The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREZ 93-17_PLANNING 111111111111111 IN11111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111gIV i APN 0�-la -- 02o PROJECT NUMBER III PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET 7 Permit No. File No. FORREST YOUNG Applicant Representative`. ADDRESS: 82 NORTHWOOD COMMONS PLACE, CHICO, CA 95926 PHONE: 916- 342-9158 Property Owner, Address PROJECT DESCRIPTION: - RFZnNy Tn , ERAL-PL4N-DESTGNATTO`��T�c TME FROFERT]�. on property zoned � located ON HE.}� SOUTHWEST-'SIDE�'OF 'SKYWAY°ACROSS '.1FROM HONEY"RUN RnAn AND NnRTH nF FnCAR -,T.nTTQj, C Own 040-020-087, 040-020-148 CHICO identified as AP town/area General Plan Designation Map # DATE' Pre-App Fee Paid: $/072 Receipt No.: � Application Accepted: Final App. Paid: $ Receipt No.: Rezoning Petition signatures checked Percentage % Mailing List Prepared Notices Mailed Number: News: Public: '- / Legal Description prepared Publication Notice Written Display Ad Prepared Newspaper Publication OOC P G B R Date of Pub.: Initial Study Prepared Environmental Determination: — Categorical Exemption — Nagative Declaration ` Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report Other State Clearinghouse Number: i Applicant/Representative Notification of Environmental Determination t s Planning Commission Hearing(s): -�(]- ' 1 Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): Resolution Number (GPAs) Adopted: Ordinance Number ° 93 Adopted: / � `� -,f-3 I i i 93-335 Public Hearing - Forrest Young - consideration of a rezone (proposed negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts) from "U" (unclassified) to M-1 (light industrial) , property located on the southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and north of Edgar Slough, AP 040-020-087, 040- 020-148, Chico area. (1892) MOTION: I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMORANDUM DATED AUGUST 17, 1993; AND A. FIND THAT: 1. AN INITIAL STUDY WAS COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ; 2. SAID STUDY AND COMMENTS RECEIVED THEREON IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL . SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT THE PROJECT MAY HAVE HAD, BUT: (A) PROVISIONS IN THE PROJECT PLANS OR PROPOSALS MADE ' BY OR AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT WOULD AVOID SUCH EFFECTS OR MITIGATE SUCH EFFECTS TO A POINT WHERE CLEARLY NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WOULD OCCUR. ; (B) THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COUNTY THAT THE PROJECT AS REVISED MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ; 3. THE PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ; 4. THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS . INDEPENDENTLY REVIEWED, ANALYZED AND ' CONSIDERED THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION j 93-335 PRIOR TO MAKING A REVISION ON THE PROJECT AND FINDS THAT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION REFLECTS THE INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. ; 5. FIND THAT THE REZONE CONFORMS TO THE POLICIES, INCLUDING THE TEXT AND MAP OF THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, BECAUSE THE M-1. ZONE IS LISTED AS A CONSISTENT ZONE IN THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION; AND B. ADOPT ORDINANCE 3087 REZONING TO M-1 THAT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS AP 040-020-087 AND 148; AND C. ADOPT RESOLUTION 93-138 FOR A CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT ADDING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS_ THAT WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE REZONE: (1) ,DESIGNATE A 100' BUILDING AND NO DISTURBANCE SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BANK OR OUTER EDGE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION ON COMANCHE CREEK. THIS AREA CAN BE IMPROVED AS A PARKWAY/GREENBELT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE _ BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS -MINUTES - September 14, 1993 ,, .+r ,. .'R •,t �,� '-.1 �t t ".:tai � r •• _ ... -l.a,:,;,.�,5 �V7, . . . �, .. 7.: ., t .� r 1 � _. .. - .. � r .t .. � i r' _ Y �- _ � _ •� .. � � � - .. r r '� I l kc J . 1 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. ALSO DESIGNATE A 50' BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE TOP OF BANK OF THE FLOOD CHANNEL THAT FORMS THE WESTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY. ; (2) THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF ALL BUILDINGS SHALL BE ABOVE THE 1 IN 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION AS DETERMINED BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER. ; (3) THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW "FIRST FLUSH" WATER RUNOFF FROM ALL PAVED SURFACES TO BE RETAINED IN AN INFILTRATION , POND OR AREA, TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY. ALL DRAINAGE DISCHARGE SHALL MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ADMINISTERED BY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD. ; (4) ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE POINT ON SKYWAY, APPROVED BY THE BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. CONTRIBUTE A PRO RATA SHARE TOWARDS THE FUTURE INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION OF SKYWAY AND HONEY RUN ROAD AS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. ; i (5) IF A PRIVATE WATER SYSTEM FOR FIRE FIGHTING PURPOSES IS INSTALLED THAT IS NOT CONNECTED TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE, A CSA SHALL BE FORMED TO MAINTAIN SAID SYSTEM. ; (6) PROPOSED USES THAT DO NOT MEET THE COUNTY STANDARDS FOR SEWAGE DISPOSAL WITH SEPTIC TANK AND LEACHFIELD SYSTEMS MUST CONNECT TO THE CITY OF CHICO SEWER SYSTEM. ; (7) MINOR CHANGES MAY BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY 'BY THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES UPON RECEIPT OF A SUBSTANTIATED WRITTEN REQUEST BY ' THE APPLICANT. PRIOR TO SUCH APPROVAL, VERIFICATION SHALL BE MADE BY EACH DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION THAT THE MODIFICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION, FEES PAID AND 93-335 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AS CONDITIONALLY � - APPROVED. CHANGES DEEMED TO BE MAJOR OR SIGNIFICANT IN NATURE SHALL REQUIRE A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT. M S VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y . 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - September 14, 1993 ��.� �� . ,t*e• ``�..; T_. 1 V FORREST YOUNG PROJECT NAME SCH # AP # 040-020-087, 040-020=148 FILE # 30 Day Review Period Ends SCH Review . Period. Ends OUT-GOING ACTIVITY Date Action 97 i i PROJECT NAME FORREST YOUNG SCH AP # 040-020-087, 040-020-148 FILE tt 30 Day Review Period Ends SCH Review Period Ends CORRESPONDENCE/ COMENTS RECEIVED Date Agency/Person �- 4 Forest Young - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Rezone from "U" (Unclassified) to M-1 (Light Industrial) for property located on the southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and north of Edgar Slough, identified as AP# 040-020-087, 040- 020-148, Chico. (CBS) (File #93-17) (VIDEO). The Commission waived the reading of the Staff Findings. A video of the site was shown. Staff said any development on the property will be subject to collection of traffic impact fees that are currently in place for commercial' and industrial development. Commissioner Lambert said this property was before the commission previously asking for a rezone. She said there were specific problems connected with drainage. Staff said the in the first instance it was still a rezone but we had some additional-' information that Caribou Mountaineering wanted to locate a facility onsite. He said some of the impacts were addressed. He said at that time the property was not located within the designated urban area, therefore the urban improvements that are required on the building permits were not applicable. There was no requirment for drainage or road frontage improvements on the building permit. He said now the property within the urban area and any industrial or commercial development must install drainage improvements that have to be approved by the Public Works Department as well 'as certain road improvements. The hearing was opened to the public. Scott Murphy, representative for applicant said they agree to the mitigation measures and will answer any questions the commission might have. There being none the hearing was closed to the public. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Sessions, and unanimously carried to approve the project as follows: A. Find that.: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Said study and comments received therecn identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: I a. Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigate such effects to point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. 1 j - BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 10, 1993 � -., � r ., � s b. There is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the test and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the M-1 zone is listed as a consistent zone in the Industrial General Plan designation; and B. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning to M-1 that property identified as AP# 040-020-087 and 148; and C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for a conditional zoning agreement adding the following conditions that will be made a part of the rezone: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All.drainage discharge shall meet, water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, a County Service Area shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June-10 `1.993 7 i FILE NO.: 93-17 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 APPLICANT: Forrest Young OWNER: Same REQUEST: Rezone to M-1 AP NO.: 040-020-087 & 148 SIZE: 45+ acres LOCATION: Located on the southwest side of the Skyway, opposite the intersection of Honey Run Road, south of Chico EXISTING ZONING: U ZONING HISTORY: Zoned U on Jan. 6, 1897 by Ord. #2574 SURROUNDING ZONING: PQ, M-2; FR-5, FR-2, FR-160 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Industrial uses to the south, rural residential uses to the east, grazing to the north and northeast, and the U.S. Plant Introduction Station, a public use, to the west SITE HISTORY: The property was originally designated industrial on the Chico Area Land Use Plan that was adopted in 1982. The designation was amended to Agricultural residential in 1985 to conform with the City of Chico's designation. The City of Chico subsequently amended their general plan to designate the land industrial and the County, in 1986, followed with an amendment to return the land to it's original industrial designation. A previous application for rezoning 1 h BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 to M-1 was approved but later rescinded because a proposed development agreement was never signed by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Butte County Code Sections 24-26 through 29, 24-114, and 24-195 COMMENTS RECEIVED: Highway Patrol - No objections Fire Dept. - No Fire Dept. input at this time . Public Works - No comments Environmental Health - The Butte County Environmental Health Division has no objections to the rezone of this property. The property is located outside of the Nitrate Action Plan boundaries but within the City of Chico Sphere of influence. Since the M-1 zone permits high waste water generating facilities, connection to a public sewer may be necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control guidelines and County policy. If developments are low waste water generating facilities, complete soil and groundwater investigations will be necessary because sewage disposal area for septic system is limked and portions of the property may be within a flood plain. In any case, Butte County Environmental Health Division will encourage connection to a public sewer system for waste water disposal. ANALYSIS: This project is a request to rezone approximately 45 acres, located on the west side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road, from U to M-1. This site has been the focus of several previous actions. The property was originally designated as Industrial on the Chico Area General Plan. The designation was changed to Agricultural Residential in 1985 to conform with the City of Chico's plan. In 1986 the City of Chico changed their designation to Industrial and the County followed with an amendment back to Industrial. A subsequent rezone application to M-1 was approved with an associated Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, however was never signed and the zoning was changed back to U. The Development Agreement was used to address the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal, the construction of an new facility for Caribou Mountaineering. The designation of the site for industrial use is compatible with the surrounding properties. The land to the south is already zoned M-2 and is developed with industrial uses. The property to the west is the U.S. Plant Introduction Station and industrial uses will not conflict with this use. 2 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 To the north and east the property is bounded by Skyway which is a divided 4 lane road. This provides access to the property and acts as a buffer to the rural residential uses to the west. A Development Agreement was used in conjunction with the last rezone proposal because we had a specific development proposal and the property was not within the Chico Urban Area boundary so the impacts of development could not be addressed through the required improvement standards for the urban area. (Specifically, drainage, road improvements, fire protection, and traffic) The boundary of the Chico Urban Area has been changed to included this property. The urban improvements required for commercial and industrial building permits have made many of the past mitigations unnecessary since those same mitigations are now required by ordinance. However, since there are still some environmental concerns that need to be addressed, a conditional rezone is recommended. Those areas of concern are discussed in the environmental documents attached to this report. Development on site will also be subject to the collection of traffic, school, and Sheriff impact fees. The proposed zone is compatible with the General Plans of both the City of Chico and the County and both jurisdictions support the designation. Approval of this request is recommended. RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DATED April 29, 1993; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A": MAKE THE MOTION LISTED UNDER "B" INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1 THROUGH 6. A. Find that: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Said study and comments received thereon identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: a. Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigate such effects to point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. b. There is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3 1 r. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 4. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the'M-1 zone is listed as a consistent zone in the Industrial General Plan designation; and B. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning to M-1 that property identified as AP Nos. 040-020-087 & 148; and C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for a conditional zoning agreement adding the following conditions that will be made a part of the rezone: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/ greenbelt with tl-e approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow "first flush" water, runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, A CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. CBS:cs Attachments to Commission and Cities: Environmental Documents Site Plan Location Map 4 n APPLICA'TION FOR REZONING BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Plartaitd,��arent FEB 1 .2 1993 APPLICANT: Read and follow instructions set forth on last page of this form. Oroville CsIiP®rnra Applicant's Name Forrest Young Phone Nof 916) 34.3-136 2 Applicant's Mailing Address __82 Northwood Commons Place , Chico ., 95926 Applicant's Interest in property(Owner, Lessee,Other) Owner Owner's Name and Address Forrest Yo ung, 82 Northwood Cmms _ r Chico , 95926 Contact Person for Project(if other than applicant) Scott Murphy, (91 6) 342-9158 04o- G-Le)—l4fS Assessor's Parcel Number(s)-4 0-02-8 7 4Present Zoning 1- Requested Zoning M-1 Z Location,dimensions and size of area(s)to be rezoned 42 acres located on the west 0-4 a, side of the Skyway, at the intersection of Honey Run Road. .. �+ (See location man attached Exhibit A) Eb . Z Street Address(if applicable) __ N/A GJ " j Directions for travel to property(rural and mountainous areas only) N/A a Applicant's reasons for rezoning To bring the , zoning in conformance with Chico ' s Sphere of Influence Gpnpral Plan designation as M-1 and its use consistent with the existing industrial facilities immediately south of the• pro Pr y_ Proposed scheduling/Associated projects(formation of service district,etc.) R P zone M-1 . No special service districts are antici:aced _ Anticipated incremental development(future development plans subsequent to rezone): When a! sig i t- moble M-1 user is located , a specific development plan will hp submitted to the Commission and Board of Supervisors _ Existing/proposed sewage disposal method: Septic ,SPP E x h i h i t R • S P tp i t .Sy G r P m Proximity of power and phone lines:_A At. Site _ Distance to natural watercourse or storm drain: _P r_Tr ty disse&ltndd by Crouch n i_t_rh, �� by Comanche Creek on the we hnrriararl an south r� an at by v Flood Control Channel . I Describe anticipated on and off-site drainage improvements(PUD,MHP): The propprty cur— renty drains through Crouch Ditch and Comanche Creek, which dump into Flood Control Channel , Clean and align Crouch Ditch drain to channelize the flow to Flood Control Channel . Describe how on-site and downstream drainage channels will be affected(PUD,MHP): Drainage is conveyed by Flood Control Channel , which bypasses residential : areas and dumps back into Butte Creek south of town _ Water source: Wells , Proximity of water for fire fighting purposes(hydrants,ponds,etc.) WP 1 1 G _ Will excavation or grading be necessary? Y _Cubic yards(estimate)? S o m e grading will he _crr �i d to eliminatp any 1 oval i zPd ponding__ List and describe and other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including . those required by city,regional,State and Federal agencies: When a suitable light i n d u s— trial user is located, a specific development plan will be' sub— mitted submitted to LAFCO , Public Works , Butte County Health , RPginnal Water Z and Air Control Boards and the Board of Supervisors . Gz, If residential, include the number of units, whether units,are single or multi-story in height, schedule of H unit sizes,and type of household size expected. Z U N/A If commercial, indicate the type,.whether neighborhood,. city or regionally oriented, square footage of a+ sales area,and loading facilities N/.A d If industrial,indicate type,estimated employment per shift,and loading facilities. Light. Industrial , employees unknown If institutional .indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,' loading facilities,and community benefits to be derived from the project. N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Identify potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the rezone. What project design features or special conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are proposed to alleviate potential environmental impacts?T E.I-r-c iz f h w a s d P G inn a t P r1 industrial b , th e Chi GG Area Land Use Plan of 1982. An EIR was prepared, certified and a_ dn?tpd hx the Rnard of curngry}sors , Two site-sppeeifie dr ft EIR ' s were prepared in 1986 and 1991 addressing impacts and are ded for negative declaration by the Commission. 