Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-117±~~ R C~ to F S L1 P ~ R cif t C~~#~, ~ ~ ~ '.. CAUNTY OF BU'C'fi`E, STATE O~ CALIF'QRd*ttA <. , hE~s~~ lrfior7 !'~i~~. 9~-~l~ RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF "I~f-IE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BU"1'TE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has initiated an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, for a cha~lge from Industrial to Agricultural Residential for that property identifed on Exhibit A-I attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors as initiated an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, for a change from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industria] for that property identified on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan Amendments as initiated by the Buitc County Board of Supervisors have been studied and reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has reviewed and considered the contents of the environmental documents Exhibits A-2, GPA 98-01 and Exhibit B-2, GPA 97-03 prepared on the amendments pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Butte Cotmty Board of Supervisors approves the re-naming of the General Plan Text Title, in the Land Use Element, Page LUE 61, from "Solid Waste Management Facility" to "Solid Waste Facility Overlay, and that the text be added as stated in Exhibit B-3; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed Genera) Plan Amendments and subsequent development for GPA 9$-O1 and GPA 97-03 could not have a significant impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the General Plan Amendments for GPA 98-C~1 and GPA 97-03 at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds the proposed amendments as shown on Exhibits A-1 and B-],comply with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and comprises an overall internally consistent whole, specifically: The a~t~endments comply with the policies of the Butte County General Plan. 2. The amendments provide for compatible development witl~i existing land l1SeS. NO~'V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: The General Plan Amendments, GPA 98-01 to Agricultural Residential, as shown on the attached Exhibit A-1 and GPA 97-03 to Public and Industrial, as shown on the attached Exhibit B-l, are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The General Plan Amendments are hereby adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte as amendments to the Butte Cotu~ty 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 Iaw. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors finds that the initial studies, and Negative Declarations identified as Exhibit A-2, GPA 98-01 and Exhibit B-2, GPA 97- 03 are adequate for these projects for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to Government Code Section 65359 that the General Plan be endorsed t© show that the above amendments have been approved by this Board. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this 28th day of July , 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Dolan, Roux, Chair Davis NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Josiassen NOT VOTING: None r ~- f FRED C. DAMS, 'HAIR Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board - By: ! Deputy EXHIBIT A-1 J, ,~i -~\, I~ OP r Road h~ __ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ _- -- ~ __ 1' _. .__ _ _ __ __ _ ~ .~ . _ . ~.~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ , ~~ _ _ __ _- /1 ~_ ~~ ' Area to be Amended i~a r~/ o -- ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~i K~~cal Rnad ~. AR AR AR _.' -- - _ ----~ _, ~- ,-- - --~ - . ~ ._ -( -~1 _- ,- ~ f I~ ~ -- ,- ~ f ~ -- __ -- _ ~ ~- ~- ,~ { __1-- BUTTE Cl7-UNTY PLANNING CQMMISSION Applicant: Butte County Planning Division Owner: Various Hearing Date: Existing Zone: Interim AR-l & M-1 (Light Industrial) t~ 1 Request: General Plan Amemdment & Rezone to Agricultural Residential & AR-1 to conform with No Scale existing residential uses. Assessor Fareel No: Various ~le• 98-01 K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CL STER.IS COUNTY OF BUTTE EXHIBIT !t-~ INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: Gounty of Butte 2. Address: 25 County Center Drive, Oroville Phone: {530)538-7601 3. Name of Proposal: Custer Lane GPA and Rezone 4. Type of Project: Legislative Act -General Plan Amendment and Rezone 5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): This project consists of an amendment to the Butte County General Plan specifically the Oroville Area Land Use Plan from Industrial to Agricultural Residential and a zone change from M1 (Light Industrial) to AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - 1 acre minimum) in order to bring existing land uses into conformity with the zoning and general plan. The study area is located generally along Custer Lane, south of Oroville more specifically defined as that land bounded by Kussel road on the north, Lincoln Blvd. on the east and Railroad Ave. on the west comprising an area of approximately one hundred twelve (112.41) acres. The project is located in Supervisorial District 1 and within the Oroville Enterprise Zone. The property site is located in an area that may be characterized as rural residential with a mix of conventional residences and mobile homes including an eighty-nine (89) unit mobile home park. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: Various II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigations) will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ' J ~ -L~l( Completed by: David A. Doody, ssociate Planner Date ~j !/ Reviewe :Craig Sanders, Principal Planner Date K:\PLANN ING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER. GPA\CUSTER.IS III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning ^ Transportation/Circulation ^ Public Services ^ Population and Housing ^ Biological Resources ^ Utilities and Service ^ Geophysical ^ Energy and Mineral Resources ^ Aesthetics ^ Water ^ Hazards ^ Cultural Resources ^ Air Quality ^ Noise ^ Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for alt answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. R "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4} "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mfigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mfigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced}. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in a earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3){D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. K ~PLP.I~1tiIN(i~PROJECTS\GP.4\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c} Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community tincluding aloes-income or minority community}? Resaonse: ©raville Area Land Use Plan: No Impact X X X X The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would create residentially zaned and designated lands adjacent to industrially designated and zoned lands. Following this change, single family residences would be allowed as a permitted use" surrounded on three (3) sides by industrially zoned and designated lands. The policies of the General Plan discourage residential development in industrial areas due to conflicts regarding noise, dust, trafl-c and safety. The study area contains four (4) nonconforming (less than one acre) vacant parcels available for construction of a single family dwelling. There are also three (3) parcels large enough to be subdivided into one (1) acre parcels. The worsf case scenario for maximum subdivision and subsequent home construction would find an additional eleven (11) dwellings being developed following the prapased project. This, however, would be speculative and unlikely for the following reasons: X Development of these parcels for residential uses would be unlikely due to the requirement for onsite sewage disposal systems. According to the Environmental Health Department, soils are poor in this area for onsite septic systems. Engineered systems K:\PLRNN IN GIPROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER. GPR\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact would likely have to be installed which have a high rate of failure and are costly. Such cost would likely exceed the rate of return for the sale of the parcels within this market area, and therefore, their developement or creation through subdivision is highly speculative. Custer Lane has only a 40' right-of-way. Section 20-134 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires a 60' right-of-way. Custer Lane is an unpaved privately maintained road. It would have to be upgraded to meet the typical road standards of Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code. Custer Lane serves more than twenty (20) parcels and is longer that 500'. Pursuant to Section 20-133 of the Subdivision Ordinance, this would exceed the access standard for rural subdivisions. Even if the above criteria could be met, it is speculative as to whether eleven (11) additional residences would create a significant environmental impact. CEQA requires a worst case scenario analysis when a project such as a General Plan amendment would change housing density. This initial study is predicated upon such a worst case senario. This project(s) is a planning project consisting of a legislative act of approving a general plan amendment and a rezone.' !n effect a mapping change is being proposed whereby such approval can change the manner in which the land will be permitted to be used. This project also provides regulatory authority or cr-feria fhrough the implementafion of various County codes that apply to the new map designafion so that development can proceed in a responsible manner. Legislative acts consisting of a change in a land use map designation do not result in a physical change in the environment until that time when a project is actually proposed to be carried out. At that time a specifrc project shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigafion can be incorporated into the project Therefore, no environmental impacts will occur. While no specific environmental effects will occur as a result of a map change, it would be appropriate to address at this time ways to minimize potential development conflicts in the future. In this case, Staffis recommending that additional properties be included