Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 97-03_PLANNING SEPIiRRTORSHEET APN 06y PROJECT NUMBER SPR q7 ' � 3 ' Ah PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET ; - FILE#: GPA 97-03 PROJECT TYPE: General Plan Amendment APPLICANT: Butte County Development Service Dept. ADDRESS: OWNER: Butte County\Don Swartz ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment to omqmtthe Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation e xpft ' p virrd rA,wd���l prop�e,�r?•' c r a aA q d,lw�1� tK pc1, PROPERTY ZONED: U LOCATED: on the north side of Neal Road,between the Transmission Power lines and the existing landfill boundary AP#: Pfi'1 ZIn -Lon-Ca TOWN/AREA: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Grazone&Open Lands 1. Application complete: Amount: S Receipt#: 2. Comments sent to: E.H. LAFCO DEV.SERV,P.W.AG COMM CDF CALTRANS HIGHWAY PATROL 3. Comments received from: r 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 6. Assigned To: Craig Sanders 7. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No: C egorical Exemption-CEQA# egative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Subject to Fish&Game: Environmental Impact Report Gen.Rule Ex.-CEQA#15061.(bx3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: Release to publish: 9. Clearinghouse circulation required:GYesc_ZNo Date Sent to SCH: ..?-S— 9 10. Publication Notice Written: a /"' / Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: 141-- 9 90 Number of Notices: 12. Newspaper Publication Date: 0? y— ydC� Q/OP G B R 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): /a?—9® (�� 9��1� . /YI Action taken: Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. ,p 14. Board of Supervisors'Hearing(s): � , Action taken: Board Resolution No.: /0G �� Ordinance No: Adopted: 7—.w— 9f p 15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature: 16. N.O.E./N.O.D./APPENDIX G: Fish&Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: 19. Copy of Use Permit/Variance to Planning Technician: (T 0 INITIATED MOTIONS WHICH INCLUDED ACTIONS DIRECTED AT BOTH ITEMS) 98-229 Public Hearing - Board of Supervisors - General Plan Amendment 98-01 and Rezone 98-01 - Custer Lane and Vicinity - consideration of a General Plan Amendment amending Butte County General Plan Land Use Element and Oroville Area Plan (item on which a negative declaration regarding environmental impacts Chas been recommended) from Industrial to Agricultural Residential and a Rezone from M-1 (Light Industrial) to AR-1 (Agricultural Residential - 1 acre parcels) in order to bring the General Plan and Zoning into conformance with existing residential uses along Custer Lane and vicinity, on property currently zoned Interim AR-1, Oroville. 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 Boulevard on the east and Railroad Avenue on the west comprising an area of approximately 112 acres. The project is located in Supervisorial District 1 and within the Oroville Enterprise Zone - action requested - SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS (A AND B) , AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (A) : I A. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE OROVILLE AREA LAND USE PLAN FROM INDUSTRIAL TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND MAP EXHIBIT "B" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN; B. ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT 98-01 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REZONE FROM INTERIM AR-1 (INTERIM AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL-1 ACRE PARCELS) TO AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL-1 ACRE PARCELS) , AS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND MAP EXHIBIT "B" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN; AND C. INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF SECTIONS 24-170, 24- 175, AND 24-180, "INDUSTRIAL ZONES" OF THE BUTTE -COUNTY , CODE TO REQUIRE THAT IN ALL INDUSTRIAL ZONES A USE PERMIT SHALL BE NECESSARY FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND ONLY IN INSTANCES WHERE THE DWELLING WOULD BE A CARETAKER, WATCHMAN, OR PROPRIETOR OF A LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PERMITTED USE. Y t98-229 Public Hearing - Butte County Development Services Department - (cont. ) consideration of a General Plan Amendment (item on which a negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts has been recommended) , from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the — Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel. Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provision for uses that are related to or su000rt BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 the landfill use - action requested - SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS (A-C) , AND GENERAL PLAN FINDING .(A) , ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 188 ACRES (AP 040-600-081) CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY LANDFILL, FROM GRAZING AND OPEN LANDS TO PUBLIC, AND CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 51 ACRES (AP 040-600-082) FROM GRAZING AND OPEN LANDS TO INDUSTRIAL AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT ENTITLED "SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY" BE RENAMED TO "SOLID WASTE FACILITY OVERLAY" AND THE FOLLOWING TEXT BE ADDED: THE SOLID WASTE 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 FACILITY OVERLAY DESIGNATION INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: RECYCLING AND WASTE DIVERSION FACILITIES, SITE MONITORING OPERATIONS, TIRE SHREDDING AND STORAGE, COMPOSTING OPERATIONS, HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, METAL SCRAP YARDS, OFFICES, MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITIES FOR COMMERCIAL REUSE HAULERS AND/OR SEPTIC TANK PUMPING COMPANIES AND OTHER SIMILAR USES WHICH MEET THE PURPOSE OF THIS LAND USE DESIGNATION. (STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998) (1940) (00**) MOTION: SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS (A AND B) AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING (A) FOR THE CUSTER LANE AND VICINITY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS (A, B, AND C) AND GENERAL PLAN FINDING (A) FOR THE GRAZING AND. OPEN LANDS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, I MOVE TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE REZONE OF THE CUSTER LANE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT "A-2" (AS AMENDED TO EXCLUDE A 300 FOOT SETBACK AREA FRONTING LINCOLN BOULEVARD) OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998; AND MOVE TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE NEAL ROAD LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT "B-1" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. M S VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 NP 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) PlOZ'ION: SUBJECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED; I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 98-117 APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 WHICH AMENDS THE OROVILLE AREA LAND USE PLAN FROM INDUSTRIAL TO AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL AS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT "A-1" (AS AMENDED TO EXCLUDE A 300 FOOT SETBACK AREA FRONTING LINCOLN BOULEVARD AND REMOVING THE WORDING ON THE EXHIBIT WHICH READS "GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL") OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998; AND CHANGES THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 188 ACRES CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY LANDFILL, FROM GRAZING AND OPEN LANDS TO PUBLIC, AND CHANGES THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON 51 ACRES FROM GRAZING AND OPEN LANDS TO INDUSTRIAL, AS CONTAINED BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 IN EXHIBIT "B-1" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998; AND APPROVES THE RENAMING OF THE GENERAL PLAN TEXT TITLE IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT FROM "SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY" TO "SOLID WASTE FACILITY OVERLAY", AND ADDS THE TEXT AS STATED IN EXHIBIT "A" OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 1998, AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN. M S VOTE: l Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 NP 5 Y (Unanimously -Carried) MOTION: SUBJECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS AS PREVIOUSLY STATED; I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 3439 APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT 98-01 WHICH REZONES THE CUSTER LANE AND VICINITY AREA AS INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT "A-1" (AS AMENDED .. TO EXCLUDE A 300 FOOT SETBACK AREA FRONTING LINCOLN BOULEVARD) OF THE STAFF REPORT DATED JULY 28, 19981 FROM INTERIM AR-1 (INTERIM AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL-1 -ACRE PARCELS) TO AR-1 (AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL-1 ACRE PARCELS) AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN". M S VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 NP 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - JULY 28, 1998 Butte County Development Services Department - proposed Negative Declarati:::n with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste M Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel. Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use. (CS) (GPA 97-03) Mr. Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. Commissioner Leland questioned expanding the dump on a Negative Declaration and not an EIR. Mr. Sanders said the dump was expanded on a Neg. Dec. in 1997, approved by the State Waste Management Board and Environmental Health Departments. Commissioner Leland was concerned that this.project was not under the scrutiny that private applications are. ' The hearing was opened to the public. Jim DeWeese, Solid Waste Manager for the County, was present to answer questions. Commissioner Nelson said an EIR would look at the landfill for future problems. Mr. DeWeese said they need a place to put the waste in'the County. He said this is not a new use for the area. Commissioner Cage asked him about deep furnaces instead of land fill? Mr. DeWeese said it has not been looked into in Butte County. He said they don't usually get a favorable reception because of air pollution. Commissioner Nelson asked what kind of application is filed with the Solid Waste Board? Mr. DeWeese said they have to meet the minimum standards by the State Solid Waste Board and Water Quality Control Board. He said there are several steps to the application. Commissioner Cage discussed deep furnaces as being a viable alternative. Chairman Lambert asked if part of the area was going to be the dirt used for cover? Mr. DeWeese said yes. Chairman Lambert said she was concerned with runoff water affecting property down stream from this property. { Butte County Planning Commission Minutes- March 26, 1998 Mr. DeWeese said there will be retention ponds and dehydrating procedures. He said the system is in place and operating. He discussed limited burning by private individuals, not allowed by a public facility. Commissioner Leland said in future years this dump will need to be expanded again, maybe into the 51 acres owned by Swartz. Mr. Sanders said it was not likely because of the topography of the 51 acres. Mr. DeWeese discussed future recycling on the 51 acres. Mr. Sanders said acquisition of land by the County (63 acres) went before the Board with-the agreement to initiate a GPA for 51 acres of property owned by Mr. Swartz. Commissioner Leland said if a rare veiny monardella exists on the site, there should be a mitigation measure'to stop construction and have a botanical survey done. Mr. Sanders said this would be looked at, at the time of a Use Permit. Commissioner Leland said he would like to see the 51 and 63 acres on separate applications. Chairman Lambert said environmental documents will be done for each Use Permit as they come forward. The hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner Leland,seconded by Commissioner Nelson,and unanimously carried for approval subject to the conditions and mitigation measures in the Initial Study as follows: FINDINGS: Section l: Environmental Findings. , A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act identifying potentially significant environmental effects that the project may have. Provisions and the'design of the project and the conditions added to the project will mitigate such effects to a level of insignificance; and B. The proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish of wildlife or their habitat as no development will occur from this action; and C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures prior to making its decision on the project,and recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopts a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, reflecting the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and Section 2: General Plan Findings. Butte County Planning Commission Minutes- March 26, 1998 ;_ A. The proposed amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, including map and text, is consistent with all other General Plan Elements and constitutes an -internally consistent action. The proposed land use designations reflect an existing established land use and the need to provide expansion areas for on-going operations and future ancillary functions related to the County Landfill. Section 3: Action. A. Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this report,move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment changing the Land Use Designation on 188 acres(AP 040-600-081), currently occupied by the Butte -County Landfill, from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and changing the Land Use Designation on 51 acres (AP 040-600-082) from Grazing and Open Lands to Industrial. Additionally, it is recommended that the text titled "Solid Waste Management Facility" be re-named to "Solid Waste Facility Overlay" and the following text be added: "The Solid Waste 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 diversionfacilities, site monitoring operations, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scrap yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers and/or septic tank pumping companies and other similar uses which meet the purposes of this land use designation. Butte County Planning Commission Minutes- March 26, 1998 0 t . AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Development Services Department DATE: March 18, 1998 REQUEST: General Plan Amendment 97-03 -Butte County/Don Swartz Owners, AP 040-600- 081 & 082 : An amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial on 239 acres and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay designation to include newly acquired landfill property of 63 acres as well as an adjacent 51 acre parcel. The property is located on the north side of Neal Road approximately 1 mile east of Highway 99(Neal Rd. Landfill and adjacent parcel). The project is in Supervisorial District 4. RELATED ITEMS: None FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of March 26, 1998 SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project to the Board of Supervisors. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS: The proposed amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element has been initiated by the County of Butte. The project site is located approximately six (6) miles southwest of the Town of Paradise and seven (7) miles southeast 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. For a more detailed discussion on site specifics and environmental setting see the project description in the initial study. The proposed amendment includes 188±acres currently owned by Butte County and an adjacent property(51±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 239±acres) is designated as "Grazing and Open Land" and zoned "U" Unclassified. The proposed General Plan Amendment would include designating the 188 acres currently owned by Butte County as "Public" and the 51 acre privately owned property as "Industrial" as the underlying land use designation. The underlying land use designation must be specified to designate 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 both properties, requiring a Use Permit for all future landfill related uses. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services'Agenda Report ■ 1 PROJECT AND SURROUNDING ZONING,GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. AND EXISTING LAND USE: Described below are the project and surrounding zoning, general plan land use designation and the existing land uses. Direction Zoning General Plan Existing Land Use Project: U Grazing&Open Lands Landfill/grazing North: U Grazing&Open Lands Grazing South: U Grazing&Open Lands Grazing East: U Grazing&Open Lands Grazing West: U Grazing&Open Lands Grazing ANALYSIS:This General Plan Amendment will bring into conformity the General Plan Land Use designations with the actual land use occurring on-site,as well as provide expansion area for private enterprises that will support landfill operations. Land Use Desianations 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. Butte County curr-ently owns the 188 acres proposed for Public designation. The site is occupied by the County landfill and includes area for future expansion. 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." The site designation criteria are as follows: 1. Needed for public use within the next 24 years. The site-is currently needed for public use and the newly acquired acreage provides for future expansion area. 2. Adequate utilities, water supply and sewage disposal capabilities. Adequate utility infrastructure exists to the site to support a landfill facility. 3. Suitable location and road access for type of use. The site is located off of Neal Road near Highway 99. The location makes the site centralized for most of the County's communities. 4. Adequate police and fire protection. Adequate police and fire protection serves the site for the intensity of the use. 5. Sufficient space for future expansion. The site is surrounded by undeveloped grazing land. The recently acquired 63 acres will accommodate future expansion of the facility. The 51 acre parcel proposed for an Industrial designation is currently under private ownership. The property is ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 2 immediatdy adjacent to the landfill site and has frontage on Neal Road 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 site designation criteria are as follows: 1. Needed for industrial development within 20 years. The designation of this site will allow for recycling and landfill related industrial uses for the immediate future. 2. Adequate water supply and sewage disposal capabilities. Adequate capabilities exist for anticipated uses which will not have high demand for water or sewage disposal. 3. Adjacent or near utilities and industrial development. The site is near electrical transmission facilities and can be served commensurate with the demand. No existing industrial designations are in the area, but the land fill represents a unique feature that requires support industries. 4. Adjacent or near arterial roads, railroads or major airports. The site is within 1 mile of State Route 99. 5. Less than 20'0 slopes. Most of the site has slopes less than 20%. However, it is located on the top of a bluff and higher slopes exist on the northerly portion of the property. 6. Adequate fire and police protection. Adequate police and fire protection will be available to serve the types of uses proposed On-site water storage may be required for some uses. 7. Not immediately adjacent to residential uses. No significant concentration of homes exist within 2 miles of the site. The uses on the industrial site will be limiters by the Solid Waste overlay designation as described below. 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 f irthei 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 Amendment The following text amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed for adoption,Page LAND USE ELEMENT- 61: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 3 F The Solid Waste 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, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scap yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers andlor 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: "Solid Waste Facility Overlay". No zoning changes are proposed at this time. The U zoning will remain in effect,requiring a Use Permit for any site specific activities. This will allow for project by project environmental review and conditions to ensure compatibility between uses and adherence to the Solid Waste Overlay provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and as such, is subject to the requirements of CEQA An Initial Study has been prepared for this project by County staff and was circulated through the State Clearinghouse. Staff also utilized a previous Initial Study prepared and circulated last 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. Based upon the a review of the Initial Study,staff has determined that project impacts can be fully mitigated All mitigations pertain directly to site development and are most suitably implemented at that time. The current zoning requires Use Permit for all projects other than a single family residence and agricultural uses. Mitigations shall be applied through the Use Permit process. RECOMAMNDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project to the Board of Supervisors, subject to the following findings and conditions in attached Exhibit A K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\NEALRD\AGENDARPT ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 4 EXHIBIT A + FINDINGS: Section 1: Environmental Findings. A An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act identifying potentially significant environmental effects that the project may have. Provisions and the design of the project and the conditions added to the project will mitigate such effects to a level of insignificance; and B. The proposed project will not cause environmental damage to fish of wildlife or their habitat as no development will occur from this action; and C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures prior to making its decision on the project, and recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopts a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, reflecting the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and Section 2: General Plan Findings. A The proposed amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, including map and text,is consistent with all other General Plan Elements and constitutes an internally consistent action. The proposed land use designations reflect an existing established land use and the need to provide expansion areas for on-going operations and ft=e ancillary functions related to the County Landfill. Section 3: Action. A Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this report, move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution approving a General Plan Amendment changing the Land Use Designation on 188 acres (AP 040-600-081), currently occupied by the Butte County Landfill, from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and changing the Land Use Designation on 51 acres (AP 040-600-082)from Grazing and Open Lands to Industrial. Additionally,it is recommended that the text titled"Solid Waste Management Facility"be re-named to"Solid Waste Facility Overlay"and the following text be added: "The Solid Waste Facility Overlay land use designation allows uses which are accessory and/or related to solid waste andlor 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, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scop yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers and/or septic tank pumping companies and other similar uses which meet the purposes of this land use designation. Attachments: Environmental Documents Vicinity Map Site Plan ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 5 DEPARTME OF DEVELOPME4 SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on other side: APPLICANT'S NAME( If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE FILE NUMBER';;'(FOROFRfMTjSE) I � �AIIC4 JX VI-ae— 45 NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT(If any TELEPHONE c°�►e ) 538-701 LOCATION OF 11 PROJECT(Major cross streets and Address, if any 11 (/ pr �tit O Q trb I• 1- 6 1 �w . "/Z L - r :'-<"-- GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED .:' :. OWNER'S NAME TELEPHONE (,our c�l� > 5��—��a 1 •. ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE ZONE //''GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE(m Square Feet or Acres) l9VA bvt �QFJV V Grl�'Li C uLa (.CA4 P11.t— 4 ;:.;..; tY. EXISTING STRUCI'URFS(in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES(in Square Feet) o n!e- V t44N0wtJ AT "'CjJ1$ [I AA f-- (Check One) (Check One) ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER `y r PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC P1 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER -J. .>•..+�L'r.::>. �:w APPLICATION REQUESTED :t ::ice::^•:: .a..n.:u:k ..i:.::•:� :Y:'.)zr: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [3 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP �.r.' ❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP -zr ❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION C3' VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION -r' ❑ MINOR VARIANCE E3 CERTIFICATE OF MERGER ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN -:3" O DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ OTHER !i Y/ PR OJECT DESC 0 R1P'IT N •�.;: �„fir. . f: f ~•7 : FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT(Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division,describe the number and size of parcels.) � �P,p,N I) Lt 6 V g 1A41 K A A rtoJ to f w W A<- DF LAqV NEW v go jw— •: ? u 6000 O WmM& F%lA�. WELL AJ E W*-#J le, A}- PUPOSto C"ArCf--tbO r- LPAJD Use ('GLC"WT ID M*"-- PIUVKIDN75 Fate. v o o,fL SUPWIT 1K. L4wp r,LA.— �. it. n: .:i'. •i:•:' O WNER CERTIFICATION TIFI ATIO N I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESIBED PROPERTY. ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFOR,%V IO S TRUE AND AC be au (If an agent is to orized,execute an affidavit of authorization and include the a vit with this apples) DATE: j5'J SIGNATURE: i A " AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM To Butte County, Department of Development Services; Phone#( ) Print Agent Name and Phone Number Mailing Address is hereby authorized to process this application for on my property, identified as Butte County Assessors Parcel Numbers: This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest. Owner(s) of Record: (Sign and Print Name) Print Name Print Name Signature Signature Architect and/or Engineer: Print Architect/Engineer Name and Phone Number Mailing Address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date received: Total amount received: AP Number(s) Legal Description Owners Authorization Zoning requirements Project Description Copies of plot plan , Taken by Receipt No. E.H. LD Plan CDF Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will be'returned upon final action. A Current fee for this application is $. as of Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". f 00 hyo; 1 .-Oo -Oh�0 i LZOF A. gam, � ��, lm5L 50-Tho �i I it - f cipA 64�_ of_�Dl EL : t;3,:.0 5;350 038 i%!0 i STATUSa A L: 040 600 081 000 �+ f hi T i_t %; A EDWARDS' .JIM & �CAROLYN TRUST !UA(`dCE: f�f-�I`aYOhl F'AR T N�=F°�� !__F' EDWAF;D''.� JAMES E & CAF;ri_YN ATf–�:US C/O;i U DONALD E `�N!AF-;� _ a C>!,�j ORO CHICO HWY 2038 DALAD i ER DR RANCHO PAL_OS VER CA 90274 DURHAM CA 9593B EL: 040 050 048 5%300 STATUS: A Imo!_ : t%S�is%f 600082000S"f r;TUS: A COUNTY OF BUTTE BRADFORD ROSS L & KATHRYN L DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS 7 COUNTY IN��f'+ CENTERDF;' 131� MESA RD CA 9596 5 OROV I LL._F_ DURHAM CA 959'38 L: 040 5%3,50 060 5%351 0 STATUS: A ;I_: c;0405%31 y_i 008i%3 c%"35;3 STATUS: A �.:�::AYi=_ .JOSEPH F= & D:[ANE. TORRANCE HERITAGE CO 442 JAMBOREE STE 2501375 ORO CH I CO HWY DURHAM CA 9593B NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 QL: 040 050 5%361 i%st%0 STATUS:: A �L,� 040 050 i%367 000STATU�i: i=� WALTER S HARVEY & PATRICIA hi ' BLAK:ELEY WESTERN BLAKELEY INVESTMENT CO 1261 ORO CH I CO HWY 60 STATE ST BOSTON MA 02109 DURHAM CA959 38 :: L: 040 050 062 !%3S.%0 STATUS: A _L; 040 :L 2s%3 021000STATUS; A CAi_DWE I_I__ CRAIG C & CHERYL u I NEWPORT FEDERAL 4425 JAMBOREE RD #250 269 ORO r,.H I Ci_J HWY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 DURHAM CA 95938 r EL: 040 120 027 000 STATUS: A EL: 040 090 032 000 STATUS: A WHEELOCK VINE E FILLBACH WILSON H & NADA 1 REV T t - NO CA CONF ASSC :SDA TRUST #10-86 P 0 BOX 607 1859 HONEY RUN RD DURHAM CA 95938 CH I CO CA 9'5928 t EL : 040 620 002 000 STATUS: A EL : 040 090 039 000 STATUS: A KATT'US FRANCIS D s: SHARON D ETAL WAHL DARRELL E & GLENNA V ` 2038 DALAD I ER DR 1491 OROV I LLE CH I CO. HWY RANCHO PALOS VER CA 90274 DURHAM CA 95938 � L : 040 090 1%348 y.;ts%0 STATUS: A :: I_: S%5,+6%5 5%3 56%5 007S%36%56%3 STATUS: A � LAUDERDALE HOY1" & .JOYCE: WILLADSEN ORCHARDS INC . 9 734 LOTT RD 1543 OROV I LLE CH I CO HWY DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAll CA 9593e 4 r DECLARATION OF FEES DUE (California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Butte County Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FILING NO. CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION O A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee (X) B. De Minimus Impact- Certificate of Fee Exemption $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION-FEE REQUIRED O A. Negative Declaration — $1,250 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ( ) B. Environmental Impact Report $850 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. O OTHER(Specify) $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT/NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. ( ) PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s). 2. (X) NON-PAYMENT: County Application Chief Planning Official By: Dave Doody Title: Principal Planner Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL . DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE. COUNTY OF BUTTE. JATERIW0E.N0D\F&G.FEE NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: _ Office of Plan.& Research Dept. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X Butte County Clerk FROM: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: GPA 97-03, General Plan Amendment AP Number: 040-600-081, 082 Applicant: Butte County Development Services, 7 County Center Dr., Oroville, CA 95965 State Clearinghouse Number(If submitted to clearinghouse): Contact Person: Craig Sanders Telephone Number: 538-7601 Project.Location: on the north side of Neal Road, between the transmission power lines and the existing landfill boundary Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel This is to advise that the Butte County Board of Supervisors has approved the above-described project on July 28, 1998, and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1'. The project _ will,_X_will not, have a significant effect on the environment. •r• 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the-provisions of✓ CEQA. _X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures X were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations was,_X was not, adopted for this project. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the general public at: Date.received for filing and posting at OPR Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 ` r - Dave Doody Principal Planner l� v Mitigation Measures: 1. 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 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. 2. 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 ration of 2:1 in protected open space areas. 3. Prior to any physical activity/ground disturbance within the 51 acres designated for industrial use a cultural resource survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Mitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. 'aw CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FILING FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding (Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations) Project Title/Butte County Location: GPA 97-03, on the north side of Neal Road,between the transmission power lines and the existing landfill boundary Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel Findings of Exemption(attach as necessary): 1. The county of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a(Negative Declaration or Enviornmental Impact) so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact: 2. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence,rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, if applicable. 