HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-205Resa~ufian
WHEREAS, a private individual, M.C. Horning, 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, far a change
from Grazing and Open Land to Industrial for that property identified in Exhibit A-1
attached hereto; and
WI~REAS, the proposed General Plan Amendment has 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 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 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 Butte County
General Plan.
2. The amendment provides for compatible development with existing
land uses.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY
OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO THE BUTTE COUNTY LAND USE ELEMENT.
-2-
NOW, 'TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
1. The General Plan Amendment to Industrial as shown on the attached
Exhibit A-1 are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The General Plan Amendment is hereby adopted 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 azea for
all findings pursuant to law.
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
14 December
this th day of , 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, McLaugh7.in, Thomas and Chair Houx
NOES: None
ABSENT: Done
,_~
NOT VOTING: None
;~ U
MARY ROUX, C
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST: John S. Blacldock, Chief Administrative
Officer and Clerk of a Board
By:
`rf
C\`e•
Grazing and
Open land
ial
From Grazing & Open L nd
To Industrial
Daril~m-
s~
~fr
Ol~Chard and
Field Crops
'~r
~~
~~~ _ A /1
r: '"e yr, fT
~ ~ ~ ~ } 01 /// .,,111 ~
Butte County Geographic lnfarmatian System File No.: 42.3tA
Illll' AIiENDING
BUTTE COUNTY AREA LAND USE PLAN
lesolntloa: Date:
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COWYISSION 43-4 October 21, 1493
BUTTE COUNTY IOARD Of SUIrERYISORS
_t ~
COUNTY OF BUTTE
INITIAL STUDY
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
BACKGROUND
A. Applicant and/or Project Name: M.C. Homing
B. Project No. (If applicable) and AP No.: 92-31, A.P.# 040-130--36, Ei40-490-017,Oi8
C. Address of Applicant and Representative (if applicable): 2344 Cassandra. Drive, Oroville, Ca. 95965
D. Project Description and Location: A General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Land to industrial
and a Rezone from U to M-1 for the 10.43 acre parcel (040-130-036). The request also includes a revision
and an extension of an existing development agreement on the other two parcels. The development
agreement covers a total of 77.43 ~ /- acres. A development agreement was approved for the existing M-
1properties in 1983. This agreement expired on March 15, 1993. The project area fronts along Highway
99 and is on both sides of Durham-Pentz Road. Additional project description and area description can be
found in the data sheet at the end of this document.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ta. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect subsurface earth conditions.
Mitigation: None required.
1b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or o~ercovering of the soil?
Yes Maybe No X
Resp„or~se: This proposal will result in some disruption, displacement, compac#ion and overcovering of the site
as a result of development of structures, driveways, parking areas, etc.
The project site is characterized by relatively level terrain which wilt require only minor grading to accommodate the
development. This impact is not considered significant because standard drainage and grading controls will be
enforced.
i.
Mitigation: None required.
ic. Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features?
Yes Maybe No X
Resgor~se: The proposal will not significantly affect topography or ground relief features because the property is
nearly level.
Mitigation: None required.
1
k
1d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The site has no unique geologic or physical features.
Mitigation: None required.
ie. Any substantia[ increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or oft-site?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will pat cause substantial erosion of the soils.
Miti ation: None required.
if. 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 any lake?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect any watercourse.
Mitiaa#ion: None required.
ig. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: This proposal does not contain prime agricultural soils. The property contains valley grasslands with
shallow sails.
Mitigation: None required.
ih. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-slides,
ground #ailure, or similar hazards?
Yes Maybe X No
Response: All of Butte County is in a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone Vlli. The subject property is located
approximately 1 /4 miles from a fault with unknown activity. Construction of buildings to Uniform Build'mg Code
standards will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity.
Mitiaation: None required.
2. Air. Will the propose! result in:
2a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality'?