2 ENVIRONMEN_T_AL SETTINC3 Describe the project site as it exists before the project, inclLding information on topgraphy, soil stability, plants and animals,and any cultural, historical and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. See attached draft EIR ' s as Exhibit C & D . z - i.•l Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use(residential,commercial, etc.),intensity of land use (one-family apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback,rear yard,etc.). Z U See attached draft EIR ' s as Exhibit C & D . W a a I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the instructions and that the foregoing statements are true,complete and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Da d:V Applicant's Signature Dated: Property owner's signature Project File Number aGeneral Plan Designation Request Consistent? Z Request: Rezone to W Location and size of parcel(s) W U w w O 3 I Verify: A.P.Number(s) Location Description a COwnership Legal Description of Area W Proof of Agency(if needed) Maps of Area/Development ] Plan for PUD's W Present Zoning U Reproducible Master Map of Development Plan(PUD's only) O Date of Application received c� — /o2- 5E,3 $16 75 Receipt No. Z 3,1 ZQE Application Taken By �G s 4 BALDWIN CUN 1 RAC 11NG CO 1.1 S "' AN I I N I IlUUUC I 1 UIV 6ORULN CHI ICA P 0 BOX 311 95926 MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: 011 410 180 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 069 -00 STATUS: INACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN P 0 BOX 311 CHICO CA95926 MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 068 -00 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL STRANGE ARCHIE A 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS 3029 BURTIS DR CHICO CA 95926 SACRAMENTO CA 95821 L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 068 -00 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL STRANGE ARCHIE A 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS 3029 BURTIS DR CHICO CA 95926 SACRAMENTO CA 95821 L: 040 020 141 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO DEPT OF FISH & GAME-WILDLIFE CONS BOARD N n BOX 311 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 MARYSVILLE. . CA 95901 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 020 141 006 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC L: 040 400 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE . BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 0 BOX 311 DEPT OF FISH & GAME-WILDLIFE CONS BOARD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 020 142 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 004 000 STATUS; ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO B 0 BOX EE DEPT OF FISH & GAME-WILDLIFE CONS BOARD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 020 142 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MATHEWS READYMIX INC L: 040 400 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 0 BOX 386 DEPT OF FISH & GAME-WILDLIFE CONS BOARD GRIDLEY CA 95948 1416 NINTH ST RM 120.6-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 0201 148 0100 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL L: 040 400 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MCCOWAN DUNCAN SS 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS P -0 BOX 337 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA-95927 " L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL L: .040 400 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MCCOWAN DUNCAN SS 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS P 0 BOX 337 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95927 L: 040 030 071 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 030 071 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 030 071 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 030 069 -00 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 BALDWIN CONI RAC I'I NG CO U S u+ All I 11J I IWDUC:I I UN UORULN CHI CA P 0 BOX 311 95926 MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: 011 410 180 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 069 —00 STATUS: INACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA P 0 BOX 311 95926 MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 068 —00 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST 8 & HELEN ETAL STRANGE ARCHIE A 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS 3029 BURTIS DR CHICO CA 95926 SACRAMENTO CA 95821 L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 030 068 —00 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL STRANGE ARCHIE A 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS 3029 BURTIS DR CHICO CA 95926 SACRAMENTO CA 95821 L: 040 020 141 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA F' T BOX EE DEPT OF FISH & GAME—WILDLIFE CONS BOARD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 020 141 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC La 040 400 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE . BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 0 BOX 311 DEPT OF FISH & GAME—WILDLIFE CONS BOARD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 . L: 040 020 142 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO STATE OF CALIFORNIA B 0 BOX EE DEPT OF FISH & GAME—WILDLIFE CONS BOARD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 L: 040 020 142 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MATHEWS READYMIX INC L: 040 400 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE STATE OF CALIFORNIA P 0 BOX 386 DEPT OF FISH & GAME—WILDLIFE CONS BOARD GRIDLEY CA 95948 1416 NINTH ST RM 1206-22 SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL MCCOWAN DUNCAN SS 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS P 0 BOX 337 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA-95927 L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 400 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL MCCOWAN DUNCAN SS 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS P 0 BOX 337 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95927 L: 040 030 071 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 04(d fd30 8171 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 030 071 000 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 030 069 —00 STATUS: INACTIVE U S PLANT INTRODUCTION GARDEN CHICO CA 95926 5 ' L: OW 020 087 000 S 1 i1 AC I 1 VE I l i;..11 1-0II F111'c 01 1Ll!&;01 1f.1 W i I HLSSL-S YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ET P 0 BC„ .294 63 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95926 L: Oil 380 013 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL P 0 BOX 1294 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A REV LIVING TRUST YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A TRUSTEES 50 HONEY RUN RD 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO. CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A REV LIVING TRUST YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A TRUSTEES 50 HONEY RUN RD 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO, CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 068 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA 10 HONEY RUN RD OSAKA JAPAN 00000 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 068 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC. 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA 10 HONEY RUN RD OSAKA JAPAN 00000 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 022 000 STATUS: INACTIVE L: 011 050 092 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CONROY PATRICK ETAL SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 3044A MONTICELLO LN PO BOX 143 CHICO CA 95926 EUREKA CA 95501 L: Oil 380 022 000 STATUS: INACTIVE L: Oil 050 092 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CONROY PATRICK ETAL SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL' 3044A MONTICELLO LN PO BOX 143 CHICO CA 95926 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 104 000 STATUS: ACTIVE GEDNEY CURTIS W & FRANCES SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 70 HONEY RUN RD P 0 BOX 143 CHICO CA 95928 EUREKA CA 95501 , L: 011 380 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 104 000 STATUS: ACTIVE GEDNEY CURTIS W & FRANCES SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 70 HONEY RUN RD P 0 BOX 143 CHICO CA 95928 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 023 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC ALLEN BARBARA E 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA OSAKA JAPAN 00000 1685 SKYWAY CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 023 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC ALLEN BARBARA E 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA OSAKA JAPAN 00000 1685 SKYWAY CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 179 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC HESS ROBERT M & JOAN JT P 0 BOX 311 110 HONEY RUN ROAD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 179 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC HESS ROBERT M & JOAN JT P 0 BOX 311 110 HONEY RUN ROAD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: �3�t�J GJ2G� k3E1'1 CSG}f0 51(1 AL;I 1 V� i,l I.I i.,l..l i_,Ui 11 ral I', 01 J 1=I I W)l 6' W 1 I IJLSISLS YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETF._. P 0 90� 1294 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 013 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 087 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL P 0 BOX 1294 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A REV LIVING TRUST YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A TRUSTEES 50 HONEY RUN RD 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 040 020 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A REV LIVING TRUST YOUNG FORREST B & HELEN ETAL YBANEZ NAT & TOMASA A TRUSTEES 50 HONEY RUN RD 83 NORTHWOOD COMMONS CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 380 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 068 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA 10 HONEY RUN RD OSAKA JAPAN 00000 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 066 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO COMPANY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESSES INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC. 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA 10 HONEY RUN RD OSAKA JAPAN 00000 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 022 000 STATUS: INACTIVE L: 011 050 092 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CONROY PATRICK ETAL SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 3044A MONTICELLO LN PO BOX 143 CHICO CA 95926 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 022 000 STATUS: INACTIVE L: 011 050 092 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CONROY PATRICK ETAL SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 3044A MONTICELLO LN PO BOX 143 CHICO CA 95926 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 104 000 STATUS: ACTIVE GEDNEY CURTIS W & FRANCES SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 70 HONEY RUN RD P 0 BOX 143 CHICO CA 95928 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 050 104 000 STATUS: ACTIVE GEDNEY CURTIS W & FRANCES SCHMIDBAUER GEORGE A JR & MARY M ETAL 70 HONEY RUN RD P 0 BOX 143 CHICO CA 95928 EUREKA CA 95501 L: 011 380 023 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC ALLEN BARBARA E 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA OSAKA JAPAN 00000 1685 SKYWAY CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 023 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC ALLEN BARBARA E 4-17 TAMAI-2 TOYONAKA OSAKA JAPAN 00000 1685 SKYWAY CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 179 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 3BO 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC HESS ROBERT M & JOAN JT P 0 BOX 311 110 HONEY RUN ROAD MARYSVILLE CA 95901 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 179 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC HESS ROBERT M & JOAN JT P 0 BOX 311 110 HONEY RUN ROAD MARYSVILLE CA .95901 �' L t a M �: Y `f. - �:: 4 �'7 't f N �� r�. i i 7 _ _-- �� _ _ 1'�'-�- ORDINANCE NO. 3087.---.c AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF' 3 f 3 S BUTTE, STATE OF:CALIFORNIA, AN M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-29. 1 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, 2 under and pursuant to Section 24-29 of the Butte County Code of said County, 3 ORDAINS, as follows: 4 SECTION I. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 5 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as. an M-1 (Light e ? Industrial) District, and such area shall be subject to the restrictions and restricted 8 uses and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-114. 9 Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte 10 County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: 11 Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Bruce Road and 12 the Skyway; thence southerly along Skyway's centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Comanche Creek, approximately 13 2760 ft.; thence westerly along said centerline of Comanche Creek 14 to its intersection with the flood control channel approximately 1000, feet, said flood control channel located on the west line of the E 1/2 15 of Section 5 T21 N R2E MDB&M; thence northerly along said W line 1800 feet; thence continuing northerly along the W line of the E 1/2 16 of Sec. 32 T22N R2E MDB&M approximately 600 feet to the point 17 of beginning , 18 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be 19 in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, 20 21 and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this 22 Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board 23 of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a 24 newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. 25 26 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County 2 of Butte, State of California, on the 14ttday of September, 1993, by the following 3 vote: 4 AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, McLaughlin, Thomas and Chair Houx 6 NOES: : None e ABSENT: ' None 7 8 NOT VOTING: None 9 , MARY A ROUX, CHAIRMAN 10 Butte County Board of Supervisors 11 12 ATTEST: JOHN S. BLACKLOCK, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board 13 14 15 By 16 17 18 - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 93-040443 pv CCM SEP 2 0 1993 ORIGIN,qL ROCU WITH `Q ME NT Resolution No. 93-138 RESOLUTION FOR AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONE FOR FORREST YOUNG I BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be and is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement on behalf of the County of Butte relating to reclassification of zoning with: FORREST YOUNG and to do and perform everything necessary to carry out the purpose of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on thel4thday of Septembgrl993, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, McLaughlin, Thomas and Chair NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: , one MARY ANNE HOUX, CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: JOHN S. BLACKLOCK, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By a�-� CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 14th day of Sept. , 19 93 , by and between "First Party", as identified in item (a) of Exhibit 1 of this Agreement, and the COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California, herein called "Second Party'. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, First Party is the owner of real property, herein called the 'Property", situated in the County of Butte, which Property is described in Item (f) of Exhibit I of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Property is now zoned as specified in Item (b) of Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, First Party has applied for a reclassification of zoning of the Property pursuant.to which application the Property is being reclassified from its present classification to the classification or classifications specified in Item (c) of Exhibit 1; and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held upon said application before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, and after having considered the matter presented, it has been determined that certain conditions to the zoning reclassification of said real property must be imposed so as not to create any problems inimical to the health, safety and the general welfare of the County of Butte. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED that inasmuch as the reclassification specified in Item (c) of Exhibit 1 is being granted, the said reclassification shall be subject to the conditions specified in the following paragraphs: 1. That Exhibit 1, as completed and attached hereto, is incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 2. That First Party shall construct and comply with all the following conditions: 2a. Designate a. 100 foot building and no-disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This-area can be improved as a parkway/greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50 foot building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2b. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 2c. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2d. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. - 2e. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, a County Service Area shall be formed to maintain said system. 2f. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. 3. In the event First Party, any successor in -interest of First Party, or any person in possession of the property described in Item (f) of Exhibit I violates or fails to perform any of the conditions of this Agreement within thirty (30) days after notice thereof as provided in Paragraph 5, the Board of Supervisors of Second Party may instruct the County Counsel of Second Party to institute legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The Board of Supervisors of Second Party may also initiate proceedings to rezone the property to the classification specified in Item (b) of Exhibit I or any other suitable classification. 4. Notice of violation of provisions of this Agreement shall be sent to First Party at the address specific in Item (d) of Exhibit 1 and to the street address of the property described in Item (d) of Exhibit 1. Any subsequent title bolder, any lien holder, or party in possession of the property shall also receive notice of such violation at an address other than as specified in Item (d) of Exhibit 1 by filing with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Second Party the address to which the notice is to be sent, with reference to this Agreement and the Resolution authorizing its execution. 5. In the event suit is brought by the County Counsel of Second Party to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, First Party agrees to pay to Second Party a reasonable sum to be fixed by the Court as attorney's fees. 6. Each and every one of the provisions of this agreement herein contained shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successor in interest of each and every party hereto, in the same manner as if they had herein been expressly named. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. - C i COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California By /. Cha rperson of the Board d , Supervisors n,Q SEP ::;: 1,33 "Second Party" ATTEST: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No.5 State of n., OPTIONAL SECTION �n( CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER County of Est L. Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may prove invaluable to persons retying on the document. On - `� 3 before me, Ca r c Ica fl1'o a .; 6 l ❑ INDIVIDUAL DATE NAME,TITLE OF OFFICER-E.G.,-JANE DOE,NOTARY PUBLIC- CORPORATE OFFICER(S) personally appeared Ma r n _, �'r>1 Q u- NAME(Sj OF SIGNER(S) TITLES) personally known to me-OR-❑ ❑PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED to be the person(gy whose name(sr) is/are ❑ GENERAL .� subscribed to the within instrument and ac- ❑ATTORNEY-IN-FACT knowledged to me that k1e/she/t4ey executed ❑TRUSTEE(S) the same in hi6/her/th-etr authorized ❑GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR capacity(ioe), and that by 44/her/their signature(p) on the instrument the person(', or the entity upon behalf of which the CAROL ROACH person(gacted, executed the instrument. COMM.r 968956 Z SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: Z .�� ' • Notary Public—Colifomio > WITNESS my hand and official seal. NAS OF PERSON(S)OR ENjITY(IEs) BUTTE COUNTY '`j c LA /b{l' My Comm.Expires AUG 7.19% ZL SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL SECTION THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATTACHED TO TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED AT RIGHT: NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT Though the data requested here is not required by law, it could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. SIGNER(S)OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ®1992 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION•8236 Remmet Ave.,P.O.Box 7184•Canoga Park,CA 91309-718.: 4,� '.. . EXHIBIT 1 Agreement (a) "First Party", as used in this Agreement, includes each and all of the following: Forrest Young., HELEN YOUNG, MARGARET H. MORGAN, RICHARD C. PETERS AMID RAMONA W. PETERS (b) The property is now zoned: "U" (Unclassified) (c) The zoning reclassification of the property is from its present zoning to: M-1 (d) Notice to First Party pursuant to Paragraph No. 4 shall be addressed to: Forrest Young, 82 Northwood Commons Place, Chico, CA 95926. (e) The change in zoning classification pursuant to Paragraph No. 4 shall be to: M-1 (f) "Property", as used in this Agreement, includes: A portion of T22N R2E Sec. 32 and T21N R2E Sec. 5 MDB&M, more particularly described as: Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Bruce Road and the Skyway; thence southerly along Skyway's centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Comanche Creek, approximately 2760 ft.; thence westerly along said centerline of Comanche Creek to its intersection with the flood control channel approximately 1000 feet, said flood control , channel located on the west line of the E 1/2 of Section 5 T21N R2E MDB&M; thence northerly along said W line 1800 feet; thence continuing northerly along the W line of the E 1/2 of Sec. 32 T22N R2E MDB&M approximately. 600 feet to the point of beginning. ) STATE OF CALIFORNIA )ss. C COUNTY OF Butte ) 3 On_Sept. 3, 1993 before me, W. J. Golling o personally appeared Forrest Young, Helen Young, Richard C. Peters, Ramona W. Peters and Margaret H. Morgan personally:known 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)Aacted, ext the instrument. �W.J.OQLUNQ WITNESd o I seal. i NOTARY CKX*tr Signature iMr conuals�lo„E r« W 9 0'-••s.v�ao,low lTlMIMIIWI4IMI„„M/MI/M�w (This area for official notarial seal) � C� RESURVEY OF A PORTION OF PETERS/YOUNG PROPERTY (AP NOS - 40-02-87 & 46-36-69) SCU THEAST OF CH=CO, BUw1PTE COUNTY, CAL2F'ORNLPi, FOR RARE AND ENDANGEaED SPECIES OF VASCULAR PLANTS , CONDUCTED ON APRT-I, 20, 3-987 , AS A FOLD-.OWUP TO THE OR2GXNAT• SURVEY CONDUCTED ON SEIn-EP9BER 26 , 1986 As indicated in the original survey, the northern tip of this property includes habitats that are similar to those of adjacent areas where officially recognized rare and endangered :species of vascular plants are 3nzown to occur Because the original survey was done in the fall , it was not possible at that time to determine if two of Butte County' s rare species (Shippee meadow f cam--Limnanthes f laccosa ssp calif arnica, and Bidwell ' s }motweed--Polycgonum bidwelliae) are present on the property_ Although it is frequently possible to determine the presence of various rare species on the basis of plant remnants of ter the f lowering season, these particular taxa do not lend themselves to such determinations because their vegetative and floral parts disappear completely shortly of tar fruiting_ The followup survey was conducted at the ideal time for finding and identifying --the-- plants. -theplants in question_ A thorough, systematic field search, however, failed to reveal any traces of the species concerned_ -Mitigations for them, therefore, do not appear to be required_ Kings a R_ Stern, Ph_D_ Senior Botanist Department of Biological Sciences California State University Chico, California 95929-0515 (916) 895-5381 Planning�e�artan�nt MAR 31 1993 j i` , INN PP 93-040443 93-040443 93-040443 T — r Recorded 1t Official Recordim 1 J • County of ` I, Butte Candace J. Grubbs 1 < Recorder *:0:?am 20-Seeps-93 I CONS FMS 5 e Peters/Young R&E Plants-Resurvey 2 ADDITIONAL SPECIES NOTED APRIL 20 , 1987 , THAT WERE NOT IN EVIDENCE DURING THE SEPTEMBER 26, 1986 SURVEY COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Blow wives Achyrachaena mollis Many-flowered brodiaea Dichelostemma multiflorum Ripgut Bromus diandrus Wild onion Allium amplectens Slender cottonweed Hicropus cal fornicus Old man of spring Senecio vulgaris Squirreltail Hordeum jubatum Blue stars Brodiaea minor Bur chervil Anthriscus scandicina Fiddleneck Amsinckia intermedia Agoseris Agoseris heterophylla Jointed charlock Raphanus raphinistrum Tidy tips Layia fremontii California soaproot Chlorogalum pomeridianum Coyote thistle Eryng2um vaseyi �. �� w. + , � .. 1 •BARRY M. ,MEYERS. `•.';,'+' '; '•:... Attorney'.at Law .t > °povntc.cnuronriA.:, 2 426•Broadway,.• ~I 3 .P. .1 Box:3542:' JUi. 1 'r 1986_'• 'Chico "California 95927 (916) 893-1149 nonnn of 4 v1sops J 5 Attorney for Petitioner "... G 7 8 0 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF BUTTE 11 HOWARD ESTRELLA, CASE NOt 12 Petitioner, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND 13 vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF 1J BUTTE ' and DOES I through X; inclusive, 16 Respondents, 17 18 RICHARD PETERS and 19 CARIBOU MOUNTAINEERING, 20 Real-Parties-in-Interest. 21 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 22 1. This action challenges the decision by the Butte County Board of Supervisors and the.,.County of SutEe to aI owI a change-is the zoning ofproperty previously zoned Unclassifiedm.to..M-1 : Industrial. subject property is described �as'A:P:, 40-02-874. ind..11-05-69 and is-located on the west of the`Skyti+ay'.opposite 27 '}the linte section tof`Honey.,Run,Road.,, The Butte'County Planning �1 ��. ,t��y?:+•;,1'a".;j'^4:tii'.- ,�iJj:J`J+u.;�`��`;Jsur,`yi7'.�;;+,;jk' '�:::_..".".. `.,7. ..>j�;r.•y�ijV� ,'`Er �j.•`:�. 28 Department recoinmended,to''the'Butte County Planning Commission i • 1 .that "the' a •1•i ti ' ' .._ . :: •-, -,:,.;: '' =� ;�`R,'•,;.',;�.,.. pp ca on of Richard .'Peters, rReal=ParEy-in-Intecest, }.2 " for a zoning change be limited to 15 acres, rathet' than the' 43 3 acres rezoned. The Butte County Planning Commlosion, by a--unan- imous vote, approved the application for a rezone of the entire J 43 acres, despite the fact that the Planning ataff had informed 6 the Board that the Environmental Checklist only considered the 7 rezoning of 15 acres. The Butte County Board of Supervisors 8 9 approved the rezone of the entire 43 acres despite numerous public comments that no environmental review had been done on the 10 entire 43 acres. The Board of Supervisors (hereinafterie- (erred ll 12 to as Board) found 'that a mitigated negative declaration as.per the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code 13 Sections 21000, et seq, hereinafter referred to as CEQA) was 14 15 proper and further found that the rezone was in conformity with lG the Butte County General Plan. This action alleges that such decisions were made unlawfully and constituted an abuse of dis- 17 cretion in that the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for 18 the Implementation of CEQA (California Administrative,Code, Title 19 14, Sections 15000, at seq, hereinafter referred.to.as Guide- 20 21 lines) were not followed by Respondents in taking such actions. 2. This is also an action for injunctive relief in the 22 event Respondent Board proceeds to implement its decisions prior 23 to the final resolution of this action:- 24 _ 3. Petitioner contends that the project, as;°proposed, has 25 not been subjected to required environmental .proaedures"'as man- 26 `27 dated by CEQA and that commencement of the project, as proposed, will result in'.`.the,,destruct ion"of `limited' natural''..resources and i�28 ��- 'lI.:3•._ •�. .. <S�. -ri , .. �'•, •environmental values. -2- 1 X= 4:: Petitioner ,further contenda,.that •the procedures employed c .t 2 by Respondent Board andits",'agents: amount .to an",avoidance of the basic.requirements of CEQA and 'its.basic policies:'•` 4 S.'. Had Respondent Board proceeded in a`m'nner required by 5 law, the environmental, social and economic harm described in 6 this Petition would not occur and could be avoided. . 7 6. Petitioner Howard Estrella is a resident of Butte County 8 and lives relatively close to the subject property. Petitioner 0 will be adversely affected by the zoning che.nge in .that it may 10 have significant impacts on the environment, and iW'particular, 11 on his quality of life. Petitioner has a direct interest in 12 seeing that the laws of the State of California are enforced and 13 that proper environmental review is given to all planning deci- 14 sions in Butte County. 15 7. Respondent County of Butte (hereinafter referred to as 16 County) is and at all times relevant herein was a county govern- 17 meet, organized under the laws of the State of California and 18 charged with faithfully performing mandatory duties, under"those 19 laws, as more particularly alleged herein. 20 S. Respondent Butte County Board of Supervisors is the 21 governing board of the county and is required to comply with;.,the 22 laws and Constitutions of the State of California and the' R+:ited 23 States. _ _ _ -- ------ ------- --_-. Real-Party-in-interest Richard Peters is. owner.'of 25 the subject property to be rezoned. 26 10. Real-Party-in-Interest Caribou Mountaineering,h'as�; 27 entered into an agreement to purchase said property ,from':Rictiard 28 Peters .should''it be'rezoned. to M-1 or M-2. �T7 ,.y �' z + i• �,.• :,;. -3- ;r"1 ;. �,:11.,•::,Petitioner Is .unaware of .the true 'names and capacities of,Respondents. DOES. I through X and sues such respondents-herein 3 by,'fictitious`name: Petitioner is informed and•"believes+"and upon 4 information and belief alleges that the fictitiously named 're- 5 spondents are also responsible for the threatened injuries to G Petitioner and other citizens of the County of Butte and State of . 7 California. When the true identities and capacities of said 8 respondents have been determined, Petitioner will, with leave of 0 court,;amend this..petition to insert such identities and capa- cities., ' apa- cities: . 1] 12 SUMMARY OF EVENTS 13 12. The planning staff of Butte County was informed that 14 the rezone was for the purpose of allowing Caribou Mountaineering j15 to purchase the subject property and construct a new .50,000 16 square foot manufacturing facility on approximately 10 acres of 17 the subject property. A tentative site plan was submitted with i 18 the application for rezone showing the location of ,the new manu- 19 facturing facility. Based on the rezone application,'and site 20 plan the planning staff began the environmental review process. 21 13. On or about January 13, 19B6, the.Butte County Planning _ 22 Department prepared an environmental checklist form. This form ' 23 was.prepared on the assumption that Caribou Mountaineering would 24 occupy 'the"pr emises and build a manufacturing plant .Ias per the '25 tentative.site"plan..' Thus, the initial study/environmental 5 2G -r analysis failed to consider the entire 43 acre parcel that was Frrezoned orKanalyzes_,thezenvironmental impacts should Caribou G!j y� y - «. b� it w ♦ r � F .J /1p y'f ':.lf'7t�.✓ i 1' rrlwlk -1^.y� r�4ik„Y 1�afy {'rleAl,'r`K-'�l'J c �RLO 3 !9f { eJ r MVit ,'Mountaineering not be°the owner,of 4 the�property. �S t lMv� L ri ii+n > t r7 y e a I r _ 14:'-_,On-or'about.Feb ruery;3,;;1986,;tt e. Department'of,Trann- 2 portation `provided comments'`on the proposed reione to allow: 3 construction of manufacturing facilities for, Caribou Mountain- 4 Bering indicating there might be significant cumulative impacts 5 from the proposed rezone. 6 15. On or about January 10, 1986, comments were received 7 from the Butte County Department of Public Health, Howard Snyder, 8 indicating that a sewage disposal plan by the California State 0 Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required and that 10 the property was,outside• the sewer service area. 11 16. On or about April 9, .1986, the Butte County .Planning 12 Commission held a public hearing concerning the proposed•rezone 13 application. The Planning Commission did not follow the Planning 14 staff's recommendations to only rezone a portion of the land, but 15 rather rezoned the entire 43 acres to M-1. 16 17. On or about. June '3, .1986, a public hearing concerning 17 the rezone application was held by the Board. The Board heard 18 testimony from many persons concerning the proposed rezone. The 19 Board was informed that the environmental review'of.the project 20 had been limited to the Caribou Mountaineering co mplax and that 21 no studies had been done concerning the remaining 28 acres. The 22 Board continued the public hearing until June 17';.;1986.'