to take in lands along Lincoln Blvd. This would provide a continuous block of residentially zoned and designated land adjacent to the subject properties and would minimize conflicting land uses. to this case, lands to the south of the praject area are already zoned and designated for residential development and provide for a logical extension of residential land use. Lincoln Blvd. will therefore serve as a buffer and separate residential development from lands to the east which are within the indusfriat classifications. On the north and west sides of the study area, should future industrial development be proposed, the zoning code requires a use permit if a proposed industrial use is within 100' of a residential structure or use. The potential conflicts can be mitigated during the review process at that time. Also, the larger parcel sizes on the north and east sides would provide for the greater separation of lndusfiat and residential land uses. Several other options are available to minimize future conflicting Jand uses within industrial zones. These options involve amending the development criteria of the Zoning Code as follows: K: \PLANN INGIPROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A. Change the textofthe Zoning Code to only allow a residential use in the Ll (Limited Industrial), M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy tndusirial) zones by conditional use permit. Such permit if granted by the Planning Commission would stipulate that only a caretaker, proprietor or watchman would be able to live on the premises and only then for a legally established permitted use. B. Change the text of the Zoning Cade to allow a residential use in the indusfial zones by administrative use permit, approved by the Director of Development Services. Again, the permit could control the intended use for the residence as a caretakers quarters, but would not involve the expense of a use permit. C. Change the textofthe Zoning Code to continue to allow a caretakers residence as an accessary use, but delete the current zoning criteria which allows a single family residence with approval of a use permit. MITIGATION: None required. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. Should industrial development be proposed within 700' of a residential structure or use, generally speaking a conditional use permit will be required and conflicting lands uses can be mitigated at time of future application pursuant to CEQA. The Zontna Code text amendments proposed above are only included as discussion in order to minimize future land use conflicts and are not intended to be mitigation of current environmental impacts associated with this project. The Planning Commission can only recommend the aforementioned text changes to the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, due to these circumstances they are not included as mitigation measures. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c} Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X Response: Approval of this project will not result in any increase in populafion or be growth inducing. The potential number of dwellings that could be constructed are limited by site development requirements and even if in the worst case scenario all the vacant and/or develop able lands could be subdivided it would not be a significant impact. Please see item #1 above. Mitigation: None required. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? X K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS b} Seismicity: ground shaking! liquefaction? c) Seismicity: seiche? d} Landslides or mudslides? e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? f) Subsidence of the land? g) Expansive soils? h) Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X X X X X X Rest~onse: AB of Butte County is classified as a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone Vlll and potential ground shaking is possible. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element Map indicates that the study area is located within the 1975 Oroville After Shock Epicenter Region and is located within !mile of the Foothill Shear Zone. Construction of all buildings on the project site to Uniform Building Code standards will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. Therefore, no environmental impacts will occur. Mitigation: None required. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d) Changes in the amount of surtace water in any water body? X e} Changes in currents, or the K:~PL 1NNINGIPROJF,CT51GPA1CUSTER.GPA~CUSTER.[S Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact course or direction of water movements? f} Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? g} Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X X X X Response: Approval of this project will not result in impacts to surface or ground water resources. Public water is available within the sfudy area, however, in the worst case scenario for development the demand for water would not significantly affect local water supplies. Onsite development of future residences could result in the creation of impervious surfaces and increase runoff; however, this can be addressed through the construction oiretention facilities at time of map approval. Mitigation: None required. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Response: There are no sensitive receptors in tfie vicinity of the proposed project. Even with build out of the remaining vacant lots, there will be no significant impact to air quality. Mitigation: None required. 6. TRANSPORTATIONtCIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Impact congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses {e.g. farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site/ offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians ar bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? h) Substantial impact upon e~asting transportation systems, including public transportation services? Potentially Significant Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X Response: Approval of this project will not result in a significant increase in traffic. Development of eleven (11) single family residences would result in the increase in 110 vehicle trips per day. This is based on a standard urban measure often (10) lips per dwelling per day. However, in a rural area this number is greatly reduced and therefore is not considered a significant effect. See item # 1 for analysis of development constraints. Mitigation: None Required 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a} Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? X b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X c) Locally designated natural K:1PI,ANti ING~PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.}? d) Wetland habitat {e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Less Patentialiy Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X Response: There are no biological resources such as oak forests, wetlands or wildlife migration corridors on the project site. There are no known threatened species on-site. (Site visit, November 13, 1997; Suite County Constraints Map) Mitigation: None required. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Conflict with the extraction of identified, significant mineral resources? X Response: Approval of the application(s) will not conflict with any energy conservation plans nor result in the inefficient use of nonrenewable resources. See item # i. Mitigation: None required 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) R risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X c} The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X K:\PLANNING\PRdJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Impact d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X X Response: The project would create residentially zoned lands adjacent to industrial. In a worst case scenario, suture development could occur an the industrial lands which could pose health hazards to residents. This is not unlike the current situation because the lands already exist in this condition. Only a limited number of residences can be developed and any industrial uses will likely require a use permit whereby any heaXh issues can be addresses at that time. Mitigation: None required. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a} Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Potentially Significant Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact X X Response: The approval of this project will not directly result in any increase in noise leve/s. However, following the project future development may expose people to severe noise Jevels without proper mitigation. Please see # 1 for description of project's impacts and analysis pursuant to CEQA. Staff is proposing that additional properties be included to take in lands along Lincoln Blvd. This would provide a continuous block of residentially zoned and designated land adjacent to the subject properties and would minimize conflicting land uses. In this case, lands to the south of the project area are already zoned and designated for residential development and provide for a logical extension of residential land use. Lincoln Blvd. will therefore serve as a buffer and separate residential development from lands to the east which are within the industrial class>frcations. On the north and west sides of the study area, should future industrial development be proposed, the zoning code requires a use permit if a proposed industrial use is within 100' of a residential structure or use. The potential conflicts can be mitigated during the review process at that time. Also, the larger parcel sizes on the north and east sides would provide for the greater separation of Industrial and residential land uses. Mitigation: None required. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? X X K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPAICUSTER. GPA\CUSTER.IS c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, includin rod ~ Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Tmpact _ X g a s. X e} Other governmental services? X Response: Approval of this project(s) may not have significant impacts on public services. Please see #7 for description of project's impacts and analysis pursuant to CEQA. Appropriate time to address these issues is at time of future development. Mitigation: None required. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need far new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a} Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e} Storm water drainage? X f} Solid waste disposal? X g) Special Districts? _~ Response: Approval of the project(s) will not result in signficant new systems for power or communications. Such services exist to the property. The project area receives potable water from OWID. Sewer service will be provided on-site by individual septic systems. Solid waste services would have to be privately contracted. The County has sufficient waste disposal facilities to provide for future development. Mitigation: None required. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a} Affect a scenic vista or designated scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X K:\PLANNIi+1Gli'RO7ECTSIGPA\CUSTER.GPA\CU STER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Create light or glare? X Response: This project(s) is a planning project consisting of a legislative act of approving a general plan amendment and a rezone. Please see #1 for description of project's impacts and analysis pursuant fo GEQA. Appropriate time to address these issues is at time of future development. Mitigation: None required. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Response: There are no known cultural resources on-site. The Butte County Constraints Map indicates this area as having low sensitivity for archaeological resources Approval of this project(s) will result in approving achange -- on paper - of the general plan designation and zoning classfication. There will be no approval of any actual development project with approval of this application. At the time a specfic project is proposed it shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigation concerning archeological resources can be incorporated into the project should a significant impact be determined however unlikely Therefore, no significant impacts to any cultural resources would result from approval of this project Mitigation: None required. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand far neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities? _ X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X Response: Changing the general plan designation and zoning classification to Agricultural Residential and AR-1 will result in an slight increase in residential density over that which possibly be permitted under the industrial zoning However, this is not significant because the subject K: ~PLANN ING~PROJECTS\GPAICUSTER.GPA\CIJSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact property is nearly built-out and therefore the impacts of the existing residential development upon recreational facilities have already been absorbed. Mitigation: None required. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) 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 range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c} Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? X ~._ X X K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPAiCUSTER.IS Response: This project(s) is a planning project consisting of a legislative act of approving a general plan amendment and a rezone. Please see # 1 for description of project's impacts and analysis pursuant to CEQA. Appropriate time to address these issues is at time of future development. Mitigation: None required V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: None required. K:IPLANNING~I'RGJECTS~GPA`.CUSTER. GPA`.CUSTE R.IS DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment & Rezone 2. Proposed Density of Development: 1du/ac 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: 25-30% 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): frontage on Custer Lane 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: on-site 6. Source of Water Supply: OWID 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: There is very limited potential for further land division under the proposed zoning. B. Environmental Setting 1. Terrain a General Topographic Character: level terrain b. Slopes: level (0-2°t° grade} c. Elevation: 190-200 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: none 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Cometa Class Soil: 12" to 30" deep with slow permeability b. Limiting Factors: none 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Located within the 1975 Oroville After Shock Epicenter Region. Located within'/Z mile of Foothills Shear Zone. b. Erosion Potential: moderate c. Landslide Potential: none d. Fire Hazard: Moderate e. Expansive Soil Potential: High 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Seasonal stream exists on study area. b. Ground Water: present c. Drainage Characteristics: drainage is fair owing to the slope of the surface and to the permeability of the soil. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 22-24 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: none f. Flood Zone: Flood Zone X -Panel No. 06001704808 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Fair -Surrounding area is visually impacted by industrial uses 6. Aeaustic Quality: Fair 7. Air Quality: Good, except during period of agricultural burning and when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: some oaks, grasses, forts and riparian vegetation along seasonal stream which runs north to south in eastern portion of the study area. 9. Wildlife Habitat: small birds, rodents 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: low sensitivity area 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Oroville Area Land Use Plan -Industrial 12. Existing Zoning: M1 13. Existing Land Use on-site: rural residential, some home occupations, afire recycling business and an 89 unit mobile home park . 14. Surrounding Area: K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPAICUSTER. GPA\CUSTER.IS a. Land Uses: South: Rural residences on various lot sizes ranging from 1 acre to a 7.5 acre mobile home park. North: vacant industrial lands. East: Vacant industrial lands, residences and a molding company. West: Residences some commercial and light manufacturing. b. Zoning: South: ARMH-1; North: M1; East: M1; West: M1 c. Gen. Plan Designation: Oroville Area Land Use Plan: Industrial and Agricultural Residential d. Parcel Sizes: 1J4 ac to 15 acre parcels 15. Character of Site and Area: rural residential, mobile home parks, light manufacturing 16. Nearest Urban Area: Oroville 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: City of Oroville Sphere of Influence 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: None 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Butte County Fire Station 72 in Palermo b. Water Availability: Hydrant system maintained by OWID 20. Schools: Palermo Union ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1 Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2 Seismic Safety Element Oroville, CA: GH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1 Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2 Safety Element Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3 Safety Element Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV-1 Scenic Highway Element Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Hiohways Map V-1 Scenic Highway Element Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4 Safety Element Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Walls The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map established by Resolution No 67 178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planrnng Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico (1925)lOroville (1926 Area United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)IOroville (1926 Area United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay Proposed Addition to Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay Butte County Disposal Site General Plan Amendment from Grazing 8 Open Lands to Industrial Solid Waste Facility Overlay over Grazing & Open lands General Plan I MAP AMENDING Ezhibit• BUTTE COUNTY GEr~1ERAL PLAN Flle: ~-+n~ Resolution Date Butte County Planning Commission N Butte County Board of Supervisors EXHI~,/> ~ J,_ .~. Genera! Plan Amendment from Grazing & Open Lands to Public «~it~~ c,r.~g~_~~ EXHIBIT ~ "~ COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: I . Name of Proponent: County of Butte ?. Address: 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7601 3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: General Plan Amendment 97-03 ~. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment -Map and Text of the Land Use Element 5. Project Description and Location of Parcel(s): The proposed amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element has been initiated by the County of Butte. The subject property is located an the north side of Neal Road, westerly of the Neal Road Sanitary Landfill between the transmission power lines and current landfill property limits. (Please see attached location map.} "The proposed amendment includes 64~ acres currently owned by Butte County and an adjacent property (Slt acres) under private ownership. Additionally, a text amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element to expand the current uses allowed under the "Solid Waste Management Facility" designation is included. Currently, the total project area (combined 115 ~ acres) is designated as "Grazing and Open Land" and zoned "U" Unclassified. The proposed General Plan Amendment would include designating the 64 acres currently owned by Butte County as "Public" and the 51 acre privately awned property as "Industrial" as the underlying land use designation. The underlying land use designation must be specified to desi4~nate the future land use for the property pursuant to general plan policy. Both properties would be overlaid with the "Solid Waste Management Facility" designation. This overlay designation preempts the property from concurrently being used for residential purposes. The "U" Unclassified zoning district would be retained for bath properties. Permitted uses in the "U" district are limited to one single-family home and accessory buildings, agricultural uses and buildings and small hydro generating plants of five megawatts or less. All other uses require use permit approval. 