Yes Maybe X No
Response: The proposed project will result in a cumulative impact on air quality created by increased traffic
generated by the project. The California Air resources Control Board has identified Butte County as a Non-
2
attainment Area in meeting the standards of the California Air Quality Act. The Butte County Air Pollution Control
flan does not address air quality impacts of small developments far passible mitigation measures. The expansion
of a potential employment center will result in increased vehicle trips from people traveling from their homes in other
parts of the county. The development agreement requires that the development comply with Butte County Air
Pollution Control District requirements and the establishment of potential bus stops. The addition of 70 acres of
industrial land to the area is not expected to result in a significant impact on air quality.
3.
Some short term air quality impacts will probably result during the construction phases of the project. Specifically
increased vehicle and equipment emissions as well as increased dust during site grading and preparation will occur.
Mitigation: None required if the development agreement is complied with.
2b. The creation of objectionable odors?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal is not expected to create objectionable odors, smoke or fumes. Any uses that may result
in any of these impacts will require a lase Permit to properly evakuate the significance.
Mitigation: None required.
2c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or
regionally?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal will not affeci the local or regional climate.
Mitigation: None required.
Water. Will the proposal result in:
3a. Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in fresh waters?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal will not affect any watercourse or the direction and movement of any such watercourses.
Mitigation: None required.
3b. Substantial changes in absorp#ion rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff
on-site or irrto any water body?
Yes Maybe X No
Response: This project will ultimately result in the creation of new impervious surfaces such as roads, structures,
parking lots and driveways. An increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate
created from the impervious surfaces. Such impacts may lead to significant overload of the existing drainage system.
Stormwater management strategies should be developed and incorporated into the project as mitigation measures
to decrease stormwater discharge off-site. Adherence to drainage standards of the Butte County Public Works
Department is anticipated to mitigate possible impacts to the drainage system.
Mitigation: None required if development agreement is complies with in regards to drainage.
3c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or
culvert installation?
3
Yes Maybe No X
Response: No off-site surface drainage improvements are needed since all increases in runoff will be required to
be retained on-site.
Mitigation: None required.
3d. Alternations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not signifiicantiy affect any flood control channels or watercourses.
Mitigation: None required.
3e. Discharge into surtace waters, or in any alteration or surface water quality, including, but not Limited
ta, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal is not expected to discharge pollutants into any surface water body nor alter any water
body that could result in an impact to water quality.
Miti anon: None required.
3f. Alteration of the direction of rate of slow of ground waters?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect the direction or flow of ground waters.
Mitiga#ion: None required.
3h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, ar through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not directly affect any aquifer.
Mitigation: None required.
3i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: A substantial reduction in public water supplies will not occur as a result of project approval.
Mitigation: None required.
3j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not expose people or property to flooding.
4
Mitigation: None required.
4.
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
4a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants {including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops and aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe No X
5.
Response: The property is located in a valley grassland habitat and the proposed project should not significantly
affect the diversity of the area plant life.
Mitigation: None required.
4b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants?
Yes Maybe Na X
Response: The properly does not contain habitat tha# would support any unique, rare or endangered plant species.
Vernal pools are known to exist south of Falager Court.
Mitigation: None required.
4c. introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, ar in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: Approval of this request will result in the introduction of exotic plant species into the area to
accommodate project landscaping. The introduction of non-native vegetation is not expected to create significant
impacts on the environment.
Mitigation: None required.
4d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The site does not contain any agricultural crops and is presently vacant grasslands.
Mitigation: None required.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
5a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, reptiles,
fish, shellfish, berrthic organisms or insects}?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response,; The proposal will not result in a substantial change in animal habitat.
Mitigation: None required.
5b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
Yes Maybe
No X
5
Response: The property does not contain habitat that would support any unique, rare or endangered species of
animals.
Mitigation: None required.
Sc. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of
animals?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: This project will not introduce domestic pets into the area.
Mitigation: None required.
5d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The site does not contain extensive fish or wildlife habitat that would be significantly impacted by the
project.
Mit~ation: None required.
B. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
6a. 5ubstantiat increases in existing noise ie~els?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not result in a substantial increase in noise created on-site or in the vicinity.