4. The project is hereby found to be de minimis in its effect on wildlife and exempt from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. By: ava A,.Dft&, Dave Doody, Principal Planner Lead Agency: County of Butte Date: r � count L A N D O F 114 A T U R A L W EA L T 1-1 A N D E EA U TY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS J. MICHAEL CRUMP, Director 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965 TELEPHONE:(916)538-7681 r FAX:(916)538-2140 RONALD D.McELROY June 30, 1997 Assistant Direcloi State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento,CA 95814 Re: Initial Study Checklist for the Module 4 Related Projects at the Neal Road Landfill(File 560.9.2) Attn: State Clearinghouse Transmitted herewith are ten (10) copies of the Initial Study Checklist for the Module 4 Related Projects at the Neal Road Landfill. The Neal Road.Landfill is located in Butte County, California and is owned by the County of Butte. Please distribute this document to the appropriate agencies. One copy of the Notice of Completion form is also attached. If you have any questions regarding this document please contact either Eric Miller, Solid Waste Manager,or myself at(916)538-7681. Sincerely, Mike Crump,Director of Public orks Enclosures(10) cc: Stephen Hackney&Craig'Sanders,'Butte County Planning.Dep4M ehV Charlie Bird,Butte County Div`is'ion of Environmental Health Phil Woodward,Regional Water Quality Control Board-Redding Bill Ishmael,California Integrated Waste Management Board Al Beck,Eco-Analysts(Chico) Ken Haskell,Golder Associates(Roseville) Tom Valentino,Neal Road Landfill Company MC:eam :\clrhse.doc -{ { ti Post•It'"routing request pad 7664 ROUTING - REQUEST Please ❑ READ To ❑ HANDLE ❑ APPROVE and `r I ❑ FORWARD .J~ ❑ RETURN ❑ KEEP OR DISCARD ❑ REVIEr WITH ME t t Date 7D From= I ' Ioiotice of Completion Appendix F See NOTEbe/ow Mail to:State Clearinghouse, 1400 Tenth Street,Sacramento,CA 95814 916/445-0613 SCH# Project Title: Initial Study for Module 4'Related Projects at the Neal Road Landfill Lead Agency: Butte County Public Works Contact Person: Eric Miller Street Address: 7 County Center Drive 'Phone: (916) 538-7681 City Oroville, CA Zip, 95965 County- Butte County Project Location County: Butte City/Nearest Community: Chico — Paradise Cross Streets: Neal Road — State Highway_ 99 Total Acres: 63.81 Assessor's Parcel No. 40-60-64 & 40-60-35 Section: .15 Twp.T 21 N Range: R2E Base:MDBM Within 2 Miles: :State Hwy#: 99 ..Waterways:. Airports: Railways:. Schools: ----------------------------------------- Document Type CERA: O NOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: ❑NOI Other: ❑Joint Document ❑Early Cons ❑EIR(Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document ®Neg Dec ❑Other ❑Draft EIS ❑Other z ❑Draft EIR ❑FONSI ----------------------------------------- Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ® Rezone ❑ Annexation © General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑ General Plan Element ❑Plarmed Unit Development © Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑ Land Division (Subdivision, ❑ Other Parcel Map,Tract Map,etc.) ------------------------------------------ Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Power. Type Watts ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste:Type ® Other. leachate pond and sediment pond Project.issues Discussed in.Document Aesthetic/Visual. ❑ Flood Plain/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities ® Water Quality Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ® Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater .❑ Air Quality ❑x Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ® Wetland/Riparian ER Archeological/Historical ❑ Minerals ® Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading ❑ Wildlife ❑ Coastal Zone ❑ Noise Q Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing Q Drainage/Absorption ` ❑ Population/Housing Balance , ❑ :Toxic/Hazardous ® Landuse :❑ Economic/Jobs ®Public Services/Facilities ❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects. .'C3..Fiscal ❑..Recreation/Parks ® Vegetation ❑ Other C ------------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use Zoning is "U" (Unclassified) with the General Plan land use designation as grazing and open space. ------------------------------------------- Project.Description Development of leachafe and storm water retention ponds in support of the Module 4 waste management unit to be constructed at the Neal Road Landfill. The site is located in Butte County seven miles south of Chico and one mile east of State Highway 99 on Neal Road. NOTE:Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects.If a SCH number already exists for a project(e.g.from a Notice of Preparatic or previous draft document)please fill it in. Revised October I Reviewing Agencies Checklist KEY S=Document sent by lead agency �Resource3 Agency X=Document sent by SCH Boating&Waterways ./=Suggested distribution Coastal Commission Coastal Conservancy Colorado River Board Environmental Affairs Conservation Air Resources Board _.—Fish&Game APCD/AQMD Forestry S California Waste Management Board Office of Historic Preservation SWRCB:Clean Water Grants Parks&Recreation SWRCB:Delta Unit Reclamation —�SWRCB:Water Quality S.F.Bay Conservation&Development Commission _ SWRCB:Water Rights II Water Resources(DWR) Regional WQCB# Business,Transportation& Housing Youth &Adult Corrections Aeronautics, Corrections California Highway Patrol CALTRANS District# Independent Commissions& Offices Energy Commission Department of Transportation Planning(headquarters) Native American Heritage Commission Housing&Community Development Public Utilities Commission Food I& Agriculture Santa Monica MountainS-Conservancy Health & Welfare State Lands Commission Health Services Tahoe Regional Planning Agency State & Consumer Services. General Services ' Other OLA(Schools) ------------------------------------------ Public Review Period(to be filled in by lead agency) Starting Date �`�``/ 3 1 Ending Date Signature i � Date Lead Agency (Complete if applicable): For SCH Use Only: Consulting Firm: Eco—Analysts - Address: 310 B Salem Street Date Received at SCH City/State/Zip: Chico, CA 95928 Date Review Starts Contact: Al Beck, Ph.D. Date to Agencies Phone: 9( 16 ) 342-5991 Date to SCH Clearance Date Notes: f Applicant: Butte County Public Works Address: 7 County Center Drive City/State/Zip: Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: '9c 16 ) 538-7681 Revised October 1989 INITIAL STUDY for the MODULE 4 RELATED PROJECTS at the NEAL ROAD LANDFILL Butte County, California Prepared for: County of Butte Department of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Prepared by: ECO-ANANYSTS 310 Salem Street, Suite B Chico, CA 95928 June 11, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 INITIAL STUDYCHECKLIST 7 REFERENCES 22 WETLAND DELINEATION SHEETS 23 ' FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location 3 Figure 2: Site Vicinity 4 Figure 3:.'Project Area 5 ` Figure 4: Leachate Pond Details 6 Figure 5: Wetland Sample Sites Project Area 26 APPENDIX Wetland Field Sheets Site 1 23 Site 2 24 S ite 3 25 Neal Road Mod 4 Table of Contents June 1977 111 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location The proposed project will occupy 63.81 acres adjacent to the western edge of the existing Neal Road Landfill. It is southwest of the existing septage pond and north of Neal Road in Butte County, California. The site is a new parcel created from portions of Assessor's Parcels 40-60-64 and 40-60-35, in Section 15, T21N, R2E of the U.S.G.S. Hamlin Canyon 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle. (See Figures 1 & 2) Project Description The 63.81 acres was originally to be divided into three (3) subparcels. Design changes, for envir6nmental reasons, required the overlap of project components into two parcels. The combined "A" and "B" parcels include 54.78 acres, and would contain a leachate pond of approximately five (5) acres and a storm water runoff/sedimentation pond of less than two (2) acres. This parcel would also serve as a temporary equipment storage area for the development of Module 4, storage of soil from the ponds, and the Module 4 processing area for clay liner preparation. One or more groundwater monitoring wells may be installed. in this zone. (See Figure 3) The remainder ("C") is a 9.03 acre strip of land on the outer perimeter of the new parcel. It will be fenced to keep livestock out of the new ponds. This strip is a buffer zone which will be landscaped to shield Module 4 and ponds from the adjoining properties. In the future, groundwater monitoring wells may be installed in this zone, if necessary. A channel and berm will be used to divert surface storm water flows away from the pond area. The berm will be used as a planting area for trees and shrubs. This subparcel will be maintained .as a buffer zone. (See Figure 3 for location of buffer and project components) The leachate pond will have a leak detection system, and a vadose zone monitoring system included in its design. Figure 4 shows the relationship of the layers. The base layer over the excavated bottom and sides will be a 24 inch compacted clay liner meeting State permeability standards or an engineered alternative consisting of low permeability materials comprised of geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). A textured, high density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane covers the compacted clay.'- This is covered with a HDPE Geonet, and the primary (surface) HDPE Geomembrane. A five (5) foot high perimeter berm, thirty (30) feet wide at the top, will serve as an access for maintenance and inspection. Neal Road Mod 4 June 1997 1 The stormwater pond will be an unlined excavation and collect runoff from the completed portions of the landfill. It will also serve as a sediment basin and will have a surface area of two (2) acres or less. Sediment from this basin will be placed into Module 4. Butte County will create a new parcel out of the portions of APs 40-60-64 and 40-60- 35 purchased from the current landowner. The County is also processing a General Plan Amendment to extend the existing Solid Waste Management Facility overlay to the newly acquired lands. Neal Road Mod 4 June 1997 2 Bum COUNTY 4 AAWEN70 rro�-x LOS ANG r CALIFORNIA 3 cc �2 CNlCO PARADISC — i32, 70 I\ 1 A 9 162 � 2 t, I I 99 o >� , 2 BIGGS R10LE PROJECT LOCATION 1 " ECO-ANALYSTS LEACHATE and FIGURE 1 EwmONmerrAL ANALYSTS •nAwNG STORMWATER 310B SALEM STREET • CHICO,CA • 93928 916.342-3991 FAX 916.342.1353 PONDS PROJECT LOCATION A I e I c I 0 N . • �,31 4. Sn� NOT TO SCALE C 1Co ro y 0 C; x c� 3 . Project Location , am-Penh - 4�e 2 . ECO-ANALYSTS LEACHATE and FIGURE 2 ENVIR0NMe;rAL ANALYSIS •PLANNING ST 0 RM W AT E R 310B SALEM STREET • CHIC0,CA • 95928 916.342-5991 • FAX 916.342.1553 PONDS SITENICINITY A I B I C I D 4 lip CEOSTING PROM Y BOUNDARY I - 0[ ` APPR0MATE WASTE YANACETIENT .••—.-. I . UNIT 30UNOARY I i PROPOSED IMPOUNDMENTS AND 3ASINS !" TEMPORARY CONTRUCTION AND `11=�°_ DOmNC SM STOVPLES SOIL STORAGE AREA I jI WETLAND AND 3Ui:�7 AREA ` MW-9 ;I V-5 APPRCXMA7E_TSMETR LOCAnON. i PROPOSED . Yw-3 APPROXYIATE WNITORING 141-- 3 41 3 PROPOSED LEACHATEJ� SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT — U-7- MW U-8s I A (t ` EXISTING LEACHAT !SEPTAGE POND NO. 1= DISPOSAL PO I � TI I OPOSED — I I.=III III=III=i W`6 ` t III-III I—III—'SO II— I I PROPOSED % 1-EXISTING SOIL— SEDIMENTATION BASIN�..._� F—ISTOCKPILE-1 I III � 2 iII-III �I - . M 8 PRO ED ol WETLAND AND 1VORrE t BUFFER AREA �►nv o� PROJECT SITE SCALE IN FEET \ \ - 0 100 200 400 ECO-ANALYSTS LEACHATE and FIGURE 3 ENVIRONMe4TAL ANALYSIS •PLANNING STO RM WATER 310B SALEM STREET' • CHICO.CA • 95928 916.342.5991 FAX 916.342.1553 PONDS PROJECT AREA A I B I C I 0 A ' \ / WISE E Pi0MA1Tr 1JNER /IJ BUFFER ��ONE �FIOPE MMEMMUOM =0"AN,r UHM VARrQ 777-71-! 77•'5:•?i::: �� 3 Lwux SUBCBADE ° LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND l•;:::::: t I I t:�:;: ::.;f 10 LINER DETAIL 10 m 3 C 250 IIc:::::r:J I ' I 250 1*00 240 240 230 BA 30 FT. BERN 21rT POMD SE F TTP. I < SOL UNElt 2W EL '! ,•� , T T \•`"- - �- --- test 220 17 rf MSL , EL 217 rT W T1-------- I / I 210 + 13 i 2t0 z o r F^ 200 i - i 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 DWANCE (FEET) i �' .. C • % - SECTIONION C-C- 1 3 13 0 40 00 1 � -_`- / • DIST � LEACHATE EVAPORATION POND 9 PLAN r '° '°° � - ANALYSTS LEACHATE and FIGURE 4 • � ' ECO ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - PLANNING STO RM W'�4TER 3108 SALEM STREET ' CHICO. CA • 95928 ' LEACHATE POND 4L - (916) 342-5991 FAX 19161 342-1553 PONDS DS DETAILS p I 0 E I F ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. BACKGROUND 'A. Project Proponent Butte County Department of Public Works - ATTN: Eric Miller Address: 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone ( 916) 538-7681 B. Project Description 1. Type of Project: Stormwater retention and leachate ponds. 2 . Name of Proposal, if applicable Neal Road, Module 4 . 3 . Brief Description: 31.82 acres to hold a leachate pond and stormwater pond plus 22 .96 acres for equipment storage and storage of clay and soil from pond and Module 4 excavation plus a buffer of 9.03 acres. 4 . Location: Section 15 T2 T21N, R2E, Southeast of new septage pond area, north of Neal Road Butte County California. 5. Assessor' s Parcel Number(s) : Portions of 40-60-64 and 40-60-35. 6 . Access and Nearest Public Road(s) : Neal Road`. 7. Date checklist submitted: May 23, 1997. 8. Other agencies whose approval is required .(and permits needed) :Sacramento Valley Regional Water Ouality Control Board, California Integrated Waste Management Board. - C. Physical Environment 1. Terrain a. Topography: Area for ponds is relatively level. b. Slopes: Gentle. C. Elevation: 210 to 310 feet above mean sea level. Environmental Checklist June 1991 7 L 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: Volcanic mudflows and lahars with relatively thin clay soils b. Limiting Factors: Thin soils. D. Cultural Environment 1. General Plan Designation: Grazing and open space. 2. Zoning: U - Unclassified. 3. Existing Land Use: Open space adjacent to Butte County landfill and septage ponds 4 . . Surrounding Area a. Land Uses: Large parcel sizes. b. General Plan Designations: Grazing and Open Space. c. Zoning: Unclassified to West, North, and Northeast. d. Parcel Sizes: Large, over 100 acres. e. Population: None near site. 5. Character of Site and Area: Open grassland with rocky topography adjacent to i existing Neal Road Landfill and septage ponds. E. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would 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 X Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics X Water Hazards X Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Checklist June 1997 8 II. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: • 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 the attached sheet (s) have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I-find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect (s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or . "potentially significant unless mitigated. " * An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 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 all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Jopq 4- Date Tri— Signatur . For: i, r Environmental Checklist June 1997 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. Issues (and Supporting Information) and Mitig. 1. LAND USE. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan desig- nation or zoning? (GP) X COMMENT: The general plan designation for the area is currently Grazing and Open ' Space. The County is currently processing a General Plan Amendment to extend theSolid Waste Management Facility overlay of the existing landfill to this project. b. Conflict with applicable environ- mental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( X ) X COMMENT: - The area next to the project site has been designated and utilized as a municipal solid waste landfill disposal area since 1965. The proposed project of creating stormwater and leachate ponds is required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and therefore meets with policies and plans adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (FS) X COMMENT: The project is immediately adjacent to areas used for septage receiving ponds and to the Neal Road Landfill, and is designated as supporting facilities for Module 4 of the Landfill. The nearest adjoining other land uses are currently seasonal grazing to the north and south, with a potential for development on the land to the north. There are however, provisions in the project description for adequate screening by the use of vegetation. d. Affect agricultural resources or oper- ations (e.g. , impacts to soils or farm- lands, or impacts from incompatible land uses) ? (FS) X COMMENT: The rocky, dense clay soils, limit the growth of the grasses and forbs on this site and are suitable only for limited seasonal grazing. The proposed project Will not interrupt seasonal grazing outside of the newly fenced parcels. e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrange- ment of an established community (including a low-income or minority community) ? (PD,GP) X COMMENT: There is no established community on the site and so there is no potential for disruption or division of the community. Environmental Checklist June 1997 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. 2. POPULATION and HOUSING. Would the proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional ' or local population projections? (PD) X . COMMENT: The project will not provide housing or significant employment, and therefore produce any factors that will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. , ' through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure) ? (GP) X COMMENT: The project will not provide housing, require an extension of infrastructure, or produce new jobs, and therefore will not induce substantial growth, directly or indirectly. c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (FS) X COMMENT: There is no housing on the site. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a. Fault rupture? (FS) X COMMENT: Extensive field surveys conducted for earlier projects in the area did not detect any lineaments, through the site selected for development of stormwater and leachate ponds. There is no evidence of displacement within the project area however, there is evidence east of this area for displacement through earth movement. b. Seismic ground shaking (GP) X COMMENT: A review of recent literature has indicated that seismic ground shaking in the range of modified Mercalli 5.6-5. 7 has occurred within 10 miles .of the site. There should be no effect upon project since the project will consist of lined, below surface ponds with very low berms. c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (FS) - X COMMENT: The dense clay soils overlying volcanic hardpan are not subject to ground failure, particularly liquification. d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (FS) X COMMENT: There are no large streams, lakes, or ocean nearby to be susceptible to seiche or tsunamis. The only potential volcanic hazard would be from a large eruption at.Mt. Lassen, which could deposit ash on the property. This would require a very large eruption and also would require that it coincide with south flowing, high level winds. Environmental Checklist June 1997 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. e. Landslides or mudflows? (FS) X COMMENT: The thin clay soils over volcanic hardpan reduce the potential for landslides or mudflows even in the steeper slopes in the north east portion of subparcel B, and at the south ends of subparcels A and B. f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excava- tion, grading, or fill? (FS) X COMMENT: The majority of the site is level. Subsurface hardpan restrict the probability of unstable soil condition due to excavation or grading. g. Subsidence of the land? (FS) X COMMENT: The geology of the area precludes any subsidence of the land within the project's boundaries. h. Expansive soils? (FS) X CONT: Some of the surface clay soils on the project site do exhibit shrink-swell properties. Since the project involves excavation and removal of surface soils and subsurface hard pan materials, no effect of expansive soil is expected. These soils are suitable, however, for the perimeter berm on Subparcel A. i. Unique geologic or physical features? (GP) X COMMENT: There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (FS,PD) X COMMENT: The thin heavy clay soils and underlying hardpan do not allow for any significant absorption of storm waters or a modification of the rate and the amount of surface water runoff, A portion of the proposed project is being. established to control the amount of surface water runoff. b. Exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding or tsunami? (PD) X COMMENT: Because of the size of the ponds and their development as subsurface ponds, there is no exposure of people or property to water related hazards. A berm will be built to divert surface flows away from the ponds. C. Discharge into surface waters, or other alteration of. surface water quality (e.g. , temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (PD) X. Environmental Checklist June 1997 12 COMMENT: The proposed project is one of the Mitigation Measures design requirements of the Regional water Quality Control Board to prevent the discharge of any leachate or possible contaminated stormwater into other surface water bodies. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitiq. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (PD) X COMMENT: The proposed project will not change the amount of surface water in any water body since it is designed only to collect and evaporate leachate and runoff from the site itself. e. Changes in currents, or the course or direc- tion of water movements? (PD) X COMMENT: There will be no changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements since no streams or major drainages are involved. f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawls, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (FS) X COMMENT: There will be no change in the quantity of ground water since the project, because of its nature, does not require water for maintenance. The ponds are shallow and well above the highest subsurface aquifer. . g. Altered direction or rate of flow of ground water? (FS) X COMMENT: The project excavations will be too shallow to affect the direction or rate of flow of groundwater. h. - Impacts to groundwater quality? (PD) X COMMENT: State cf California requirements for composite lining of ponds are part of this project, and shall be implemented to prevent impacts to groundwater quality. (See Project Description) i. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (PD) X COMMENT: The project will not require any substantial amounts of water other than minimum amounts for dust control during construction, and so there will be no reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water collection 'in the storm water retention ponds can be used for dust control. Environmental Checklist June 1997 13 i . . n ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. 5., AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (PD) X COMMENT: Manipulation of the fine clay soils on site when they are dry could create an increase in PM 2.5 and PM 10 particulates in the area in violation of existing Air Quality standards. mitigation #1: Best management techniques for dust control shall be incorporated into g the requirements for construction. These will include sprinkling exposed soils with water during dry weather, using a water truck to apply up to 3 or 4 waterings per day to minimize production of fine particles. The construction inspector, hired by the Department of Public Works shall be on-site to establish the frequency of watering and " — to insure that adequate dust control measures are taken. b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (PD,FS) X COMMENT: There are no known, or suspected sensitive receptors to air quality pollutants on-site. c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change' in climate? (PD) X , COMMENT: There will be no major changes of topography which will alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. d. Create objectionable odors? (PD) X COMMENT: Leachate ponds can produce objectionable odor during periods of temperature inversions and when mixing occurs between the pond layers. There are no nearby residential units and no complaints have been received about the septage lagoons or h r existing leachate ponds. Laboratory analysis of leachate es idue indicates a very low organic content and the probability of a significant odor problem from the new pond is low. , 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: f ' ' a.' Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (PD) X COMMENT: The project will not produce any significant long-term increases in vehicle trips of traffic congestion. A short-term increase in traffic, of a minor nature, will occur during the construction period,. b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. , sharp curves or dangerous inter- sections) or incompatible uses (e.g. , farm equipment) ? (PD) X Environmental Checklist June 1997 14 • ` 6 COMMENT: Nothing in the project requires a change in lova" 1 road design features which would create hazard and safety. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (PD) X COMMENT: Nothing in the project which would require emergency access or affect the access to nearby uses. d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or -off-site? (PD) X COMMENTS: There is no parking required for this project other than short-term parking on-site during construction of equipment and vehicles for construction workers. Vehicles used during pond maintenance can be parked on the perimeter berm or equipment storage areas. e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (PD) X COMMENT: Pedestrians or bicyclists will be excluded from the property, so there are no hazards or barriers within the property that would affect them. f. Conflicts with adopted policies suppor- ting transportation (e.g. , bus turnouts, bicycle racks) ? (PD) X COMMENT: The project does not require any change or conflict with adopted policies supporting transportation. g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (PD,FS) X COMMENT: There are no impacts on rail, waterborne, or air traffic since none of these means of transportation are available on or adjacent to the site. 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) ? (FS) X COMMENT: Repeated field surveys between 1981 and 1988 have not revealed the presence of any endangered, threatened, or rare species or habitats of plants or animals in this portion of the Neal-Esquon site, including Monardella douglasii remosa found across Neal Road, south of this project. .1 b. Locally designated species (e.g. , heritage trees) ? (FS) X COMMENT: There are no locally designated species, including heritage trees located within the project area. Environmental Checklist June 1997 15 j ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sid. Sig. Sid. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitid. c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. , oak forest, coastal habitat, etc. ) ? (FS) X COMMENT: There is no locally designated natural community located within the site. The site an open disturbed grassland. d. Wetland habitat (e.g. , marsh, riparian and vernal pool) ? (FS) CONT: A wetland reconnaissance was conducted on 14 January 1997, by Albert J. Beck and Kingsley R. Stern. The topographic maps of the parcel showed two drainage swales that could support wetlands subject to federal jurisdiction. One sample was taken from the drainage that originates near the northwestern edge of the existing septage ponds. The heavy, thin clay soil in this drainage had a low chroma value, but lacked any mottling. Predominant vegetation was Mediterranean barley and ripgut. Runoff does not appear to pond in this drainage. The second drainage contained some ponded water and a mixture of obligate, facultative wet, and facultative plus, with upland and facultative minus species. Butte County modified its original project design which would have resulted in fill in this area, to one which leaves it in its current open space state. The wetland field sheets and a figure with the location of the sample site is included as an appendix. * Sample sites 3 and 4 were combined on one sheet. e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (FS) X COMMENT: The location is away from known wildlife dispersion and migratory corridors. 8. ENERGY and MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: o a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (PD) X COMMENT. The project does not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, and utilizes solar energy for evaporation of leachate and storm water runoff. b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (PD) X ,COMMENT: The project does not use significant amounts of non-renewable resources and does not use any resource in a wasteful or inefficient ,manner. c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the resi- dents of the State? (PD,FS) X COMMENT Field surveys have not produced any indication of known mineral resources underneath this site. l Environmental Checklist June 1997 16 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Paten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and . Mitis. 9. HAZARDS. 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) ? (PD) X COMMENT: None of the materials expected to be encountered produce a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances including oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation. Leachate from existing portions of the landfill have been analyzed and there is no indication of these materials in the leachate. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ( ) X COMMENT: The project area will not effect any emergency response plan or any emergency evacuation plan within Butte County. c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (PD) X COMMENT: See response to 9 a. d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (PD) X COMMENT: The area is remote from population sources and adjacent to the existing landfill. it will be fenced off and there Should be no exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards. e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (PD) X COUNT: The project will not produce an increased fire hazard since brush and grass are minimal and the project consists of creating ponds for storing stormwater runoff and leachate. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? (PD) X COMMENT: There will be a short-term increase of noise levels during construction. This is not expected to be significant. The nearest sensitive receptor (residential unit) is over one (1) mile away. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (PD) X COMMENT: There will be no exposure of people to severe noise levels since all excavation will be done mechanically with equipment, and all equipment should be equipped with proper muffling devices. Operators of heavy equipment must use ear protection or an enclosed cab. Environmental Checklist June 1997 17 i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sia. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and. Miti4. 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? (PD) X COMMENT: No structures are being created that are susceptible to ignition and would require fire protection. b. Police protection? '(PD) X COMMENT: There is nothing in the site that would increase the demand for police protection in the area. c. Schools? (PD) X COMMENT: There would be no population increase and no affect on schools with .this project. d. Maintenance of public facilities including roads? (PD) X COMMENT: There will be limited access to the site and no requirement for substantial changes in maintenance of public facilities. The facility itself will be inspected periodically by Butte County personnel. ' f. Other governmental services? (PD) X COMMENT: No additional other governmental services will be required for this project. 12. 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? (PD) X COMMENT: No power or natural gas is required for development or maintenance of this project. b. Communications systems? (PD) X COMMENT: No increase in telephone lines or other communication systems are required for this project. c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (PD) X COMMENT: The project is remote from and will not require connection to any local or regional water treatment or distribution facility. d. Sewer or septic tanks? (PD) X Environmental Checklist r June 1997 18 COMMENT: There is no need for sewer or septic tanks associated with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. e. Storm water drainage? (PD) X COMMENT: The project is designed to retain stormwater runoff and sediment from Module 4 in a pond. This runoff will be allowed to evaporate. Any residues will be used as cover on the landfill. f. Solid waste and disposal? (X) X COMMENT: The project is not designed to handle solid waste or its disposal but to provide storage for landfill cover materials and to evaporate leachate and stormwater runoff from Module 4. Any solids remaining after the leachate/storm water ponds evaporation will be tested and disposed of according to State and Federal requirements. g. Local or regional water supplies? (X) X COMMENT: The project has no requirement for connection to local or regional water supplies. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (FS) X COMMENT: Neal Road is not part of any scenic highway or scenic vista. b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (FS) X COMMENT: The project area will contain ponds, equipment, plus mounds of soil. The perimeter will be landscaped to obstruct views into the site and there should be no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. c. Create light or glare? (FS) X COMMENT: There is no requirement for night lighting so there should be nothing in the project to create excessive light or glare. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? (FS) X COMMENT: Field surveys and literature research have not indicated the presence of any paleontological resources in and adjacent to the proposed project site. b. . Disturb archaeological resources? (FS) X COMMENT: No historic or pre-historic sites were detected in field surveys in 1982 of the entire Neal-Esquon property in and adjacent to the proposed project site. c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (FS,CL) X Environmental Checklist June 1997 1 9 COMMENT: There is nothing in the project description that indicates any aspect of this project would affect any unique ethnic cultural values. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. , d. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (X) X COMMENT: There is nothing in the project description that would restrict existing -religious or sacred uses, since none are known to exist within the potential impact area. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (PD) X. COMMENT: There is no aspect of the project designed to affect local or regional parks or other recreational facilities. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project 'have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially 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? X COMMENT: Field surveys and review of wildlife information indicates that the project will not degrade the environment or reduce wildlife habitat or wildlife population. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? X COMMENT: The project is being designed to meet State and Federal standards and long- term environmental goals. c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively consider- able? ("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) X Environmental Checklist June 1997 20 COMMENT: The project does not have any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated and has .no impacts, that are cumulative. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Known Unknown Poten. Not Sig. Sig. Sig. Sig. ISSUES (and SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES) and Mitig. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X COMMENT: The project design requirements have been established to prevent any substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Environmental Checklist June 1997 21 REFERENCES Beck, Albert J. 1982. Faunal List for the Neal-Esquon Property. Butte County Department of Public Works. 1996. California Environmental Quality Act Review for the Neal Road Landfill (Butte County, California) Solid Waste Facility Permit FAC NO. 04-AA-002. California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. January 1996. Jones & Stokes. 1988. Botanical Resources of the Blakely Swartz Ranch, Butte County, California. 27 June 1988. Lydon, Philip A. - 1982. Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Neal-Esquon Property. Butte County. Manning, James P. 1982. Archaeological Survey of the Neal-Esquon Property, Butte County, California. Need, Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California Re ion 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service B col. Rpt. 88 (26.10). Stern, Kingsley R. 1982. Survey for Rare and Endangered Species of Vascular Plants Conducted Between December 30, 1981 and January 30, 1982, on Approximately 6400 Acres of Property Owned by the Parrot Corporation, Butte County, California, with Spring 1982 Supplement. Wetland Training Institute. 1991. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation. 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Neal Road Mod 4 June 1997 22 t i I III X1aN3ddV �I DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOOI Field Investigats): r �'` ' � ' Date: U f l Project/Site: State: County: Applicant/Owner: Plant Community #/Name: V a Note: If a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a fi ld notebook. Sc.l k_V -- - --- --- --- -- -- - - - - ---- -------- ------- - ----------- Do normal_environmental conditions existat the Iant cc munity? Yes No -A, - (ff no, explain on back) 9 �(,�.✓ Hl- �. Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sigrn icantfy disturbed?° I Yes d�— Na - - -(If yes, explain on back)— � � -S�w _ VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum �'` IS 2. _ 12. 10 3. 13. d� 4, -- "S 14. 5. 15. 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. _ Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is the hydrop is v getation c-iterion m t? Yes No V Rationale: / Cts (� �M SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No�_ Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No _Histic spipedon present? Yes No V Is the soil: Mottled? Ye No L Gleyed? Yes No Matrix Color. tdi4 37 F Mottle Colorss, Other hydric soil indicators: VWILA Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No A Rationale: I'W Un da_-a H -S��cr�cln,d. HYDROLOGY w Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No i,,_ Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No_T NL be h Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil proole: List other field.evidence of surface inundation or soil saturatio Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No k_ Rationale: JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes a / Rationale for jurisdictional decision: _7>o7,--J t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 23 Q 4Z DATA FORM ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI Field Investigat s): c4- SL,, Date: ��`��^- / Project/Site: State: G Coun / Applicant/Owner: Plant Community#Mame: A/. us Note: H a more detailed site description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook. -- -- -- ------ -- --- -- - - --- ------ ---- -- -- -- ----------- Do normal_environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes - No Y� . (If no, explain on back) buy G r . �t4 Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significant bi/l bed? Yes � No (If yes, explain on back){jwC 162 - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Y -'n ` - �`-- - - - -- - ---�- ----- - VEGETATION Indicator Indi;.ator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum a}J 2. ucw 12. .r5 3. CAlt `t A� 13. 4. 14. —��- � 15. '. �6. 16. a 7. _ 17. 8. '- 18. Ste' 9. 19. Q°w 10 20. Percent of dominant`speces that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion m ? Y s "x No Rationale: SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup:2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes No Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic spipedon present? Yes No X Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No -y(_ Matrix Color: 5 R 7771Mottle Colors -`* CIA Other hydric soil indicators: -),jkV _t d Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No Rationale: HYDROLOGY Is the ground surface inundated? Yes X No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes X No Nl Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evide ce f su ce inun at' n or soil saturation. Is the wetland hkology crit rion met? Yes Y No Rationale: Skc,^. , w� , nfa,.,R JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Yes 'y Nq Rationale for jurisdictional decision: VI��-def �►�+�^�1 1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure. 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' I 3 3�•/ 8-2 24 DATA FORM t /� ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METH00 Field Investigator(s): r � , /� Date: Project/She: 't —1 12-*d N^-J State: C� County: Applicant/Owner: Plant Community#IName: C...D Note: If a more detailed site descriFion is necessary, use the back of data form or a fi d notebook. -- -- -- -- - --- -- -- -- - - -- ------ ------ -- --------------- Do normal_environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes No �4, _(H no, explain on back)_t,� , r Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been signir nt disturbed? Yes_>No (If yes, explain on back) r Dw,aq,uJ C1,.4 VEGETATION Indicator Indicator Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum . �Qo 2. -L 12. �5 3. o-1 vis 13. 4. LL= (AP( w _ 14. 5. 7�— 15. I J 6. 16. 7. 17. 8. 18. 9. 19. 10. 20. Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACK and/or FAC Is the hydrophytic v�e �et�tion cr4jgnon met? Yes No X Rationale: YO 0 It �t/7u. S4Z t^,.— SOILS Series/phase: Subgroup-2 Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes Na Undetermined Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No tic spipedon present? Yes No c/ Is the soil: Mottled? Yos No Gleyed? Yes No 4.27— Matrix Color: 10 2 T Mottle Calors: btu._ Other hydric soil indicators: Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No A Rationale: AW 0'Xa 6tLQ HYDROLOGY ll Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth: Is the soil saturated? Yes No N/ Depth to free-standing water in pit/soil probe hole: List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturatior � Is the wetland hydrology criterion m5? Yes No,—Y, Rationale: 'Y c r 0#4, c J �i dtiuu . 1,4 JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE Is the plant community a wetland? Ye No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: / ► //W C-1 1 t This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community Assessment Procedure, r 2 Classification according to'Soil Taxonomy.' B-2 25 i 1 � 100, 00, DaTNc FQOVRTr$O MARY 0 I — — perypy�,2'..SIE.-AG YFNT "7 30U.CART --ap=11&-cJMOWN1$ .AO 3n4N$ TEMPORARY _ CONTRUCTION AND — �sM — j — SOIL STORAGE AREA A f rat< DELINEATED WETLAND AREAS PROPOSED LEACHATE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT — U-7 j SEPTAGE POND N0. 1€ #3 I 1 �•L I I_I11 iT j =1 i l=1 11- ca • ,; ,-1 I I=III— i IExISTING. SOIL- I PROPOSED ^: ;STOCk0ILE-III—� __ \ SEDIMENTATION BASIN .._. `�1 1 I=I 1 1=1 I iL -111-I15; I� • 2 � � �/ yl,l-�-1_.-I_i I-111-. ;?• =!I 1-11 i- b WETLAND AND � Noez"rrt BUFFER AREA '\ '\ PROJECT SITE SCALE IN FEET \ \ 0 100 200 400 ECO—AlYALYSTS WETLAND FIGURE 5 ENVIRONMENTAL. ANALYSIS -PLANNING SAMPLE 3108 SAL.E;NI STREET • CIUCO.CA • 95928 916.342.5991 FAX 916.342.1553 SITES PROJECT AREA A I e I c I D • 26 /r '' ECLARATION OF FEES DUE (Cali Fish and Game Code Section 71 `- NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Butte County Development Services AUG 2 7 1998 7 County Center Drive r� Oroville, CA 95965 C A J. R butte Co.clerk - ,'(530) 5. 38-7601 FILING N Deputy CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION ( ) A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee (X) B. De Minimus Impact- Certificate of Fee Exemption $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION-FEE REQUIRED ( ) A. Negative Declaration $1,250 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee O B. Environmental Impact Report $850 State Filing Fee $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. ( ) OTHER(Specify) $25.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT%NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. ( ) PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s). 2. (X) NON-PAYMENT: County Application Chief Planning Official By: Dave Doody Title: Principal Planner Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services _ Date: TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. J ATERJ\NOE.NODT&G.FEE :Y JIGU lot, a NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Office of Plan.& Research Dept. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X Butte County Clerk FROM: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965 , SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: LGP_K97 03}General Plan Amendment AP Number: - 040-600-081, 082 Applicant: Butte County Development Services, 7 County Center Dr., Oroville, CA 95965 State Clearinghouse Number(If submitted to clearinghouse): Contact Person: Craig Sanders Telephone Number: 538-7601 Project Location: on the north side of Neal Road, between the transmission power.lines and the existing landfill boundary Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an,adjacent 51 acre parcel This is to advise that the Butte County Board of Supervisors has approved the above-described project on July 28, 1998, and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1. The project will,_X_will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. _X_ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures X_were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4'. A statement of overriding considerations was,_X was not, adopted for this project. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the general public at: Date received for filing and posting at OPR Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 t Dave Doody Principal Planner Mitigation Measures: 1. 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 i . consultants should 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. 2. 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 ration of 2:1 in protected open space areas. 3. Prior to any physical activity/ground disturbance within the 51 acres designated for industrial use a cultural resource.survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Mitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. . t CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FILING FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding (Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations) r. Project.Title/Butte County Location: GPA 97-03, on the north side of Neal Road,between the transmission power lines and the existing landfill boundary Project Description: General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel Findings of Exemption(attach as necessary): 1. The county of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a(Negative Declaration or Enviornmental Impact) so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact: .2. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, if applicable. 4. The project is hereby found to be de minimis in its effect on wildlife and exempt from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. By: agj vftgor Dave Doody, Principal Planner Lead Agency: County of Butte Date: MDate 10/01/98 Development Services DepaAnent Time 3 :27 pm Applicant Billing Worksheet Page l GPA 97-03 _* Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 In reference to GPA 97-03 " Rounding None Full Precision No Last bill / / Last aging Last charge : " 08/21/98 Last payment / / Amount $0 . 00 Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 02/24/97' Larry P. / P 0 . 50 29 . 50 #11031 Processing 59 . 00 05/05/97 Teri B. / C 2 . 00 68 . 00 #11544 Clerical 34 . 00 05/19/97 Paula L. / P 0 .25 14 . 75 #11716 Processing 59 . 00 01/26/98 Craig S . / P 4 . 75 280 .25 #15035 ' Processing 59 . 00 01/26/98 Lynn R. / C 1 . 25 56 . 25 #15069 Clerical 45 . 00 02/09/98 Lynn R. / C 0 . 25 11 . 25 #15221 Clerical 45 . 00 02/09/98 Larry P. / P 1 . 25 73 . 75 #15723 Processing 59 . 00 03/09/98 Lynn R. / C 0 . 75 33 . 75 #15564 Clerical 45 . 00 03/09/98 Craig S . / P 9 . 50 560 . 50 #15587 Processing 59 . 00 03/23/98 Lynn R. / C 1 . 50 67 . 50 .#15932 , . Clerical 45 . 00 07/13/98 Lynn R. / C 2 . 50 112 . 50 #18031 Clerical 45 . 00 08/10/98 Teri B. / C 0 . 75 25 . 50 #18353 Clerical 34 . 00 4 ._Date 10/01/98 Development Services Depatent Time 3 :27 pm F Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 2 GPA 97-03 * :Butte County (continued) Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL 08/10/98 Lynn R. / C 0 . 50 22 . 50 #18455 Clerical 45 . 00 TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES 25 . 75 $1, 356 . 00 Date/Sl'ip# Description QTY/PRICE 02/19/98 Teri B. / $C 1 48 . 60 #15241 Publish Legal Notice in Chico 48 . 60 :. Enterprise Record TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $48 . 60 TOTAL NEW CHARGES $1, 404. 60 PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/.CREDITS 10/01/98 Initiated by County, No' Fee (1, 404 . 60) TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($.1, 404 . 60) NEW BALANCE TOTAL NEW BALANCE $0 . 00 K L Resolution No. 98-1IT- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has initiated an amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element, for a change from Industrial to Agricultural Residential for that property identified on Exhibit A-1 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 Industrial for that property identified on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto; and r WHEREAS,the proposed General Plan Amendments as initiated by the Butte 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 County 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 r 4 WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments and subsequent development for GPA 98-01 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 98-01 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-T, comply with all elements of the Butte County General Plan and comprises an overall internally consistent whole; specifically: S 1. The amendments comply with the policies of the Butte County General Plan. 2. The amendments provide for compatible development with existing land uses. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1. 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-1, 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 County General Plan Land Use Element, said Amendments to be the land use policy, for the County of Butte in the affected area for all findings pursuant to law. BE 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 to 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, Houx, Chair Davis NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Josiassen NOT VOTING: None - we - L—) RED C. DAVIS, Butte County Board of Supervisors ` ATTEST: - John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Boar _ By. De ty ' r . EXHIBIT A-1 "�,` r• ----- --------------- ------------- ----- - - ''r 0 i Road 75 Area to be Amended Kusel Road AR •! rf; r'`,f•!^tit+: ' JJ We Way AR FF BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION Applicant: Butte County Planning Division Owner: Various Hearing Date: Existing Zone: Interim AR-1 &M-1 (Light Industrial) N Request: General Plan Amemdment&Rezone to Agricultural Residential&AR-1 to conform with No Scale existing residential uses. Assessor Parcel No: Various Pyle: 98-01 EXHIBIT & A K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: County 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 e)dsting 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 approbmately 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 ma 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. ■ 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 mitigation(s) will be prepared. I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. �7 /I Completed by: David k Doody, ssociate Planner Date Pit" 7j 11 Reviewe : Craig Sanders, Principal Planner Date K:\PLANNING\PROJECTSNGPAICUSTER.GPAICUSTER.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. r I X Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services 0 Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service ❑ Geophysical 0 Energy and Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics ❑ Water ❑ Hazards 0 Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality - ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: " 1) 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 following 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). 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 mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact'to a"Less than Significant' Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation 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 Elk,or other CEQA process, an"effect has been adequately analyzed in a earlier Elk 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:\PLANNrNG\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than' Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? _ X b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X c) Be incompatible with eAsting 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 a low-income or minority community)? X _ Response: Oroville Area Land Use Plan: The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would create residentially zoned 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, traffic 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 worst case scenario for maximum subdivision and subsequent home construction would find an additional eleven(11)dwellings being developed — following the proposed project. This, however, would be speculative and unlikely for the following reasons: 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:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\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.' In 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 criteria through the implementation'of various County codes that apply to the new map designation 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 specific project shall be fully subject to CEQA and mitigation 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, Staff is recommending that additional properrties 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 Blvdwill therefore serve as a buffer and separate residential development from lands to the east which are within the industrial 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 fime.Also, the larger parcel sizes on the north and east sides'would provide for the greater separation of Industrial and residential land uses. Several other options are available to minimize future conflicting land uses within industrial zones. These options involve amending the development criteria of the Zoning Code as follows: K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than • Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact A.- Change the text of the Zoning Code to only allow a residential use in the LI(Limited Industrial), M-1(Light Industrial)and M-2(Heavy Industrial)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 Code to allow a residential use in the industrial 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 text of the Zoning Code to continue to allow a caretakers residence as an accessory 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 100'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 Zoning 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 population 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. r Mitigation: None required. 3. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result,in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Seismicity: fault rupture? g g� t, X , K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTEiLGPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Seismicity:ground shaking/ liquefaction? X c) Seismicity: seiche? . X d) Landslides or mudslides? _X e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from ` excavation,grading or fill? X f) Subsidence of the land? _X g) Expansive soils? _ tL h) Unique geologic,or physical , features? X r. Respgnse All of Butte,Counfy is classified as a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone 11111 and - " potential ground shaking is possible.'`The Butte County Seismic Safei'Element Map indicates that the study area is located within the.1975 Oroville'After Shi 6;k Epicenter Region and is located within%mile of the Foothill Stiear Zone. Construction of all buildings on the project site to Unifionn Building Code standa Ads will provide adequate protection to occupants incase 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(6.g.temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X d)•Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e) Changes in currents, or the K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact course or direction of water movements? X 0 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? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X._ Response:Approval of this project will not result in impacts to surface or ground water resources. Public water is available within the study 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 surfaies and increase runoff, however, this can be addressed through the construction of retention 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? C 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 the 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. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic t. K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPAICUSTER.GPA\CUSTERIS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact congestion? _ x b) Hazards to safety from design features(e:g.'sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.farm equipment)? _ x c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses x _ d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site/ offsite? X e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? _ x f) Conflicts with adopted policies , supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts,bicycle racks)? X g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts? x _ h) Substantial impact upon eAsting transportation systems,including public transportation services? _x ti Reponse: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 of ten(10)trips per dwelling per day`However,In a rural area this number Is greatly reduced and therelbreis 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,threatenedor rare_ species or their habitats(including tiut not limited to plants,'fi h, insects, animals, and birds)? _ x ` b) Locally designated species(e.g. heritage trees)? X c), Locally designated natural K:\PLANNIPIG\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact communities(e.g. oak forest,etc.)? X d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e).Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 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,Butte 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 i w 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 V. Mitigation: None required. 9. HAZARDS. 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) 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\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially 4 Significant Less . Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass,or trees?• X Response:The project would create residentially zoned lands adj*acent to industrial. In a worst case scenario, future development could occur on the industrial lands which could pose health hazards to residents.-'This is not unlike the current situation because the lands already exist in this condfion. Only a limited number of residences can be developed and any industrial uses will likely require a use permit whereby any health issues can be addresses at that time. Mitigation: None required. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Response:The approval of this project will not directly result in any increase in noise•levels. However,following the project future development may expose people to severe noise levels fi without proper mitigation. Please see#1 for description of project's impacts and analysis_ pursuant to CEQA. Staff is proposing that additional properfies 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 classfications. 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? X r b) Police protection? X.: K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTEP-GPA\CUSTER.IS Potentially Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ X e) Other governmental services? X_ Response:Approval of this projects)may not have signficant impacts on public services. 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. 12. 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? 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? X Response:Approval of the project(s)will not result in significant new systems for power or communications. Such services exist to the property. The project area receives potable water from OMD. 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 facilydes 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:\PLANNINGIPROJECTSIGPAICUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS i 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 to CEQA. Appropriate time to address these issues is at time of future development. Mitigation: None required. 9 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 ebsting 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 projects)will result in approving a change—on paper—,of the general plan designation and , zoning classfica_tion: There will be no approval of any actual development project with approval of this application.At'the time a specific project is proposed it`shall be fullytsubject to CEQA and mitigation conceing archeological resources can be incorporated into the project should e significant impact be determined however unlikely Therefore,no significant impacts to any pultural resources would result from approval of this project ' Mitigation: None required. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.• a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities? X b) Affect e)dsting 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:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPAICUSTER.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? X 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). _X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? X r K:IPLANNINGIPROJECTSIGPA\CUSTEROPAICUSTER.IS BUD= :,This projects)is alanni P ng 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. t y t a K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTER.GPA\CUSTER.IS DATA SHEET A. Project Description . 1. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment A 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%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 '/: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. Acoustic 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,forbs 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.,lndustrial 12. Existing Zoning:M1 13. Existing Land Use on-site: rural residential,some home occupations, a tire recycling business and an 89 unit mobile home park. 14. , Surrounding Area: k / K:\PLANNING\PROJECTS\GPA\CUSTEP-GPA\CUSTEP-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: 1/4 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 ti 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: CH2M 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.Safely 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 Highways Map V-1.Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 1114.Safety Element. Oroville;CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sen§itivPtyMar). 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 Wells. 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 Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Mao§. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map.Chico(1925)/Oroville (1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/Oroville(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. EXHI- E)dsting Solid Waste Facility Overlay Proposed Addition to E)dsting Solid Waste Facility Overlay Butte Cou ty Disposal Site General Plan Amendment from Grazing&Open Lands to Public General Plan Amendment from Gravng& Open Lands to Industrial • Solid Wane Facility Overlay over Grazing&Open Lands General Plar MAP AMENDING Fahibit:._ BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN Resoladon Date Butte Coanty Planning Commission N Butte County Board of S%ervison Project:GPA 97-03 _ EXHIBIT COUNTY OF BUTTE . INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: 1. Name of Proponent: County of Butte I 2. Address:7 County Center Drive,Oroville CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7601 3. Name of Proposal,if applicable: General Plan Amendment 97-03 4. 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 on 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 64t acres currently owned by Butte County and an adjacent property (51f 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. I I Currently,the total project area(combined 115 f 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 owned property as"Industrial" as the underlying land use designation. The underlying land use designation must be specified to designate 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 bothro erties. Permitted uses in the"U" district are limited to one single-family P P 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. The County of Butte proposes to use the newly acquired 63 acres for landfill related use including a five (5) acre leachate and and a storm water runoff/sedimentation and of less than two acres in size. The I P P remaining portions of the property will be used for 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 Management Board and the Regional Water.Quality Control Board. il Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 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 Amendment The following text amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed for adoption, page LAND USE ELEMENT - 61: Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division C Project:GPA 97-03 ❑ 1 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 mitigation(s)will be prepared. ❑ I 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 ` Haiards ® Cultural Resources Air Quality = Noise = Recreation w EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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 following 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). 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 mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The'lead agency must 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 y 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 XVII,"Earlier Analysis,"may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EK 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 of Butte 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 a designation or zoning? X Comment: The project is an amendment to the Butte County General Plan to re-designate the propertyfrom "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 an"d future opportunity for solid waste disposal,recycling and/or 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 vicinityfurther 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 contain 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 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially . Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact endangered species,subsequent development of new solid waste disposal,recycling and/or diversion facilities could adversely impact rare or endangered species if not acknowledged and mitigated. Mitigation: See Section 7 of this checklist for 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 a low-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 grazing land The property is adjacent to the county landfill and therefore, inappropriate for residential use. Soils are generally thin and will not support agricultural crop production.- (Class roduction.(Class V11, "Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation. Fairly well-suited for grazing or forestry." Butte County Master Environmental Assessment,BCMEA) There are approximately 172,850 acres designated for grazing land within the unincorporated lands of Butte County. The loss of 114 acres of grazing land represents.0007 of the total acreage designated for grazing and,therefore, is not considered signicant. 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) roposal.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, ofsolid waste facilities and population increase. Development of the industrial designated property.would serve Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 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 housing 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:ground 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 15 miles southeast of the property.A potentially active fault, Chico Monocline fault is located approximately two miles east of the project site. The likelihood of an earthquake from these currently inactive faults is extremely low. Several lineaments have been mapped through prior investigations of greater 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 performed prior 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 Butte County is difficult to predict as there is not sufficient geologic and seismic data available. (B6f6A) The degree of ground shaking greatly varies and depends on magnitude of the earthquake and geology. A Modified Mercalli intensity between Vi and V11 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 30 feet from the surface and soils are characteri:ed as poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. The subject site has,low potential for liquefaction. No large bodies of water are located on the subject site;therefore, the occupance for seiche(periodic oscillation of a lake, river, bay, etc.from seismic activity)is not possible. Mitigation: None required. d Landslides or mudslides? X e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading or fill? X Comments: Landslide or mudslide potential is considered low for areas which are comprised of volcanic hardpan and thin soils. Erosion potential is none to minimal.on the flat portions of the subject property. Areasof greater elevation/slope will require engineered grading plans prior to building construction. Slope stability studies were conducted for the landfill in 1987 as part of the Master Plan which indicated stability under both static and seismic loading conditions. (Master Plan Neal Road Sanitary Landfill) Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 •Project:GPA 97.03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: None required. f) Subsidence of the land? X_ g) Expansive soils? X_ h) Unique geologic or physical features? X Comments:Subsidence potential in Butte County is associated with heavy groundwater 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. -- 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 _ ' Comment: Future 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 runffilsedimentation pond. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board issues industrial storm water permits and will require compliance with standard regulations regarding run-off associated with the landfill site. The Initial Study prepared for the new landfill facilities notes that a portion of the project is being established to control the amount of surface runoff. Mitigation: 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 500 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 Hazard Boundary Maps indicates this portion of Nance Canyon as subject to flooding and a previous drainage study stated that this area of the channel is inadequate to contain the 100 year design flow. (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. Y Mitigation: Noni required. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality(e.g.temperature,dissolved 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 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 managed by local agencies in accordance with state standards. The County of Butte has adopted standards for specific areas of the county which require close monitoring of surface and ground water quality. Eastern Butte County'(which includes most of the project site) is not identified with significant 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 site does not contain any water bodies. Mitigation: 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 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit through the Regional Water Quality Control Board. These permiis 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 QUALITY. Would 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 PM., dust would be generated primarily by site preparation. This short term impact is considered less than C Butte County,Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 9 Project-GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact significant because standard construction measures, including controlling fugitive dust at all times will be required as a condition of use permit approval for future development of industrial uses. Mitigation: None required. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? _ 3 c) Alter 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 landfill. No alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature is expected to occur with future development of the site. The Butte County Division of Environmental Health has jurisdiction as the Local Enforcement Agency which monitors the landfill for odor. Continued maintenance of the landfill including daily cover of compacted refuse and other required odor suppressing techniques is expected to occur. Leachate ponds may contribute to objectionl odors when surrounding air temperature increases. However, there are no nearby residential uses and no complaints have been recorded. Mitigation: None required. 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. r Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X Comment: Development of new industrial uses related to the landfill operation, may increase traffic volumes. State Highway 99 north oHi8hwaY 149 and south of the Skyway interchange is currently operating well below capacity with a Level of Service(LOS)of A. Neal Road is a rural collector road currently with low traffic volumes. . Even though,Neal Road provides access from Paradise to State Highway 99, traffic volumes have not 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. Most traffic on Neal Road is generated from solid waste haulers. Records indicate approximately 250 vehicles per weekday enter the landfill. Weekend traffic is approxim'ately 125 vehicles for Saturday and 63 vehicles on Sundays. (initial Study, Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision) Traffic increase assumptions for Neal 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 traffic generation will not occur. Related landfill activities(i.e.recycling,diversion)would not generate more trips. Haulers would not be making extra trips for particular waste products as solid waste would be sorted at the landfill for those materials that could be recycled, diverted or disposed in some other manner. Mitigation: 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 C Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 10 Project:GPA 97-03 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 trucks and haulers en route to the landfill are common on Neal Road. Future development projects would require analysis and approval of the Butte County Public Works Department for new encroachments onto Neal Road. Mitigation: None is required. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses _ X _ d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite/ offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? _ X f) Conflicts with adopted policies .supporting alternative transportation (e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? _ X _ g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? _ CX 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 gradual grade as compared to the Skyway. The County of Butte has adopted an implementation program to map an integrated system of rural bicycle routes which focus on serving as recreational routes around urban areas (Circulation Element). Mapping should include Neal Road with either a Class i(separated)or Class 11(striped and signed)bicycle route. Including 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 with the project. Public transportation is not available on Neal Road. Mitigation: None is 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 Comment: According to a previous biological studies, it-is possible that rare veiny monardella (Monardella douglasii var. venosa)an annual herb in the mint family, may be present on the subject property. The "candidate" 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑; Project:GPA 97-03 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 IB. 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 throughout 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 plant was believed to have been extirpated, however, it was discovered on the south side of Neal Road in 1992.by a local botanist. It appears that there have been only two such plants found in California, the one find on the south side of Neal Road,south of the project site at an elevation of 280'-300,and a second find in Tuolumne County. A prior field survey was conducted for an earlier project near or on the subject property. The veiny monardella was not observed during the survey;however, it appears that the survey was flawed for several reasons including: it was not conducted during the time which the plant could be easily identified(May 2-15;the transect areas of the study were too broad;, the study did not follow the established report guidelines;and the plant description was inaccurate which could have resulted 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 survey be completed for the prior project associated with a portion of the project site. Mitigation 1: 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. Mitigation: None required. c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.oak forest,etc.)? CX Comment: The project site contains blue oak woodland which is considered a valued habitat because of its historic extent and the large number of wildlife, bird and plant species which depend on this species. Blue oaks are considered one of the three oak species of concern in California because of targe statewide losses of the blue oak Additionally, most,of the trees are on unprotected lands,and their reproduction is insufficient 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. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division it Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation .Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Wetland habitat(e.g.marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? _X _ Comment: According to a previous study (Jones and Stokes), grasslands and ephemeral drainages have the highest potential as sites for the creation of volcanic mudflow vernal pools. The higher elevation area of the project site appears to have the potential for wetlands/vernal pools. A wetland field study was conducted earlier this year (January, 1997)on the subject property. Wetlands were observed on the portion of the project site for development of Module 4. 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. 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 Comments:. project does not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. Future development of the site with industrial buildings must submit energy calculations for compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Solid waste 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. Mitigation: None required 9. HAZARDS. 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) _X f 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 17 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X c) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X Comment: Landfill operations and other solid waste recycling/di version facilities and the storage of ha=ardous waste products could present potential hazards to public health: However,state and federal regulations including -the permitting requirements�oftheCalifornia Integrated Waste Management Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, reduce potential hazards to public health through exposure.9f hazardous substances to below significant. _- Mitigation: 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 flammable brush,grass,or trees? X _ Comment: The project will not increase fire hazard as the expansion of the landfill operation will include some clearance of brush and grass to create ponds for stortmvater rrtnoff and leachate. Construction of new industrial buildings for solid waste management facilities will be required to comply with all fire 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? X _ b) Exposure of people to severe noise - levels? Comment: Implementation of the project would result in short-term increased noise levels during construction. This short-term impact is considered less than significant because no sensitive receptors exist within the general vicinity. Development of industrial 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. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon.or result in a need for riew or altered government services in an off, f the G Butte County.Department of Development-Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ A A Project.GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? 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. Mitigation: None-required. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? Comments: New 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 necessary.for the development of the industrial portion of the project as a condition of permit approval. The la-fill expansion is a County project and to that extent, the maintenance and service to the lane f ll has been planned for and budgeted. Mitigation: None required. 12. 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? _ CX 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=ardour 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 facilities will be required for the project other than possible an on-site water supply(well)which would be reviewed and permitted through the Butte County Environmental Health Department. Mitigation: None required. d) Sewer or septic tanks? X _ M C Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 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, hazardous materials storage etc. may require sanitary waste facilities(septic tank and leach fields). Such facilities would 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 includes a pond to hold storm water runoffand sediment from Module 4. The runoff will evaporate with any residual soil,used as cover for the landfill in accordance with state and federal-regulations. Mitigation: None required. 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 of additional solid waste disposal,recycling or reduction facilities will not generate new or increased solid waste disposal,but will aid Butte County in attaining compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act to reduce solid waste fifty percent by the year 2000. Mitigation: None required. g)Special Districts? X — Comment: The proposed project will not have an impact on Special Districts. Mitigation: 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 thefoothillsfrom State Highway 99 and from Neal Road area valuable community asset. The stands of native Blue oaks provides a visual resource as well and should be protected.. (See Mitigation 11 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. (Initial Study, Module a 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, Mitigation: None required 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ 16 Project: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 new lighting to an area currently without artificial lighting. The rise permit process for development of industrial uses should address exterior illumination to insure that lighting is shielded and directed downward and does not spill off-site. 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 Comment: The City of Chico's Master Environmental Assessment(MEA)planning area includes the north side of Neal 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 Magalia. 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. Mitigation III: Prior to any physical activity/ground disturbance within the 51 acres of designated for industrial use a cultural resource survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Mitigations 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 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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. 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 ,x eliminate'important examples of the major periods of California 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 zoning could adversely impact or eliminate this rare species if present. Mitigation I has been recommended to perform a complete botanical survey of the project area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals,to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? _ {X Comment: The project helps fulfill Butte County's commitment to reduce solid waste 50%by the year 2000 in 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 local,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 0. Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 , r Project:GPA 97-6 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 on human 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. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project-GPA 97-03 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation is 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 preparation and construction, the Department of Development Services shall select a qualified botanist from the County's list of approved consultants. In consultation with the qualified botanist aid 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 Department of Fish and Game's "Guidelines for Assessing the Effect of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities." If 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 shall include a monitoring schedule for the plant to ensure it's continued viability. The Department of Development Services shall be responsible fol monitoring(or for retaining a qualified person to perform the monitoring) the species continued existence. Mitigation H: 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. Monitoring 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 shall indicate all trees on the site 6"in diameter at breast height. All 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 sukmitted for department review. New landscaping should include native plants which complement the existing landscape. During the construction phase, all native trees shall 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 Building Department will be responsible to verb the preservation of trees during the construction period. On-going monitoring of trees shall be the responsibility of the Department of Development Services(or for retaining a qualified person to perform monitoring) to ensure the'trees continued existence. Mitigation III: Prior to any physical activity/ground 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 0 Planning Division C �n Project:GPA 97-03 Mitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. Monitoring Program: The Department of Development Services shall 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 to any . ground disturbing activity and appropriate mitigation incorporated at that time. The field survey shall be completed before site preparation and construction commences. ifthe results of the survey indicate the presence of prehistoric or historic resources, mitigations shall be recommended which reduce the potential impacts to less than significant. Information regarding the location of archaeologic or prehistoric resources shall be labeled "confidential". If resources are found on the project site with a "no disturbance"recommendation, the Building Department shall ensure that site construction does not excavate or disturb the resources. ff construction work unearths a possible'prehistoric or historic,resource, all construction shall halt and the Department of Development Services shall be contacted to evaluate the find and necessary action. I ' 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 y" - Project:GPA 97-03 DATA SHEET A. project Description 1. Type of Project: General Plan-Amendment. 2 Proposed Density of Development:;Not a residential project. 3: Amouni of Impervious Surfacing: Unknown ai'this time. 4. .`Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Neal Road and State Highway 99. 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems. 6. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells. 7. Proximity of Power Lines:'To property. 8. "Potential for further land divisions and development:-The landfill portion of the project has no potential for further land division. Development potential is limited to landfill related activities permitted by local,state and'fede'6i 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. Limitin;Factors:,Low percolation rate and high runoff coefficient. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. I 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 Soil Potential: Low' 4. Hydrology , a. Surface Water: Ephemeral drainages into Nance Canyon and eventually Hamlin Slough b. Ground Water: Ground water level below,the landfill is 150-160 feet. Water level for' . remaining portions of the propertXr re 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. 11. Butte County General Plan designation_,Graiing and Open Space. 12. Existing Zoning: "U""Unclassified. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: County landfill operation and grazing and open space. 14. Surroundin;Area: 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Project:GPA 97-03 a. Land Uses: Grazing and Open Space. b. Zoning: "U" Unclassified. c. Gen. Plan Designation: Grazing and Open Space. d. Parcel Sizes: Large 1 15. Character of Site and Area: Valley grasslands, rolling terrain to plateaus(Buttes) 16. Nearest Urban Area: Town of Paradise. 17. 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: N/A 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County(State)Fire Station: Station number 45 approximately 4 miles away. .. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only onsite wells. 20.. Schools: Durham Unified School District,Butte Community College District. C Butte County Department of Development Services '0 Planning Division 0 Project GPA 97-03 r ' • ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Master Environmental Assessment. Oroville,CA:J. Lawrence Mintier&- Associates,et al. May 1996. 2. Butte County Planning Department.Butte County General Plan. Oroville,CA. Land Use Element (1979), Circulaiion Element(May 1984),Open Space•Element(December 1976), Conservation E I 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. 5. 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 NedRoad Landfill. Oroville,CA. June 1997. ' 7. Butte County Planning Department._Studies prepared for the Blakeley Swartz Ranch project: a. 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 Swartz Ranch. Jones&'Stokes Associates. June 1988 d. Preliminary Geologic Report for Blakeley Swartz Ranch. Anderson Geotechnical Consultants. October 1987 e. Drainage Study of the Proposed Blakeley Swart_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 conceri'of veiny monardella on Project site. October 1994. 10. USGS Quad Maps. K:\PROJECTS\GPA\N EALRDW EALRD.IS Cl Butte County Department of Development Services C Planning Division 0 24 fi t EXHIBIT B-3 The Solid Waste Facility Overlay land use designation allows uses which are accessory andlor 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 o:recycling and waste diversion facilities, site monitoring operations, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scrap yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers and/or septic tank pumping companies and other similar uses which meet the purposes of this land use ` designation. r � �- • State of CaliforniaCal' ornia Environmental tection Agency MEMORANDUM To `� Mr . Chris Belsky Date: March 17 , , 1998 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Craig Sanders Planning Division Butte County Dept . of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 From Jq,Kn Loane, Integrated Waste Management Specialist ermitting- and Inspection Branch Permitting and Enforcement Division CALIFORNIA . INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD Subject: SCH #98022033 - Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for a General Plan (GP) Amendment to adopt new Land 'Use Designations; ' Public ' for the existing Neal Road Sanitary Landfill (NRSLF) facility and ' Industrial ' for the adjacent 51-acre site, SWIS' No. 04-AA-0002 , Butte County. California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB) staff have reviewed the document cited above . Following is a summary of the proposed project description, the mission and the responsibilities- of the IWMB, and finally, comments on the . MND pertaining to the Board' s use in the approval process . Proposed Proiect Description The subject property is located approximately six (6) miles southwest of the Town of Paradise and seven (7) miles southeast of the City of Chico, 0 . 7 miles east of State Highway 99, on the north side of Neal Road and westerly of the NRSLF. The proposed amendment includes approximately 64 acres currently owned by Butte County and an adjacent property comprising approximately 51 acres which- is currently under private ownership. Additionally, a text amendment to the GP Land Use Element to expand the current uses allowed under the "Solid Waste Management Facility" designation is included. Currently, the total project area (approximately 115 acres combined) is designated as "Grazing and Open Land" and zoned "U" Unclassified. The proposed GP Amendment would .include designating the 64 acres currently owned by Butte County as "Public" and the 5.1-acre privately owned property as "Industrial" as the underlying land use designation. The under lyinplIandgu � S1®n MAR 2 31998 t ®roville,California NRSLF GP Amendmer • March 17 , 1998 Page two of three designation must be specified to designate the future land use for the property pursuant to GP Policy. Both properties would be overlaid with the "Solid Waste Management Facility" designation. The overlay designation preempts the property from concurrently being used for residential purposes . ' The "U" Unclassified zoning district would be retained for both 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 . The proposed amendment to the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element has been initiated by the County of Butte. The following text amendment to the Land Use Element is proposed for adoption , page LAND USE ELEMENT - 61 : 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, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scape yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers and/or 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" . The County of Butte proposes to use the newly acquired 63 acres for landfill related uses including a five (5) 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 for storage of clay and soil from the pond, equipment storage, excavation materials from Module 4 of the landfill, and a 9 . 03-acre landscaped buffer area.. As this project is only a GP Amendment, no physical activity will occur on-site . This MND does not propose an expansion of the landfill ' s ' footprint ' , nor an increase in the landfills capacity ( ' air space ' ) ; no increase in• the landfill ' s daily throughput tonnage is proposed. All future projects will be subject to Permitting requirements for consideration of approval . Role of the IWMB The Board must ensure that local SWFs meet required state standards for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment . The Board implements this goal through programs such as : permit oversight for solid waste facilities , certification and evaluation of Ldcal Enforcement Agencies which administer specific provisions of " NRSLF GP Amendmer6 March 17 , 1998 Page three of three Assembly Bill (AB) 939 , otherwise known as the Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Act; review of environmental documents for proposed, new or expanded solid waste facilities for compliance with CEQA; enforcement of state standards for solid waste facilities; corrective action programs for facilities out of compliance with state standards; and research and development for special waste management issues . California Environmental• Ouality Act Review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance is required for the -establishment, expansion, or change •in operation (s) of a Solid Waste Facility (SWF) requiring the issuance or revision of a SWFP. IWMB staff ' s review of the MND is to help decision-makers 1) identify potential impacts from proposed projects, 2) determine whether any such impacts are significant, and 3 ) ascertain whether significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with the CEQA statute and guidelines . In order for IWMB staff to ascertain that the MND is complete for our use in the permitting process, the proposed project must be described in sufficient detail and the potential environmental impacts must be identified clearly in the environmental assessment and offer "mitigating measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects" . IWMB staff have no further comments on the project as proposed at this time. IWMB staff thanks the Lead Agency for the opportunity to comment on this document . If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (916) 255-4069 . . cc : LEA 40eµof e: W Mate of eaYtforrYta a GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH C�lIFO PMS' 1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 GOVERNOR PAUL F MINER DIRECTOR March 11, 1998 CRAIG SANDERS BUTTE COUNTY 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE j OROVILLE, CA 95965 I� Subject : NEAL ROAD LANDFILL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SCH # : 98022033 Dear CRAIG SANDERS : The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act . Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any , questions regarding the environmental review process . when contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight- digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA r ti.. Chief, ��ace �:ear.�,:�y,.ouse . - Division . .. -. . . • E�:..-� � ��199 ®rovilla,California Notice of Completion Appendix F See NOTE below I Mail to:State Clearinghouse,1400 Tenth Saw ento,CA 95814 916/445-0613 SCH# 98 2 2 3 3 project Title: fAeAt'iZoAD LAtJDPtu +eaAt_R AN{kwt6euDMfwt t bU Cn 4lu ContactPetson: 2416 CANDE25 Lead Ageary: •'' . Street Address: I routJM1 u-nlTPsiL Tia Phone: (SU) 53$--1 fo61 } City. yp; yS9ra5 County: �u"►`tIE; `' Project Location i ' '. County: , 3U T-rp City/Nearest Community: Cµt GD J P/1RA41S1✓ Cross Streets: Iwq M. 4U4 wes•I'- Total Acres: 114 AG Assessor's Parcel No.o4o-foo-0 64 Section: 14 Twp.Z t Range: ?,C- Base:M D Within 2 Miles: State Hwy tF q� Waterways:r421g^^evJ C4rea�S nnlyt Airports: Railways: Schools: Document Type r CEOA: ❑NOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: ❑NOI Other: ❑Joint Document ❑Early Cons ❑EIR(Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document �Neg Dec ❑Other ❑Draft IIS ❑Other Draft EIR ❑FONSI Local Action Type ❑General Plan Update ❑Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation General Plan Amendment ❑Master Plan ❑ Prezone ❑ Redevelopment ❑General Plan Element ❑Planted Unit Development ❑Use Permit ❑Coastal Permit ❑Community Plan ❑Site Plan ❑Lard Division(Subdivision, ❑Other Parcel Map,Tract Map,etc.) Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sqft. Acres Empioyees____fJI ED ❑Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sq ft. Acres Employee s ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sqft. Acres Employee= 6 ❑ Power. Type Warts ❑ Educational STATE ❑Waste Treatment:Type ❑ Recreational GI6RINGVi0kJ ❑Hazardous Waste:Type Other t ' ---------------- A56ogg?F�w� T►hs�Ro317,— Project issues Discussed In Document ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑flood"Plain/Flooding ❑Schools/Universities ®Wates Quality ❑Agricultural Land ❑Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑Septic Systems ❑Water Supply/Groundwater ❑Air Quality Geologic/Seismic ❑Sewer Capacity ❑Wetland/Riparian [� Archeological/Historical ❑ Minerals ®Soil Emsion/Compaction/Grading R Wildlife ]Coastal Zone ❑ Noise tO Solid Waste ❑Growth Inducing ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑Population/Housing Balance ❑Toxic/Hazardous ❑ landuse EconamicQobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Cireulation ❑ ❑ ❑ C]Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑Other ---"-------------- — --------- --------- ' Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use 'PRESOhIT (.AND USe IS P-YIS O& Sot,tD WAgrE FACILA PWS APPQ.ogimAT" SI AG- of VA&.441 LAND -M SE USC-D FOR Fu'ruflE SUPPORT se4vlt(cs t=o IL Solt wbul 81Y-- ——————— __ Project Description Gk:Qe2At- PLA" Ar• PAJI)MaNT TJ Aboryr 46- LA" um Des1r_N )•rlotu5- pF r fir✓ Gas-ttKg laad�,ll �'cc.l,{7 owtl ;Ja,d�s+✓r°Q �a✓ ad�u.c,w.