7~lie County of Butte proposes to use the newly acquired 63 acres for landfill related use including a five (S) acre leachate pond and a storm water runoff/sedimentation pond of less than two acres in size. The remaining portions of the property will be used far storage of clay and soil from the pond, equipment storage, excavation of Module 4 of the landfill and a 9.03 acre landscaped buffer area. The Neal Road Landfill is a Class III solid waste disposal site fully permitted through the California Integrated Waste tilanagement Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division Project GP:1 97-03 An Environmental Initial Study was prepared and circulated earlier this year {June 1997) for the development of leachate and storm water retention ponds (Module 4) as an expansion of the current landfill operation. It was determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be adopted for the expansion. Land Use Designations The current designation of the subject property is "Grazing and Open Land". This designation allows for the following primary uses: livestock grazing, animal husbandry, intense animal uses and animal matter processing. Secondary uses include: resource extraction and processing, forestry, plant crops, agricultural support services, outdoor recreation facilities, airports, dwellings, utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and quasi-public uses and home occupations. The minimum parcel size is 40 acres. The "Public" designation (proposed for the additional acreage for the existing landfill) provides for the following primary uses: large facilities owned and operated by government agencies, including schools, colleges, airports, dam and reservoirs, disposal sites, recreation facilities, conservation areas, fire stations and other government buildings and property. Secondary uses under this designation include: hospitals and other large quasi-public uses, housing for students or on-site employees, utilities. The minimum parcel size is not specified, but noted that such a standard would need to be established "where necessary to protect adjacent uses and public welfare." Primary uses for the "Industrial" designation include: processing, manufacturing, packaging, storage and distribution of goods and commodities. Secondary uses include: light commercial uses, dwellings, utilities. public and quasi-public uses. Minimum parcel sizes and development standards are not specified, but the General Plan notes that parcel characteristics must be appropriate for intense industrial development with residential and light commercial uses limited to minimize conflicts with industrial uses. The purpose of the "Solid Waste Management Facility" designation is to identify existing solid waste facilities including landfills, dumps, and solid waste transfer stations, expansion areas and to reserve future sites. The purpose section further states that potential sites or site expansion may be designated only when land uses authorized in the applicable city or County General Plan adjacent to or near the site {expansion} are compatible with the establishment or expansion of the site for a solid waste facility. The Solid Waste Management Facility designations shall be retained for the property until one of the two following conditions are met: 1. The site has been closed and fully reclaimed to Solid Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality Control, and other regulatory agency standards; or 2. The site was a designed expansion area or reserved site never utilized, and determined to be inconsistent with surrounding land uses or the Butte County Solid Waste Management Plan. Text ~mendrnent The following text amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed for adoption, page LAND USE ELEMENT - 61: Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 2 Project GPA 97-03 The solid waste management facility overlay land use designation allows uses which are accessory and/or related to solid waste and/or septage disposal. Support and accessory uses which are consistent with the solid waste management facility designation include, but are not limited to: recycling and waste diversion facilities, site monitoring operations, fire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scape yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers andfor septic tank pumping companies and other similar uses which meet the purposes of this land use designation. Additionally, the title of the designation will be amended to read: "Overlay Designation" or "Combining Designation". Project (Environmental Setting The project site is located approximately six (6) miles southwest of the Town of Paradise and seven (7) miles south east of the City of Chico. Bordered by Neal Road on the south, the landfill is 0.7 miles east of State Highway 99. The subject property lies between two transmission line easements, west of the current landfill operation. Surrounding uses are undeveloped grazing land and the Neal Road Landfill. The project site in within the Butte Creek watershed basin. (Butte County Master Environmental Assessment (BCMEA)) Nance Canyon is the principal drainage channel for the subject property. Runoff flows southwesterly from the site via Nance Canyon to Hamlin Slough and eventually into Butte Creek, west of the town of Nelson. Elevations on the subject site range from 210 to 310 feet above the mean sea Level. The topography includes volcanic outcroppings underlain by Tuscan formation which consists of several bedded areas of mud flow breccia. There are gradual elevation changes which rise to small butte formations that slope downwards to the west and are dissected by numerous ephemeral drainage swales. (Jones and Stokes) Changes in elevation on the subject property do not exceed a 25% slope. The soil classification is Class VI denoting soils which have severe limitations which is considered unsuitable far cultivation, but appropriate for grazing or furestry uses. Biological habitat identity of the property is associated with Valley Grasslands and Foothill Oak Woodland environments forming a floristic transitional region between the valley and the higher elevation forested areas. (BCMEA) The area contains both open, grassy acreage and stands of Blue and Live Oak woodlands and underbrush with a small number of Digger Pines. These areas can be a source of significant wildlife habitat. However, due to the proximity of the State Highway and the operation of the existing landfill, opportunities for wildlife on the subject property have been diminished. 6. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 040-600-064 Date Checklist Submitted: 1'Yovember 12, 1997 II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division 3 Project GPA 97-03 ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® 1 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION with mitigations} will be prepared. ^ [find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Date Reviewed by: For III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing ®Biological Resources .Utilities and Service Systems Geophysical Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards ®Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise - Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses foNowing each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone}. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific screening analysis). 3) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant if there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division ~~ 4 ProjecC GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVI1, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5} Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in a earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c}(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6} Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances}. Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is a draft form of the County njEutte Environmental Checklist (Initial Study) form. It is subject to periodic revisions to comply with the State of California Office of Planning & Research recommended format. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a} Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X Comment: The project is an amendment to the Butte County General Plan to re-designate the property from "Gra=ing and Open Land" to "Public" and "Industrial "with an overlay designation of"Solid Waste Management Facility "for the entire acreage. The designations are consistent with the intent of the County of Butte to provide adequate and mandated solid waste disposal facilities for the county populace. The general plan amendment is appropriate for expansion of the current landfill operation and future opportunity for solid waste disposal, recycling andlor diversion related activities on an adjacent site, rather than locate new solid waste facilities elsewhere within the county. The surrounding "Grazing and Open Land" designation in the general vicinity further ensures that the solid waste disposal facilities will not conflict or cause adverse impacts which could be associated with residential use. Mitigation: None required b} Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X Comment: The subject property may contuin special status species. While adopting new general plan designations for the property does not in itself conflict with state and federal regulations regarding threatened or Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 5 Pro~ea GPA 97-03 Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact endangereclspecies, subsegarent development of new solid waste disposat,recycling and/or diversion facilities could adversely impact rare or endangered species if not acknowledged and mitigated. Mitigation: See Section 7 of this checklistfor biological mitigation. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including aloes-income or minority community)? X Comments: The proposed use for the subject property (landfill and solid waste facility related) is not considered a conflicting use for seasonal gra_>ing land. The property is adjacent to the county landfill and therefore, inappropriate for residential use. Soils are generally thin and wilt not support agricultural crop production. (Class v/i , "Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation. Fairly well-suited for grazing or forestry. " butte County Master Environmental Assessment, QCMEA) There are approximately 172,85 aa-es designated for grazing land within the unincorporated lands of Butte County. The loss of 11.1 acres of grazing (and represents .OfJ(17 of the total acreage designated for grazing and, therefore, is not considered significant. There are no established or planned communities in the general vicinity which would conflict with the proposed use of the property. Mitigation: None required. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X b} Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X Comment: There is no housing associated with the project and no cause and effect relationship between expansion of solid waste facilities andpopulation increase. Development of the industrial designated property would serve Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division ~. Proiecr GPA 97-0~ Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact to expand and consolidate solid waste disposal, recycling and diversion facilities in proximity to the existing county landfill operation. No hozrsing exists or is currently proposed in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Mitigation: None required. 3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a} Seismicity: fault rupture? X b) Seismicity: ?round shaking/ liquefaction? X c} Seismicity: seiche? X Comments: The property is located in an area of relatively low seismic activity. No active faults are located on the property. The closest active fault to the subject site is the Cleveland Hills fault located approximately Li miles sa:rtheast of the property. A potentially active fault, Chico Manocline fault is located approximately two miles east of the pro}'ect site. The likelihood of an earthquake from these currently inactive faults is extremely low. Several lineaments have been mapped through prior investigations ofgreater acreage which includes the subject property. While these lineaments may represent stream beds, and vegetation (as observed from aerial mapping), they may represent fractures in the Tuscan Formation. (Anderson Geotechnical Study) As part of use permit approval for new industrial development on the property, a detailed geologic study should be performedprior to building permit issuance. Generally, these studies are required for commercial and industrial development as part of the building permit process. Ground shaking potential from seismic activity in the Btrtte County is difficult to predict as there is not st fficient geologic and seismic data available. (BCMEA) The degree of ground shaking greatly varies and depends on magnitude of the earthquake and geology. A Modified ,I~fercalli intensity between VI and VII for seismic activity is expected for the majority of land within Butte County. Liquefaction is generally associated with areas where the groundwater is less than 3(1 feet from the surface and soils are characteri_ed as poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. The subject site has lo~v potential for liquefaction. No large bodies of water are located on the subject site; therefore, the oceupance for seiche (periodic oscillation of a lake, river, bay, etc. from seismic activity) is not possible. Mitigation: None required. d) Landslides or mudslides? e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X X Comments: Landslide or mudslide potential is considered low for areas whlch are comprised of volcanic hardpan and thin soils. Erosion potential is none to minimal on the flat portions of the subject property. Areas of greater elevationlslope will require engineered grading plans prior to building construction. Slope stability studies were conducted for the landfill in 1987 as part of the hfaster Plan which indicated stability under both static and seismic loading conditions. (Master Plun Neal Road Sanitary Landfill) Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division Protect. GP,-a 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: None required. f) Subsidence of the land? g} Expansive soils? h} Unique geologic or physical features? X X X Comments: Subsidence potential in Butte County is associated with heavy ground water withdrawal. According to the BCMEA, the subject site is not associated with either heavy ground water withdrawal or subsidence potential. The subject site does not contain expansive soils. There are no unique geologic or physical features associated with the project site. ivTitigation: None required. ~. Ly'~TER. I'Y'ould the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X Comment: Ferture construction on the industrially designated site would result in new imperious surfaces which could lead to increased stormwater runoff The expansion of the landfill to provide additional facilities includes a storm water runoff/sedimentation pond. The California Regional Wafer Quality Control Board issues industrial storm water permits and will require compliance with standard regulations regarding run-off associated with the landfill site. The /nitial Study prepared for the new landfill facilities notes that a portion of the project is being established to controt the amount of surface runoff. iflitigation: None required. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X Comment: The BCMEA notes that the subject property is outside the ~(1(J year flood plain. The project is located in an area which does not contain human population and is designated for "Open Space and Grazing". However, the area immediately west at State Highway 99 and north of the project site experiences occasional flooding due to the elevation change at the highway, the flatness of the adjacent land and narrowness of the Nance Canyon channel at this point. The Federal Flood Ha_ard Boundary Maps indicates this portion of Nance Canyon as subject !o flooding and a previous drainage study stated that this area of the channel is inadequate to contain the l~t1-year design flaw. {Drainage Study, Rolls, Anderson & Rolls). Future development of the industrial site will necessitate compliance with the regulations of the Departments of Public Works and Building for construction within or adjacent to floodplains. Mitigation: None required. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division 8 Project GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact oxygen or turbidity)? X Comment: Surface water quality is rnanaged by local agencies in accordance with state standards. The County of Butte has adopted standards for specific areas of the county which regzrire close monitoring of surface and ground water quality. Eastern Butte County (which Includes most of the project site] is not identified with signiftcant drainage problems. (BCMEA) Mitigation: None required. d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X Comment: The project .rite does not contain any water bodies. tilitigation: None required. f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavation? X g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X Comment: No change in the quality, direction or rate of ground waters is expected to change. The project site is not associated with a groundwater recharge area. (BCMEA) The landfill portion of the site must comply with a ground water monitoring system in compliance with state and federal regulations. Any development of solid waste disposal, recycling or diversion facilities would be subject to compliance with state and federal regulations. Facilities or activities which discharge waste which could effect ground water quality must obtain a National Polh~tant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit through the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These permits must be consistent with adopted water quality objectives, the Area wide Waste Treatment Management Plan, the Basin Plan for Butte County, and the federal effluent limitations. (BCMEA) Mitigation: None required. 5. AIR QUAL[TY. Woidd the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X _ Comment: Future construction on the project site could result in the release of fine particles of dust. Fugitive Pitif ,dust would be generated primarily by site preparation. This short term impact is considered less than Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division ^ 9 Pro~cct tiP~~ 97-4)3 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact signifrcant because stcrndard constnrction measures, including controlling fugitive dust at all times will be required as n condition of use permit approval far future development of industrial uses. Mitigation: None required. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c} r~.[ter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectionable odors? X Comment: There are no known sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the landfrll. No alteration of air movement, moisture ar temperature is expected to oeczrr tivith future development of the site. The Butte County Division of Environmental Health has jurisdiction ar the Goeal Enforcement Agency which monitors the landfill for odor. Contimred maintenance of the landfrll including daily cover of compacted refuse and other required odor suppressing techniques is expected to occur. Leachate ponds may contribzrte to objectional odors when surrounding air tenaperateu•e increases. However, there are no nearby residential uses and no complaints have been recorded. i4titigation: None required. 6. TRANSPORTATIONIC[RCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) [ncreased vehicle trips ar traffic congestion? X Comment: Development of new industrial uses related to the landfill operation, may increase traffic volumes. State Highway 99, north of HigMvay 1-19 and south of the Skyway interchange is currently operating well below capacity with a Level of Service (LDS) of A. Neal Road is a rzrral collector road currently with low traffe volumes. Even though, Neal Road provides access from Paradise to State Highway 99, traffic volumes have nor dramatically increased This can be partly contributed to the improvement of the Skyway as the major access route into and from the Town of Paradise. Mast traffic on Neal Road is generated from solid waste haulers. Records indicate approximately Z.iO vehicles per weekday enter the landfill. Weekend traffic is approximately l2~ vehicles for Suturday and 63 vehicles on Sundays. (initial Study, Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision) Traffic increase ussumptianr for Neat Road have been based on the future traffic generation associated with Butte Community College. (BCMEA) Future proposals for industrial development on the project site should include traffic generation data and be conditioned to provide adequate access improvements on-site and off-site if warranted. it is assumed that significant new traffre generation will not occur. Related landfrll activities (i. e. recycling diversion) would not generate more trips. Haulers would not be making extra trips for particular waste prodzrcts as solid waste would be carted at the landfill far those materials that could be recycled, diverted or disposed in some other manner. itititigation: No mitigation required. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division 10 Prvlect GP,~ 97-U3 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comment: No incompatible uses such as farming operations or residential uses are located in the general vicinity: however, large tnrcks and haulers en route to the landfill are common on Neal Road. Future development pr•ajects would require analysis and approval of the Bzztte County Public Works Department for new encroachments onto Neat Road. 1L'Iitigation: None is required. c) inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses X d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X ~ Conflicts with adapted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? X h) Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation services? X Comments: The project is not associated with inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. Future development of the project site will require compliance with the County's parking requirements as a standard of approval. Recreational bicyclists currently use Neal Road as a frequent route due to its more gradzral grade as compared to the Sk}nvay. The County o, f Butte has adopted an implementation program to map an integrated system of nrral bicvcle routes which focus on serving as recreational routes around urban areas (Circulation Element). ti(apping should include Neat Road with either a Class ! (separated) or Class !! (striped and signed) bicycle route. hzeluding Neal Road is consistent with County's policy to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, providing official bicycle lanes would prevent potential hazardous situations for bicyclists. However, this is a long-range policy for the County and not a site specific mitigation. No impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic are anticipated tivith the project. Public transportation is not available on Neaf Road. Mitigation: None is required. 7. BIOLOG[CAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? X Comment: According to a previous biological studies, it is passible that rare veiny monardella (Monardella douglasii var•. venosa) an annual herb in the mint family, may be present on the subject property. The "candidate " Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ^ 11 Pro~e~t GPA 97-U3 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (considered for federal listing as endangered) species is identified by the California Native Plant Society as a rare plant and is listed on the "inventory of Rare and Endangered vascular Plants of California" List Ili. The rating for the plant is 3-3-3 which indicates that the plant "is limited to one population or several restricted ones, that it is endangered throzrghout its range, and that it is endemic to California. " The project site contains grasslands and oak woodland habitat which is associated with the veiny monardella. The plarzt was believed to have been extirpated, hawever•, it was discovered on the south side of Neal Road in 199? by a local botanist. !t appears that there have been only ttivo such plants fozmd in California, the one frnd on the sozrth side of Neal Road, south of the project site at an elevation of Z80'-30~', and a second f nd in Tuolumne County. A pr•zor}field survey was conducted for an earlier project near or on the subject property. The veiny monardella was not observed dzrring the sun-ey; however, it appears that the survey was flawed for several reasons including: it ivas not condzzeted during the time ~vhich the plant could be easily identifzed (May 2-Li; the transeet areas of the study were too broad;, the study did not follow the established report guidelines, and the plant description was inaccurate tivhich could have reszzlted in the surveyor lookingfor the wrong plant. Additionally, the survey botanist was not on the County's list of approved consultants. Fish and Wildlife Service recommended a complete botanical survev be completed for the prior project associated with a portion of the project site. Mitigation I: Prior to any construction within the industrial designated area, obtain a complete botanical survey of the project area during the appropriate time of the year when the species are both evident and identifiable. Specifically, field surveys should be conducted to coincide with the flowering periods or during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. Botanical consultants shall be selected on the basis of qualifications such as experience as a botanical field investigator, experience in field sampling design and methodologies, taxonomic experience, knowledge of plant ecology, familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species, and familiarity with appropriate State and Federal statues related to rare plants and plant collecting. Direct and indirect effects of the project on veiny monardella should be assessed and any adverse impacts mitigated including total avoidance. b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees}? X Comment: There are no locally designated species or "heritage "species within Butte County. Ntitigation: None required. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, etc.)? X Comment: The project site contains blue oak woodland which is considered a valued habitat because o~its historic extent and the large number of wildlife, bird and plant species }vhich depend on this species. Blue oaks are considered one of the three oak species of concern in California because of large statewide losses of the blue oak. Additionally, most of the trees are on unprotected lands, and their reproduction is inszrffrcient to replace current stands or future losses. Removal of blue oaks will contribute to the significant ,cumulative, statewide loss of this species. (Jones and Stokes) Mitigation IL• In conjunction with application for any Use Permit, Blue oak trees should be incorporated into protected open space, or avoided by buildings, roads, and other features to the fullest extent possible. Where avoidance is infeasible, blue oak trees that are removed should be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 in protected open space areas. Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division _ 12 Pro~ecr GFA 97-03 Potentially Significant Impact d) Wetland habitat (e,g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X Comment: according to a previous studv (Jones and Stokes), grasslands and ephemera! drainages have the highest potential as sites for the creation of volcanic mud, flow vernal pools. The higher elevation area of the project site appears to have the potential for wetlands/vernalpools. A wetland freld study was conducted earlier this year (January, 1997) on the szrbject property. Wetlands were observed on the portion of the project site for development of Module -l. The project was modified to avoid disturbance of the wetland are. No further mitigation is necessary. Mitigation: None required. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Comment: No significant wildlife dispersal will occur as the wildlife habitat is currently limited due to the operation of the landfill. The project site is not within a known migration corridor. :ti[itigation: None required. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wozdd the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Conflict with the extraction of identified, significant mineral resources? X Comments: The project does not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. Future development of the site with industrial buildings must submit energy calculations for cornplianee with the Uniform Building Code. Solid ,vaste recycling and/or diversion facilities generally are associated with conservation of resources and are not large energy using operations. Vertical grinding mills which reduce solid waste mass, use small amounts of electric power, a renewable resource. tititigation: None required 9. H.-LARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation} Significant Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact X ~; Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 13 Pro~ecr GPA 97-U3 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? c} Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X X Comment: Landfill operations and other solid waste recycling/diversion facilities and the storage of ~ha_arclous waste pr•othrcts could present potential hazards to public health. However, state and federal regulations inducting the permitting requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, reduce potential hazards to public health through exposure of hazardous substances to below signlftcan[. l~litigatian: None required. d) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? _X Comment The project does not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. Mitigation: None required. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with tlanunable brush, grass, or trees? X Comment: The project will not increase fire hazard as the expansion of the landfill operation will include some elecrr•unc•e of brush and gr•crss to create ponds for storrmvater runoff and leaehate. Construction of new industrial birildings,foa•soIid waste management facilities will be required to comply with allure safety regulations of the Butte County Building and Fire Departments. Mitigation: None required. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Comment: /mplen:entation of the project would result in short-term increased noise levels during constriction. This short-term impact Is considered less than significant because no sensitive receptors exist within the general vicinity. Development of induutrial uses could cause raise the ambient noise level of the area; however given the noise levels from the current operation of the landfill and the proximity of State Highway 99, it is not expected that new uses will generate significant noise levels. ;Mitigation: None required. t L PI,BLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an etTect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the ~~ Butte County Department of Development Services ~~ Planning Division X 14 Pro~ec~ GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact followin}areas: a} Fire protection? b} Police protection? c} Schools? No Impact X X X Comments: Expansion of the landfill operation and construction and operation of related solid waste facilities will not increase or change government services for fire and police services. The project does not involve residential use or population increases and therefore, does not impact schools. itititigation: None required. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? X X Comments: Netiv development will be responsible for the provision and maintenance of on-site improvements and access to the public road. The Butte County Department of Public Works will determine if road improvements are necess•arv for the development of the industrial portion of the project as a condition of permit approval. The landfill expcu~sion is a Counr)~ project and to that extent, the maintenance and service to the larnljill has been planned for and budgeted. Mitigation: None required. I2. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b} Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X Comments: Development of industrial uses related to the landfill operation such as recycling, waste diversion, ha_ardous materials storage etc. will require provision of utility services and systems. Provisions of utilities and services will not result in a substantial alteration. No water treatment or distribution facilita'es will be reg~~ired for the project other than possible an on-site water supply (well) which tivould be reviewed andpermitted through the Butte County Environmental Health Department. [viitigation: None required. d} Sewer or septic tanks? X Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division -: 15 Proaecr GPA 97-U3 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comment: Development of industrial uses related to the landfill operation such as recycling, waste diversion, ha.ardous materials storage ete. may require sanitary waste facilities (septic tank and leach fields). Such facilities woztld be reviewed and permitted through the Butte County Environmental Health Department. Mitigation: None required. e) Storm water drainage? Comment: The portion of the landfill expansion a'ncludes a pond to hold storm water runoff and sediment from Module ,t. The runoff will evaporate with any residual soil used as cover for the landfill in accordance with state and federal regzdations. ~Titigation: None required. f) Solid waste disposal? Comment: The project for the landfill expansion is not designed for disposal of solid waste, but for storage of landfill cover materials and to evaporate leachate and stormwater runoff generated from Module 4. The development ofadditional solid waste disposal, recycling or reduction facilities will not generate new or increased solid waste disposal, but will aid Butte County in attaining camplianee with the Integrated Waste Management Act to reduce solid waste fifty percent by the year 2000. !4']itigation: None required. g) Special Districts? X Comment: The proposed project will not have an impact on .Special Districts. itilitigation: None required. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or designated scenic highway? X Comment: There are no designated scenic vistas or highways associated with the project site. However, views of the foothills from State Highway 99 and from Nea! Road are a valuable community asset. The stands of native Blue oaks provides a visual resource as well and should be protected. (See Mitigation It in Section 7c.) Mitigation: None required. b} have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X Comment: The perimeter of the landfill expansion area (ponds) will be landscaped to obstruct views into the site. (lnitiul Study, Module -t Related Projects at the Neal Road Landfill.) Retaining the stands of Blue oaks will be a positive aesthetic for the development of the future industrial use. Use permit approval for the industrial development should include the provision of native landscaping. iVtitigation: None required Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division ^ 16 Pro~rcr GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Create light or glare? Comment: Development of the industrial site may introduce neiv lighting to an area currently without artificial lighting. The use permit process for development of industrial uses should address exterior illumination to insure that fighting is shielded and directed downward and does not spill off-site. i4litigation: None required. 1~. CC'L,TURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b} Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? X d} Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X Comment: The City of Chico's vtaster Environmental Assessment (MEA) planning area includes the north side of ;veal Road, east to the Town of Paradise's sphere of influence which includes the project site. The MEA contains a map of "Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity" which indicates the subject property within the "Areas of High .Archaeological Sensitivity". Prior studies have indicated that rockshelters and bedrock mortars have been recorded in the vicinity of the project site. No historic buildings are currently located on or near the project site. Neal Road was originally laid out by Sam Neal, pioneer and original land grant holder of Rancho Esquon. Neal Road was the first route to the upper ridge areas now known as Paradise and Ntagalia. A records search for the site conducted by the Northeast Information Center, Department of Anthropology, CSU, Chico recommends that a professional archaeologist conduct a cultural resource survey before any ground disturbing activity. As this project is only a general plan amendment, no physical activity will occur on-site. All future projects will be subject to a Use Permit prior to construction and an archaeological survey will occur at that time. The area within the Land boundary has already been disturbed by historic uses and does not require further survey. Should on-going activities result in a cultural resource discovery, work will cease immediately and a qualified archaeological professional contacted. illitigation Ill: Prior to any physical activityiground disturbance within the 51 acres of designated for industrial use a cultural resource survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Itilitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Comment: There are no existing religious or sacred uses conducted on or near the project site. Mitigation: None required. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities? X ~- Butte County Department of Development Services C Planning Division C 17 Pro~ecr GP:~ 97-03 Potentially Significant Impact Significant Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? x Comments: The project will not increase demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other existing or future recreational facilities as the project does not involve residential use or a projected population increase. itilitigation: None required. 16. itiIANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) 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 range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califurnia history or prehistory? X Comment: Prior studies, recent findings, and information from the Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that site conditions on the subject property could support a very rare plant species Monardella douglasii var. venosa. Development of the property consistent with the general plan designation and =oning could adversely impact or eliminate this rare species ifpresent. Mitigation 1 has been recommended to perform a complete botanical survey oj'the project area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of lonj term environmental goals? X Comment: The project helps fuffll Butte County's commitment to reduce solid waste .i0°lo by the year lOt?R to compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act. This is a long-term environmental goal. At the same time, the County ensures that site specific environmental quality will not be degraded through environmental mitigation, project design and applicable total, state and federal regulations. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? {"Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division 18 Pr~~ect GPA 47-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X Comment: There are no significant impact which cannot be mitigated or cumulative impacts associated with the project. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? X Comment: The general plan amendment to designate the project site for Public and Industrial use with an overall designation of Solid Waste Management Facility will not result in substantial adverse affects an h:eman beings. Environmental mitigations and county, state and federal regulations will be adopted and enforced to ensure human safety. Further environmental review will be required as part of the use permit requirement for these designations. ^ Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 19 Project GPA 97-V3 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation I: Obtain a complete botanical survey of the project area during the appropriate time of the year when the species are both evident and identifiable. Specifically, field surveys should be conducted to coincide with the flowering periods or during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of qualifications such as experience as a botanical field investigator, experience in field sampling design and methodplogies, taxonomic experience, knowledge of plant ecology, familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species, and familiarity with appropriate State and Federal statues related to rare plants and plant collecting. Direct and indirect effects of the project on veiny monardella should be assessed and any adverse impacts mitigated including total avoidance. Monitoring Program: Prior to site preparative and construction, the Department of Development Services shall select a qualified botanist Jrom the County's list of approved consultants. In consultation with the yualijted botanist and responsible state and federal agencies, a survey date shall be selected which will result in the most appropriate time in which to determine if the plant species is present on the subject site. The survey shall follow the Depurtrnent of Fish and Game's "Guidelines for Assessing the Effect of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities. " /f the results of the field survey indicate the presence of rare or endangered plant species or communities, mitigations shall be recommended which reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. Due to the rarity of the veiny monardella plant, "avoidance" may be the only viable mitigation in order to reach the conclusion that impact will be less than significant. Survey recommendations shalt include a monitoring schedule for the plant to ensure it's continued viability. The Department of Development Services shall be responsible for monitoring (or for retaining a qualified person to perform the monitoring} the species cominued existence. Mitigation [I: Blue oak trees should be incorporated into protected open space, or avoided by buildings, roads, and other features to the fullest extent possible. Where avoidance is infeasible, blue oak trees that are removed should be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 in protected open space areas. iVlonitorirrg Program: As part of the use permit process and prior to site preparation and construction, the Department of Development Services shall review site and landscape plans for development projects proposed for the subject site. Said plans skull indicate all trees on the site 6" in diameter at breast height. Afl effort shall be made to avoid removal of native oaks. Trees proposed for removal shall be clearly marked on the plans. A landscape plan which promotes the retention and health of the native trees by providing sufficient tree root area and appropriate habitat shall be sut~mitted for department review. New landscaping should include native plants which complement the existing landscape. During the construction phase, all native trees shalt be temporarily fenced for protection. Fencing boundaries shall be determined by the diameter of individual tree canopies. No stockpiling of site or construction materials shall be located near the trees. Grading shall take in account the root structure of the trees and care shall be taken to prevent damage to the root systems. The County Buflding Department will be responsible to ver~ the preservation of trees during the construction period. On-going monitoring of trees shall be the responsibility of the Department of Developrnenl Services (or for retaining a qualified person to perform monitoring to ensure the trees continued existence. Mitigation II[: Prior to any physical activitylground disturbance within the 51 acres of designated for industrial use a cultural resource survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division ~~ 20 Pro~ecr GPA 97-03 Mitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. IVlonitoring Program: The Department of Development Services skull be responsible for reviewing and issuing all development permits for the industrial site through the Use Permit process. A Cultural resource survey will be required prior ro any ground disturbing activity and appropriate mitigation incorporated at that time. The field survey shall be completed before site preparation and construction commences. If the results of the survey indicate the presence of prehistoric or historic resources, mitigations shall be recommended which reduce the potential impacts to less than signifrcant. Information regarding the locution of archaeologic or prehistoric resources shat! be labeled "confidential ". If resoz~rces are found on the project s ke with a "no disturbance "recommendation, the Building Department shat! ensure that site construction does not excavate or disturb the resources. If construction work unearths a possible prehistoric ar historic resource, all construction shall halt and the Department of Development Services shall be contacted to evaluate the find and necessary action. Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 21 Pro~ecr GPR 9?-03 DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment. 2. Proposed Density of Development: Not a residential project. 3. Amount of [mpervious Surfacing: Unknown at this time. 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Neal Road and State Highway 94. 5. Ivlethod 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: The landfill portion of the project has no potential for further land division. llevelopment potential is limited to landfill related activities permitted by local, state and federal regulatory agencies. The industrial site could be subdivided and developed with landfill related uses subject to approval of Butte County. B. Environmental Setting 1. Terrain a General Topographic Character: Lowland grasslands to plateaus with Nance Canyon as the dominant topographic feature. b. Slopes:0-25% c. Elevation: 210-310 feet above sea level. d. Limiting Factors: none 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Thin, sporadic layer of fine-grained silts and clays, underlain by lava rock. b. Limiting Factors: Low percolation rate and high runoff coefficient. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. b. Erosion Potential: Low on lower elevations with little grade change, higher on plateaus areas c. Landslide Potential: Low d. Fire Hazard: Low to Moderate e. Expansive Sail Potential: Low ~. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Ephemeral drainages into Nance Canyon and eventually Hamlin Slough b. Ground Water: Ground water level below the landfill is 150-1b0 feet. Water level for remaining portions of the property are unknown. c. Drainage Characteristics: High runoff coefficient. d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 26 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: None 5. Visual!Scenic Quality: Good. 6. Acoustic Quality: Good. 7. Air Quality: Good, except when stagnant air conditions persist in the valley. 8. Vegetation: Annual grasslands, Blue oak woodland and related plant species 9. Wildlife Habitat: Small birds and mammals common to valley grasslands and oak woodland. Non- critical winter habitat for the deer herd. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High Sensitivity area. 1 E. Butte County General Plan designation: Grazing and Open Space. 12. Existing Zoning: "U" Unclassified. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: County landfill operation and grazing and open space. I~. Surrounding Area: Butte County Department of Development Services ~ Planning Division 22 Project GPA 97-(33 a. Land Uses: Grazing and Open Space. b. Zoning: "U" Unclassified. c. Gen. Plan Designation: Grazing and Open Space. d. Parcel Sizes: Large 15. Character of Site and Area: Valley grasslands, rolling terrain to plateaus (Buttes) 16. Nearest Urban Area: Town of Paradise. l7. Relevant Spheres of Influence: Southern boundary of the City of Chico Planning Area, Town of Paradise Territory Sphere of Influence. 18. Improvement Standards Urban Area: (~i/A l9. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County {State) Fire Station: Station number 45 approximately 4 miles away. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only onsite welts. 20. Schools: Durham Unified School District, Butte Community College District. _~ Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division ^ 23 Project GPA 97-03 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL Butte County Planning Department. Master Environmental Assessment. Oroville, CA: J. Lawrence Mintier & Associates, et al. May 199b. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County General Plan. Oroville, CA. Land Use Element (1979), Circulation Element (May 1984), Open Space Element (December 1976), Conservation E l e m e n t (1971), Seismic Safety Element (1977), Noise Element (1977}. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Zoning Ordinance. Oroville, CA. (Revised by Ord. 3176} 4. City of Chico, Master Environmental Assessment. Areas of Archaeological Sensitivity. Chico, CA: Michael Dyett and Michael Brandman Associates. January 1994. ~. Butte County Planning Department Environmental Initial Study for the Neal Road Landfill Solid Waste Facility Permit Revisions, Butte County, CA. Oroville, CA. June 1996. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Environmental Initial Study for Module 4 Related Projects at the Neai Road Landfill. Oroville, CA. June 1997. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Studies prepared for the Blakeley Swartz Ranch project: cr. Wildlife Survey and Constraints Analysis. Jones & Stokes Associates. June 1988. b. The Hydro geology of the Coon Ridge-Nance Canyon Area. Jerold J. Behnke, Ph.D. November 1987 c. Botanical Resources of the Blakeley Stivarta Ranch. Jones & Stokes Associates. June 1988 d. Preliminary Geologic Report for Blakeley Swartz Ranch. Anderson Geotechnical Consultants. October 1987 e. Drainage Stuch~ of the Proposed Blakeley Ssvart_ Ranch. Rolls, Anderson & Rolls. May 1988 8. California Native Plant Society Program. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Current List. 9. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Letter to Butte County Planning Commission regarding concern of veiny monardella on project site. October 1994. l0. USGS Quad Maps. KaPROJECTS\GPA\NEALRDW EALRD.IS Butte County Department of Development Services ^ Planning Division 24 EXHIBIT B-3 the Solid Waste Facility Overlay tand use designation allows uses which are accessory and/or related to solid waste a~ad/or septage disposal. Support and accessary uses which are consistent with the solid waste managernerat facility designation iflclude, but are not limited to: recycling and waste diversion facilities, site monitoring operations, tiro shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scrap yards, offtces, maintenance and storage facilities for cornrnercial refuse haulers andlor septic tank pumping companies and other similar uses which meet the purposes of this land use designation.