Existing noise levels wiii increase by the conversion of open grasslands to industrial development. The project site
is not located near any noise sensitive environments. Noise levels created from the highway will not nave a
signrficant impact on new development.
Mitigation: None required.
6b. Exposure at people to severe noise levels?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not expose people to severe noise levels.
Miti anon: None required.
7. Light and.. Glare. Will the proposal produoe substantial new light or glare?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: Even though new light sources wil# be introduced on the site, the proposal will not result in a substantial
increase in light or glare created on site or in the vicinity.
Miti ation: None required.
6
S.
Land Ilse. Will the proposal result in a substantial attera#ion of the present ar planned land use of the area?
Yes Maybe X No
9.
10.
11.
Resoonse: The proposal will alter the planned land use in the area. The project site is zoned "U" which allows
residential and agricultural uses and is designated by the Butte County General Pfan as Grazing and Open sand.
However the property is adjacent to industrial zoned lands and a 10.43 acre parcel is not conducive far agriculture
uses. Approval may also lead to added development pressures in the immediate area ofi this request. Since this
proposal does have industrial designated areas adjacent to it, and there is good access to the regional transportation
system, this proposal will not lead to substantial alteration in the planned land use of the area.
Mitigation: None required.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal resut# in:
9a. Substantial increase in the rate of use or any na#urai resource?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal will not affect any natural resources.
Mitigation: None required.
9b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource?
Yes Maybe
NO X
Response: The proposal will not deplete any natural resources.
Mitigation: None required.
Risk_of Upset. Will the proposal inr-olve:
10a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
Yes Maybe
No X
Resoonse: The proposal could involve the use of hazardous materials, depending on the actual uses of the
property. However, any activity that could create such an impact will require a Use Permit to determine the potential
significance.
Mitigation: None required.
10b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal will not affect any emergency services.
Mitigation: None required.
Population. WiN the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population
of an area?
7
Yes Maybe No X
12.
i3.
Response: The proposal wilE not signirficantly affect the population of the area because the proposed density does
not exceed that planned and being developed in the area.
Mitigation:, None required.
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response: The proposal will not significantly affect housing demand.
Mitigation: None required.
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
13a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe X No
Response: This proposal will generate additional vehicular traffic to the local area.
The E113 prepared for the ~iancho Esquon General Plan Amendment indicated that the southbound intersection of
Highway 99 and Durham-Dayton Highway presently operates at an A.M. Level of Service of "D". Southbound traffic
on this offramp typically backs up onto the freeway. Future development will add to the cumulative impact to this
intersection. Any development on parcel 040-130-036 should pay a pro rata share towards the future signalization
of this intersection.
Mitigation: Prior to issuance ofi building permits on A.P.# 040-130-038, the developer shall pay a pro rata share
towards the signalization of the intersection at the southbound offramp of Highway !a9 and Durham-Dayton Highway.
This requirement shall be added to the development agreement.
13b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect parking because compliance with the parking standards contained within
Suite County Code Section 24-35 will be enforced.
Mitigation: None required.
13c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation services?
Yes Maybe
No X
Res onset An increase in congestion and maintenance requirements on area roads and on public transportation
services can be expected as a result of project approval. See 13a above.
Mitf ation: None required.
13d. Significant alters#ions to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Yes Maybe
NO X
Resganse; The proposal will not significantly alter the present pattern of circulation in the area.
8
Miff anon: None required.
13e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect rail or air traffic.
Mitigation: None required.
i3f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Yes Maybe No X
14.
Response: The proposal may result in an increase in traffic and related traffic hazards in the area.
Mitigation,: None required.
Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon or resuR in a need for new ar altered
governmental services in any of the following areas:
14a. Fire Protection?
Yes Maybe X No
Response: The project is located in an area with a moderate fire hazard designation. The proposal will result in
an incremental increase in demand for fire protection in the area. The Butte County Fire Department/Cal'rfornia
Department of Forestry has indicated that cumulative development in rural areas will impact their ability to provide
fire protection services. They have stated that installation of automatic fire suppression sprinkler systems in
all structures, the use of fire resistance building materials and water supply systems adequate to support the sprinkler
system will reduce the demand for fire protection services. The development agreement also requires that ail the
area annex into County Service Area #137 to provide for additional fire protection.