. - 23 - 18. _ On or about June 17, 1986, the Board held.a further 24 Hearin on the '_•: `" `d g proposed.rezone. At the hearinq,,;an;;.Addendum to j Initial'Study Richard Peters Rezone" was ,provided�to`the Board t { from:Butte County Planning staff.. This Addendum':,�as``not cir- I t ulated to other agencies for review and/or comments�,or provided to.:the`public`prior to'ahe'hearing. 'The Board,:�afterhearing � . �ioppoaition tothe: rezone.'and requests for further environmental ;.• ceview,: epproved. the rezone' subject' to conditions 'of, mitigation, ^,.3 ; finding .that a. negative declaration, was proper.' 19. At no time has.an environmental impact report (herein- after,referred to as EIR), either focused or full, been circu- lated, approved, or certified as required by CEQA. .7 20. The Petitioner has exhausted all administrative reme- 8 dies and has timely filed this petition for writ of mandate. 21. The rezone being approved by the Board constitutes a 10 . discretionary act within the meaning under CEQA. . 11 22. Unl^ss the relief prayed fcr herein is granted,• Peti- 12 tioner andlandowners and the citizens of Butte County and the 13 State of California will suffer irreparable injuries "including 14 but not limited to: reduction of an already limited water sup- 15 ply, contamination of the water supply, im acts to p public ser- 16 vices including police and fire protection, increased impacts on 17 traffic, and a failure of the Board to follow the laws of the 18 County and the laws of the State of California. 19 23. Money damages will not provide the relief required 20 herein in that the improper CEQA procedures utilized by the Board 2` will allow the ill effects described herein to continue into the 22 future and continue to adversely affect the environment and 23 citizens. 24 24. Compliance with CEQA will confer substantial benefits 25 . on the citizens of Butte County and the citizens of the..State of .:2g ;. "s: .:' . California .generally... These benefits Include -. but are"tiot: limit- edtos: , an.environmentally sound'agovernmental review process, 28 - protection of'a fragile region, the preservation of critical -6- '�:: ''Vi',µ, i +• 4 ; t � „4 17 r F ,7 i. �. 3ti...r,,y,..'.:.� :. L� � =a,F l4 f.K.`, A ;. � ; `r •+ - habitat for,:plants.and 'animal9;`)' reservtaion':of thc;`exibting f r2 'Nater'suppIy;`.protection of-the region from'fire, insuring that .:L:' the region receives necessary'governmental serviced, and the q development of procedures for adequate environmental assessment S `"of this and future projects. G FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Respondent Board Has Violated The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 8 0 COUNT ONE 10 (An EIR Is Required) 11 25. Petitioner incorporates herein. by this reference the 12 allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive. 13 26. The California Environmental Quality Act, supra, and 19 the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, supra, require the preparation of an environmental impact report on any project ;..15 ;16 which "may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub- 17 lic Resources Code Section 21100.) A "significant effect on the 18 environment means a substantial or potentially substantial ad- 10 verse change in the environment." (Public Resources Code Section 20 21068.) 21 27. Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2) authorizes 22 the use of a negative declaration if an initial stu.y identifies 23 potentially significant effects on the environment but (i) re- ;.;24 " visions in the project plans or proposals made by,;or' agreed to by the applicant before the proposed negative declaration is relased x.25 '• ;:,:...,�:„,„•,•4;+, . �for' public review would avoid the effects or mitigate;the effects a point where clearly no significant effects woo d•'occur, and 27 ,iN�4'rsrr :a ••^�: . M1tr'4 �' t.2`�yjl1 .r3....o t7C•'.1 7• t y e,ti.. A �„ .:... i);;there is no substantial evidence before"tha..agencythat the -7- project;''as revised, may.have a' significant,'ef'fect` on.'the�en- {'2 vironment . 3 ; i! Through the written and oral comments receivedby .the 4Board there is substantial evidence before the Board that the 5 .project may have a significant effect on the environment. '' I 29. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(2) mandates that if ? 7 there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an i ! 8 � effect.'on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect . 0 a-s significant and shall prepare an• EIR. 10 30. Petitioner .alleges: that'the environmental impacte,,.from 11 this project are each individually significant and.that a 12 thorough environmental analysis is legally required and necessary 13 to assess alternatives, including the alternative'of no project 14 and possible mitigation measures. 15 31. Petitioner alleges that CBQA requires preparation of an 1G EIR where the effects of a •project are `fairly arguable" as to 17 their significance and adversity, or where a 'serious public 18 controversy" exists over the project. The intent of this portion 19 -of CEQA is to inform, an apprehensive citizenry of•the potential 20 effects of a proposed project and the reasons.•upon which the 21 decision making body intends to base its decision. Each and 22 every one of the potential significant effects 'of the proposed 23 ..project- must.be a8dressed. (Guidelines Section 15064(h).) 24 :•32. . The. intent of this portion of CeQA`.is tido inform-an 25 apprehensive 'citizenry of the potential effects of a proposed 26 project'and the reasons •upon which.the .decision-'•making body ;,,`� i`Intends„'to'base'its decision.; Each„and every,one of the poten- tial significant effects pointed out to the board are "fairly s -8- . - � , .. „ r � � .n a S + � s ... t w .. i • .. f �. � Ir ` � .• I � � � 1 � � .. S - 1 � � � .. � � .. 1 r 1 i � � .. - . � ,. 1 i arguable"adverse environmental effects';offth;efpro'posedzproject. F 2 f 33: The.decision`as to whether"`a`pro ject may •have':one or more•significant"effects'..shall, be based on''information in the i record of the Lead Agency. (Gidelines Section 15064.) 34. The recommendations by the Planning staff, Department I G of Public Health and State Department of Transportation serve to 7 provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding that 8 this project may have significant impacts on the environment, 9 despite the mitigation 10 measures required. a f COUNT TWO ll 35. Respondent Board has failed to make adequate findings 12 to support the determination that the project will not have a 13 significant effect on the environment. , 14 36. Respondent Board has failed to make adequate findings 15 to support the determination that the proposed mitigations will � and can in fact 'Mitigate potentially significant ,environmental 17 impacts associated with the project to levels below significance. ,18 37. Respondent Board has failed to make adequate findings on the cumulative impacts of the project. 20 COUNT THREE 21 38. Respondent Board has failed to undertake any site 22 specific and cumulative environmental analysis. 23 39. Guidelines Section 15382 defines"significant effect on . ;24 • the environment" ,to mean a substantial, or-Potent'. ally, 25 '.tial, adverse change in any of the si i 26 } a phy cal aonditionsaithin the ,,., ' area`.affected the ,;. by Project including land,•'air',.watei;'miner- aflora,,;,faunae.ambient not anobjects "a • s}'. a .Z$ �y;s r�Yr r: f t��t• noise, 'and Of histOrlc or .7aesthetic ec ignifican e: r -9- �5 . ..� W .., � �, .,. r . ..� . _ - .� t ... ... .....r« . . .� r . .. _ �,. .. � - . ...,. .. L w. s � . .. lSr >'r u . 40. ;.`rhe"Board has: included only ;theoretical 'arid generic 2 ,mitigation measures in 'its mitigative negative declaration with- ^. out'•having actually-studs 'or�investigated'the physical condi- tions' of the proposed and existing altes 'to determine potential 5 significant environmental impacts stemming .from actual physical conditions. 7 41. Respondent Board has considered the P project in a piece- 8 meal.manner by approving the mitigated negative declaration without considering...th-a environmental impacts 'of related past, present and future projects.and without consideration--of"-site-specific impacts. 12 42. The Board failed to identify. the environmental.effects i �13 anticipated from the project as required by CEQA'Guidelines 14 Section 15063(d)(3). 15 43. The Board has violated the mandates of CEQA'Guidelines IG Section 15150 by implicitly incorporating documents •prepared, 17 including oral statements made to Board m3mbers, without making 18 such documentation or.comments available for public review or j 10 comment. 20 21 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays as follows: 22 1. That a writ issue from this Court ordering Respondent 23 —� —Board_to_set aside its decision with respect to,the approval of 24 the "rezone of the subject property until an.a^eguate-EIR-is -<; certified and found to be in compliance "with',the'piovisions of 26CEQA.' ar °Thnt th'e'Court,'.enjoin"Respcndent,`Board from;issuing its y �.n,28 i.ti�' � rhe,il•h' ,' '�`�'} �.- �A .�li:.'\ �R\l{. '..::':F' approval for any development of subject proeprty' uritil an ade- -10- 1 quate,EIR is 'preparedi approved and certified: . 2 3. For, reasonable attorney fee$ pursuant to Code' of Civil 3 Procedure:Section. 1021:5. 4 4. . For costs of 'suit incurred herein. 5 S. For such other and further relief as the Court deems 6 appropriate and necessary. 7 DATED: July 171 1986 8 9 10 ll ARRY ! . MEYERS Attiorney for Petitioner . s 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ._... _ 25 26 27 28 -11- AGREEMENT < TH M AGREEMENT:made this day of , 1905, by between "First Party"; as. identified in item (a) of Exhibit 1 of this Agreement, and the COUNTY OF BUTTE, a political subdivision of the State of California, herein called "Second Party".. W 1 T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, First Party is the owner of real property# herein ''.. called the "Property", situated in the County of Butte, which Property is described in Item (f) of Exhibit I of this Agreement% and WHEREAS,.the Property is now +.oned as specific in Item (b) of Exhibit 11-and WHEREAS, First Party has applied for a reclassification of zoning of.the.,Property pursuant to which application the Property is being reclassified from its present. classification to the classification or classifications specified in Item (c) of Exhibit `ii and WHEREAS, public hearings have been held upon said application before the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte,' State of.:;''!','.: Cal ifornia, .and after having considered the matter presented, 'it h'as' been determined that certain conditions to the zoning reclassification of said real property must be imposed so as not to create any problems inimical to the health, safety and the general welfare of the County of Butte.. NOWTHEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD'AND AGREED that'.' in&smuch• aa the reclassification specified in Item (c) of Exhibit-1 is being granted, the said reclassification shall be subject to the ' conditions specified in the following paragraphat V. That Exhibit I, as completed and attached hereto, is incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 2. That First Party shall construct and comply with all the following conditions: 2a. Prior to issuance of building permits, Drainage plan to be submitted•to Department of Public Works for approval. Plan to Include proof:of. downstream capacity. 2b. Prior to issuance of Building Permitet Meet the requirements of Department of Public Works ineludingt a ;bai,:;-obtain•.an encroachment permit f.or,,access onto',.'-,,`: Skyiiay: :5 •i;".2c Prior:to:lsoul ance of•Building 'Permits t. Meet the requirements of.. ths'.Butte County Health Department .inclt%dingt . �. ca. . Submit groundwater monitoring results. cb. Obtain a sewage discharge permit from the California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. cc. Comply with the Nitrate Action Plan. cd. Prior to issuance of building permit, consult Air Pollution Control District and obtain an authority to construct when necessary. 2d. Prior to issuance of Building permits, comply with .the requirements of all State agenoios. Qe. , Prior to Certificate of Oacupanayl' Install all drainage facilities required by the Department of Public Works, 2f. Prior to Certificate of Occupancyt Grade ''site to ' eliminate -any localized ponding. 29. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy% Clean.and align the Crouch Ditch drain to better channelize the flow. 2h. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy$'. Apply for' and diligently pursue amendment to Chico•s Sphere of Influence.'' 21. Pr!.or to Certificate of Occupancyt Meet the requirements of CDF including: La. Install water for fire protection. Water flow must be 2000 gallons per minute. ib. Extend Ca'lifcrnia Water Service Con. pany line.to achieve flew. " ic. Install hydrant within 300 feet of buildings. 2j. Set finished floor elevation 2. ft. above present ground ' level. 2k.'-': Preserve all riparian vegetation slone`Cotnanche..'Creek and the flood control channel. Pate 3 . r 21. - 41lntatn a 50-foot development setback from' ell••144ate"ays and stands of riparian vegetation. ,. - 2m. . egetation. •• •2m. • Retail- sales are not permitted on-site without : ;,'t modification"of this conditional rezone. 2n.'.—Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. 20. Abandon two existing access points serving farm buldings and tire shop. 2p. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, deed and record ,e :.•. 1-foot no-access strip along Skyway frontage, breaking for the acceas approved by the Department of Public Works. 3. In the event First Party, any successor in intereat`of`;: First Party, or any. person in•poasesaion of the property , r First Item (f) of Exhibit I.violates or fails to perform 'any of the conditions of this• Agreement within thirty (30).'days after,notici;.,;:.�, thereof as provided' in Paragraph' 5,•� the Board "of Supervisors .of,:Second Party may instruct the County Counsel of Second Party to institute-'- legal proce,-dings to enforce the.provisions of this Agreement.';,,The Board of Supervisors of Second Party may also Initiate proceedings,•to rezone the property to the classification specified in Item (b);of,'` Exhibit I or any other suitable classification. 4. Notice'of,violation of provisions of this Agreement:'.ehi11 be sent to First Party at the address specified in Item (d).of`Exhibit I and to the street.addreas of the property described in Item (d):;of Exhibit I. Any.subaequent title holder, any lien holder, or party„in' possession of the'''property shall also receive'notice of such.violation at an,address other than as specified in Item (d) of Exhlblt• I by.{',: filing with"the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Second Party`,'the address to'which.the notice is to be sent, with reference to this Agreement and the Resolution authorizing its execution. 5. In the event suit is brought by the County Counsel of, Second Party to enforce any' of the provisions of this Agreement, First Party agrees to pay to Second Party a reasonable sum to be fixed.by, the Court as attorney's fees. 6. . Each and every one of the provisions of Chis agreement;; herein contained shall bindand inure to the benefit of the successor In interest of each and every party hereto, in the same :Wanner sa'if.r they had herein been expressly named. ;'; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this;. :, Agreement the',day• and year first above written. 2. BU' COUNTY PLANNING COMMISS' 7 County Center Drive r -240 Oroville, CA 95965=°°3:397`.. = - " Planning Deoartment (916)- •538-7601 F% !3 P 3' 2 MAR 0 3 199 TO• STATE HIGHWAY PATROL s DATE• FEBRUARY 17, 1993 - 1993 3 orcolli2,call"Crnla RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP # 040-020-087 r. 040-020-148 FORREST YOUNG Enclosed is` preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: REZONE TO M-1 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SKYWAY ACROSS FROM HONEY RUN ROAD AND NORTH OF EDGAR SLOUGH, CHICO ZONED U We are ..making-an=-assessment of possible environmental impact-q_ - d-- will be preparing an environmental document, either a Negative . Declaration-, - Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)-. - _ Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you- can offer in your area 'of concern or expertise that relate.-to-- either physical, social,,- .or economic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond- w.itliin - 14 days of-.the. -above-noted date. -If no response is generated by this . inqu.iry, then : t- .shall- be assumed that there are- no- significant environmental-impacts which are potential. from the project. - We appreciate any _assistance you can-provide. Sincerely, . . Larry Pafafer Planning Technician Comments• /j0 Y � Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No r .', Ian 1 T 2/N. R.2 E. 0.B.a M. - - - 40- 02 CROUCH DITCH.-�I 112.115 AC 2 9'M 49-24 HONEY R11 R �i'�� Uj 45 4, \ 11-38 I 1 -39 )"-�"� 11.43 eek /zou' 21.554_C-f7—I I I -8.29 AC 131.04 4C !3..6 v!N 2 �/ 5 Y3;6133 4' - 04 o� 40 �3 r. _r f9/� tic j y I 140'' 0. 71•` I _ :. I ,�• ) Ila Nu p 18.09AC 157 is);,'\ 11291 ' v p9 208.3744 0.65• ,,,11 CZ / `,I� �5 116 � MARY 9ILL 3615.07 RANCH ROAD _ 1, I` O71.73_ 7347.61i_ 5146.1 2 � vr. \I ' s.1a 1•� I i;r 1 I ]x6.16 2FRACT ONAL �4 4 ISS G02 •;,.pT S`C/'•C.` � �fy !O CC a 318.4 C 36.39 Ac~... Z n,3 3 11 ` 9a2.9s 4c. O` 3 14 Z e 33.34 AC _/ �� \ \ �4L ® 5 151 15 X20.01 '(�;:'4 ISI, i 1.tT AC 20.01 AC. I AC. PM 17-14 I' I, BCillF 0\ _ 3-32 473 -683 996.20 PTN PCL 1i 143 \, I co Ih 'C<r I� .� b Ill' l/O' N e 46-05.4c. WEST BANK 1983 ;L 12 2713AI! I � R$1I0-71 , \, 7 s� I(REM PM 94.7 PG 40-06/ Q?• I `. J2 --- - C !r Assessor's Map'No. 40-0' O5 County of Butte, Calif. REVISED:11— 90 v LO / 1 I_r.i c- V / C) J Lrl Ov, 1 h ' l �l ; aAg, i L4 pJt�i BUTTE COI Y PLANNING COMMISSION Pianninq P- .int 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 MA' (916) 538-7601 Orovhl.., %.UW%)i A TO: COUNTY FIRE DEPT/CDF DATE: FEBRUARY 17,. 