} SI At.srj•c. • t State Clearinghouse Contact: Mr.Chris Belsky Project Sent to the following State Agencies (916)445-0613 X Resources State/Consumer Svcs State Review Began: -�-�� _Boating _General Services _Coastal Comm- Cal/EPA Dept.Review to Agency Coastal Consv _ARB _Colorado Rvr Bd —LC CA Waste Mgmt Bd Agency Rev to SCH - —Conservation —SWRCB: Grants X Fish&Game # _SWRCB: Delta SCH COMPLIANCE - _Delta Protection Forestry SWRCB: Wtr Quality X Parks&Rec/OHP _SWRCB: Wtr Rights Please note SCH Number on all Comments —Reclamation X Reg.WQCB# 9 3 0 2 2 0 3 3 —BCDC —DTSc/CTc _DWR i Please forward late comments directly to the OES Yth/Adit Corrections ;k.•.'. Lead Agency Bus Transp Hous _Corrections _Aeronautics Independent Comm _CHP _Energy Comm AQMD/APCD—(Resources:—/_) X Caltrans# --3 _X NAHC _Trans Planning _PLIC - Housing&Devel _Santa Mn Mtns Health&Welfare X State Lands Comm 7� Drinking H2O _Tahoe Rgl Plan —Medical Waste Other: _t'. L-J Vicinity Map Cd 41 'r, � �; �� � � ; p� d 1 �� '01 Pro C n N, am-Pe OF 4- -7. X k0up pa medson RO -z' 2-- GPA 97-03 APN 640-600-081, 082 Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay Proposed Addition to Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay Butte Cou ty Disposal Site ` ra General Plan Amendment from Grazing& Open Lands °a,�� to Public General Plan Amendment from Grazing& Open Lands , to Industrial M 0 oD BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: Butte County Development Services Dept. Owner: Butte County/Don Swartz a Hearing Date: March 26, 1998 @ 9:00 am Existing Zone: R-I (Residential) 1 Request: General Plan Amendment from Grazing&Open Lands to Public&Industrial and an expansion of the No Scale Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly acquired landfill property. APN: 040-600-081,082 F le• 97-03 Z'Jo (SPACE FOR Ft LlfrG STAMP ONLY) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In the Matter of RQ.t i.r..e...QL Public.-Heaxing,......................... No................................................................. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION..._ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the ........................................................ ............................ Butte County Planning,,.CpT- mission 'that a public,hearing will be held on Thursday,' March 26, ,.In.the-,;Butte. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION County Board1998of Supery"rq" Room, County Administratiow Center, 25 County-,rCehteF Drive, Oroville, California,*re-1 State of California gardin&the following'tem:&' C ss. EM ON WHICH A County of Butte NEGATIVE DECLARATION'.-; WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING. The undersigned resident of the coup ty of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAS BEEN Butte,State of California,says: RECOMME 9:00 a.m. - -Butte Cduhfyl Development :Services partmenti..- :General, la& That'l am,and at all time herein mentioned Amendment from Gra'zin -"a'nd' was a citizen of the United States and not aparty Open Lands to Public iand,,46!4 dustrial and ain. ekpansi6n ' ' �:bf� to nor interested in the above entitled matter; the SoIid waste 0 V e ddy'Ge­h`er`� at Plan designationloh-ii16%. that I am the principal clerk of the printer and required land fill pirope, ridl ' an adjacent 51'acre'pa­J,.1`,'.i"j publisherof eluded in the amendr6brit-Isill proposed change to thejeo;bf; the General Plan making kr&1zi' The Chico Enterprise-Record sions for uses that are relatid to or support the IandfiW;0WX (CS)(GPA 97-03) The above mention [I,-. That said newspaper is one of general circula- cations*and- maps aire`?q and available forlic u n p b tion as defined by Section 6000 Government at the office of the Butte County' 4s" Code of the State of California,Case No.26796 Development ervicis' ment, Planning isloh, -'T by the Superior Court of the State of California, County Centerrive ro Ili California:For inform�ti* in and for the County of Butte;that said newspa- (530) - 533-7601-',1N!604 ithrough Thursday,8:004rfift per at all times herein mentioned was printed 4:00 p.m.) comments'nay�,be q and'published daily in the City of Chico and submitted in wdth1d1,ffi-'1�6y'WjM­e` Prior to the I`f6YrIn`g 0,&OV County of Butte; that the notice of which the the meeting listed aboye.or,as may be continued'W"ING annexed is a true printed copy, was published in date. If you I challengb. .1hi above applicati6ris In couqtj66; said newspaper on the following days: may be limited toialslfig.-Zrilj.' those issues'you'OfV6116-off0l, else raised at the public he6ringl Feb. 1998. described in this notice tor,1.1, . 19, . written correspondence de k ered to the Planning Corffrrffil,-, sion, at or prior to, the p6blic hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING I certify(or declare),under penalty of COMMISSION: THOMAS A.PARILO I perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct,at DIRECTOR DEVELOPMEN't'�`, SERVICES Chico,California. 0194952: Publish:2/19/1998 7 Jeb. 19, 1998. Datc ......................................................................... at Chico,California. ............. . . ....... (Signai;)** ....... ....... Project:GPA 97-03 COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND: i 1. Name of Proponent: County of Butte 2. Address: 7 County Center Drive,Oroville CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7601 3. Name of Proposal, if applicable: General Plan Amendment 97-03 4. Type of Project: General Plan Amendment-Map and Text of the Land Use Element 5. Project Description and Location ofParcel(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 on 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 reap.) The proposed amendment includes 64f acres currently owned by Butte County and an adjacent property (51f 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 f 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 owned property as "Industrial" as the underlying land use designation. The underlying land use designation must be specified to designate 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 both 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. The County of Butte proposes to use the newly acquired 63 acres for landfill related use including a five (5) 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 for 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 Management Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 1 Project:GPA 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 Amendment 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 0 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, tire shredding and storage, composting operations, household hazardous waste facilities, metal scape yards, offices, maintenance and storage facilities for commercial refuse haulers and/or 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". Protect (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 denotingsoils which have severe limitations which is considered unsuitable for cultivation but , appropriate for grazing or forestry 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 7. Date Checklist Submitted: November 12, 1997 II. DETERMINATION: ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: ' t ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 3 w Project:GPA 97-03 o 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 mitigation(s)will be prepared. + 4' I 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 D Public Services ;❑ Population and Housing ® Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems C Geophysical ❑ Energy and Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics 2 Water ❑ Hazards ® Cultural Resources Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 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 following 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). 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 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 Project: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'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. This is a draft form of the County of Butte 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 I. 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 propertyfrom "Grazing 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 andfuture opportunityfor solid waste disposal, recycling and/or 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 vicinityfurther 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 contain 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 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 'endangered species,subsequent development of new solid waste disposal,recycling and/or diversion facilities could ' adversely impact rare or endangered species if not acknowledged and mitigated. Mitigation: See Section 7 of this checklist for 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 a low-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 grazing land. The property is adjacent to the county landfill and therefore, inappropriate for•residential zise. Soils are generally thin and will not support agricultural crop production: (Class VII, "Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited for cultivation. Fairly well-suited for grazing or forestry." Butte County Master Environmental Assessment, BCMEA) There are approximately 772,850 acres designated for grazing land within the unincorporated lands of Butte County. The loss of 119 acres of grazing land represents.0007 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 and population increase. Development of the industrial designated property would serve . ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 6 Project:GPA 97-03 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 housing 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: ground 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 15 miles southeast of the property.A potentially active fault, Chico Monocline fault is located approximately two miles east . of the project site. The likelihood of an earthquake from these currently inactive faults is extremely low. Several lineaments have been mapped through prior investigations of greater 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 performed prior to building permit issuance. Generally, these studies are required for commercial and industrial development as part of the building permit process. Ground'shaking potential ji•om seismic activity in the Butte County is difficult to predict as there is not sufficient geologic and seismic data available. (BCMEA) The degree of ground shaking greatly varies and depends on magnitude of the earthquake and geology. A Modified Mercalli intensity between V1 and V11 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 30 feet from the surface and soils are characterized as poorly consolidated fine to medium sand. The subject site has low potential for liquefaction. No large bodies of water are located on the subject site; therefore, the occupance for seiche(periodic oscillation of a lake, river, bay, etc.from seismic activity) is not possible. Mitigation: None required. d) Landslides or mudslides? X e) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading or fill? X Comments: Landslide or mudslide potential is considered low for areas which are comprised of volcanic hardpan and thin soils. Erosion potential is none to minimal on the fat portions of the subject property. Areas of greater elevation/slope will require engineered grading plans prior to building construction. Slope stability studies were conducted for the landfill in 1987 as part of the Master Plan which indicated stability under both static and seismic loading conditions. (Master Plan Neal Road Sanitary Landfill) ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 7 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Mitigation: None required. 0 Subsidence of the land? X g) Expansive soils? X h) Unique geologic or physical features? 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. 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 Comment: Future 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 Water Quality Control Board issues industrial storm water permits and will require compliance with standard regulations regarding run-off associated with the landfill site. The Initial Study prepared for the new landfill facilities notes that a portion of the project is being established to control the amount of surface runoff. Mitigation: 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 500 year floodplain. 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 Hazard Boundary Maps indicates this portion of Nance Canyon as subject to flooding and a previous drainage study stated that this area of the channel is inadequate to contain the 100 year design flow. (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 managed by local agencies in accordance with state standards. The County of Butte has adopted standards for specific areas of the county which require close monitoring of surface and ground water quality. Eastern Butte County (which includes most of the project site) is not identified with significant drainage problems. (BCMEA) l 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 site does not contain any water bodies. Mitigation: 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 t 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 Pollutant 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 QUALITY. Would 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 PM,' 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 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less r Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact significant because standard construction measures, including controlling fugitive dust at all times will be required as a condition of use permit approval for future development of industrial uses. Mitigation: None required. 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 .Comment. There are no known sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the landfill. No alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature is expected to.occur with future development of the site. The Butte County Division of Environmental Health has jurisdiction as the Local Enforcement Agency which monitors the landfill for odor. Continued maintenance of the landfill including daily cover of compacted refuse and other required odor suppressing techniques is expected to occur. Leachate ponds may contribute to objectional odors when surrounding air temperature increases. However, there are no nearby residential uses and no complaints have been recorded. Mitigation: None required. 6.. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X Comment: Development of new industrial uses related to the landfill operation, may increase traffic volumes. State Highway 99, north of Highway 149 and south of the Skyway interchange is currently operating well below capacity with a Level of Service(LOS)of A. Neal Road is a rural collector road currently with low traffic volumes. Even though, Neal Road provides access from Paradise to State Highway 99, traffic volumes have not 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. Most traffic on Neal Road is generated from solid waste haulers. Records indicate approximately 250 vehicles per weekday enter the landfill. Weekend traffic is approximately 125 vehicles for Saturday and 63 vehicles on Sundays. (Initial Study, Solid Waste Facility Permit Revision) Traffic increase assumptions for Neal 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 traffic generation will not occur.Related landfill activities(i.e. recycling,diversion)would not generate more.trips. Haulers would not be making extra trips for particular waste products as solid waste would be sorted at the landfill for those materials that could be recycled, diverted or disposed in some other manner. Mitigation: 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 Project:GPA 97-03 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 trucks and haulers en route to the landfill are common on Neal Road. Future development J projects would require analysis and approval of the Butte County Public Works Department for new encroachments , onto Neal Road. Mitigation: 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 f).Conflicts with adopted 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 gradual grade as compared to the Skyway. The County of Butte has adopted an implementation program to map an integrated system of rural bicycle routes which focus on serving as recreational routes around urban areas (Circulation Element). Mapping should include Neal Road with either a Class I(separated)or Class H(striped and signed)bicycle route. Including 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 with the project. Public transportation is not available on Neal Road. Mitigation: None is 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 Comment: According to a previous biological studies, it is possible 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 ❑ Planning Division ❑ 11 Project:GPA 97-03 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 I B. 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 throughout 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 plant was believed to have been extirpated, however, it was discovered on the south side of Neal Road in 1992 by a local botanist. It appears that there have been only two such plants found in California, the one find on the south side of Neal Road, south of the project site at an elevation of 280'-300, and a second find in Tuolumne County. A priorfield survey was conducted for an earlier project near or on the subject property. The veiny monardella was not observed during the survey;however, it appears that the survey was f awed for several reasons including.- it ncluding:it was not conducted during the time which the plant could be easily identified(May 2-15; the transect areas of the study were too broad;, the study did not follow the established report guidelines; and the plant description was inaccurate which could have resulted in the surveyor looking for 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 survey be completed for the prior project associated with a portion of the project site. Mitigation 1: Prior to any construction.with in 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. Mitigation: 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 of its historic extent and the large number of wildlife, bird and plant species which depend on this species. Blrte 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 insufficient to replace current stands or f tture losses. 'Removal of blue oaks will contribute to the significant, cumulative, statewide loss of this species. (Jones and Stokes) Mitigation It: 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. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services .❑ Planning Division ❑ 12 r Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X Comment: According to a previous study (Jones and Stokes), grasslands and ephemeral drainages have the highest potential as sites for the creation of volcanic mudf ow vernal pools. The higher elevation area of the project site appears to have the potential for wetlands/vernal pools. A wetland field study was conducted earlier this year ('January, 1997)on the subject property. Wetlands were observed on the portion of the project site for development of Module 4. 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. i Mitigation: None required. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. World 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 r 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 compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Solid rvasle recycling and/or diversion facilities generally are associated with conservation of resources and are not large energy rasing operations. Vertical grinding mills which reduce solid waste mass, use small amounts of electric polaer, a renewable resource. Mitigation: None required 9. HAZARDS. 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) X 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 13 Project.GPA 97-03 Significant Less . • Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X c) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X Comment: Landfill operations and other solid waste recyclingidiversion facilities and the storage of hazardous waste products could present potential hazards to public health. However, state and federal regulations including 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 significant. Mitigation: 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 flammable brush,grass,or trees? X Comment: The project will not increase fire hazard as the expansion of the landfill operation will include some clearance of brush and grass to create ponds,for stormrvater rimoff'and leachate. Construction of new indztstrial buildings for solid waste managementfacilities will be required to comply with'all fire s•afetyregulations of the Butte County Building and Fire Departments.. Mitigation: None required. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X _ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Comment: Implementation of the project would result in short-term increased noise levels during construction. This short-term impact is considered less than significant because no sensitive receptors exist within the general vicinity. Development of industrial use could cause raise the ambient noise level of the area;however given the noise levels f•om 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. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered eovernment services in an off the E, Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ • 14 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact following areas: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X Comments: Expansion of the landfill operation and construction and operation ofrelated 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. Mitigation: None required. d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X Comments: New 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 necessary"for the development of the industrial portion of the project as a condition of permit approval. The landfill expansion is a County project and to that extent, the maintenance and service to the lan(�ill has been planned for - and budgeted. Mitigation: None required. 12. 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, hazardous 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 facilities ivill be required fur • the project other than possible an on-site water supply(well)which would be reviewed and permitted through the Butte County Environmental Health Department. Mitigation: None required. d) Sewer or septic tanks? X 0 Butte County Department of Development Services u Planning Division 15 Project:GPA 97-03 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, hazardous materials storage etc. may require sanitary waste facilities(septic tank and leach fields). Such facilities would 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 includes a pond to hold storm water runoff and sediment from Module 4. The runoff will evaporate with any residual soil used as cover for the landfill in accordance with state and federal regulations. Mitigation: 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 of additional solid waste disposal,recycling or reduction facilities will not generate new or increased solid waste disposal,but will aid Butte County in attaining compliance with the Integrated Waste Management Act to reduce solid waste fifty percent by the year 2000. Mitigation: None required. g)Special Districts? X Comment.- The proposed project will not have an impact on Special Districts. ` Mitigation: 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 Neal Road are a valuable community asset. The stands of native Blue oaks provides a visual resource as well and should be protected. (See Mitigation II 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. (Initial Study, Module 4 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 notive.landscaping. Mitigation: None required ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 3 16 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No s Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Create light or glare? Comment: Development of the industrial site may introduce new lighting to an area currently without artificial lighting. The use permit process for development of industrial uses should address exterior illumination to insure that lighting is shielded and directed downward and does not spill off-site. 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 Comment: The City of Chico's Master Environmental Assessment(MEA)planning area includes the north side of Neal 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 Magalia. 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. Mitigation III: Prior to any physical activity/ground disturbance within the 51 acres of designated for industrial use a cultural resource survey will be conducted by a qualified archaeological professional. Mitigations 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 ❑ Planning Division ❑ 17 Project:GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact 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. 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? 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 zoning could adversely impact or eliminate this rare species if present. Mitigation 1 has been recommended to perform a complete botanical survey of the project area. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals,to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? X Comment: The project helps fztlfill Butte County's commitment to reduce solid waste 50%by the year 2000 in compliance with the lntegrated 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 local, 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 0 Planning Division ❑ 18 Project.GPA 97-03 Significant Less Potentially Unless Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact s 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 on human 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. 1 - ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 19 Y Project:GPA 97-03 V. MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation 1: 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 preparation and construction, the Department of Development Services shall select a qualified botanist from the County's list of approved consultants. In consultation with the qualified 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 Department of Fish and Game's "Guidelinesfor Assessing the Effect of Proposed Developments on Rare and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities." If 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 shall 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 perforin the monitoring) the species continued existence. Mitigation 11: 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. Monitoring 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 shall indicate all trees on the site 6"in diameter at breast height. All 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 su4mitted for department review. New landscaping should include native plants which complement the existing landscape. During the construction phase, all native trees shall 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 Building Department will be responsible to verify the preservation of trees during the construction period. On-going monitoring of trees shall be the responsibility of the Department of Development Services(or for retaining a qualified person to perform,, monitoring)to ensure the trees continued existence. Mitigation III: Prior to any physical activity/ground 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 0 Planning Division 0 20 Project:GPA 97-03 Mitigations as recommended by the resulting report shall be incorporated into the approval of any development project. Monitoring Program: The Department of Development Services shall 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 to 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 significant. Information regarding the location of archaeologic or prehistoric resources shall be labeled "confidential". If resources are found on the project site with a "no disturbance"recommendation, the Building Department shall ensure that site construction does not excavate or.'disturb the resources. If construction work unearths a possible prehistoric or historic resource, all construction shall halt and the Department of Development Services shall be contacted to evaluate the find and necessary action. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 21 Project:GPA 97-03 DATA SHEET A. Project Description 1. Type of Project: General'Plan Amendment. 2. Proposed Density of Development: Not a residential project. 3. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Unknown at this time. 4. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): Neal Road and State Highway 99. 5. Method of Sewage Disposal: Individual septic systems. 6. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells. 7. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 8. Potential for further land divisions and development: The landfill portion of the project has no potential for further land division. Development 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 Soil Potential: Low 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Ephemeral drainages into Nance Canyon and eventually Hamlin Slough b. Ground Water: Ground Water level below the landfill is 150-160 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 S. 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. IL Butte County General Plan designation: Grazing and Open Space. 12. Existing Zoning: "U"Unclassified. t 13. Existing Land Use on-site: County landfill operation and grazing and open space. 14. Surrounding Area: Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division ❑ 22 • ti t Project:GPA 97-03 a. Land Uses: Grazing and Open Space. b. Zoning: "U" Unclassified. c. Gen. Plan Designation: Grazing and Open Space. L d. Parcel Sizes: Large 15. Character of Site and Area: Valley grasslands, rolling terrain to plateaus(Buttes) _ 16. Nearest Urban Area:Town of Paradise. 17. 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: N/A 19. Fire Protection Service: a. Nearest County(State)Fire Station: Station number 45 approximately 4 miles away. b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only onsite wells. 20. Schools: Durham Unified School District, Butte Community College District. r ' l ❑ Butte County Department of'Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 23 Project:GPA 97-03 _ ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Master Environmental Assessment. Oroville,CA: J. Lawrence Mintier& Associates, et al.May 1996. 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 I e m e n t (1971), Seismic Safety Element(1977),Noise Element(1977). 3. Butte County Planning.Department. Butte Coun, 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. 5. 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 Neal Road Landfill. Oroville, CA. June 1997. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Studies prepared for the Blakeley Swartz Ranch project: a. 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 Swartz Ranch. Jones&Stokes Associates. June 1988 d. Preliminary Geologic Report for Blakeley Swartz Ranch. Anderson Geotechnical Consultants. October 1987 e. Drainage Study of the Proposed Blakeley Swartz 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. 10. USGS Quad Maps. K:\PROJECTS\GPA\NEA LRD\N EALRD.IS C1 Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division 0 24 Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay r, Proposed Addition to Existing Solid Waste Facility Overlay y r Butte Cou ty Disposal Site �a General Plan Amendment from Grazing& Open Lands c�ay to Public General Plan Amendment from Grazing& Open Lands to Industrial M se R 1 tin c❑ Solid Waste Facility Overlay over Grazing&Open Lands General Plan MAP AMENDING ExMbit! BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN File: 97-B-3 Resolution Date Butte County Planning Commission Butte County Board of Supervisors N BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 26, 1998, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center,25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following items: ITEM ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Development Services Department - General Plan Amendment from Grazing and Open Lands to Public and Industrial and an expansion of the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation for newly required landfill property and an adjacent 51 acre parcel. Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use. (CS) (GPA 97-03) The above mentioned applications and maps are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. For information call: (530) 538-7601 (Monday through Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Comments may be submitted in writing at any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as may be continued to a later date. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THOMAS A. PARILO, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in*the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, February 19, 1998. Notice of Completion Apper '-x F See NOTE below Mail to:State Clearinghouse, 1400Tenth Street,Sacramento,CA 95814 916/44 M13 SCH# Project Title: fl AL ROAD LAwor-, K_PLAN Arm*::umAEw1'f' Lead Agency: bu l- r' rpt)T4:u Contact Person: CZA 16, S A N DE;Q S Street Address: -1 COU Mi CkgN L T)2 Phone: (530) S!1%- -7(o61 City: n2eytLLp- Gil Zip. ys9(oS County. S0-r`re--, ----------------------------------------- Project Location County: S U T-1T City/Nearest Community: 01410 MA"DISe Cross Streets: 4w ' C1q I S nn, +6 44..1 WeS-I- Total Acres: 11¢ Ar— Assessor's Parcel No. 040-t000-0 64 Section t Twp.Z I Range: 2-1;— Base: MDR M Within 2 Miles: State Hwy#: q Waterways:1�09,%e S-I vea w►S nn I4 Airports: Railways: Schools: ----------------------------------------- Document Type CEQA: ❑NOP ❑Supplement/Subsequent NEPA: ❑NOI Other: ❑Joint Document ❑Early Cons ❑EIR(Prior SCH No.) ❑EA ❑Final Document %Neg Dec ❑Other ❑Draft IIS ❑Other ❑Draft EIR ❑FONSI ----------------------------------------- Local Action Type ❑ General Plan Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Rezone ❑ Annexation General Plan Amendment ❑ Master Plan ❑ Prezone. ❑ Redevelopment ❑General Plan Element ❑Planned Unit Development ❑ Use Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Community Plan ❑ Site Plan ❑Land Division (Subdivision, ❑ Other .Parcel Map,Tract Map,etc.) ----------------------------------------- Development Type ❑ Residential: Units Acres ❑ Water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: Sgtt. Acres Employees ❑ Transportation: Type ❑ Commercial:Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Mining: Mineral ❑ Industrial: Sqft. Acres Employees ❑ Power. Type Watts ❑ Educational ❑ Waste Treatment: Type ❑ Recreational ❑ Hazardous Waste:Type ❑ OtherbVtgs:ta.l dwelopmp-vt tv ckl4 --------------.---------A�SSouA-tF_o w�'W -tthL�R�Jtt------ Project Issues Discussed In Document ❑ Aesthetic/Visual ❑ FloodThin/Flooding ❑ Schools/Universities ® Water Quality ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Forest Land/Fire Hazard ❑ Septic Systems ❑ Water Supply/Groundwater ❑ Air Quality Geologic/Seismic ❑ Sewer Capacity ❑ Wetland/Riparian 55 Archeological/Historical ❑ Minerals 3 Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Wildlife - C] Coastal Zone ❑ Noise t@ Solid Waste ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Drainage/Absorption ❑ Population/Housing Balance ❑ Toxic/Hazardous ❑ Landuse ❑ Economic/Jobs ❑ Public Services/Facilities ❑ Traffic/Circulation ❑ Cumulative Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Recreation/Parks ❑ Vegetation ❑ Other ----------------------------------------- Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Use ' lZf-e- NT LAND USI: aS P-X1S'ricJ6 SOIAD WAS-rt- PAuuTy T'Lus APP¢09ltKAT" 51 AG- or- Vont T LAWD -iU SP- USW RfL FUTURE 50PPoR-r S64V"CS FO ftCLQ w� 41T�. ——— --- --------------------------- Project Description GQ34e2At, 'al.A" rArnLNDMENT 70 ADor'? N4Ew U4NC use- Dt�Sttdt *-ttoN5 - -FU✓ G(,S-11K� lo�h�.t�ll �'t:G.l,� ted j-.ndus+Y-4 TGD✓ 0.��a.ct�►� 51 A-(- S,k . NOTE:Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects.If a SCH number already exists for a project(e.g.from a Notice of Preparati, or previous draft document)please fill it in Revised October 19, The Northeast Center of the California Department of Anthropology Historical Resources Information S stem BUTTE SIERRA y GLENN SISKIYOU California State University,Chico LASSEN SUTTER Chico,CA 95929-0400 M000C TEHAMA ` PLUMAS TRINITY SHASTA (916)898-6256 December 19, 1997 Planning Focus P.O. Box 1553 Paradise, CA 95967 ATTN: Ms. Pam Figge RE: Neal Road Landfill Project/AP # 040-600-064; I. C. File#D97-78 T21N, R2E; Sections 14, 15, 22, 23; US GS Hamlin Canyon 7.5"and Oroville 15' quads 114 acres (Butte County) Dear Ms. Figge, In response to your request, a record search for the above cited project was conducted by examining the official maps and records for archaeological sites in Butte County. liti<•. ...'iCLt.:' ViaV�.'l it �ii(!`.1 e• a F > '.w J. • •. '�� E; -ti3,:'�.. .%SC= t:._tea' _•B_"il.:��' '�• J, zi! alv:: RESULTS:": T • = Sv.j,'. v J�';.•:Jv�a i� .F•S t.���f s.i�"J`�.•� i� • ,i .s c.~' ...,.,:'�' r e:r%r r• �r L?'i:'.��i:-�rtrG:, .i��: r�!'.CIT �.-c:i.l.i]:�a.i•c� �.T�.C`i, I�.r •"'t ��.i„.t.' !: .. ._'.�:�` 7. tet. ,:, ri• :! /i• . f. ;o� '33 PREHISTORIC••RESOURCES:•,.,According to,,our1records,-:there:are.no,recorded .sites,of.this type!,-known ito` be-.-located•-...Within pyoject�tboundaries:,�However;•one=recorded •site.,and five unrecorded`sites' of this type'.are 'known to- be located•within a one mile .radius• of project. boundaries. These include rockshelter/cave sites, as well as numerous bedrock milling stations. The unrecorded sites were noted during a cultural resource survey conducted in 1990 (discussed below). The project is located.in.an•area known to have been heavily utilized by prehistoric and ethnographic populations. t HISTORIC RESOURCES: According to our records, there are no recorded sites of this type known to be located within project boundaries. However, one unrecorded site of this type appears to be located within or immediately adjacent to project boundaries. According to the information available, this site includes the stone foundations of an extensive.historic sheep camp site. Two different locations-have been provided for this:site:-One location places this site within project boundaries;:and the!other,location places:this!sitef immediately.adjacent tto_project,,boundaries: Tl%ere isa also information which:'suggests the potential4or;numerous,rock,fences;to•be,located within project boundaries.THowever, no locational information was provided regarding these resources, and these resources have not been formally recorded. Therefore, unrecorded rock fence�feafur`es may be located within project boundaries. These resources were. all noted during the cultural `t resource survey discussed below. Additionally, the USGS Oroville 15' quad map Planning Division JAN 0 71998 Oroville,California � - _.-. , .. ....!5♦ ..w.-r _-• _, �_ 'S�v .•v�'}fM1`„t:y'}.�.1'n r��f�:-w~,• - ..- .. .. __ ...� ... .. ...___ ...... .. (1942) indicates the presence of a structure within project boundaries. This is an unrecorded historic site, and additional unfecorded resources associated with the use of this site are also likely to be located within project boundaries. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS: According to our records, a portion of the project area may have been included in a cultural resource survey conducted by Mr. John Furry in 1990 for the Blakeley Swartz Property. A copy of Mr. Furry's report is on file at our office, however, we are unable to enter this report into our data base. A lack of archaeological survey coverage maps for this report and pioblems with conflicting site locations and site record formssubmitted with this report prevent this report from being entered into our data base. However, a copy of this report, including information on the unrecorded sites discussed above, is available to the project archaeologist upon request. LITERATURE SEARCH: Reviewed were the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Butte County. Also reviewed were the National Register of Historic Places - Listed Properties and determined Eligible Properties (1988, Computer Listings 1966 through 7-96 by National Park Service), the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), California Points of Historical Interest (1992), California Historical Landmarks (1996), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California (1978), the California Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility.for Butte County (1997), and the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Butte County(1997). RECOMMENDATIONS: Based upon the above information and the local topography, the project'is located in an area considered to be highly sensitive for prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic cultural resources. Unrecorded historic sites are known to be located within project boundaries, and it is highly likely that unrecorded prehistoric and/or ethnographic sites are also located within project boundaries. In view of these findings, we recommend that a professional archaeologist be contacted in order to conduct a cultural resource survey of the entire project area prior to any further planning or ground disturbing activity. This person will be able to identify, record, and assess any cultural resources encountered as a result of this survey. Copies of the report discussed above are available to the project archaeologist upon request. The project archaeologist should contact the appropriate local Native American representatives in order to determine if there are any unrecorded ethnographic sites located within project boundaries for which we have no records. The project archaeologist may also wish to consult historic Government Land Office (GLO) maps for information on unrecorded historic sites which may be located within project boundaries for which we have no records. Additionally, if any potential prehistoric, ethnographic, and/or historic materials are encountered during any phase of project operations, all work should cease in the area of the find pending an examination of the site and materials by the project archaeologist. The charge for this record search is $90.00 (1 hour of Information Center time @ $90.00 per hour). An invoice for billing purposes will follow. Thank you for your concern in preserving California's,cultural heritage,and please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, t Makoto Kowta, Coordinator Northeast Information Center r z - tL: /1 i \\ ea\�0 Butte Cou ty..Disposal Site , .. _ m� \ R o Existing Solid Wast Facility Overlay Proposed ddition to Existing So id Waste Facility Overlay M sa rn c❑ A�0�iJ8,CA • 7 D � W ti t rham-Dayton Hwy Solid Waste,Facility Overlay over Grazing.&•Open Lands General Plan MAP AMENDING' . Exhibit: ' BUTTE ICG iUNI TY•GENERAL PLAN Fite: 97-03 Rrsolution,., Date Butte County Planning Commission Butte County Board of Supervisors N t ' •4b / \ „ i r I::.l llt(oNI,lI:NTAI, CIllf(:1:LP. I' FOR I l o F,c .n01j,1 lit i T-T,y-I.ciu( 1�!v i,iy) Log 1185-06-26-01 I . IiACI,(;R0IINll AP lull-12-12, 10 (ptn); -- - - S6-20-1, lei I . Namt• of pro,.oncrlt Butte County Board of Supervlworm BS-fist -. Addrvss of proplocnl ;In,l I'cprc:,cu(al lit- ( i f :,I,I,I i, ill,l, t 25 County Center Drive Orovili.e, Ca. 95965 ;• I'I',+i•.it ,I, :;.'I il•I i.... Addendum 115, Butte County S011.1 Wrlst.v Management Plan I . MANI.A1UR1 I I:<hl\Gr. .W SII;N11:1CANIA, lI:', MAN BF N(1 a, noes the proit,'t hate the potent ial to dt-gradt• the . .loality of lilt- i•nVirunment , slll'IstantialIv rcduic the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, %au:,t a fish or w•i1,11ife popoIatiOil to drop lie I..w sell' .ostai11ijig Itrcls, Ihrcntell to cl iIll inatc a 111:1111 of Aoi111;tI iuuunoniIV, I'e,Illie thi• nonlhcr nr rest'r'ict the ratt;!c .,f a r:lrc 0I cn,lang-creel I,la111 or animal or •Iiill inalt Imill,rtant c.\atnpIv •,f the Ina,i•.r periods of (:a; ifornia histnry ul prchi:;iorc:' _ IIw prnlc,"( It:.\'. Ills• I,nl cnl i:II I , ;lihlt'Cc shut tcrw hclwl ii•: to tilt• del : inu:nt ..; long-term, clivirunulental I!t;;ll:::' IA shoii term irillait nn lilt- '.it%.i ro it 11K.11 t ilteneironmeltt is one which occol, in ;, rel ativel y hricl peri• lt of tilnc whili• lolly-tel-11, in,l,acts will endure into thr I'll tol't.. I _. !lues, the pr'.i•.•it h:.ec impart, Which :!rt- Ilid iVidu- Ally limited, hot tumolati\•cl,• ioo:;idtl'ahlc7 IA bruit-Cl 11ltr\• impact an two tut. more scparatc IT Still I'C..I where the impact on tach rrsunric is rclatiVclt• Snt:tll , I..II whtt'o Iht• effect of lilt- to1a1 of 'i host imp:trIS on the covir.inmcnl i:. ,it•niI'i,'ant . l - , IIt,- pl'..Icil ll:l\,• l'll\.l rl.I111wilt:lt el 1•ccli; Which t;lost. sol,SIall I ial cIdk-c c tc. !. .,n human LIP bein,'s , cilhcr .lirccil\ of inllrc, tl,'' L./ III , i•l.i! IC.'!I .\'I II,:. I to he , t.mplelcd I.. III•: Lcad belie :u tl'.c ha::is ..I Illi, init i:Il .•\al x !/H I. 1i11A tIt, pI'.1l",;cd 1,1, p•, I 01111I' NI IT Ila Vc a •,i;;niIi:alit cIfect on the enc irnnmt-lo , :old a Nli: '1'IVI 11HA.ARATI(1N wiIl he prepared. I!Wl: find th:lI allholigh tilt• proposed 1,1-ojeil could have a Sil;illfl i:utt Cl*1VCI. on tilns t• VoVilon ,cnI Ilit-rc will not by a ignificant cffcCI in thiS Cast 1WC:1llSc Ilit- 'IITI(;A'I'1(1N IlWA5111(ES described on the al.tached sheet hnVe hetn .hIJc,I 10 the project . A NEGATIVE 11ITLARA11(1N wi I I ht• prcp;trc.l, 1/1%1: find lilt, prupost-t! proiccl MAi h;n'c ;( sil;nific:ml cffcCt un t.hc c,l\'ironlncn( , :Ind an hKOR(INMENTAI. IMPACT REPORT is required. I)XI'1.: June 26, 1985 .. (llutil"i lu: WITTE, PLANNING I11iPART1,11`NI' Laura M. Tt er Associ a anner t i�• * ke, i or.c,1 I., , IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAS / (Explanations of a *"yes" and "maybe" answers ars: required .' on attached sheet(s)) YES MAYBE NO 1'. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a.Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ` c. Change in topography or ground surface --"— relief features" — d. Destruction, covering or modification of any —" unique geologic or physical features? _ e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? C. f. hanges in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? 4 g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas'? h. Exposure of people or property to'geologic _ hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- Slides, .ground failure or similar 'hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial.: a: Air emissions or deterioration of ambient n I air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke -- z or fumes? i c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or I temperature, or any change in' climate, locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of. surface runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removal , channel- ization or culvert installation? _ f d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any f . alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved olLygen or turbidity? (1 g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h. Change in the quantity.of ground waters, either through direct additions or With- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise r available for public water supplies? j . Exposure of people or property to water — related hazards such as, flooding? • ..0 Gd.4C:auN,w, .•�•h sw w.dNp1�'i/3 ,..„u.w.Si`.le ,.fir •x':_ �._.:,ad�4s!,i,''y+N„_�'_, iy.. ' YES SLA1.111: NO 4 . PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. ange in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, :'.hrubs, grass , crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers' of an), uni.;ue, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into an _ V area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existinZ species? d. Rb-iuction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ S. ANIMAL , IFE. Will the proposal result in a. Ch3n,te in the diversity of species, or numbers of an:, species of animals (birds, land animals includi.ig reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthi, organisms or insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or encangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into —an area, or result in a barrier to the migration v or movement of. animals?. 11 d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife _ = y habitat? A 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a•—Tncreases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce - v signs icant fight and glare? ,L 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a so stantial alteration of the present or planned _ A land use of an area? It 9. 0TURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in s substantial. a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? -_ 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the rproposal involve: a. A risk explosion or the release of haiard- ous substances ( including, but not limited to, s oil, pesticide , chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? _ 11. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter the location, istri ut on, density, or growth rate of the human population? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing,—or create a demand for, additional housing? S .'-'qq!9!p,�^••'nT'e"•'^” q)�Avt�•�V!o�xA!!mm..•wB1+MMu1r��I�i�anoMn..•....•.........._....._....._...,.>................. ..,.,,. ® YES -MAYBE NO 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or — demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact on existing transportation — systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns- — —' of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations' to waterborne, rail or air traffic? — f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, _ bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in' a need for new or altered governmental services: a. Fire protection? ►� b. Police protection" _ c. Schools? —' d. Parks or other recreational facilities?. _ — e. TIaintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ f. Other governmental services? _ 15. ENERGY. llill the proposal result in: T. seof substantial amounts of fuel .or energy? �( b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing — sources of energy, or require the development of new sources. of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural -gas? — — + b. Communications systems? ` c. Water availability: — — d. Sewer or septic tank? — — e. Storm water drainage? — — Al f: Solid waste and disposal? — At i — 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will tine proposal result in: aCreatiion of any hnsl.th hazard or potential 1 health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health - hazards? 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the ! o stTi truction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of anaesthetically offensive site open ' to public view? — — i Illy i i �" ;vm.-qty '3='iia?S._ 0pportun22ieEl CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or tai§ror i:� rarchuebtdg ioa' site?- b.. ite?b. will the proposal resu.t in adverse phys',�:i1 or_aesthetSC:ltf£eets_to�a prehistaric. ur. `—� _' _�, ... �M113�rc-prvNu:int=3-rs",..ss's=r����iS:�•r-�•.-t.,,� r, - .� or-.sacred uses within-the -potential -impact area? _ V. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION See Attached. r I ,I t • r C f t)I.SCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL_EVALUATI.ON AP 40-12-12, 14 (ptn) - 36-2t"+-3, 15 Butte County prepared its first Solid Waste Management- flan in 19/5- A notice of operation' for the Neal Real disposal site was received by the State Solid Waste Management Board 8/9/77. Since the notice was received prior to 8/15/77, the facility was "grandfathered" in. Environmental review need only address changes in classification, operation, or size which have occurred since 8/15/77, these are, in chronological order: 1 . Addendum #4 - Oroville wood waste site 1978 2. G.xpansion of le.ndfill site by 23 acres, 1984 3. Landfill reclassification from,II-2 to II-1 ,• 1981 4. Expansion of the landfill from 3.9 million to 5.b million tons, 1981 5. Addendum #5 - revision to 1975 SWMP to comply with st�l,re requirements, 1985. Items 1 , 7,. and 4 are subject to CEQA. The 1980 expansion was in order to construct new leachate ponds and monitoring wells as required by the State of California. According to Government Code mandated activities (where the County does not exercise discretionary powers) are not subject to CEOA. Addendum #5: The Ca. Waste Management Hoard requested that 5 items be updated and discussed in P,.xtte's Solid Waste Management Plan: Disposal and processing, resource recovery, economic feasibility, enforcement program, implementation of the solid waste plan. Most of the information is not new, but has now been incorporated into the SWMP for administrative ease. The economic feasibility section is new, based nn current costs. These revisions are administrative only, and do riot effect a change in operations. Therefore—there will be no environmental impact and will not be discussed further. A brief discussion of the items on which the initial study will focus, follows. 1 . Groville wood waste site: Fillincl 3 small gullies with yard bark- -At ark at a rate of 75 tons daily for approximately 30 years. 2. Lar,--!fill reclassification: In 1981 the Neal Road landfill was ly reclassified in order to accept olive processing brines and rinsed pesticide containers. Now these wastes are disposed of under the 1` supervision of the landfill operator and County and State health officials. 3. Expansion of the.landfilit 3 abandoned septage ponds within the original 77 acres have been converted to fill area. Use of the pond area and technological improvements in compaction have expanded the landfill from 3.9 to 5.6 million tons. Life of the landfill was extended 5 years, from 1988 to 1993. (for more information see: Neal Road expansion. Jon Anderson 1981) -6- Aq This corresponds to development at depths from 75 to 205 feet holow the base of the fill. The static water level in the well at tho time of completion was 225 feet, corresponding to a depth of about. 1".) feat below the base of the fill. Surface-water feature ls in the. general area are limited to itpliena;ral and intermittent' streams that typically generate relatively-Mill flood events with regard to peak runoff rates and flood volumr•rs. This phenomenon is due to the relatively impervious surface% and steep slopes of the terrain, sparse riparian vegetation, lack cit attenuating lakes or ponds, and the prevailing rainfall regime. Both surface and groundwaters of the area, are typically of excellent quality for most beneficial uses. Surface waters are i.tsed for cattle watering in the immediate area, and for crop irrigation in the butte ` Creek. area to the west. The Tuscan formation comprise% a major aquifer for the agricultural areas to the west and the City of Chico 4 to the northwest. 1 The existing sanitary landfill has probably been the most dominant land-use factor in this area. There is a large poultry farm located about 1 /4 mile to the south off Neal Road. State Highway 99E is located about a mile to the west and a residence is located across a ridge about 1/4 mile to the northwest of the landfill. Lands within i 1000 ft. of the site are used for non-irrigated pastures. Orov_ill_e•_Wood_Weste.Site: 115 acres on Ophir Road, located about 2 1/2 miles south of Oroville. The site is gently rolling land covered t with grass, scrub oak, and brush. Three gullies an the western half 1 of the properties will be filled in succession. Test holes indicate r . i about 2' of topsoil underlain by 2-4' of clay and coarse rock beneath which is clay sandstone. Environmental health considers the �. formation impervious to water. Y l Average annual rainfall is 22". The water shed of gully 1 and 2 is 43 acres. Drainage from the site flows to the Feather River 2 miles west (B.C. SWMP Addendum q4) . Lands within 1000' of the site are used for industrial public (cemetery) , transportation (Highway 70, Union 1 Pacific Railroad) , and a very limited amount of old housing. l Method of Operation: t Neal ,Road: Operations have changed substantially since Neal Road ' 1 first opened as an exposed pit where wastes were burned. (1965) Butte County is currently using a modified landfill for disposing of ' solid wastes. The Neal Road site is within a canyon, the wastes are placed in cells of approximately 13 ft. in height, 65 ft. in width, , and 230 ft. in length along the working face. Wastes are then compacted with D-7 crawler dozers and overlain with approximately 1 ft. of cover material. Cover materials are sands and gravels imported i from Dry Creel; and volcanic sands and ash obtained on site. Cells htd ` been covered upon completion, about every 2-3 days. Since 1981 , cells are covered daily. Waste depth is greater than 60 ft. The canyon is slowly being filled f SITE DESCRIPTION Neal Road: The Neal Road sanitary landfill is located un the northwestern side of Neal .Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 14 T2111 R2E MOBandl-1. The 100 acre slite is approximately 7 miles south of Chico. It occupies a ravine that was incised from the lower eitt.remities of a volcanic plateau that is developing into mesa tablelandr.t. The original topography of the site varied from a low elevation of about 230 feet to a high elevation of about 3,80 feet, for a total relief of about 150 feet. Natural surface slopes.vary from typic.-.illy gentle alonct t..he crest of the ridge and the lower portions ni the ravine, to steep and near vertical along the erosion faces and colluvial slopes. The QL-ology of the site is comprised of a series of vejlr_anic and inter•volcanic sedimentary materials identified as the, )ascan formation of Pliocene aqe. This formation is a relatively und"formed structural member (homocline) that gently dips 1 - 2 westerly. It is typically eompot"d of o pyror.lantir: broeeia-mud flow and a asandstone-conglomerate tuff, with locally intercalated layers of siltstone and gravelly deposits. These parent materials have been altered by erosion and mass-wastina to form some alluvium and collcIvium at lower elevations. Aar 1c.41 Ithotogr aphis depict a norther 1 y striking' lineation a 1 ong the ea=tern portion of the site, which probably represents traces of a surtace fault. There are also a parallel series of northeasterly si:ril:.ing lineations of unknown origin in the area to the north of the landfill., which probably constitute a system of flexure fractures. Soil development is typically very weak, or completely absent on the unalterrA ridge materials. It is much more pronounced in the lower elevattrnl alluvialand colluvial materials where several fetet of a storry loam has developed. The climate of this lower-foothill area is typically mild-Mediterranean, with warm summers and mild winters. Evaporation, estimated from Weather bureau Class-A pans, averages about 675 inches per year. Precipitation occurs almost entirely as rainfall during the November-April rainyseason and averages about 26 to 27 inches per . year: Point storm intensities, for a 10 year recur•rance interval , are on the: order nf•. l .v inch per hour for a 60-minutQ dtirr.t.con end 2.6 inches per hour for a 10-minute duration. Intensities for a 100-year recurrence interval are approximately 1 .4 inches per hour for a 60-minute duration and 3.8 inches per hour for a 10--minute duration. Native veqetation in this dry-foothill area is typical of a Mediterranean .fire-disclimax community, generally supporting sparse chaparral , occasional trees and discontinuous grasslands. It is also. conditioned by the Valley plant community, a dry-grassland habitat, particularly at lower elevations. The general absence of springs and groundwater seeps is attributable to erosional development that has isolated the lower portions of the plateau (ie: via development of tableland mesas) from sionificant recharge areas. A fire-protection well was drilled at the site in 1965 and was developed at a depth interval of 230 to 360 feet. -7- li , and contoured to approximate a natural land form. All municipal and residential solid wastes in the County are disposed of at the Neal Road landfill. The site receives approximately 120,(.100 tons of solid waste yearly. The Neal Road facility also accepts septic tank residue s, olive-processing brines, and rinsed pesticide containers. Septic tank residues are placed in one of 4 ponds at the rite of 4.3 million gallons yearly. A fifth active pond, lyinq at the toe of the f refuse fill , is used for leachate collection and evaporation. Since 1981 , up to 200,000 gallons per year of olive processing brines have been disposed of at the landfill. The brines are either sprayed over the surface or incorporated in the active fill area, depending on weather r-onditions. Empty pesticide containers have been disposed of at the landfill under the supervision of a County Agricultural Inspector. Disposal is limited to specific days. The Ag. Inspector must certify that. all containers have been adequately cleaned out. . (for more information see the Butte Cot.tnty S41MP as amended) Oroville Wood waste site: The landfills will be located in 3 small gullies an the 115 acre site. Each qully will ba filled in succession before moving to the next area. The fill material is laid down in five foot layers with an interveninq six inch sail layer to conform to the Department'af Forestry regulations. Cover material is excavated from the walls of the gully which increases its capacity. Filling operations commence at the head of each gully and progress downward toward the mouth. Fill material is placed an the active face of the landfill and then when a sufficient quantity has been deposited, worked into the required layers wtih a bulldozer. The material is covered every few days, and during the winter, the area of exposed fill is kept to a minimum to prevent leachate formation. The amount of material to be placed in this landfill can vary widely, however, it was estimated to average 100 cubic yards per day. Normally the shavings produced at the Orovi) le sawmill ar•e used in the adjacent hardboard plant. if mechanical problems occur causing a shutdown of the hardboard plant, it will be necessary to place shavings in the laridfill on a short-term emergency basis. This could amount to 500 yards per day. Sawdust is normally used by local farmers unless it becomes too wet for them to haul over their roads. The fill material was expected to consist of wood iaastes; largely bark, shavings, and sawdust, and some log-deck clean up containing rock and dirt. because of technological improvements in the Lorrisiana Pacific (LP) plant, most sawdust is burned for fuel. Four acres of log storage area are to be paved, to further minimize waste production. Yard bark and log deck cleanup materials are placed within the fill at a rate of 75 tons daily. One gully has been filled, gully 2 will fill in +/- 10_years. -9- a t Discussion of checklist items: la: Doth the Neal Road and Groville sites are located within r;unyon%. In oro,2r to increase capacity and secure overburden for fill operations, sails are excavated from the sides and bottom of thr.- canyons and stockpiled for later use. Ib: ' These operations result in significant, localized disruption of sails. Approximately 30 acres at Neal Road and 25 acrevs at Or-ovi11e will be disrupted by excavation between 1977 and sit.n closurr_s. , Compacti or, of fill and the soil overcover i ng is an urnlr:ri nq process. It is necessary for fire prevention, odor, vector, .+rrrl vermin control , and aesthetics. Upon closure 2 ft. of soil will be Irl Aced over the �. sites for establishment of vegetation. lc: One large., and 3 small canyons will be filled :n. Both properties will be contoured to blend in with the natural topography of adjacent lands. Upon closure, the landfills should not be obvious. le: Soil erosion is minimized on artificial slopes by compaction and installation of perimeter ditches. Stormwaters are diverted around I the landfill area and deposited back into natural channels. Some wind r erosion is unavoidable. Butte County SWMP requires that all 'areas left exposed for 4 months or more shall be replanted with grass. lh: Both sites are near branches of the Foothill Shear Zone; a fault system of unknown activity. i t Refuse fill slopes have historically exhibited a high degree of stability under high static and earthquake loading. Typical examples i of this stability are found in the landfills operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. These canyon landfills have been constructed with 2:1 slopes to heights of 400 feet. These landfills have been subjected to numerous small earthquakes, including the San Fernando earthquake of 1971 which registered 6.6 on the Richter Scale, with measured accelerations approaching 1.0g. The fill slopes remained stable and Suffered no damage by the -earthquakes. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill in the San Gabriel Mountains is located within eight miles of the epicenter of the San Fernando earthquake. The landfill has been constructed with 2:1 slopes to heights exceeding 200 feet. While'bridges, dams, roads, and earthfill slopes failed within this distance of the epicenter, no damage occurred at the landfill . Any surface disruption resulting from a fault displacement could be repaired by minor regrading. (ref: EIR •for butte County landfill August 1980) 2a: In order to minimize dust generation, the Neal Road operator is required to implement the following standard: The actual area of operation shall be kept as small as possible to minimize the creation , and dispersion of dust. Sweeping or sprinkling of water or approved. liquid wastes shall be used where practical , to alleviate a dust problem. Indiscriminate use of liquids in the actual disposal area shall be avoided in order to minimize the potential for leachate problems. Waste oils may be used for temporary dust control on -10- r • .rt.�i.3s'fki�\�[L'_�i�—`I!-tom::Wim"t`i�'�ur•—�ii+nY—b r�a: :yYjt4j,�Id�i•,•. •r `h: p�''�lS'u:u4ii106YtJ.Gw%73:Ii:iiwe. .w.:,ta�:.f uMlIS.41b�• roadways within the landfill boundary. (refs Neal Road . 1 reclassification. Weber-Hall 1981) . 