic archaeoiogicai site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. floes 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? D2SC'USS20N OE ENV=RONNiENTAL, EVALUATION See attached. -4- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP # 040-490-002 lb,3b: Future development of the site will result in disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil to accommodate future industrial buildings and associated driveways and parking lots. This, in turn, will lead to a reduction in absorption rates and may increase the amount of surface runoff. Approval of an industrial use on this site could ultimately lead to a poten#ial creation of impervious surfaces on approximately 75% of the site which may create potential impacts. However, any development of this site will be required to comply with the minimum drainage and development standards for grading identified within the Butte County Codes. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. lh: The subject si#e is not located near any identified fault, but all of Butte County is located within a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The applicant will be required to comply with the Butte County Uniform Building Code requirements that provide minimum earthquake development standards. Since there are no development plans at this point, this impact cannot be evaluated, in terms of structural stability. This item will be implemented at time of building permits. 2b: Approval of this request will permit industrial uses which may create objectional odors, smoke, or fumes. However, the M-1 Zone does require that Use Permits be applied for, for any use that may create this condition. Since a specific use for the entire site is not known at this point, there can be no determination of potential impacts. Further evaluation opportunities will be provided, once a specific use is identif ed, when the applicant applies for building permits or a subdivision map. . 6a: Approval of this request will potentially lead to an increase in noise level over the existing condi#ions of vacant land. The actual increase in noise levels can be evaluated once the applicant provides the Planning Department, or related departments, with the potential use on site. Again, any use that may create any substantial increase in noise levels shall be subject to the Use Permit process which will allow further environmental review. 7: Approval of this request may ultimately lead to a significant increase in light and glare over existing conditions. This impact has the potential to be further evaluated through the Use Permit process, if the applicant selects a use which may result in a significant increase of light and glare. 8: The subject site is located within the Durham-Dayton-Nelson Land Use Plan currently being reviewed for land use changes. The most recent alterna#ive prepared by the committee that will be presented to the Board of Supervisors identifies and recommends the site as being Industrial General Plan designation with M-1 zoning which would be consistent with this current request. However, the zoning code may allow uses which may not be appropriate on this site at this time. Commercial uses, junk yards and some industrial uses would create greater impacts then reviewed within this document. Since, this request has been presented with proposed uses this project will be limited to that use as a mitigation measure. _ 10a: Approval of this request would allow industrial uses which, in turn, may result in the release of hazardous substances, pesticides, chemicals or radiation depending on an actual use coming into the site. However, any use which may result in one of these conditions occurring will be subject to the Use Permit process and require further ernironmen#al scrutiny. 13a: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, the per acre average for industrial sites would be 59.9 average weekday trip ends. Therefore, full development of the si#e could result in 1,913 trips, per day. It is highly unlikely that development will occur at this density, due to sewage disposal and water cons#raints. The national standards also identifies that average trip ends would be three, per employee. The applican# has submitted a ten#ative use for the site, which is a #ire recycling business, in which they expect that approximately four employees would be used, per shift. Tha# could result in approximately #welve trips, per day. Approval of this request is not expected to create a significant or substantial impact in addi#ional vehicle movement. lbd: Approval of this request will result in the need for a septic system. The applicant will be required to comply with minimum Health Department requirements far sewage disposal for septic systems. Due to the shallow soils of the area, the land use on the site will be limited to the sewer capacity of the available system. Due to the amoun# of land involved, this impact is not expected #o be significan#. 17b: Approval of this request may ultimately expose people to potential health hazards created from specific industrial uses that may be located on site. However, any use which may create a heal#h hazard would require further environmental scru#iny through the Use Permit process. Mitigation Measure: 1. The pernvtted uses on #his site shall be limited #o wholesale, and storage warehouses; feed storehouses and warehouses; and manufacturing uses that require limited septic disposal systems. All other permitted uses ox uses within the M-1 zone shall be subject to the Use Permit process. Applicant: Vine Wheelock File No.: 90-34 A & B DATA SHEET A. Project Description Assessor's Parcel # 040-490-002 Log # 90-06-20-Ob 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment and Rezone. 2. Brief Description: A request to amend the General PIan Land Use desigzzation from Grazing and Open Land to Industrial and change the zoning from A-5 to M-1. 3. Location: On the east side of Oroville-Chico Highway, approximately 1/4 of a mile north of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. 4. Proposed Density of Development: Nat applicable. S. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Depending on future development proposals. 6. Access and Nearest Public Roads}: Oroviile-Chita Highway. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal.: Septic tank and leach-field system. S. Source of Water Supply: Individual well. 9. Proximity of Power Lines: On site. 10. Potential for further Iand divisions and development: Nat applicable. B. Environmental Setting Ph sical Environment: 1. Terrain a, General Topographic Character: Basically 1eve1, with land being contoured far past rice production. b. Slopes: None on site. c. Elevation: 175 to 1$0 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: None. 