1993 RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP # 040-020-087 040-020-148 FORREST YOUNG T3 -17 Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: REZONE TO M-1 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SKYWAY ACROSS FROM HONEY RUN ROAD AND NORTH OF EDGAR SLOUGH, CHICO I ZONED U 'We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report- (EIR) ._ - Please- provide any factual statements,- ideas for investigation, or opinions. you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical,-. social,--dr economic impacts that this project may generate. .Please- respond within 14 -days- of the .above-noted date. If no response is generated by -this inquiry-, - then - it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential- from the project.. We appreciate any-assistance you can- provide. EGG HYED Sincerely, FEB x, 1993 A C, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY Larry Pa' er BUTTE COUNTY Planning Technician Comments• Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration ;with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No r t�l�i�ta�� G;:.,...dL;iM1! B1 E COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS: N Manning�Partment 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965-3397 FEB 2 5 1993 (916) 538-7601 OrovUle,California TO• DATE• FEBRUARY 17,. 1993 PUBLIC WORKS RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION kP # 040-020-087�/ 040-020-148 FORREST YOUNG 93—/7 `Enclosed is preliminary data our- office has received or generated concerning the following project: REZONE TO M-1 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SKYWAY ACROSS FROM HONEY RUN ROAD AND NORTH OF EDGAR SLOUGH, CHICO ZONED U ry - We>ware •making an assessment of possible envir_,onxnen;ta1 impacts and will be preparing an environmental document, either -a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an. Environmental- Impact -Report (EIR) . Please- provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation-, or 'opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that _ this project may generate. Please respond_within _14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed - ' that- there are-. no- significant environmental impacts which 'are potential.-from -the project. We appreciate --any, assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Larry Painfer Planning Technician Comments: A/c Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No COUNTY OF BUTTE FEB 18 1993 Land Development'Sec. �F�r;ntti•' � - r f - Xh i -Ye ok \ovo oAQ- 30 o a\ c 5 j C.'..4�• • =�F N U uq i' 1,� __ =�►__ . f( N. Nuc ° '+ � `�`\\•% '/J�� :__- = - 31'— tin p t _ kR \Nx -10 , ( o uwPROJECT SITE 0 I t ._\\ A J \`A (_ FAIR ■ I�ORRpV� f %/ ... - — 65 \ - - -- -- no 99 ♦�� pno +Lvn vc �'-�- e ... _ ,�• was:' - :i4:�..:, ° rive• I ~ �c_.i::7A �r M1;.l,. �:.,m.'•'-: F J ..Y.C�c§ :•,•".•.•611:�v �:'I.."''24":I .t`!,eras S De tlAgrltul re n n t .�. y7 6;:ii: -E:::";': `'. �� i =::: � t: ....u<� tet...,. 22 IPlant Id 'BacZlortt; Aden' �.�0�/ 071 U.:,::-i'a�;;=•i:': ;:;".'•i.Tl�, :.. O � e �O f%i�[•iif:l:;i ! •R.I�i�••7 f:-x•:`.•.31 LOCATION MAP CHICO QUADRANGLE, 7. 5' series •Richard Peters Leachfield - Septic System Design Employees: 250 maximum Flow: 20 gpcd Percolation Rate: Use 5 min./in. Trench Width: 3 feet Total Flow: 250 x 20 = 5000 gpd Sq. Ft. RegId: 5000 gpd divided by 1.6 gpsf/day = 3125 sq. ft. Total Length Req'd for 3 ' wide trench = 1050 LF Use: 1600 LF (50% added for alternating use) Required volume of water capacity in Septic Tank = 5,000 gal. Use: 28' long x 61 wide x 4 ' high (water volume) IJ �' f 1 • Richard Peters Monitoring Well Log Monitoring Dates: 1/15/86 2/20/86 4/4/86 North Monitoring Well-Depth to water in feet: 7.001 (E1. 225.4) 7.201 (E1. 225.2) 7'.5$ ' (E1. 224.8) (El. 232.4) South Monitoring Well-Depth to water in feet: 8.17' (El. 226.6) 7.40' (El. 226.8) Dry (below 234.2) (El. 234.2) i I 't • ; r • a •L ROLLS, ANDERSON $ ROLLS PERCOLATION TEST Client C'earibo� Locations .C�„�� 5.ti r7J��/,lcf•o: '/.yt✓1.J/ i .ti�,i,�y �: Hole 'no. 1 Diameter 6,0 ” Depth 30 " Soil Type Soil Moisture io ye Comments Pre-Soak Date %s tiS✓ -P-5— Water SWater remaining the next day? ,yo Comments Ga9� /l?ai�� 11e/A1,r 0`6.w� 5- Test Date /G No✓ 51;.f TEST RESULTS Depth to Refilled Amount Time Mins/Inch Time Water to Depth of Drop Interval Drop V; 3 6 ZS /� f •7 0 /J//!1 /O:o Z Z94 Percolation -Rate : 6 Mins . per Inch Hole Filled Pre-Soak By) G. �/rf�o/f Tested By 5:y74,, �/f�� ROLLS, ANDERSON & ROLLS PERCOLATION TEST Client Location _S c�,cd ,s: c6a..; .of S/c..s.,_,' ,� /Vyr,c� ,2411 /&..11 Hole no. Z Diameter 4;.0 Depth 30 Soil Type Soil Moisture :h-- /o y„ Comments Pre-Soak Date /VOV 8.f Water remaining the next day? /VO Comments G'�_1Qt itAei/s Ae-,•,4f' cf-30 1/ r 9y�uif� or ,✓�i-acc = 6 Test Date ie Alae zn- TEST RESULTS Depth to Refilled Amount Time Mins/inch Time Water to Depth of Drop Interval Drop o yS 30 CORY s///F 30 9 :/S 30i' 4 30 na,)-i i IV /i mi i,o s i 30 / 2 Z Percolation Ratd : 2• 0 Mins . per Inch Hole Filled Pre-Soak By G. Tested By �• L-/-��.-�� /��i ROLLS, ANDERSON $ ROLLS PERCOLATION TEST Client Location . �,�o / .S-w. _r�,t-y,..rA.; ,� �-kX�..e ve 12,a Hole no. 3 Diameter duo Depth Soil Type /��..,� sG.�.✓„ Z// Soil Moisture io 75 Comments Pre-Soak Date /Silo✓ Water remaining the next day? ,yo Comments iTest Date 1G sir TEST RESULTS Depth to Refilled Amount Time Mins/Inch Time Water to Depth of Drop Interval Drop ' S :,5' 30 Die x/4,"� 30 i ii •za / Z m,u Z Il1a Percolation Rate : 2•0 Mins . per Inch Hole Filled .� Pre-Soak By Tested By e—,. f.,r/t /✓�h ROLLS, ANDERSON & ROLLS PERCOLATION TEST Client e Location S- 10 Hole no. y Diameter 6.0 " Depth 30 '' Soil Type fro.,.., c%�,a r./r .sahJy .s1/? Soil Moisture Comments Pre-Soak Date /S- Water sWater remaining the' next day? /(/o Comments `QS_ mg .le Ae.g/,� ej6evr ayoe-ir./ e A,;" /l9or' Test Date /,� i!/vv�s TEST RESULTS Depth to Refilled Amount Time Mins/inch Time Water to Depth of Drop Interval Drop - Percolation Rate: tit. 1 h ZA Mins. per Inch Hole Filled ,® Pre-Soak By Tested By e:;:-. Richard Peters Backhoe Test Hole - Log Date of Test Holes: October 31, 1985 Hole Depth: ' 7 ' Log: 0 - 4 ' Silty loam 4 ' - 6' Silty loam w/cobbles 61 '. - 7 ' Cobbles w/loam H618 Depth: 6.5' Log: 0 - 1.5' Silty loam 1.5' - 2.5' Gravelly loam .2.5' - 6.5' Cobbles w/loam Hole #3 Depth: 10' Log: 0 - 5.5! Sandy clay loam 5.5' - 7.5' Sandy clay loam w/gravel 7.5' - 10' Cobbles w/ loam Hole #4 Depth: 10' Log: 0 - 8' Clay loam 8 ' - 10' Cobbles w/loam 9 ' Ground water .L i Hole #5 j Depth: 10' Log: 0 9 ' Clay loam 9' - 10' Silty sand 10' Water Hole #6 Depth: 7' Log: 0' - 3 ' Loam 3 ' - 7' Cobbly loam • Page 2 o e Depth: 9 ' Log: 0 - 4 ' Gravelly loam 6' - 9 ' Sand Hole #8 Depth: 10' Log: 0 - 10' Sandy clay loam Hole #9 Depth: 9' Log: 0 - 2 ' Sandy Clay loam 2 ' - 9' Cobbly clay loam Hole #10 Depth: 9 ' Log: 0 • - 4 ' Sandy clay loam 4 ' - 9' Cobbly clay 9 ' Water Hole #11 I Depth: 10.5' Log: 0 - Be Sandy clay loam 8 ' - 10.5' Cobbles 10.5' Water • Richard Peters Percolation Test ults Date of Percolation Test: November 16, 1985 Hole #1: 6 min./inch Hole #2: 2 min./inch. Hole #3: 2 min./inch. Hole #4: 2 min./inch. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, June 10, 1993 in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEMS ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:00 a.m. P.J. Keating Materials Corp D/B/A Concrete Products Industries - Use Permit to allow a Ready Mix Concrete Plant on property zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial), located on the southwest side of Skyway approx. 1600 ft. South of Honey Run Road, identified as AP 040-020-141, Chico. (CBS) (:::9:00 a.m. orrest Young - Rezone from "U" (Unclassifed) to M-1 (Light Industrial), located on the Southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and North of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico. (CB) (File #93-17) ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. Mary M. Cooper - Variance to the required sideyard setback to allow a storage shed 18" from property line instead of the required 5', on property zoned R-1 (Residential) located at 1785 Estates Way, approx. 500' north of Earl Avenue, identified as AP#002-040-016, Chico. (TL) The above mentioned applications, maps and Negative Declarations are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. 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 B.A. KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday May 6, 1993. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, June 10, 1993 in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEMS ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:00 a.m. P.J. Keating Materials Corp D/B/A Concrete Products Industries - Use Permit to allow a Ready Mix Concrete Plant on property zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial) located on the southwest side of Skyway approx. 1600 ft. South of Honey Run Road, identified as AP 040-020-141, Chico. (CBS) 9:00 a.m. Forrest Young - Rezone from "U" (Unclassifed) to M-1 (Light Industrial), located on the Southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and North of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico. (CB) (File #93-17) ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. Mary M. Cooper - Variance to the required sideyard setback to allow a storage shed 18" from property line instead of the required 5', on property zoned R-1 (Residential) located at 1785 Estates Way, approx. 500' north of Earl Avenue, identified as AP#002-040-016, Chico. (TL) The above mentioned applications, maps and Negative Declarations are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County' Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. 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 B.A. KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday May 6, 1993. d) oo - r h oo - � foo -c�c�h -oho L;C) ozo-o h o b t- - (D t_H = l I O i - � � b14 - � OIO - C) s - tla Z 6 0; � I- OSO-Il� i i I ..... :fir. FZ7-7 _ u tte y PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 August 23 , 1993 Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place Chico, CA 95926 Re: Rezone Agreement, File 93-17 Dear Mr. Young: Enclosed is the Agreement recommended for approval by the Butte County Planning Commission on June 10, 1993 . Please have this Agreement signed and notarized and returned to this office for submittal to the Board of Supervisors at their meeting of September 14 , 1993 at 10: 00 a.m. This Agreement will be recorded, . if approved, and a copy sent to you for your records. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, pa'(j a'- Paula S. Leasure Assistant Director of Planning PSL: lr Enc. y i ti 4t y., 4�1 'tit . �� .� '` / ..s. 'I ORDINANCE N0. 2530 IIAN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AN M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, PURSUANT I TO CHAPTER 24-29. i 1 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, 2 ilunder and pursuant to Chapter 24-29 of the Butte County Code of said County DO 3 II ORDAIN as follows: 4 II SECTION 1. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of I� 5 IIButte, State of California, shall ba and it is hereby zoned as an M-1 (Light 8 I Industrial) District, and such area shall be subject to the restrictions and 7 restricted uses and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Sec. 24-114. 8 Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte 9 County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: 10A portion of T ore I particularly dascribed as: 1 Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Bruce Road and 2 The Skyway; thence southerly along Skyway's centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Comanche Creek approximately ! 13 2760 ft.; thence westerly along said centerline of Comanche Creek to its intersection with the flood control channel approximately 14 1800 ft.; said flood control channel located on the west line of the E half of Section 5 T21N R2E MDB&M; thence northerly along 5 said W line 1800 ft.; thence continuing northerly along the W line of the E 1/2 of Sec. 32 T22N R2E MDB&M approximately 600 ft. 16 ,asto the point of beginning. 17 i Containing 46 acres, more o . 18 SECT,ON 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in I 19 � passage. full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its 20 and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this 21 Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the m"mbers of the Board of 22 Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a newspaper 23 published in the County of Butte, State of California. 24 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte. 25 State of California, on the 17th day of June 1986. by the following vote: 26 AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Mclnturf, Wheeler and Chairman McLaughlin A The Ballroom on Broadway 3 /y?. /.( /"ez Cf1-7147 -5- 121Z,121Z, �6�n� �/ .,J C C do G l / 0��C•Cb �r`�`1 r PQO c Post Office Box 3961, Chico, Califomia 95927 {916)-899-8331 ORDINANCE NO. 3081 AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF'CALIFORNIA, AN M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-29. 1 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, 2 under and pursuant to Section. 24-29 of the- Butte County Code of said County, 3 ORDAINS, as follows: 4 SECTION I. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 5 Butte, 'State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as.an M-1 (Light =,. 7 Industrial) District, and such area shall be subject to the restrictions and*restricted 8 uses and regulations pursuant to.Butte County Code Section 24-114. 9 Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte 10 County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: 11 Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Bruce Road and 12 the Skyway; thence southerly along Skyway's centerline .-to .its intersection with the centerline of Comanche Creek, approximately 13 2760 ft.; thence westerly along said centerline of Comanche Creek. 14 to its intersection with the flood control channel approximately 1000. feet, said flood control channel located on the west line of the E 1/2 15 of Section 5 T21 N R2E MDB&M; thence northerly along said W line 1800 feet; thence continuing northerly along the W line of the E 1/2 16 of Sec. 32 T22N R2E MDB&M approximately 600 feet to the point 17 of beginning - - 18 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be 19 in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of"its passage, 20 21 and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this 22 Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board 23 of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a 24 newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. 25 26 1 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County 2 of Butte, State of California, on the 14tiday of September, 1993, by the following 3 vote: 4 AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, McLaughlin, Thomas and Chair Houx 5 - NOES: : None _ e - ABSENT: None 7 8 NOT VOTING: None MARYA , . ROUX, CHAIRMAN 10 Butte County Board of Supervisors 11 12 ATTEST: JOHN S. BLACKLOCK, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board 13 14 By 15 — 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - 26 �l INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Department of Development Services Director's Office TO: Paula Leasure ' Planning Staff FROM: Bill Farrel SUBJECT: REZONE FOR FORREST YOUNG DATE: September,15, 1993 In a recent telephone conversation with Neil McCabe from the County Counsel's office, this office has found out that the Forrest Young Rezone does not include the CEQA required finding that it "reflects the independent judgement" of the Board. Please note that the new requirement of CEQA under Section 21082.1c (page 20 of the Office of Planning and Research Booklet on CEQA) must be on all Negative Declaration/EIR projects. The following language should be consistently added to your findings: "The Board of Supervisors has independently reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR prior to making its decision on the project, and finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration or EIR reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte". BF:jc NOTICE OF DETERNIINATU TO: Office of Planning and Research FROM: Butte County Planning Department 1400 Tenth Street 7 County Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95814 Oroville, CA 95965 or rut' 2 X County Clerk County of Butte SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 2152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: Rezone, File 93-17 AP Number: 040-020-087 and 148 Name: Forrest Young SEP 3 Q "(993 } ` State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to clearinghouse): CANDACE J.GRUBBS,BUtte Co.Cle�l; Contact Person: Stuart Edell Telephone Number: 538-721 DepUiY Project Location: Located on the southwest side of the Skyway,opposite the intersection of Honey Run Road, south of Chico. Project Description: The project is to rezone approximately 45 acres, located on the west side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road, from U to M-1. This is to advise that the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above-described project on September 14, 1993 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, 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 the Butte County Development Services, Planning Division,7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965. Date Received for Filing and >L&Posting at OPR > Signature Paula S. Leasure Principal Planner. March, 1986 Title EXCIIBIT "B" Forrest Young Rezone AP No. 040-020-087 and 148 Mitigation Measures 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation of Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, a CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF 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: Rezone. Located on the southwest side of Skyway, opposite the intersection of Honey Run Road, south of Chico. Project Description: The project is to rezone approximately 45 acres from U to M-1. Findings of Exemption: 1. The County of Butte has conducted an initial study and prepared a Negative Declaration 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 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 minimus 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 exemption and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on "wildlife",as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Paula Leasure Princip Planner By; R'.cce� Lead Agency: Butte County Board of Supervisors Date: September 22, 1993 r DECLARATION OF FEES DUE ` (California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place FILING NO. Chico. CA 95926 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 [ ] 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. [ X] PAYMENT. The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s). 