Mitigation: See development agreement.
14b. Police protection?
Yes Maybe
No %
Response: A development impact fee for Sheriff's facilities shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3,
Article # 1 of the Butte County Code, prior to issuance ofi building permits. Said fee amount will be determined and
calculated as of the date of application for the building permit or use permit.
Mitigation:, None required.
14C. Schools?
Yes Maybe
No X
Response; Ali new development will be required to pay the school impact fees prior to issuance of building permits
pursuant to the State Legislature requirements.
Mitigation: None required.
14d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
9
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposa! will not result in a sign'rficant increase to demand for parEc and recreation facilities in the
area.
Miti anon: None required.
14e. Maintenance of public facilities including roads?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal wilt result in an incremental increase in the need for maintenance of roads and ocher
public facilities in the area.
Mitigation: None required.
14f. Other governmerEtai services?
Yes Maybe No X
Res onse: The proposal will resuit in an incremental increase in demand for all other governmental services in
the area.
Mitigatiorr~, None required.
i5. Enerav. Will the proposal result in:
15a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not utilize substantial fuel or energy.
Mitigation: None required.
15b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new
sources of energy?
Yes Maybe No X
Res onse: The proposal will not substantially increase the demand far energy.
Mitigation, None required.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substarrtiai alterations to the following utilities:
16a. Power or natural gas?
Yes Maybe Na X
Response: The proposal will not affect electrical power ar natural gas distribution systems.
Mitigation: None required.
i6b. Communication systems?
Yes Maybe No X
is
Response: The proposal will not affect communication systems.
Mitigation:, None required.
16C. Water?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect public water systems.
Mitigation: None required.
16d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will have to meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Department.
Mitigation: None required.
1&c. Storm water drainage?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will have to provide a permanent solution for drainage.
Mitigation: None required.
1Bd. Solid waste and disposal?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect solid waste disposal.
Mitigation: None required.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
17a. Crea#ion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not create any health hazard.
Mitigation: None required.
17b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not expose people to any health hazard.
Mitigation: None required.
18. Aesthetics. 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 ~ie~?
i9
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not result in an aesthetically offensive view because it is consistent with surrounding
development.
Mitigation: None required.
i9. Recreation. Will the propose! result in an impact upon the quality or quarrtity of existing recreational
opportunities?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal wil! not result in an impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities
in the area.
Mitigations None required.
20. Cultural Resources.
2Qa. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric ar historic archaeological
site?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect archeological sites.
_Mitigation: None required.
20b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aes#hetic effects to the prehistoric or historic building,
structure or object?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect historic sites.
Miti anon: None required.
20c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
Yes Maybe No X
Response, The proposal will not affect cultural resources.
Mitigation: None required.
20d. WiIE the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The proposal will not affect religious resources.
Mitigation; None required.e
12
III. MANDATORY FINDINGS DF SIGNIFICANCE.
1.Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habita# of a fiish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popufa#ion to drop below self sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califorr-ia
history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe Na X
Response: As discussed in Section EI of this document and more specifically subsections 4,5, and 20, this project
will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
2.Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts will endure wil! into the future.)
Yes Maybe No X
Response: The project, as discussed in Section II of this Initial Study, will not result in short-term benefits of the
expense of impacting bng-term environmental goals.
3.Does the project have impacts which are indivfduaiiy limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
Yes Maybe X No
Response: As discussed in Section II, Subsections 8 and t 3 of this document, this proposal may have a significant
cumulative impact on the environment, but this project can be mitigated to a level of insign'rficance by the
incorporation of stated mitigation measures as part of the project approval and through the enforcement of the
development agreement.
4.Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan#iaf adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No X
Response: As discussed in Section II of this Initial Study, this proposal will not have a signifiicant adverse effect
on human beings.
IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COl3LD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I 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 herein have been added
to the conditions of approval for the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find #hatthe proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
omas fast, enior Planner
Date: August 27, 1993 Reviewed by:__ ~ ~ ~
t3
V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REOUiREMENTS
1.Prior to issuance of building permits on A.F.# D40-13fl-036, the developer shall pay a pro rata share towards the
signalization of the intersection at the southbound offramp of Highway 99 and Durham-Dayton Highway. This
requirement shall be added to the development agreement.
14
DATA SHEET
A. 1Proiect Description
1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment, Rezone and a Development Agreement.
2. Proposed Density of Development: N/A
3. Amount of Impervious.Suriacing: 50% or greater is highly expected.
4. Access and Nearest Public Roads}: Durham-Pentz Road and Falager Court.
5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems.
6. Source of Water Supply: individual wells.
7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property.
8. Potential for further land divisions and development: N/A
B. En~ironmerrta! Setting
Ph sicaE Environment:
1. .Terrain
a General Topographic Character: Level valley floors.
b. Slopes: None
c. Elevation: 175' to 180' feet above sea level.
d. Limiting Factors: None
2. Soils
a. Types and Characteristics: Tuscan Stoney Clay Loam, a shallow soli with fair surface drainage and
poor subsurface drainage.
b. Limiting Factors: Very poor agricultural soils, primarily used for pasture land.
3. Natural Hazards of the Land
a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake intensity Zone VIII.
b. Erosion Potential: Low
c. Landslide Potential: None
d. Fire Hazard: Moderate
e. F~cpansive Soil Potential: High
4. Hydrology
a. Surface Water: Natural water course on site.
b. Ground Water: Unknown, potentially limited. Abundant valley aquifers.
c. Drainage Characteristics: Southwesterly
d. Annual Rain#a1! (normal}: 2fi inches per year.
e. Limiting Factors: None
5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Very good views towards the Sierra foothills and the Coastal ranges.
6. Acoustic duality: Good.
7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley.
15
Biolooical 3nvironment:
S. Vegetation: Grasslands
9. Wildlife Habitat: Small birds and animals common to valley grasslands.
C Rural Environment:
10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: Moderate to low sensitivity area.
11. Butte County General Plan designation: Grazing and Open land
i2. Existing Zoning: Unclassified "U"
i 3. Existing land Use an-site: Vacant
14. Surrounding Area:
a. Land Uses: Grazing and vacant
b. Zoning: M-1 to the north and west, U to the east and A-40 to the southwest.
c. Gen. Plan Designation: Industrial and Grazing and Open Land
d. Parcel Sizes: 2 acres to very large parcels.
15. Character of Site and Area: Open grasslands.
16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico
17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: None
18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: Na
19. Fire Protection Service:
a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station number 45 and 25 approximately miles away.
b. Water Availability: A water system will be required.
20. Schools: Durham Union School District.
16
ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL
1. Butte County Planning Department. EarthQUake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic_5afety EEement. Oroville, CA:
CH2M Hill, 1977.
2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potentia[ Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M
Hill, 1977.
3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111.-1,_ Safery_ EEement. Orovil[e, CA
CH2M Hill, 1977.
4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Man 111„^2. Sa#etv Element. Oraville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977.
5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3. Safety Element. Oraville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977.
6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise EEement Ma IV-1 Scenic Hi hwa Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill,
1977.
7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Hiohwavs Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oraville, GA: GH2M Hill,
1977.
8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 11 i-4. Safety Element. Orovllle, CA: CH2M
Hill, 1977.
9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity-Maw Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983.
10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Mao. Oroville, CA.
11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow
Wells. The Resources Agency, State of Caifornia, 1983.
12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA:
Butte County Planning Department, 1987.
13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance_Rate-Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989.
14. USGS Quad Maps, Hamlin Canyon.
15. Soli Ma Chico 1925 Oroville 1926 Area. United States Department of Agriculture.
16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925,~,fOroville (19261 Area. United States Department of Agriculture.
17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Maw Butte County Fire
Department and California Department of Forestry, i 989.
17