2b: Operation of sanitary landfills often result in the production ,of unpleasant odors and fumes. At Neal Road cells are covered everyday to minimize these problems. Surrounding land uses (nonirrigated " grazing) are not a sensitive receptor. At Orovil.le, the operation is much smaller: Cells are covered every 2-3 days; more often in winter to prevent leachate formation. Odor has not been a problem at thisM site given the large parcel size (115 acres) and industrial character of the area. F ; 3b: Storm waters are diverted in temporary ditches around the landfill and deposited back to natural channels. Permanent ditches will be constructed around the landfill limits upon closure. i Excavation and replacement of present soil and vegetation with refuse t and sloped, compacted soil covers invariably alters absorption rates and velocities of storm waters. t Reveoetation is a condition of site(s) closure. It will aid in soil absorption, and a decrease in runoff amounts and veloci.ties.. 3f: State law requires that sanitary landfills submit and implement site designs that protec`c surface and underground water supplies from contaminants released by the landfill . Class II disposal sites are those at which protection is provided to water quality from Group 2 and 3 wastes. Class II are those overlying usable groundwater, and geologic conditions are either naturally capable of preventing lateral and vertical hydraulic continuity between liquids and gases emanating from the waste in the site and usable surface and groundwaters or the disposal area has been modified to achieve such capability. Both sites have monitoring wells instal.led at the base of the fill. Neal Road has a leachate pond below the septage ponds for further protection of ground and surface waters. 4a: Neal Road is located in an area of transition between oak woodland and grassland. This is a major habitat type in Butte County. Oroville is located in an area of rolling grassland. Wither property is located in a rare or endangered habitat type. 5c: The Neal Road landfill has attracted thousands of seagulls =_cavF_nging for food'. Because of a shortage of water, the gulls do not roost on-site. 6a: Although the routine operations of heavy equipment at the Neal Road site will substantially increase noise levels in the immediate vicinity, the parcel sizes and surrounding land uses minimize the impacts' significance. There are no human receptors within range of Neal Road emissions. At Oroville, there is some housing within 4000' up wind. The canyon opens away from the residential area, which helps to attenuate the noise. Assuminq a 4 de (decibel) reduction with each doubling of the distance, landfill generated noise should be no greater than 60 dB at the residential area. 60 dB is within Federal noise standards. According to Government Code 66780, establishment or expansion of solid waste facilities should be guided by an effective planning process. Solid waste management plans shall be consistent with the ; General Plan and accomplish both of the followings 1 . Identify and reserve sites for'�'the establishment or expansion of',. solid waste facilites. 1' 2. Ensure that land uses adjacent to or near those sitws are compatible with the solid waste facilities. Government Code Section 66780.2 further requires that the solid want.ra facility be designated in the General Plan. Both the Butte Coirrrty landfill and the wood waste site were operative prior to env,.-tion of government codes 66780 and 66780.2 (1982 and 1983) , and therefore are not designated on the land use map. 'The Neal Road site is designated open and grazing. 11"r .cre minimum parcel size. Surroundinq parcel sizes are 271-640 acres. The closest area designated for residential development (1 acre minimum) is 2 1/2 Miles South-west. Surrounding lands are under Williamson Act - contracts for seasonal grazing. Public-Quasi Public uses are permitted under the Open and Grazing General Plan designation. butte County awns 77 acres and leases 23, qualifying the use as Public. The General Plan's 4f.r acre minimum parcel size, and the area's historic use as grazing lands, provides considerable protection against land use conflicts. The main population concentrations are Chico (9 miles) , Paradise (7 miles) and Oroville (19 miles) . Butte County's Land Use Element discusses solid and liquid waste disposal facilities on Page 39, and refers to the Neal Road landfill. The Neal Road site can be found consistent with the General Pian and zoning. t The Oroville wood waste site is designated Industrial. This property j and those surrounding it., mat-.-.e up Oroville's primary industrial area. j Land uses include: LP operations, Sierra-Pacific Industries, memorial } cemetery and UPRR. There is some old housing in this area, which will I convert over time. The nearest residentially designated lands are more than 2000 ft. north and 2000 ft. south from property lines. ' The Oroville wood waste site fulfills a number of objectives for butte County: conserves valuable space at Neal Road, reduces operation fcost. for LP promoting a large employer, reduces vehicle miles traveled between plant site and disposal area, conserving fuel , and fulfilling an objective of our non-attainment plan. t Land fills are a conditional use in the industrial (M-2, 11-1) zoning categories. This property was zoned M-2 in 1958. The zoning and use permit requirements predate this landfill. A use permit was not required in 1978 because the fill did not include garbage or junk. Although many of the specific policies contained i,i the Solid Waste Plan are not specifically addressed in the County General Plan, the landfill disposal sites, transfer station locations and inventory data conform to the General Plan's Land Use Element as well as the service delivery policies contained in the General Plan text. Both documents (General Plan and SWMP) are mutually compatible. As part of the next -12- r General Flan Amendment, applicable maps should be revised to show the landfill sites and transfer stations. 10: Hazardous substances which couhd be released at the Neal Road site include: Septaget nitrates, organic sludges, metals, (Aluminum, Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, copper, iron mercury, manganese, nickel , lead, selenium, zinc) , pathogens; Olive brines: chloride, tannic acid, colorings, flavorings: Gases: Methane, hydrogen sulfide; Leachates; Liquid that has percolated through solid waste or other medium and has extracted dissolved or suspended, undesirable and polluting materials in it. State regulations address all of these potential pollution sources and how to ha.ndl'e them. Butte County is totally pre-empted in this area, only functioning as the local enforcement agency. However, as addressed in our SWMF, monitoring wells and a leachate pond have been installed to control release of any water born material. The leachate control system has been constructed in accordance with an approved site design. Leachate is collected at the base of the landfill and sewered to the leachate pond. Leachate is disposed of by evaporation. There has been no leachate left in the ponds after the month of May. The site ha3 had a history of minimal leachate generation. The existing leachate pond which has a volume of 380,000 gallons (1 .20 Ac. Ft. ) , should be adequate throughout the life of the landfill. In the event additional space is required, leachate maybe directed to the brine ponds. (ref: Neal. Road reclassification, Weber-Hall 1981) In 1979 it was determined that gas ventilation would not be required at the Neal. Road site. The amount produced is contained in the fill. If in the future qas production increases, ventilation can be installed. Recoqnizinq that the gases are highly volatile; the state requires fire egl!i.pment, extinguishers and water be maintained on-site at all times. Hazardous substances which could be released at the Oroville site include: gases and leachates. This fill also meets state standards. Well monitoring is conducted monthly. There has been one instance where leachates were released. They were caused .by a spring at the northwest corner. Eucalyptus have since been planted to drain the soil. A leachate monitoring sump has been constructed below the area of fill. Leachate formation is further reduced by minimizinq the working face area in the winter. 13. Neal Road does not normally experience heavy volumes of traffic in the vicinity of the site. The most recent traffic count for a 24-hour period totalled 720. (1983) On State Highway 99 traffic record counts at Neal Road are 14,000 A.D.T. , 1450 peak hour. Traffic volume on Neal Road is well within the standards for a goad level of • - -13- , service. Thar intersection of Neal Road and Highway 99 was built at full standard with turn pockets sufficient for stacking 2 vehicles. Traffic can be accommodated safely. The Oroville site takes access off of Ophir Road. The most recent traffic counts for Ophir and Marysville-Baggett Roads are: 1970 A.D.T.• Ophir - 1950 iN.D.T Northerly segment of Marysville-Baggett "(10 A.D.T. southerly segment of Marysville-Saggett The sits generates 10 A.D.T (5 truck loads daily) onto Ophir Road. This t:r•affic increase is insignificant. 14a: Neal Road landfill' maintains fire equipment on-site at all times. The Oroville wood waste site operates under standards set by CDF to minimize fire hazards. In the event of emergency, service would be provided by stations 72 and 64, 3 and 5 112 miler. distant. 14b: Both sites have limited/controlled access. 14e: Butte County is ultimately responsible for the repair and operation of the Neal Road facility. It has been and probably will continue to be operated under contract. Litter collection along_ Neal Road is also a County responsibility. The Oroville wood waste facility is privately owned, operated and maintained. 16e: Storm drainage has been installed at both sites. 16f: Both sites involve the disposal of waste material. 3 17: The development of landfills commonly pose potential hazards ,to human health that derive from disease-carrying pests and exposure of users or trespassers to sharp objects, unstable ground conditions, or toric substances. The Weber-Hall report addresses safety and health regulations the Neal Road landfill operator must meet: XI._-Sofety_Regu1ations. Recognized rules of safety shall be strictly followed in the operation of the disposal site. 1. No scavenging shall be allowed. (The operator may salvage material in accordance with local agreements. ) 2. No. i..tnauthorized persons or vehicles shall be permitted in hazardous areas. 3. Clearly marked signs shall be provided to indicate the routes to respective discharge areas. 4. The unloading areas shall be clearly marked and shall be as level as practical. i -14- ''i .v.tote...:n.lJ:LslkitlY4i9R:AYlrYbAiS'+u.`.wv..":.n.+Lw,..ai.. i+n+'ri:.'L'i:" '"NbJ./fa7:.nwiw"An:i':atr^la�....rt,u,_.,,-•rte y���:�41Mr�r..�w:a:i¢awU{A�iel:a. . i • Ila,d: Even .though numerous state agencies.are involved in permitinq ' and developing standards for landfills, there is always a possibility of human error, or "acts of God", which could cause a disaster. Put1 �� y has attempted to prepare for this possibility by outlining areas of t lresponsibility and alternative. course.q of action. 4 i Pn emergency .could release pollutants to the',environment. This risk ' exists at any landfill site. We may find too that a wider range'of elements needs F.o be monitored. Hazardous waste technology is in its infancy, and we can not prediut the effect of numerous chemical components interacting. What may be safe today could be unsafe tomorrow. i A negative declaration is recommended. State standards aro i sufficiently stringent to minimize environmental impacts. After completing this document an initial study on the 1„F wood waste i. site was found. The State clearinghouse number is 78-0:3-3i�-pq, k l 1 i � t F • i • f - I I ' 1 ��• tier' s��. ([ t • I 1 1 • -16- -:,,.�n��,r.,.:..,.c�wRt.�*^.°IPn !�!!A!!da!rnv�..,!"^.°Kfw•. .�r,1am .,. .. _., _ ,.., r_uTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDING - August 22, 1485:. 'r• SOL;ID_WASTE MANAGEMENT_FACILITY V _. x I'�urpose: To identify e;;isting. solid "as te ,fecilities inclurfinn f I :andfills.,•dump--�. cmd solid was trans fer,stations, expansion .rr•r, %u ,and to resr_rvr ' future sites. f. Iv)ttrntial site+ for a solid waste facility or site expansion mUy he rt:r,iunated on the land :.rse map only when land uses authorized to the• � I. Icity :r Comity General Plan adjacent to or near the Safi• ,nis:ticua or pc:1':'ratial site are compatible --pith the e%tablishmrnt ..r of thy., 5i 1 o I ur a sol i d waste f aci 1 i ty. ho .::?I 1 d wa sk.e m.?n• qct, r_nf desi gnation shal l prrer_mpt i by property f r .?m .••1 nr+ r: me--urr or:t l r•er•.d for resident:al purposes. Wwii propr?r•ty 1 s dc_;rur:ated solid waste manaq merlL +aci l rt.y, t.t?e rn. le°rlyinq liener.:i Flan Assignation shall be ret.f_rinerl to �laow the Ii .vaned future 1;+nd usu. II::• vnl id waste m.rni~nement designation Shall be retained on tha property u,rrI one of thu t�+c. fallowing conditions are met: 1 . Fh:- site heap barn closed and fifll reclaimed to Solid Waste 19:•n,;a(loment. f'ionrd, Rr:,>>onal Water (-'ual ity Control , and other r rvi:_11 story auenc.y S. ar:dards% or 11-ie site wa-. .7k designated expansion area or reserved site never utilized, erred deter-mined to be inconsistent with surroundinq land u:aes or the Gratte County Solid Waste Management flan. EX I I i ,14nni Land Use 1 Consulting Pam Figge. November 4, 1997 Lisa Swillinger, Records Curator Northeast Information Center Department of Anthropology California State University, Chico Chico, California 95929 . Subject: Reduest for a Records Search for Property Located in Butte founty, California Identified as AP#040-600-064 and Located on the north side of Neal Road, approximately .6 miles east of State Highway 99 Dear Lisa, I'am currently under contract with the County of Butte to prepare a General Plan Amendment for property adjacent to the Neal Road Landfill. (Please see the attached location map.) I am requesting a records search,for the property referenced above on behalf of the Butte County Department of Development Services. Please conduct a records search of the 114 f acre site and adjacent lands within a one mile radius of the property, and forward your written comments, recommendations and billing to me. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Pam Figge attachment cc: Craig Sanders,Senior Planner,Development Services Department,Butte County,7 County Center Drive,Oroville CA 95965 w/o attachment 916-877-4544 Phone&Fax/E-mail:fpigge@aol.com P.O. Box 1553. Paradise, CA 95967 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: California Department of Forestry _FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:Butte County Development Serv.,GPA 97-03 DATE: May 12, 1997 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders The Planning Division has received an application for development of the below described property. The application is being reviewed for completeness and ,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a General Plan Amendment to expand the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation to include 64 acres of land newly acquired by the County contiguous to existing land fill as well as 50.59 acres of adiacent land.Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use on property zoned U (Unclassified) located on the north side of Neal Road,westerly of the landfill between the Transmission Power lines and the existing landfill boundary, identified as portion of APN 40-60-64. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 25, 1997. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 27, 1997. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): - . By. Date: Planning Division 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 M Ay 2 1997 P,OWAcoarn' Environmental Health px - BUTTE COUNTY MAY 1 3 1997 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION Chico, California. TO: Environmental Health FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:Butte-C-ounty-Development--Serv. GPA 97-03 DATE: May 12,1997 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders The Planning Division has received an application for development of the below described property. The application is being reviewed for completeness and , if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a`General-P_lan=Amendment=to-expand'the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation to include 64 acres of land newly acquired by the County contiguous to existing land fill as well as 50.59 acres of adiacent land.Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan makinq provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use on property zoned U (Unclassified) located on the north side of Neal Road,westerly of the landfill between the Transmission Power lines and the existing landfill boundary, identified as por ion-of-APN-40-60-64:-It--is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 25, 1997. COMMENTS, IF ANY; ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN <'-Ma:--27,7--1V9-7. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS t By: r t n ✓ Date: Planning Division J U N10 31991_. 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 r�Ville,califomia l INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM BUTTTE COUNT Z R TO: Development Services, Planning Division FROM: Michael Huerta' Supervisor, Environmental Health SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development Application DATE: June 2, 1997 APPLICANT: Butte Counter Dev, Services DATE: June 2 � 1997' AGENT: APN: 40-60-064 Ptn ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: GPA 97-03 CANTS Recommend approval with following condition: 1. . Expansion or change in landfill operators must be approved by Butte County Environmental Health, State Integrated Waste Management Board, and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. MH/dd/land/commentf/gpa97-03 4 a BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: LAFCo FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:Butte County Development Serv.,GPA 97-03 DATE: May 12, 1997 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders The Planning Division has received an application for development of the below described property. The application is being reviewed for completeness and ,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a General Plan Amendment to expand the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation to include 64 acres of land newly acquired by the County contiquous to existing land fill as well as 50.59 acres of adiacent land.Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan makinq provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use on property zoned U (Unclassified) located on the north side of Neal Road,westerly of the landfill between the Transmission Power lines and the existing landfill boundary, identified as portion of APN 40-60-64. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one) _X PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 25, 1997. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 27, 1997. ff no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. T44 07d ooh COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): !tm 0- �s v 15�- By: Date: Planning Division MAY 271997 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 orovilke CAH"nja BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Public Works FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:Butte County Development Serv.,GPA 97-03 DATE: May 12,1997 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders The Planning Division has received an application for development of the below described property. The application is being reviewed for completeness and ,if complete,for conditions of approval. If.the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments.from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a General Plan Amendment to expand the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation to include 64 acres of land newly acquired by the County contiquous to existing land fill as well as 50.59 acres of adiacent land.Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use on property zoned U (Unclassified) located on the north side of Neal Road,westerly of the landfill between the Transmission Power lines and the existing landfill boundary, identified as portion of APN 40-60-64. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one) _X PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 25, 1997. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 27, 1997. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS//(Attach additional pages if necessary): o 4/ l By: Date: Mllff2 - Planning Division AY2o1997 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-77 � ` ®roville,Califomia RECEIVED MAY 1 3'1997 2 COUN'n',0FBUrfE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV:!AIMIJ Y t STATE OF CALIFORNIA•BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION ANOSING AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 P.O.BOX 911 MARYSVILLE,CA 95901 TDD Telephone(916)741-4509 FAX(916)741-5346 Telephone(916)741-4539 May 29, 1997 IBUT069 03-BUT-99 PM 26.04 Solid Waste Facility Expansion GPA 97-03, Application Mr. Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965-3397 Dear.Mr. Sanders: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced document. COMMENTS: No significant impacts are expected to occur to State Route 99 from the expansion by itself, however it will add to cumulative traffic in the area. The County should collect traffic impact mitigation fees to fund needed future infrastructure improvements in the area. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Terri Pen_covic, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at(916) 741-4199. Sincerely, E. A. 'LIB" HARAUGHTY, Chief Office of Transportation Planning - Rural c: Mr. Jon Clark, Butte County Association of Governments Planning Division JUN 0 21997 Omvft fom LEAD - IN SHEET FILE NO: G'n� q-1 'D 3 AP# APPLICANT: Q : c"vcCo M Name Address OWNER: . 13UTT,E— fQu&r , ,J SSWA&- z Name Address RESPRESENTATIVE: Name Address "A A pk REQUEST: era 1 L So uj" vtv 6M G&-Alg-ld eiow, G ut re �jK v •$t1 c0.1 law wve t) n4 44,�av,444 kd iv�o-s e P� Pa, �i �1 v s�. Iwo. via�[,,� Pv�v�s� s S Ai5r ILvK- IIS At, LOCATION: Lpcl J, .� oik Aik, h^vim rLcic e� 1�Ga,l ec�IT -{we�. .�k `SlPoww' j •,�f SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # EXISTING ZONING: ZONING HISTORY: ZDV- �) o►� SURROUNDING ZONING: - SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ' L401 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: k:\forms\lead-in COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: CSA q2 3 DATE: County OtHces and Cities: / Chief Administrative Officer "'X_ Develop.Services Director V/X_ Public Works Director TX Environmental Health _ Building Manager � Sheriff _ BCAG _ ALUC LAFCo _ APCD _ Butte Co.Fane Bureau Biggs _ Gridley _ Chico Oroville _ Paradise Chico Airport Commission kAgricultural Commission Irrigation District: Butte Water _ BigpfW.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water Butte Wafer District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thennalito Irrigation District _ Other Sewer _ _ Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main _ Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ L.O.A.PUD ` Fire Protection • California Department of Forestry_ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec.&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks Utilities PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Parc Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies CalTrans — Dept of Water Resources Dept.of Fish and Game Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. Highway Patrol _ Central Reg.Water Quality Control Department of Conservation _ Off.of Mining Reclamation — Off.of Governmental&Env.Relations Federal Agencies US Forest Service US Bureau of Land Management Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc. • a Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association — Mosq.Abatement.OrovilleButte Co Drainage _ Butte Env.1 Council _ Paradise Pines Com Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Butte Co.Mining Committee _ _ • 0 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION •TO: FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application:Butte County Development Serv.,GPA 97-03 DATE: May 12,1997 CONTACT PERSON: Craig Sanders The Planning Division has received an application for development of the below described property. The application is being reviewed for completeness and ,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed, please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a General Plan Amendment to expand the Solid Waste Overlay General Plan designation to include 64 acres of land newly acquired by the County contiquous to existinq land fill as well as 50.59 acres of adjacent land.Included in the amendment is a proposed change to the text of the General Plan making provisions for uses that are related to or support the landfill use on property zoned U (Unclassified) located on the north side of Neal Road,westerly of the landfill between the Transmission Power lines and the existinq landfill boundary, identified as portion of APN 40-60-64. It is within Supervisorial District No. 4 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE (check one) _X_PLANNING COMMISSION - _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 25, 1997. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN May 27, 1997. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS (Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 A �uTTF O , O INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ° � ° O �� o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT c0U N'�� TO: TOM PARILO, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FROM: MIKE CRUMP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: NEAL ROAD LANDFILL - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1997 Attached please find a copy of a memo to Bill Farrel, asking him to initiate a General Plan Amendment for a piece of property purchased last September. The memo and accompanying agreement should be self explanatory; however, I will be more than happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this issue in detail. Craig Sanders would probably be the most knowledgeable person on your staff regarding this subject. Planning Division 1997 oroville,.California Inter-Depart /;• . emorandum TO: BILL FARREL, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - FROM: MIRE CRUMP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: NEAL ROAD LANDFILL (560.12) DATE: OCTOBER 15, 1996 On September 1, 1996, the Board approved the purchase of approximately 64 .3 acres of land located to the west of Neal Road Landfill from Nance Canyon Partners. - I have attached a copy of the purchase agreement with the accompanying exhibits for your reference. Under Section 2 (page 3) of the agreement, the County agreed to initiate a General Plan amendment which will expand the current Solid Waste Management Facility land use overlay designation to include the property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Additionally, the text of the Solid Waste Management Facility section of the Land Use Element will be proposed to be amended to include provisions for landfill compatible uses as described in Exhibit C. Could you please initiate the General Plan amendment process for this item and provide me with an approximate timetable for this item to be processed. Please don't hesitate to give me a call regarding any questions you may have on this item. ♦, � t . "� � r� '?. tM 7} mow.... Y k�y-F i :,' 1's+a AGREEMENTOFPURCHASE AND SALE ` OF 4REAL`PROPERTY -FOR'LANDFILL: ,t ' ,;<<:•_r:, ;= SEPTAGE`DISPOSAL;-RELATED*XIISES' AND -"', OPEN SPACE PURPOSES � `-•"". °= .- ' _ �•�.�: THIS AGREMONT OF PURCHASE AND SALE .("Agreement") is entered into as of September 1, 1996, by and between NANCE CANYON PARTNERS, L.P.-("Owner") , a California limited partnership, and the COUNTY OF BUTTE ("County") , a political subdivision of the State of California. .THE PARTIES ENTER THIS AGREEMENT"on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions: A. County is the owner of that certain real property ("Landfill Property") located on. Neal Road in the County of Butte, State of California, and referred to as the Neal Road Landfill. The Landfill Property, presently utilized for landfill, septic disposal and related uses, is bordered by Neal Road on one side and by property owned by Owner on the three remaining sides. B. Owner in January of 1992 sold County two parcels of property (collectively "First Sale Property") which are now a part of the Landfill Property. Notwithstanding any contract language or other representations to the contrary, if any, previously rendered or made in connection with the sale of the BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 1• First Sale' Property, Owner and County agree that theFirst rSale 1 =' `' , ' Property may be used y ylandfill.' b Count as landfill. C. In evaluating County's plans for the landfill on the Landfill Property, County has determined that it is in the .best interest of County to acquire certain property ("Subject Property") owned by Owner and located in the County of Butte, State of California and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto._ The Landfill Property and the Subject Property are sometimes hereinafter collectively referred to as "Landfill" . D. Owner and County now desire to enter into this Agreement and to transfer the Subject Property from Owner to County with the understanding that County will submit, and County staff will support, a proposal with respect to certain of Owner's real property ("Adjacent Property") more particularly described in Exhibit B, in accordance with Section 2 herein. E. In addition, County and Owner desire to put certain restrictions on the Subject Property to create a buffer area between the County's use of the Subject Property and the remainder of all of Owner's property ("Owner's Property") described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto, for the benefit of Owner's. Property and enter into such other agreements as are - set forth herein. BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual ` covenants and promises of the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purchase and Sale. Owner agrees to sell the Subject Property to County, and County agrees to purchase the Subject Property from Owner, on all the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 2. Adjacent Property. Within six (6) months from the recordation of the Grant Deed, as described herein, the Butte County Development Services Department shall initiate a :General Plan amendment which will expand the current Solid Waste Management Facility land use overlay designation to include the property described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Additionally, the text of the Solid Waste Management Facility section of the Land Use Element will be proposed to be amended to include provisions for landfill compatible uses ("Landfill Uses") as described in Exhibit C. The U - Unclassified zoning shall be retained for the Adjacent Property described in Exhibit B, which will require a Use Permit to establish any of the Landfill Uses described in Exhibit C. If a future rezoning action is proposed for the Property, the new zoning shall make provisions for landfill compatible uses as long as the Solid Waste Management Facility land use overlay designation is in place. 1 SPHSMSM0241629.02 09/18/96 3 • Y r. •i i:' ..0 3. Condition Precedent. The p �� y ;and�°certain - other property of Owner are subject to that certain';Deed of Trust ("Deed of Trust") recorded in Instrument No. 92-003800 -on January 30, 1992, Official Records of the County of Butte., It is a condition precedent to the close of this transaction that the . beneficiary under the Deed of Trust agree to the release of the Subject Property from the Deed of Trust. The beneficiary of the Deed of Trust has informed Owner that the beneficiary is prepared to release the Deed of Trust, but such release shall be a condition to proceeding with this transfer. 4. Consideration. County shall pay Owner the sum of THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY DOLLARS ($385,800.00) in cash as the full purchase price for the Subject Property ("Purchase Price") , and County shall deposit the Purchase Price prior to close of escrow, as provided for herein, with Fidelity National Title Company ("Title Company") . 5. Escrow. Upon execution hereof, the parties shall open escrow with Fidelity National Title Company at Title Company's Oroville office at 1909 Bird Street, Oroville, CA 95965. A. Deposit. Parties shall take the following action prior to the close of escrow, which shall be no later than thirty (30) days from the date hereof. BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 4 • �• - 1' .,.� . 9* yvlyCe,., t eta .p?y.f�'x7'.+, " .tM•�tJ 7r+c (1) County. County shall deposit ther4-Purchasez" 1• ; • " .� .. ..yfi - ,:y: r.'F�r. .,.ti v.. i�1..ate. 414 S k v .t . Price and sufficient funds to pay all"-expenses referenced in Section S.D, shall duly execute and acknowledge the Grant Deed ("Grant Deed") , attached 'hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by reference thereto, and shall deposit the executed and acknowledged Grant Deed with Title Company. (2) Owner. Owner shall duly execute and acknowledge the Grant Deed. B. Closing. When Title Company has .received the Purchase Price and the duly executed and acknowledged Grant Deed and has confirmation that the Deed of Trust can be reconveyed with respect to the Subject Property, Title Company shall, no later than thirty (30) days from the date hereof, close escrow by taking the following actions: (1) Reconveying the Deed of Trust with respect to the Subject Property; (2) Recording the Grant Deed in the Official Records of the County of Butte; SPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 5• / • _ Y l * - ' T ',i; Al i (3) Transferring the Purchase Price �rto +Owner -and paying the closing costs as specified :herein from funds ' >; deposited by County; and, (4) Issuing such title insurance as County shall request showing the Subject Property free and clear of any mortgages and deeds of trust, including the Deed of Trust which shall be removed through escrow, but subject to all other exceptions of record, it being understood County will take the Subject Property in an "as is" condition as provided below. C. Taxes. Unpaid taxes existing as a lien against the Subject Property will be prorated and cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Section 4986, Paragraph. 