2. [ ] NON-PAYMENT. The above fees are required. Not paid. Chief/Manning O cial By: Yom. Title: Principal Planner - Lead Agency: Butte Co. Board of Supervisors Date: September 22. 1993 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. . ... u e . �,. - ount L A N D OF N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 MEMORANDUM TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services Craig B. Sanders, Project Planner SUBJECT: Forrest Young, Rezone, File 93-17, Board Item September 14, 1993 DATE: August 17, 1993 REQUESTMCOMMENDATION Forrest Young - proposed Negative- Declaration iwith,,mitigation measures,�,regarding environmental impacts and Rezone from "U" (Unclassified) to M-1 -(Light Industrial)'for property located on the southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and north of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico. Staff recommends the Board concur with the Planning Commission and subject to the findings listed in this report, approve the rezone. ANALYSIS: This project is a request to rezone approximately 45 res,7 located on the west side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road, from U to M-1. This site has been the focus of i several previous actions.' The property was originally designated as Industrial on the Chico.' Area General Plan. The designation was changed to Agricultural Residential in 1985 to conform with the City of Chico's plan., In 1986 the City of Chico changed the designation_- t t to Industrial and the County followed with an amendment back to Industrial. A subse5, rezone application.to M-1 was approved with an associated Development Agreement' The Development Agreement, however was never signed and the zoning was changed back to U. ?The Development Agreement was used to address the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal, the construction of an new facility for Caribou Mountaineering. The designation of the site for industrial use is compatible with the surrounding properties> The land to the south is already zoned M-2 and is deve4qwA1=m4h-mdusftTat=as-es-- The property to the west is the U.S. Plant Introduction Station and industrial uses will not conflict with this use. To the north and east the property.is bounded by Skyway which is a divided 4 lane road.-This provides access to the property and acts as a buffer to the rural residential uses to the west.- A Development Agreement was used in conjunction with the last rezone proposal because there was a specific development proposal, the property was not within the Chico Urban Area boundary, and the impacts of development could not be addressed through the required improvement standards for the urban area. Specific concerns were drainage, road improvements, fire protection, and traffic. The boundary of the Chico Urban Area was changed.in-.1987 to included this property. This means that at the time of building permit' application for any commercial or industrial use, the applicant will be required to install urban road improvements, drainage improvements, and pay into the Chico area traffic fund.> This requirement has made many of the past mitigations unnecessary since those same mitigations are now required by ordinance. However, since there are s4H s�o�g�� environmental concerns that need to be addressedqzonditional rezone is recommended— Those areas of concern are discussed in the environmental documents attached to this ' report, Development on site will, also:be subject to the collection of traffic,Lschool;4and--.-> Sheriff impact fees. The proposed zone is compatible with the General Plans of both the City of Chico and-? the County and both jurisdictions support the designation. Approval of this request is recommended. The site forms the southwesterly edge of Chico's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to cthe city limits at the northwest corner, along Skyway. This makes the future annexation of the property almost a certainty3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Jhe Planning Commission heard testimony regarding this project. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezone. RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DATED August 17, 1993; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A"; MAKE THE MOTION LISTED UNDER "B" INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1 THROUGH 6. A. Find that: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Said study and comments received thereon identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: a. Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by The Boar+ :)f Supervisors has inde idently reviewed, z analyzed and considered the pL�or to making its .decision on the project, and finds that the reflects the independent judgment of the County of Butte.--- b. utte.b. There is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been 4 , completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 5,4! Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the M-1 zone is listed as a consistent zone in the Industrial General Plan designation; and B. Adopt an ordinance rezoning to M-1 that property identified as AP Nos. 040-020- 087 & 148; and C. Adopt a resolution for a conditional zoning agreement adding the following conditions that will be made a part of the rezone: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank for outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/ greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow"first flush"water runoff ` from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. `Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, A CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal ' with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. 7. Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Director of Development Services upon receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant. Prior to such approval, verification shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the application, fees paid and environmental determination as conditionally s SIM approved. Changes deemed to be major or significant in nature shall require a formal application for amendment. CBS:lr f2/ N. R.2E. M. 0.B.QM. 40-02 CROUCH DI rCHH—) O �� I ►+vim 21 •4,8-oz Ljn2.usAC OP0 2 $YM 49.24 HONEY RUN k e U� j''•!_< 11-3B � I —39 �"-""� 1L, . � e \ / Ac / /200• 18..29 AC -41 11, 17291 tt,/ /. 131.04 AC Pt A 88.28' 2 _ = SYYi4'�Y -- . C/�. �I` \ �5.7 A... ,�_j'• l� +4'.tiJ�'y� .J6 694c4/111 ' • / I rLF N .c i o a2 38 157 /'.I Ijo ,0 18.09AC :751 y 'i' b IIS 6O p9: h v a9 208 37AC :.i':• 0.65,r.' frz I I o $II iz .2410 10_2<RY91LLRd NCH __1615_07 RUdJ_ ikp;':' \; .•77 -8.i 06- f53, 23 5 02 P / 15 s.A, c �!,� I �; .r,-• 9� 'd49. I nr. 5 � TRACY,ONAL •a.lL /.. v 3'B!.0 v: 36 39 Ac. t0 c! , l f — `ti1 �_ I '156' 1' mob. v., s. 1 '3'-48? �'tiv; syr-,30 ( 2 3 14 ^ 33.34 AL 15 20.01 �il: 151 Ac. 1 . 14 i, O 0 2001 Ar. 1 PM 1 7-14 UI1 I I` I Fc'PFF F I 0y n • ae�. 996.10 PTN PCL I�14+` �J II N 46.0t-/:c 1 h I �•;!1 '�_ �. WEST BANK 198327,13At.= 10I RSIIO-71 1, - I �7 2.52 IIREM PM 94.7 PG 40.061 n' I N `•�, 1 l Assessor's Map No. 40-02\\ 05 . 07 << Cr. County of Butte, Calif. REVISED:11— 90 '" �'' T ,?/ N. R.2E. \\� s�,� M. D.B•QM. 40-02 CROUCH DI TC ��"� 112.115 AC poA� ,1B71 I: 2 FYM49-24 yRU" a e0 —39 �Hu �= 1143 00 21.SS!AEC 4829A I1-41 ` 129`A;/ J01?4 `:� \ i 131.04 AC ' s.8 E ` P1A 88.28_ PTN z SYY 7AC. l 1G.09AC 14 40 h"M1 '-== ---- L/ wo 04 y G� �,� h :j1 _ J J� r A� •la8 a:jr p9 S'9 ,.r .\�• .e' l ' 18.09 AC �J i751�\ y .�- e' I� ' k!291•�, „ w A9 708.3740 ;�i'S.��:. 9�o If i 60 V' l`Z_ -�, MG RY 91LL 3615.07 RANCH ROAD IIPI''i' ; I '•. yV� -N D 71.7 - - - 734761:- - 423-817 1. r1 -<i�;::l':-;�n�Ql�,'Vt•;c l.._'�__ �amvo r .qi3j/9B_19sC'T> 4.1 iiI '15,�52 7�4563'.76 23n.0c.2h T� 5 .d\1r �Irr2\r oaP�I •CS,'.J:o nHi \Q•+r .._iI_. p rRACTJj! O-NAL 36.39 Ac. 10G! 1611 5 - _ zo 5e { •,� p. I A Iq < 33.30 AC 3 5 �•20.0 151 1 r s 5 � r 20.01 Gf. I PM 1 7-Iq (/�•l I G - _ - _ •:`�' //Bi 4 4697 996.20 PTN PCL i; G`88 ., I 46.054c p! WEST BANK 1983 I.1+ r2 27.134! RS 110-71 �•!�'!- .5 (REM PM 94-7 P6 40-061 �' I �` e7z_2 _ oF.� -1sAssessor's Map No. 40-0 05 4 06 Cy ti;,T,y . County of Butte, Calif. • REVISED:11-90 �'�/•,.. 4 ' I : f i FILE NO.: 93-17 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 .APPLICANT: Forrest Young OWNER: Same REQUEST: Rezone to M-1 AP NO.: 040-020-087 & 148 SIZE: 45+ acres LOCATION: Located on the southwest side of the Skyway, opposite the intersection of Honey Run Road, south of Chico EXISTING ZONING: U ZONING HISTORY: Zoned U on Jan. 6, 1897 by Ord. #2574 SURROUNDING ZONING: PQ, M-2, FR-5, FR-2, FR-160 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Industrial uses to the south, rural residential uses to the east, grazing to the north and northeast, and the U.S. Plant Introduction Station, a public use, to the west SITE HISTORY: The property was originally designated industrial on the Chico Area Land Use Plan that was adopted in 1982. The designation was amended to Agricultural residential in 1985 to conform with the City of Chico's designation. The City of Chico subsequently amended their general plan to designate the land industrial and the County, in 1986, followed with an amendment to return the land to it's original industrial designatioi. A previous application for rezoning 1 i BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 to M-1 was approved but later rescinded because a proposed development agreement was never signed by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Butte County Code Sections 24-26 through 29, 24-114, and 24-195 COMMENTS RECEIVED: Highway Patrol - No objections Fire Dept. - No Fire Dept. input at this time Public Works - No comments Environmental Health - The Butte County Environmentai Health Division has no objections to the rezone of this property. The property is located outside of the Nitrate Action Plan boundaries but within the City of Chico Sphere of influerce. Since the M-1 zone permits high waste water generating facilities, connection to a public sewer may be necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control guidelines and County policy. If developments are low waste water generating facilities, complete soil and groundwater investigations will be necessary because sewage disposal area for septic system is limited and portions of the property may be within a flood plain. In any case, Butte County Envirormental Health Division will encourage connection to a public sewer system for waste water disposal. ANALYSIS: This project is a request to rezone approximately 45 acres, located on the west side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road, from U to M-1. This site has been the focus of several previous actions. The property was originally designated as Industrial on the Chico Area General Plan. The designation was changed to Agricultural Residential in 1985 to conform with the City-of Chico's plan. In 1986 the City of Chico changed their designation to Industrial and the County followed with an amendment back to Industrial. A subsequent rezone application to M-1 was approved with an associated Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, however was never signed and the zoning was changed back to U. The Development Agreement was used to address the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal, the construction of an new facility for Caribou Mountaineering. The designation of the site for industrial use is compatible with the surrounding properties. The land to the south is already zoned M-2 and is developed with industrial uses. The property to the west is the U.S. Plant Introduction Station and industrial uses will not conflict with this use. 2 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29, 1993 To the north and east the property is bounded by Skyway which is a divided 4 lane road. This provides access to the property and acts as a buffer to the rural residential uses to the west. A Development Agreement was used in conjunction with the last rezone proposal because we had a specific development proposal and the property was not within the Chico Urban Area boundary so the impacts of development could not be addressed through the required improvement standards for the urban area. (Specifically, drainage, road improvements, fire protection, and traffic) The boundary of the Chico Urbar. Area has been changed to included this property. The urban improvements required for commercial and industrial building permits have made many of the past mitigations unnecessary since those same mitigations are now required by ordinance. However, since there are still some environmental concerns that need to be addressed, a conditional rezone is recommended. Those areas of concern are discussed in the environmental documents attached to this report. Development on site will also be subject to the collection of traffic, school, and Sheriff impact fees. The proposed zone is compatible with the General Plans of both the City of Chico and the County and both jurisdictions support the designation. Approval of this request is recommended. RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DATED April 29, 1993; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A"; MAKE THE MOTION LISTED UNDER "B" INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1 THROUGH 6. A. Find that: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. . Said study and comments received thereon identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: a. Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigate such effects to point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. b. There is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 3 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 29', 1993 4. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the M-1 zone is listed as a consistent zone in the Industrial General Plan designation; and B. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning to M-1 that property identified as AP Nos. 040-020-087 & 148; and C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for a conditional zoning agreement adding the following conditions that wall be made a part of the rezone: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/ greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, A CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. . 