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Scab land and Vina stony loam. Shallow soils with good drainage and slow permeability. b. Limiting Factors: Shallow soils and slaw permeability may impact sewage disposal factors. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: All of Butte County is located within Modera#e Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Slight. c. Landslide Potential: None to low. d. Fire Hazard; Moderate. e. Expansive Soil Potential: High. 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: A small slough is located on the north property line and a drainage ditch is at the south property line. b. Ground Water: Area of heavy ground water withdrawal and moderate liquefaction potential. c, Drainage Characteristics: Southwest trending. d. Annual Rainfall (normal}: 2d to 2H inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: None. 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: The County's Scenic Highway Element identif es Oroville- Chico Highway as County Scenic Highway. 6. Acoustic Quality: High noise due to industrial and freeway location. 7. Air Quality: Good. B101© 'caI Envir©nment: 8. Vegetation: Grasses and weeds with some cottonwoods located an site. 9. Wildlife Habitat: No endangered or threatened species are known to exist on site. Smaller wildlife expected to occur in a grassland area that is also compatible with an urban encroaching development. Cultural Environment: 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: Moderate to low, including unknown. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Grazing and Open Land. This is also located within the D2N Planning Area in which the latest recommendation is for Industrial. 12. Existing Zoning: A-S. The mast recent D2N Planning Area identifies this as having an M-1 Zoning designation. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: Former rice production. 14. Surrounding Area: a. Land Uses: To the north is a single family dwelling, to the east is Highway 99, to the south is industrial, and to the west is a single family dwelling and vacant, b. Zoning: To the north, south and west is A-5 and to the east is M-1. c. Gen. PIan Designation: To the northwest and the south is Grazing and Open Land and to the east is Industrial. d, Parcel Sizes: 2 to 400 plus acres. e. Population: Not applicable 15. Character of Site and Area: Qpen grasslands and somewhat rural character. 16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico. 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: None. 18. Improvements Standards Urban Area: No. 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station No. 45 and 25, located approximately five miles from the site. b. Water Availability: Hydrant system may be recommended. 20. Schools in Area: Durham Unified. ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Map II-I, Earthquake and Fault Activity: Seismic Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by CH~1VI Hill. 2. Map II-2, Liquefaction Potential: Seismic Safety EIement, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by CHxM Hill. 3. Map III-I, Subsidence & Landslide Potential: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised I-77, by CH~1VI Hill. 4. Map III-2, Erosion Potential: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by CHzM Hiii. 5. Map III-3, Expansive Soils: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by CHUM Hill. 6. Map N-1, Noise: Noise Element, Butte County General Plan revised i-77, by CH~1V1 Hill. 7. Map V-I, Scenic Highways: Scenic Highway Element, Butte County General Plan revised 1-77, by CHzM Hill. S. 9. 10. Il. 12. 13. 14. 15. lb. 17. Map III-4, Natural Fire Hazard Classes: Safety Element, Butte County General Plan revised I-77, by CHzM Hill. Archaeological Sensitivity Map by James P. Manning, for Butte County Planning Department, 19$3. School District Map, Butte County Planning Department. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells, 1983, by Department of Water Resources, Northwestern District, The Resources Agency, State of California. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178, Butte County Board of Supervisors, December 5, 1987. Flood Insurance Rate Maps, National Flood Insurance Program, Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1988. USGS Quad Maps, Hamlin Canyon, photo revised 1969. Soil Map, Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/Oroville (1926) Area, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Butte County Fire Protec#ian Jurisdic#ions and Facilities Map, Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry. Butte County Planning Department. Applicants reasons for amendment The business to operate here is C M Enterprise. They take in old tires, split them down the center of the tred, then cut them into eight (8) pieces. These pieces will lay flat and will then be accepted by the Butte County Landfill for burial. C M Enterprise has plans to buy afire shredder which will shred tires. Shredded tires can be sold and reused. Some present uses for shredded tires are, burning them in ca-generation plants to generate electricity. One such plant is presently located and operating near Stockton, California. Shredded tires are added to asphault and concrete used for highways. There appears to be overseas markets for shredded tires and also Mexico. C M Enterprise currently runs approximately 1,200 tires per day through their present operation and legally disposes of them at the Butte County Landfill. C Ni Enterprise would gladly furnish the county with data on their operation now and in the future whenever requested. They can be reached at 916-894-1985. We feel this operation is a much needed service to Butte County and perhaps to surrounding counties as well. We feel that.. we have the perfect location for it. Our location is centerally located between Chico, Paradise, Oroville and Durham and is very close to the Butte County Landfill. This operation is non poluting. No dust is created; no excessive amount of noise is created and na residue if left to get into the water table. The Durham advisory committee has recommended to the Board of Supervisors that this property be rezoned to M1 on the new general plan change. We feel this is a very clean operation and would be a real positive service to the community. We will comply with all county and state -laws, regulations and suggestions from your staff. I 4