2 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code. Taxes which Owner has prepaid will be prorated and refunded by the County in accordance with Section 5096.7 of the California Revenue & Taxation Code, the refund to be made on the close of escrow as provided above. D. Escrow and Title Fees. County shall pay all normal escrow fees, documentary transfer taxes, any title insurance premiums and other fees incurred in connection with this transaction, ' except for any release of a mortgage or deed of trust, including the Deed of Trust. Any costs BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 = 6• relating to release of a mortgage or deed of etrust shall be paid by Owner. E. Broker. Each party indemnifies and holds the other harmless from and against any claims made by a broker as a result of contacts with such party. F. Possession. The 'parties agree that notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in this Agreement, the right, possession and use of the Subject ` Property by the County, including the right to remove and dispose of any improvements, shall commence on close of escrow, and that the amount shown in this Agreement as consideration includes full payment for such possession and use of the Subject Property. 6. Condition of Subject Property. County shall take the Subject Property in an "as is" condition, recognizing that County has used the Landfill Property adjacent to the Subject Property and has conducted County's own examination of the Subject Property prior to purchase of the Subject Property, and County shall purchase the Subject Property subject to all liens, encumbrances, assessments and easements of record other than deeds of trust and mortgages, including the Deed of Trust. County recognizes that Owner would not have entered into this transaction except for County's agreement. to take the Subject BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 _ 09/18/96 7 • As, Property in an "as is" condition. County and ;Owner agree that y .yld M _ :• 3 e• tMt ria #''? i Siti3!i"1 4 i tir f-t'�i ;i t-Y4' fiat Y: Owner is entering into this Agreement -after 'County has threatenedk T. '-condemnation of the Subject Property and has `formally'notif ied � t_ owner. 1 the same, and this Agreement is •made under the threat of condemnation. 7. Use of Subject Property. County shall limit County use of the Subject Property in accordance with the terms of the Grant Deed such that a portion of the Subject Property identified as Exhibit 2 to Exhibit E shall remain as open space, another portion of the Subject Property identified as Exhibit 4 . to Exhibit E may only be developed for use for solid and liquid waste management and other •related activities, but not landfill, the remainder of the Subject Property may be developed for use for landfill, solid and liquid waste management, and other related activities, all as indicated in the Grant Deed. County shall take all reasonable steps to reduce smell, dust and other interference with the Owners Property. It is understood that County agreement to operate the Landfill in accordance with all local, State and Federal laws and regulations is a material inducement to Owner entering into this agreement. 8. Boundary. With eighteen (18) months following close of escrow, County shall, at County's expense, install a new field fence around the westerly boundary of the Subject Property similar to the fence currently in existence around the westerly BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 8• -" •"J-' �{ ; VN•!M•.z]f,C �f.aY' +yy.J {t t r ;f portions of the Landfill. It is the desire of ;Owner,--and County, that the Landfill shall be screened from the Owners~'Property on , the west and northwest. In that regard, within five, (5) years, from the close of escrow, County shall, at County's expense, plant trees along the west and northwest boundaries of the subject property. The trees shall be planted from ridge to ridge, but not above the mean sea level elevation of 225 feet. The trees shall be of a kind to grow to a height of. twenty to twenty-five feet, shall be reasonably acceptable to Owner and shall be maintained by County and County's expense in perpetuity. County understands that County's agreement to this Section 8 is a material inducement to Owner entering into this agreement. N 9. Waiver. In consideration of the receipt of the Purchase Price by Owner, . Owner hereby waives for Owner and Owner's successors and assigns all claims relating to the acquisition of the Subject Property, including severance damages and stigma damages, on account of the acquisition of the Subject Property or the location or construction of proposed public improvements on the Subject Property, except as specifically set forth herein. This waiver is to include any rights that Owner may have relating to Owner's Property affected by the acquisition of the Subject Property or the uses conducted on the Subject Property, but unrelated to acts which might encroach on Owner's Property or as may be described in Section 10. BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 9• ' a i- Y r� 10. Indemnification. As additionalconsideration � herein, County agrees to indemnify and hold owner harmless from` and against any claims, losses or costs in -connection with hazardous wastes now or hereafter on the Landfill caused or created by landfill operations. For purposes of this section, "hazardous wastes" shall mean any material or substance in a concentration or amount now or hereafter designated by any Governmental Authority to be radioactive, toxic, hazardous or otherwise a danger to health, reproduction or the environment, including, without limitation (i) oil and petroleum products; (ii) radioactive substances and materials; (iii) asbestos;. (iv) urea formaldehyde; (v) radon gas; and (vi) chemicals, materials or substance now or hereafter defined or included in the definition of "hazardous substance, " "hazardous waste, " "hazardous material, " or "toxic substance, " or words of similar import, under any Law, including, but not limited to, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") , the California Hazardous Substances Account Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the California Porter-Cologne Act, the Clean Air Act, the California Clean Air Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the California Occupational Safety and Health Act, as the foregoing shall be now or hereafter amended, and similar Laws now 'or hereafter enacted. BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 10. s 11. No Future Condemnation. . As -•a materiil'�inducement wd...il to owner entering into this Agreement, County hereby formally waives the right to condemn any of Owner's Property for. landfill or landfill-related purposes for a period of twenty (20) years; ` provided, however, that in the event County desires to acquire the remainder parcel, caused by the sale of the Subject Property adjacent to the Landfill on the northwest, the north and the northeast, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith for the sale of such parcel until December 31, 1998. 12. Survival. ' The covenants contained in this Agreement shall survive closing and shall inure to the benefit of the Owner's Property and the successors and assigns of Owner's Property; the covenants that are to survive include, but are not limited to, the agreements set forth in Sections 5.E, 6, 71 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. 13 . Entire Agreement. The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement, including the exhibits attached hereto. The performance of this Agreement, including the covenants contained herein, constitutes the entire consideration for said Agreement and shall relieve the County and Owner of all other obligations or claims except as specifically set forth herein. BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 11. _ ' .. 7a*�`'�' �s;+¢'�`" A?'re'7^r✓ki-`:v!.r.+«E si'�AAI�.i �''��1�T, ' l.^�f�a'+s_�' Agreement IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this as of the day and year first above written. • • .,. ` - _ • •b.}':r1.ti.:'^ tom^ • - —. 431•: -�:..+.=*r "COUNTY" - COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California Chair, Board of Supervisors Attest: Clerk of the Board B i y. �- Clerk/Deputy "OWNER" NANCE CANYON PARTNERS, L.P. , a California limited partnership By Swartz & Swartz, Inc. , i General Partner t By: Donald E. Swartz President ' BPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 - 09/18/96 12 . - EXHIBIT A SUBJECT PROPERTY k'y. All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows : Being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 132 of Parcel Maps at Pages 93 through 97 together with a portion of Parcel 2 as shown 'on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 136 of Parcel Maps at Pages 14 through 16, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, more particularly described •as follows : COMMENCING at the most northerly corner of Parcel 1 as shown on that said Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B" , said corner lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said point also lying on the easterly line of a 100' wide electrical easement as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California in Book 322 of Official Records at Page 145; THENCE leaving said westerly right-of-way line of Nance canyon Drive, South 41015150" East, along the easterly line of. said Parcel 1 and the easterly line of said electrical easement, a distance of 152 . 02 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive and the True Point of Beginning of the herein-described parcel; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said. easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 04027159" East, a distance of 1030 .81 feet; THENCE North 53025' 35" East, a distance of 970 . 00 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2 as shown on said map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B11 ; THENCE leaving said southerly line of said Parcel 2, South 66025110" East, a distance of 613 .47 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of the Butte County Disposal Site as described in deed as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, under Recorders Serial No. 92-003801; THENCE along said northwesterly line, South 11033107" West, a distance of 1035 . 00 feet to the most westerly corner of said Butte County Disposal Site; THENCE along the southwesterly line of said Butte County Disposal Site, South 36034125" East, a distance of 1000 . 00 feet to the most southerly corner of said Butte County Disposal Site; EXHIBIT A 9/19/96 1. t ''tv . c: Rf,>Kg S yM „r THENCE leaving said southwesterly line; .South,•60°34',04A" West, a ';�• k` Yr `t. distance of 1082 .29 feet to a 'point on the "easterly line ;of ,?'said Parcel i, said point also lying on the said easterly line'-,of a .100. .. foot wide"electrical easement THENCE along-said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 41015' 50" West, a distance of 1315 .33 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above-described parcel contains 64 .30 acres, more or less . XHIBIT A 9/19/96 2• EXHIBIT B ywo ADJACENT PROPERTY '# All that certain real property situate in' the County of Butte, State of California described as follows : A portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B" recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California in Book 136 of Maps- at Pages 14 through 16 together with a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Parcel map entitled "Parcel Map B" recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 93 through 97 more particularly described as follows : Commencing at the most northerly corner of Parcel 1 as shown on that said Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map, A Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B" , said corner lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said point also lying on the easterly line of a 100' wide electrical easement as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California in Book 322 of Official Records at Page 145; THENCE leaving said westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, South 41015150" East along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 and the easterly line of said electrical easement, a distance of 1467 .35 feet to the True Point of Beginning; THENCE North 60034104" East, a distance of 1082 .29 feet to the most southerly corner of the Butte County Disposal Site as described in deed as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California under Recorders Serial No. 92-003801; THENCE along the southwesterly line of said Butte County Disposal Site, North 53025135" East, a distance of 1405 . 65 feet; THENCE continuing along said southwesterly line, South 36034125" East, a distance of 268 .58 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Butte County Disposal Site, said point also lying on the northwesterly right-of-way line of Neal Road as shown on that said Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B" ; THENCE leaving said southerly line of the Butte County Disposal Site and along said northwesterly right-of-way line South 22020113 " West, a distance of 131 . 57 feet; EXHIBIT B 9/24/96 1 . 1, s 4 THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line,. South",28'50'12"441 West, a distance of 677 .12 feet; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, 'South 21010119" West,% a 'distance of 69 .00 -feet THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, South 68049'41" East, a distance of 1 .54 feet to the beginning of a nontangent curve, concave southeasterly, to which a radial line bears North 66028145" West; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, along said curve, having a radius of 1830 .00 feet, through a central angle of . 0202015611, an arc length of 75 .02 feet; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, South 21010, 19" West, a distance of 711 .55 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly; THENCE continuing along said right-o£-way line, along said curve having a radius of 1170 .00 feet, through a central angle of 16026124", an arc length of 335 .71- feet; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, South 3710361•44" West, a distance of 247 .56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, along said curve having a radius of 820 . 00 feet, through a central angle of 0702712411, an arc length of 106 .72 feet; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, South 54005130" West, a distance of 143 .98 feet; THENCE continuing along said right-of-way line, South 64037135" West, a distance of 122 .26 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel 1, said point also lying on the easterly line of said electrical easement; THENCE leaving said right-of-way line, along said easterly line of Parcel 1, North 41015150" West, a distance of 1414 .79 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above described parcel contains 50 .59 acres more or less . EXHIBIT B 9/19/96 2 . P+i •1 / • f •-y t y:est LANDFILL USES a` y Uses which are accessory to or related to landfill or septage disposal operations; that support landfill or septage disposal operations; or have a need or advantage of being located near the landfill. Examples may include but are not limited to the following: -recycling facilities, site monitoring activities, -tire shredding, metal scrapyard, composting operations, offices and maintenance yards for commercial refuse haulers or septic tank pumping companies, Household hazardous waste facilities, and other similar uses. I SPHSF6\SRF\0241629.02 09/18/96 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D OWNERa PROPERTY All of that certain real property described as Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 136*of Maps at Pages 62-64, on May 18, 1995, as serial #95-16439, County of Butte, State of California. and All of that certain real property described as Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 90-92, on February 24; 1994, as serial #94-8678, County of Butte, State . of California. and All of that certain real property described as Parcels 11 2 and 4 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 93-97, on February 24, 1994, as serial #94-8680, County of Butte.. State of -California. and All of that certain real property described as Parcels -1, 2 and 3 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 136 of Maps at Pages 14-16, on December 21, 1994 as serial #94-51359, County of Butte, State of California. and All of that certain real property described in Parcels 1, 21 31 4, 5 and Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map recorded in Book 136 of. Maps at Pages 34-36, on February 27, 1995, as serial #95-6103, County of Butte, State of California. BPHSFAS0 0241629.02 09/18/96 . :IEZHIBIT D RECORDING REQUESTED BY r AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: County of Butte Department 0 Public Works - 7 County Cerner_Drive Orow1le, CA 95965 THE AREA ABOVE IS FESEAv®FOR FECOMMM USE e.P.ie. GRANT DEED FOR VALUE RECEIVED, NANCE CANYON PARTNERS, 'L.P. ("Grantor") , a California limited partnership, grants to the COUNTY OF BUTTE ("County") , a political subdivision of the State of California, all that real property ("Property") in the County of Butte, State of California, and more particularly described as set forth on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto, subject to all the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. THIS GRANT DEED IS SUBJECT TO all existing liens, assessments, encumbrances, easements, restrictions, exceptions and other matters of record other than mortgages and deeds of trust. MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: County of Butte Department of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 . 1. GRANTOR HEREBY RESERVES an exclusive.open-space easement ("Open Space Easement") over that portion,.of•`the ' Property ("Open Space Area") described in E,xhib it` 2, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto, for the benefit of Grantor, Grantor's successors and assigns. County shall not use the Open Space Area for any activity other than landscaping, fencing, access roads, drainage, stormwater detention.,wells and the planting and maintenance of trees to screen the Property from Grantor's Property ("Grantor's Property") described in Exhibit 3, attached hereto and Incorporated herein by reference thereto. This Open Space Easement is for the benefit of Grantor's Property and shall be appurtenant to and run with Grantor's Property. . County shall not build or construct on Grantor's Property or on the Open Space Area any above or below ground improvements other than as set forth above, and County shall not conduct any landfill or related operations on the Open Space Area. GRANTOR HEREBY RESERVES an exclusive restricted use easement ("Restricted Use Easement") over that portion of the Property ("Restricted Use Area") described in Exhibit 4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference thereto for the benefit of Grantor, Grantor's successors and assigns. County shall not use the Restricted Use Area for construction of a landfill. County may use the Restricted Use Area for solid and liquid waste management and other related operations; provided, 2 however, County shall not place landfill of any kind' on the Restricted Use Area. This Restricted Use Easement is;for .the benefit of Grantor's Property and shall be appurtenant to and run with Grantor's Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Grant Deed has been executed as of September 1996. "GRANTOR" NANCE CANYON PARTNERS, L.P. , a California limited partnership By: Swartz & Swartz, Inc. , a California 90Fporation, s general pa r By: Donald E. Swartz President "COUNTY" COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California By: Chair of the Board of Supervisors County of. Butte, State of California • 3 - • •. .., i ,.:, la's��.. t�.: i ,•". •k+i y S;� � � STATE OF CAUFORN_W `''~ ' COUNTY OF ) •.'"5 On 23, l 99G before me, Notary Public, personally appeared Do n A Z- n t=• .SW ,4 R T--2— personally -Zpersonally known to me (or proved to me on the.basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the Instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. , z •'� COA4%1,f } N`OS ptbq�Cal _ MIG Signature of otary MYCOfTm•4*40JUN25.1999 (SEAL) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF On before me, 14s / ,/, '� -. ./• , Notary Public, personally appeared ,77--i /*;•' - . - • , peers nallylmown to me (or proved to me on the basis of"satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. ASHLEY E.EStEP Q Cane,•4 1017340 •+ NOTARY PRA=•MORMA 0. CceanlE��t MY OCE 14,1997 Signature of Notary (SEAL) 4 EXHIBIT t SUBIECT PROPERTY All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 32 of Parcel Maps at Pages 93 through 97 together with a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 136 of Parcel Maps at Pages 14 through 16, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the most northerly corner of Parcel 1 as shown on that said Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", said corner lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said point also lying on the easterly line of a 100' wide electrical easement as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte,-State of California in Book 322 of Official Records at Page 145; THENCE leaving said westerly right-of-way line of Nance canyon Drive, South 41015'50" East, along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 and the easterly line of said electrical easement, a distance of 152.02 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive and the True Point of Beginning of the herein-described parcel; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 04027'59" East, a distance of 1030.81 feet; THENCE North 53°25'35" East, a distance of 970.00 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2 as shown on said map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 8"; THENCE leaving said southerly line of said Parcel 2, South 66025'10" East, a distance of 613.47 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of the Butte County Disposal Site as described in deed as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, under Recorders Serial No. 92-003801; THENCE along said northwesterly line, South 11033'07" West, a distance of 1035.00 feet to the most westerly corner of said Butte County Disposal Site; THENCE along the southwesterly line of said Butte County Disposal Site, South 36034'25" East, a distance of 1000.00 feet to the most southerly corner of said Butte County Disposal Site; THENCE leaving said southwesterly line, South 60°34'04" West, a distance of 1082.29 feet to a point on the easterly line of said Parcel 1, said point also lying on the said easterly line of a 100 foot wide electrical easement; THENCE along said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 41015'50" West, a distance of 1315.33 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above-described parcel contains 64.30 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT 1 9/19/96 1. Onp EXHIBIT 2 s " - OPEN SPACE AREA All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map B", as filed in'Book 132 of Parcel Maps at Pages 93 through 97 together with a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 136 of Parcel Maps at Pages 14 through 16, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the most northerly corner of Parcel 1 as shown on that said Parcel Map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", said corner lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said point also lying on the easterly line of a 100' wide electrical easement as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of B'utte,--State of California in Book 322 of Official Records at Page 145; THENCE leaving said westerly right-of-way line of Nance canyon Drive, South 41015'30" East, along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 and the easterly line of said electrical easement, a distance of 152.02 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive and the True Point of Beginning of the herein-described parcel; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 04027'59" East, a distance of 1030.81 feet; THENCE North 53025'35" East, a distance of 970.00 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2 as shown on said map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B"; THENCE leaving said southerly line of said Parcel 2, South 66025'10" East, a distance of 613.47 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of the Butte County Disposal Site as described in deed as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, under Recorders Serial No. 92-003801; THENCE along said northwesterly line, South 11 033'07" West, a distance of 5 1.12 feet; THENCE leaving said northwesterly line, North 66025'10" West, a distance of 595.17 feet; THENCE South 39°50'26" West, a distance of 425.71 feet; THENCE South 53°25'35" West, a distance of 458.94 feet; THENCE South 04°27'53" West, a distance of 1038.95 feet; THENCE South 41°15'50" East, a distance of 1113.94 feet; THENCE North 60034'04" East, a distance of 1035.42 feet to a paint on the southwesterly line of said Butte County Disposal Site; EXHIBIT 2 9/19/96 �� 1. d' ti L. ��-11n4+T vY-SC. . • .frp,�,:�+; ".,c 7 ��:; r..cr€��tiir;Te,f�a s THENCE along said southwesterly line, South 36034'25" East; a distance of 50.39 feet to the most ,y southerly corner of said Butte County Disposal Site; ° y THENCE leaving said southwesterly line, South 60034'04" West, a distance of 1082.29 feet to a lin f a 100 lying o nt he said easterly 1 line 0 int also Y point on the easterly line of said parcel 1, said p Y g foot wide electrical easement; THENCE along said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 41015'50" West, a distance of 1315.33 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The above-described parcel contains 9.53 acres, more or less. EXHIBIT 2 9/19/96 2. .. r EXHIBIT 3 OWNER'S PROPERTY All of that certain real property described as Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 136 of Maps at Pages 62-64, on May 18, 1995, as serial #95-16439, County of Butte, State of California. and Al of that certain real property described as Parcel 2 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 90-92, on February 24, 1994, as serial #94-8678, County of Butte, State of California. and All of that certain real property described as Parcels 1, 2 and 4 as shown on that certain Map recorded in Book 132 of Maps at Pages 93-97, on February 24, 1994, as serial #94-8680, County of Butte, State of Calffomia. and All of that certain real property described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 as shown on that certain Map recorded In Book 136 of Maps at Pages 14-16, on December 21, 1994 as serial_#94.51359, County of Butte, State of Calffomia. and All of that certain real property described in Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and Remaining Lands as shown on that certain map recorded in Book 136 of Maps at Pages 34-36, on February 27, 1995, as serial #95103, County of Butte, State of California. EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 RESTRICTED USE AREA <. All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown on that certain map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", as filed in Book 136 of Parcel Maps at Pages 14 through 16, on file in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the most northerly corner of Parcel 1 as shown on that said Parcel.Map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B", said corner lying on the westerly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive, said point also lying on the easterly line of a 100' wide electrical easement as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California in Book 322 of Official Records at Page 145; THENCE leaving said westerly right-of-way line of Nance canyon Drive, South 41°15'50" East, along the easterly line of said Parcel 1 and the easterly line of said electrical easement, a distance of 152.02 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive; THENCE leaving said easterly right-of-way line of Nance Canyon Drive; said easterly line of Parcel 1 and said easterly line of said electrical easement, North 04°27'59" East, a distance of 103b.81 feet; THENCE North 53°25'35" East, a distance of 970.00 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2 as shown on said map entitled "Parcel Map, a Division of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map B"; THENCE leaving said southerly line of said Parcel 2, South 66025'10" East, a distance of 613.47 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of the Butte County Disposal Site as described in deed as recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Butte, State of California, under Recorders Serial No. 92-003801; THENCE along said northwesterly line, South 11033'07" West, a distance of 51.12 feet; THENCE leaving said northwesterly line, North 66025'10" West, a distance of 595.17 feet; THENCE South 39050'26" West, a'distance of 425.71 feet to the True Point of Beginning of the herein described parcel; THENCE South 53025'35" West, a distance of 458.94 feet; THENCE South 04027'53" West, a distance of 1038.95 feet; THENCE South 41 015'50" East, a distance of 1113.94 feet; THENCE North 60°34'04" East, a distance of 707.68 feet; THENCE North 53046'27" West, a distance of 379.28 feet; EXHIBIT 4 9/19/96 1. THENCE North 20043'06" West, a distance of 1683.57 feet to.the True Point of Beginning, The above-described parcel contains 31.82 acres, more or less. ,EXHIBIT 4 2• 9/19/96 IUII oir CA1.trORNin I 535 Will Strcct x Chico,CA 95928 � e � .� (916)343-3716 • l (916)343-4410 September 27, 1996 i ESTIMATED CLOSING STATEMENT ESCROW NO: 257413-JCW BUYER/BORROWER: County of Butte ; ESCROW OFFICER: Jolleen C. Whitsett PROPERTY $ DEBITS S CREDITS TOTAL CONSIDERATION 385,800.00 PRORATIONS/ADJUSTMENTS: FROM TO: Taxes for 12 months ® $ 251.39 10/01/96 01/01/97 62.85 MISCELLANEOUS ADJUSTMENTS: TITLE CHARGES: Owners Title Policy for $385,800.00 1,054.80 County Documentary Transfer Tax 424.60 RECORDING CHARGES: Deed 36.00 ESCROW CHARGES: Escrow Fee 521.00 ASSUMPTION CHARGES: ^ FIRST NEW LOAN CHARGES: Loan Origination Discount Fee Appraisal Fee Credit Report Tax Service Document Fee Mortgage Broker Loan Processing Underwriting Fee LOAN PAYOFFS: ADDITIONAL DISBURSEMENTS: ESTIMATED BALANCE DUE ESCROW 387,899.29' ESTIMATED TOTALS 387,899.25 387,899.25 i s •• ESTIMATED CLOSING STATEMENT •• �,p 4, A �j ji g", ?t u A g,� �'lu 4 0�`,'� M, _J4 W, Film, X, 1.1"'aIli:� IF 41, 0 "F < ''T!"OW M W 06�2-2- PP— A ....... oi r .0 W �a v,­� ........... UP RA--... 2 ARM, !',F�',5 �&, IM l*M & RE P1.01 'FRI, Z A 71", "T "do T7, Oil: A;'% E"I gu/�,, x,r,n 'd g­ In F,11'. et-1 'P` J4 A. V se k" A FRE��! M1, q! j� jr "p m W N o4' Al "k a 'S �,A V 0 �4"'S W 7M . ....... gdoK �,'M, gA V I'M Mmi ............ jlli�] �A. 09 A j -W SO% 41, 'T,k�jg -2 ME— .®r FYI IM A", ------ 5 Flo t I I W- W 91 �T 0 F, A M V t�V z, gg _A� WE f i7, Ilk IY P,�, A _43 T Jv It k V ­,�, 1, -i� �w- , _R_IAG�, W- 11,1-I- s mm 4_x_ pal", R *Ir I f,&, - - V, , - 5, A jh, 4 X" 0 01 z dwi "t" -M -7 W, g%v A 6011 31F, AM W 0, On i elk 4tf , -0 v 2 �R A ;�-n ?,AF4'-mZ , 01�, A, , I"F,, ,"-,,� ON Al e 41b, kl� A 4JR, F "M T Oklll A a,V T7:0 W� 00, 5 'N 9,Z VA M 5p T 0 1 Ai 4, MMV15MORZI 0 4zWee", Ole, v 41P X r,� Af;1 4 Ai�li 00- V904 ww qg X �;Vlxill t A �oo ,I qn �R M --un-0��--xw < ;�A AWK* :a ----------- q-, ry a --g < % N ��gg ,V"t "A , " " _5 ,A 51 w W or 'g J \ \ ? -MY, gg'T"q,K M, M r i, �j J W A 4q> j x N -4 % N� V jj A P X _q, y, '121M& x 3,_­_­ J�l j_ 9 x -41 R_ A, Q-1 x __y A mmAIK N" NO. A 2 X 'g NY gq f ",N�l x N N�, "Ai ft RK, Q 011 m X, 12 Al 5. ,W win x R�tl Z" Z" Wt x x N x 4" /Al N�. x X,� �j 01 > r _4 ON �0 AM !7-1', 7_71,��,!�,;�, & ----------- �v -77 _7 "We z !Z", ts _N1 -do'�g %, .am ON A� M _4 j, M� R ..... 27� >Q �­j IN v ,,�xq X 7717 look rV, Al "wu Pul N --�07_ �_X WIINi ;Ij Loz w, r Mm Vj 411 7� 'M I"�I, �-, 4i", q z, Ali, AM 'J, A", `5 1 41 kN 6,A�1:5k� g gluo A-;'A kv X �Ml tbi, M?_ x, 7 ng,�­ A ILI, M40 OK AW, �X Q AM www ge 4 " V1. M 7 X -,-,PA 40i�, �V 7K; g .4r�, 4 A, M, 1�;411 lg`AN 'or M 3 k� T YY �,j)M m '4W E o X ZRI Yx" 00 gi 14 ST 'i-,j �� f v A� iz V, 4 k mg MW A Xv, R- I'M1'� t M At &�g K 11 AA 'g, n, _,M R A , % IF- i ­ ­, "I""AN - '1, -1,14 �f, tv I SOON 34"',"'ke 4"i, "A �-e IM, A k7- 5 P'51.,'11_,� "I"Itj X ";,MU!.F ,.R MAM 6�0 em U,p, 'r," g x 'x AT, f vqw e- g'; v, 1W_ NE "l L Al, 'b "X,- V ,;o gg�p. 4pe", 'm jw, "g, N P '5 tv W N 'Sn" Vii, T. m. aonl 01,", �7, to NRI,� `A me, 4, g A :'v, "V;­ 0� P, "R-AORY M "I `,,"-,"I , Il-, � A N'n", ZZ"O, t",�,�;A NE Y, ll',8 NO '�7 JI' WE jv� N W Mom T, 5M VRI T' �o ®h 'j, Pt A M A g 4 W, V� , 1 1, gg, JCLM�, 2 A�ZA -OA,1M aM !AJ, _5r - ------------ I Ow 'a z 16 ti HT- L L 6-4 - 90 �27. 477 �A �'"�- 247) SST 9° 5E Bo S, PG. E 130.1.3 e ,842 ° xL, = 29,08 / \ � N 53 a2 28 E 979 OO \ - �• j C o �, s S RE----- - ,- I ++ s 4 ' 9,q R 14 4 30 �0 E C R 58 \ B / ria D ° _ ILL 6 4-9 N l I68E,44C -`` - T--3J ` - '`y S, P6, ,E_ 127901c i 01) a 14 • cA, _. % V �`� 6 •y v'\ S 0c) 0 / � o� ( x 5 03 �V �,o �-o • GLIA ` .� "' ` I rb 77° 46 c 0 I Q lc9 f ' ' A VA n . t 1 �s 7.57 0 . x '.... _ O —2 19 71. 28 8 47 \ � r0 P OF Pt A TA L v A f/� ,� - -- EL 169 H T-31 MOD. 4 s IN iLA _� '` 0 2 H��""-3L N l©7,.37. 213 �� ,/ � T B N9 EL . 2 2 7 , 6-8 l3 0.3.581 P .3 j �\ ; ; �- i \ �' CHISELED S 0,U A RE ON NW C 0 R• CONC. l � D I S C H A R G E RAMP _ \ C, 1 i ^ - ' - 10 6 x �, X ..tea 60 41 `°°° PL l 25,559 1E 13934,736 .9 f EL E V. =273,9 ,-�.,.,,.-��- ` �� IS T, ��j, 3� ,.,., .�.,.,- ..,,.,,._��xz' / `�--_ ly co' lb 00� � D p 3 rT s ` T-1 \ N � i