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. CBS:cs Attachments to Commission and Cities: Environmental Documents Site Plan Location Map 4 J-n of suozea US3n031 vAS :13NAO 6unol }somj :1NV3I1ddV n :9NINOZ 9NI1SIX3 f66t bt eunr :S31Ya 9N18V3H NOI1d001 u-£6 ''ON 3114 sh-oao-ot :1381ynN IV 103POdd O NOISSIMM03 9NINNVId 11Nn00 311M wain s uoilemolui 3iydej6oa0 Ajuno3 alin8 � yo o �f ' oy n o � Q _ / -�l-' \ 04 uowoO / yaf y�no NOIIV301 133[Old - , IS o , o , o o - ~°0 1 t—N 01 euOZDN :1530031 °AIDS :13NAO 6un0l129mJ UNY3I114Y n:9NINOI ONI1SIX3 £661 Vi ounr :S31YO ONIUM tH6 :'ON 3113 Bti—OZO—Ot► MINN IV 133�o ® NOISSIRM00 ONINNYII 11N000 31101 walsAs uonewiolul 3iydtj6oag Ajuno3 alln8 . Z � W n e Z - 5 - � 0 - d F 091 - Nj Y SECTION 24-195 U (UNCLASSIFIED) ZONE (a) Purpose and Intent: All the unincorporated area of the County of Butte not otherwise zoned .by ordinance by the Board of Supervisors is hereby zoned as a U (Unclassified) district, and such district is defined and subject to the regulations contained in Section 24-33 of this Chapter. (b) Permitted Uses: The following are the principal permitted uses in the U Zone: (1) Single-family dwelling per parcel and accessory buildings; (2) Agricultural uses and buildings. (c) Conditional Uses: The following are conditional uses in a U Zone: (1) Multiple-family dwellings, including duplexes, subject to the density specified by the General Plan; second dwelling unit allowed with no extra restriction; (2) Commercial uses of land or buildings; r (3) Recreational vehicle parks; (4) Campsites; (5) Public or quasi-public uses including schools, churches, public buildings and public utility buildings; (6) Junkyards, secondhand stores, auto wrecking yards, used car lots, trailer sales and equipment sales; (7) Commercial distillation of bones, abattoirs, auction yards, commercial livestock feed yards, commercial millings, canneries, lumber and lumber processing, tanneries, fat rendering, garbage- fed commercial hog raising, food and agriculture product processing plants; (8) Country clubs, golf courses, racetracks, drive-ins., ball parks, riding academies, bowling alleys, commercial amusement enterprises, taverns, dance halls and other places of recreation of a similar character; (9) Kennels and small animal hospitals and crematories; (10) Trailer courts, construction labor camps; (11) Commercial airports (excepting individual or private airports and those operated exclusively for agricultural purposes); (12) Cemeteries, crematories, mausoleums or other places of the burial or other disposal of the human dead; (13) Storage of inflammables (excepting for agricultural purposes); (14) Dumping and disposal areas; ( 149 r' r (15) Manufacturing of acids, explosives, fertilizer, glue, gypsum, lime, plaster of paris, pulp and paper, beet sugar, crushed rock, sand and gravel, cement, concrete, and/or asphalt batching plants, concrete and clay products; (16) findustrial uses which might be objectionable by reason of emission of noise—, offensive odor, smoke, dust, bright light, vibration or involving the handling of explosives or dangerous materials; (17) Hydroelectric generating facilities with installed capacity greater than five (5) megawatts. (d) Densities: Residential densities not to exceed the densities as set forth in the Butte County General Plan for each specific site. (e) . Development Standards: The minimum requirements shall be those for the type of use involved. For instance, a residential use would adhere to the development standards for the "R" Zones and a commercial use would adhere to the development standards for the 'Co Zones. (f) Other Standards and Requirements: The following additional standards and requirements shall apply in a "II" Zone, except where specifically modified for conditional uses: (1) Off-street parking and loading shall be -provided in conformity with the provisions of Section 24-35. (2) Control on Land Divisions: Any proposed land division of 20 acres or less must first apply for and obtain specific zoning consistent with the General Plan or applicable area or specific plan. Board of Supervisors Discussion Item 86-296: Development permits for residential use on those lots of Butte Meadows (leases established in 1940 and 1950) leased from Steidlmayer; in Jonesville (1940 and 1950), leased from Minderman et al. ; and at Philbrook Lake (1930 and 1940) leased from PG&E, are allowed, finding that the development of the leaseholds conforms to the density established by previous governmental action with or without subdivision of the parcel, and, therefore, a use permit would not be required to develop these 'lots". SECTION 24-196 "WP" (WATERSHED PROTECTION) ZONE (a) Purpose and Intent: This district classification is intended to be utilized as an overlay zone which shall be overlaid onto other zoning districts to establish the boundaries of a watershed, and for the following purposes: (1) To protect the County's surface and ground water resources; (2) To reduce future governmental costs by preserving public water supplies; (3) To recognize the essentially public nature of the land and water resources of a watershed, and that their continued vitality is directly related to the social and economic welfare of the County and its communities; 150 F� I Board of Supervisors Discussion Item 83-82: Body shops are a permitted use. (b) Uses requiring use permits: The following uses are permitted subject to securing a use permit in each case: (1) Quasi-public uses; (2) Recycling facilities as per section 24-68. (c) Site requirements: The requirements of section 24-33 of this Code are modified for all building sites in 'L-I' zones in the following particulars: (1) Lot area and width: There is no lot area minimum not lot width minimum except as may be required for the building and for off- street loading area and parking. (2) Side yard: None, except where the side of a lot abuts a residential zone, in which case the side yard shall be not less than five (5) feet. (3) Rear yard: None, except where the rear yard abuts a residential zone, in which case the rear yard shall be not less than five (5) feet. (4) Truck loading and unloading space: Private off-street loading space for the handling of all goods, materials and equipment shall be provided. Such space shall be of sufficient area and of such design as to permit the parking and loading of vehicles without extending into any existing street beyond the curbline. (5) Off-street iparking sipace: The provisions of section 25-35 shall apply. (6) Enclosure: All uses must be conducted entirely within an enclosed building or structure or within an area enclosed on all sides by a solid wall or fence at least six (6) feet in height or by a chain link fence at least six (6) feet .in height with a six-foot planting buffer maintained in healthy condition, except that the provisions of section 10-9 shall apply to fences and walls within the required front yard and street setback area. rSECTION 24-114 K-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONE, (a) Uses r)ermitted: (1) Wholesale and storage warehouses; (2) The assembly and storage of goods, materials, liquids and equipment (except the storage of inflammable matter or explosives or materials which create dust, odors or fumes); (3) Feed storehouses and warehouses and fuel yards; (4) The manufacturing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, repairing, packaging and treatment of goods, materials and products by power (oil, gas or electric), including, by way of example and illustration, but not limited to, the manufacturing, fabrication and assembling of bathroom shower and patio partitions, enclosures and doors, windows and store fronts of 101 a `i aluminum, plastic and fiberglass, or other suitable material, and the processing, finishing, polishing and anodizing of aluminum extrusions and castings, assaying, broom and brush manufacturing, die casting, dog pounds, draying, freighting or trucking yards or terminals, heavy equipment rental or sale, heating and ventilating service shops, jewelry manufacturing, lamp shade manufacturing, lumberyards, packaging plants, public utility service yards, truck repairing and overhauling and welding shops; (5) Dyeing and rug cleaning plants, veterinary hospitals and animal shelters and boarding kennels, cabinet and woodworking shops, construction and material yards; (6) Any use permitted in C-1 and C-2 zones. Board of Supervisors Discussion Item 86-510: Sewage treatment ponds are not allowed in the M-1 Zone. (b) Uses requiring use permits: The following uses are permitted subject to the securing of a use permit in each case: (1) Any residential use; (2) Storage of inflammables; (3) Manufacturing of acids, explosives, fertilizer, glue, gypsum, lime, plaster of paris, pulp and paper, beet sugar, crushed rock, sand and gravel, cement, concrete and/or asphalt batching plants, concrete and clay products; (4) Industrial uses which might be objectionable by reason of emission of noise, offensive odor, smoke, dust, bright light, vibration or involving the handling of explosives or dangerous materials; (5) Junkyards and auto wrecking yards; (6) Recycling facilities as per section 24-68. (c) Site requirements: The requirements of section 24-33 of this Code are modified for all building sites in M-1 zones in the following particulars: (1) Lot area and width: There is no lot area minimum nor lot width minimum except as may be required for the building and for off- street loading area and parking. (2) Side yard: None, except where the side of a lot abuts an R district, in which case the side yard shall be not less than five (5) feet. (3) Rear yard: None, except where the rear yard abuts an R district, in which case the rear yard shall be not less than five (5) feet. (4) Truck loading and unloading space: Private off-street loading space for the handling of all goods, materials and equipment shall be provided. Such space shall be of sufficient area and of such design as to permit the parking and loading of vehicles without extending into any existing street beyond the curbline. (5) Off-street parking: One parking space for each three (3) employees or one parking space for each two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross floor space, whichever is greater. 102 _ uto Counfy Ile, aJ.. . DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (9161 538-7601 September 16, 1993 FAX: 1916)538-7785 Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place Chico, Ca 95926 Re: Rezone, - File 93-17 - Dear Mr. Young: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Board of Supervisors held September 14 , 1993 , Ordinance No. 3087 was adopted which rezones from "U" to M-1 and Resolution 93-138 was adopted approving conditional zoning agreement for property located on the southwest across from Honey Run Raod and north of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-097 , 040-020- 148 , Chico. Recently enacted legislation (AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991) requires that the Department of Fish and Game impose and collect filing fees as specified to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. These filing fees are collected during the environmental review process and are to be paid at the time the County files a "Notice of Determination" with the County Clerk of the County in which the project is located. This procedure is required pursuant to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. To increase administrative efficiency, the statute delegated the collection of filing fees to the County Clerk and provided the County authority to collect a $25. 00 documentary handling fee. The fee for a De Minimus Negative Declaration is the $25 . 00 documentary handling fee. A check made payable to the County in the amount of $25. 00 should be submitted to the County by September 22 , 1993 . The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094 . 6. Judicial review must be sought no later than the 90th day following the date on which this decision becomes final, except that where a shorter time limit is provided by State or Federal. law, such shorter time limit shall apply. 96 Mid Valley Title and Escrow G01pany OROV I LLE PARADISE CHICO7020-C Skyway 601 Main Street 2295 Feather River Blvd. 877-4471 893-5644 Suite A-533-6680 i Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact thisu Department. Very truly yours, William Farrel Development Services Director WF: lr I I .Y LAND OF NATURAL W EALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 MEMORANDUM TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services Craig B. Sanders, Project Planner SUBJECT: Forrest Young, Rezone, File 93-17, Board Item September 14, 1993 DATE: August 17, 1993 REQUEST f RECOMMENDATION Forrest Young - proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Rezone from "U" (Unclassified) to M-1 (Light Industrial) for property located on the southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and north of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico. Staff recommends the Board concur with the Planning Commission and subject to the findings listed in this report, approve the rezone. .ANALYSIS: This project is a request to rezone approximately 45 acres, located on the west side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road, from U to M-1. This site has been the focus of several previous actions. The property was originally designated as Industrial on the Chico Area General Plan. The designation was changed to Agricultural Residential in 1985 to conform with the City of Chico's plan. In 1986 the City of Chico changed the designation to Industrial and the County followed with an amendment back to Industrial. A.subsequent rezone application to M-1 was approved with an associated Development Agreement. The Development Agreement, however was never signed and the zoning was changed back to U. The Development Agreement was used to address the environmental impacts of a specific development proposal, the construction of an new facility for Caribou Mountaineering. The designation of the site for industrial use is compatible with the surrounding properties. The land to the south is already zoned M-2 and is developed with industrial uses. The property to the west is the U.S. Plant Introduction Station and industrial uses will not conflict with this use. To the north and east the property is bounded by Skyway which is a divided 4 lane road. This provides access to the property and acts as a buffer to the rural residential uses to the west. A Development Agreement was used in conjunction with the last rezone proposal because there was a specific development proposal, the property was not within the Chico Urban Area boundary, and the impacts of development could not be addressed through the required improvement standards for the urban area. Specific concerns were drainage, road improvements, fire protection, and traffic. The boundary of the Chico Urban Area was changed in 1987 to included this property. This means that at the time of building permit application for any commercial or industrial use, the applicant will be required to install urban road improvements, drainage improvements, and pay into the Chico area traffic fund. This requirement has made many of the past mitigations unnecessary since those same mitigations are now required by ordinance. However, since there are still some environmental concerns that need to be addressed, a conditional rezone is recommended. Those areas of concern are discussed in the environmental documents attached to this report. Development on site will also be subject to the collection of traffic, school, and Sheriff impact fees. The proposed zone is compatible with the General Plans of both the City of Chico and the County and both jurisdictions support the designation. Approval of this request is recommended. The site forms the southwesterly edge of Chico's Sphere of Influence and is contiguous to the city limits at the northwest corner, along Skyway. This makes the future annexation of the property almost a certainty. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission heard testimony regarding this project. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the rezone. RECOMMENDATIONS: MOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF MEMO DATED August 17, 1993; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A"; MAKE THE MOTION LISTED UNDER "B" INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS LISTED 1 THROUGH 6. A. Find that: 1. An initial study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Said study and comments received thereon identified potential significant environmental effects that the project may have had, but: a. Provisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by _ _ I the applicant would avoid such effects or mitigate such effects to point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. b. There is no substantial evidence before the County that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. 3. The proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the M-1 zone is listed as a consistent zone in the Industrial General Plan designation; and B. Adopt an ordinance rezoning to M-1 that property identified as AP Nos. 040-020- 087 & 148; and C. Adopt a resolution for a conditional zoning agreement adding the following conditions that will be made a part of the rezone: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/ greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed to allow"first flush"water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, A CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. 7. Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Director of Development Services upon receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant. Prior to such approval, verification shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the application, fees paid and environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes deemed to be major or significant in nature shall require a formal application for amendment. CBS:lr PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE . OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95985.3397 TELEPHONE: (918)538.7801 FAX: (91 B) 538.7785 June 10, 1993 Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place Chico, CA 95926 Re: Rezone, File 93-17 Dear Mr. Young: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held June 10, 1993 your request for rezoning from "U" to M-1 for property located on the southwest side of Skyway, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico, was recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage system shall be designed too allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. I 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road as required by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, a County Service Area shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. A report of this matter will be made to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Pursuant to the provisions of Butte County Code Section 24-28.1, an estimated publishing fee of the rezone ordinance shall be deposited with the Clerk of the Board prior to the Board setting a public hearing. Your rezone application has been reviewed and the estimated cost of publication and staff time is $100.00. Accordingly, we would request that you forward your check for $100.00 to the Clerk of the Board 25, County Center Drive, Oroville, Ca. 95965, made payable to the "Butte County Treasurer." Upon receipt of the monies the Board of Supervisors will be asked to set a public hearing. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, . A. Kircher Director of Planning BAK:lr cc: Clerk of the Board a � PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 May 3, 1993 Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place Chico, CA 95926 Re: Rezone, File 93-17 Dear Mr. Young: Enclosed is a copy of the Staff Findings concerning ycur application for a rezone from "U" to M-1 for property located on the southwest side of Skyway, identified as AP 040- 020-087, 148, Chico. A public hearing has been set for June 10, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have. In the event that no one will represent the applicant, please contact the Planning office prior to the scheduled public hearing. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning ZV eli4 ' / A Craig B Sanders Associate Planner CBS:lr Enc. I-M o, euozes :1S3031 e-u'S :13NM0 6unol }semj :1NY3I1dlV n :DNINOZ 9N11SIX3 f661 bI eunr :S31Ya 9NI1Y3N NOI1d001 LH6 VON 3111 01—OZO-Ot :132MON IV 103POdd O NOISSIRR03 JNINNYId A1Nn03 311n9 walsAS uoilemolul 3iydei6oag Ajuno3 alin8 .7 o 4 uow03 yano NOlIV301 133103d - o , o , o o 1 p /moi N 0:9NINOZON11SIX3 f661 ► ► ONIUM ►, :•: �I I� 1 1 ,....... :....... ........ ....... ........ ........ ....... ,....... ....... ........ ....... ......... ...... ........ ..... ........ .... ........ ..... ......... .... ........ ... ........ .... ......... ❖.� o.❖.•.•..•.•. .......... 1 APPENDIX I . . . . ................................................................ ............ ....... ... ........... .. ....... .. ....... . ..... ....... . ...................... ................................ .................... ......... .... ....... ........ . ....... ....... ....................... .... ....... ...... ................. .. ......... X. ................. ........ ................................ ..................................... .......%.................................... . ....... ........... .............................................................................. ........................ .... ....... ....... ....... ............................... ......... ....... :X ..........X.. . .............. .... ........ ........ ............................. .................. ....... ':0 ........... ....... ........ .............. ............. ..... X, X. X.x... . ....... .... ................................ .......... ......... ....................... .......... ........ ...... ................. .. �*::i.....X.. .............................................. ......... ................................................... ...................................... ...... .......... .............................................................. .......' . ::::>:<::<:::........ ....... ...... ... ................... . ............................................................... ""XXX ................... ................ ............................................... .... ................. ... ....... ............................. ........................ ............ .......... .......**.......... -IS .0 ...... ...... VT ................. .................... ... :* ... ....... ... ................................ ..... ...... ......................................... . .................. ...... ........ .......... ]�ENV...IiRONMENT.A. --:iHECXL ............................... ........... ............ .. . ......... ........... ........ ........... ...................................... ...... .................... ........................:XXXX........ ................ ..........................................................: .. X-............... . .. ........ ..... ......... ................ .................... ............ X. . .... .................................... . ....... ............. XX 1, N.::: N.-VIR .T. .......... ....%....... ....... .. .. ...... ..... ....... ...................... ..... ......EVALUAT 0 ::�DP�!.r NM AW-4 . P T.................... . ............ . ............. ......... ......... .0 EN .............. .......................... XX ..... ...................... ..................................................................................................... ........ ...... ...***....*...*** .......:: ...................... ....................... ....... ... .......... .... ............................. ........................ . ......... ......... ........ .... . ........ ......... .................. ........... ............ ............. ...... ......... ..... .... ......... ....... ...... ........................ . . ..........I............... ................................ ..... .... ........I ...................................... ...........I........................ ................................. Post-ItIm brand fax transmittal memo 7671 From #ofp'agesm- File No. AP No. 040-020-087 & 148� To Ad .1 0 '14 6"& ZKA I S I. BACKGROUND Co. Co. 1. Name of Proponent: Forrest.Young Dept. Phone# 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable): 82.Northwood Commons Place, Chico CA 95 Fax# &c4 _-T AIX;/ Fax# J —3.—Project-descri ption:—Rezone-f rom-U to-M-1- —' MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES MAYBE NO DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION II. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X This proposal will not significantly degrade the environment. of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term X This proposal will not impede long-term environmental goals. benefits to the detriment of long-term environment goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will endure into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually X See the discussion for items 3d, 3f, and 4a. limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will X This proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on human beings. cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I/WE find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. COUNTY OF BUTTE. t �EPJA DATE: March 11, 1993 By: 04 Craig,S1-nders V ReviewedX .......... ....... .............................. .............. ... .... ..... ... ............... ...... .................................. ............................ ................ ...... .............. ........... .... ......... ................................ ................... ................................. ....................... ................... : ................................. .................-........I......... ...... ....... .............................. .......... -,". ::::::.:::::::�ij ....... ................. "..'X.,X., ............................. -X ......... ... .......... ....... ............. .......................%....... ..........I.................... 00 .:.:.:::::::::�:: :. . 1. -:::::::: .............................. vionme ta .. ........ ''I' "' ... . :: . .. : 66U�Zi: 01, ........... Enver i$Ev th- ronmO.. kilin ............. .......................... X .0. ................................... xx:..... ............... ....... . ... ......... .. ........ ............................ ............................. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS YES MAYBE MO DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: a. Unstable earth conditions, or changes in geologic X The proposal will not affect subsurface earth conditions. substructures? b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or X This proposal has the potential to allow significant impacts to the surface overcovering of the soil? of the site including disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the site as a result of improvements allowed by the proposed zoning. These type of impacts are expected in an industrial setting and all of the industrial zones in the county would have the same impact. Since this was anticipated when the property was designated industrial in 1986 and was addressed in the environmental documents prepared for the general plan amendment, this is not seen as a significant impact. C. Change in topography or ground surface relief X The proposal could result in some changes in topography. The site is features? relatively level and cuts or fills in excess of 6 feet will probably not be required. braCilig Will be required to facilitate storm water runoff. These types of soil activities are expected for commercial or industrial development and are not seen as a significant environmental impact. d. Destruction, covering or modification of any X The site has no unique physical features. unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, X The proposal has limited potential to cause erosion as a result of either on or off site? development activities allowed by the proposed zone. These impacts will only be significant if the area directly adjacent to Comanche Creek is disturbed and left without protection during the winter months when water is flowing through it. f. Changes in deposition of erosion of beach sands, X See the discussion for item le. 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? 9. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils - X This proposal does not represent a significant loss of prime agricultural outside designated urban areas? soils. h. Exposure of people or property to geologic - X All of Butte County is in a Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Code standards for seismic zone mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards? 3, as required through the building permit application, will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity. 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air X The rezone by itself will not result in any deterioration in the air quality. quality? Since the zone allows such a wide variety of uses, it is difficult to guess as to the air quality impacts. In looking a the allowed uses, the worst case might be incurred if a trucking yard or wood working shop were to locate on site or some type of commercial use that generates a huge amount of traffic. At the time this land was designated industrial, other land in the Chico Urban Area was removed from the industrial designation resulting in a net loss of industrial land and as a result a net potential decrease in air quality impacts. Any prospective business that is going to emit offensive odors, smoke, or dust must first get a use permit and will be required to comply with Butte County Air Pollution Control District Requirements. As far as emissions from increased traffic, the site is less than I mile from an existing major commercial center and the emissions generated from people driving that additional distance is not considered significant. Given these parameters and the existing regulations for air quality, this impact is not seen as significant. 3 f . .. ::.:.:..:.:.. .:..:.:..:.:..:. . .........:..>ecknv�ro..nm n IutEnvic h s ........ ........ .... .... . . ........ ma ..::.: .:... .:..:<..>..>.:.:..>..:..am ::.: ::: ::: ; : : .. b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or X See the discussion for item 2a. fumes? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture or X The proposal will not affect the atmosphere. 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 X The project site has two channels from Comanche Creek crossing it. One of water movements in either marine or fresh channel forms the southerly boundary, the other cuts through the center. waters? Bank erosion and changes in the course of the streams is possible. The southerly stream/drainage course does support some riparian vegetation an should not be disturbed. A 50' building setback and no disturbance zone should be established from the outer edge of the riparian vegetation or top _ of bank, whichever is geedter. This area could be used for a parkway for future employees of the site and such improvements and landscaping should be allowed under the direction of the California Department of Fish and Game. The other channel must be maintained for drainage purposes it could, however, be put underground through a properly sized culvert or channelized and lined with no significant environmental effects. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, X The potential build out allowed under the proposed zone will result in or the rate and amount of surface runoff? significant increased runoff from the site due to compaction and overcovering of the soil. Drainage from the site needs to be directed away from the two tributaries of Comanche Creek that traverse the property due to downstream flooding problems. However drainage from the site can be directed to the drainage diversion channel that forms the westerly property boundary. The water is then released into Butte Creek. The project is within the Chico Improvement Standards area and commercial or industrial building permits trigger the requirement for street, fire, water, and drainage improvements. The standards are contained in the Improvement Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps , and Site Improvements adopted as part of Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code. Adherence to these standards will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. C. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, X No off site drainage improvements will be required as a direct result of this including vegetation removal, channelization or project. If any off site drainage improvements are needed they will be culvert installation? required as a condition of development pursuant to County Improvement Standards. d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood X Approximately 65% of the project site is located within a designated 100 year waters? flood plain. Development within this flood plain will have a minimal effect on downstream flooding that is related to the reduced percolation of flood waters from paved areas and buildings. This is not seen as a significant impact. In the case of a flood event, the flood waters could be contaminated to various degree with a variety of substances that are used in industrial processes. This potential is somewhat mitigated by the requirement in the M-1 zone the storage of hazardous and inflammable materials requires a use permit and will need the preparation of additional environmental documents and can be conditioned at that time. This impact can be further mitigated by requiring all buildings to have a finished floor elevation above the flood water elevation. If small amounts of introduced substances do enter the water as a result of flooding, the impacts will be mitigated by the volume of water. e. Change in the amount of surface water in any X The proposal has the potential to increase the amount of water in Butte Creek water body? as a result of increased runoff. It would not, however, cause the creek to breach it's banks or flood to a level significantly higher than it already does. ::.>: 4 *:`. ... Env..r..onme .to ::C.:.ec.. .s. :::::.::: ..valuation...of...Enu�ronmental::.lm act........................................................................................................................................:.:: xxx X1X f. Discharge into surface waters, or in any X The proposal has the potential to incrementally affect surface water quality alteration of surface water quality, including in Butte Creek. The main impacts will occur with the "first flush" rains but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen that wash accumulated oils, heavy metals, tire residue, etc. into the storm or turbidity? drainage system and possibly into Butte Creek if the runoff is large enough. This impact can be mitigated by designing the storm drainage system to allow for infiltration of "first flush" runoff or through the use of some type of filtration system that will meet the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of X The proposal will not affect the direction or flow of ground waters. ground waters? h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground X The proposal will utilize ground water as a source of potable water and for waters, either through direct additions or fire fighting purposes. In general, commercial and industrial uses do not withdrawals, or through interception of an use large amounts of water though there are some uses that use very large aquifer by cuts or excavations? quantities, a brewery for example. Since the type of development is not KROWh at LhiS Llhle, the exact amount of water used is not known. However, the aquifer below this property and in the area is one that has a recharge rate greater than the withdrawals according to a USGS study titled "Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Sacramento Valley". Adequate amounts of water should be available to serve the development on this site either through on site wells or the extension of a California Water Service line. i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise X The project will not affect any public water supply. If a California Water available for public water supplies? Service line is extended to serve the site, adequate supplies of water will be available. j. Exposure of people or property to water-related X The site is within a designated flood plain, see the discussion for item 3d. hazards such as flooding? 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of X The site contains some limited riparian vegetation along the stream that any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, forms the southerly property boundary. This vegetation type is declining in grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? California and needs to be preserved. Impacts to this vegetation can be mitigated by adopting a no development setback. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or X The site has the potential to support at least two species of rare or endangered species of plants? endangered plants. Two surveys of the property have been performed at different times and no evidence of the plants were found. C. Introduction of new species of plants into an X The proposal will not significantly affect existing plant life. area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? X The site does not contain any agricultural crops and is presently developed with a single family residence and the remains of a dairy farm. 5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers X The proposal will not significantly the diversity or number of animal life of any species of animals (birds, land animals because the site does not support significant animal life or habitat. including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or X The site contains no rare animals. endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an X The proposal will not affect existing animal life. • area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ..................... .............................. ...................... ... .... .... ................................. ........ ......... :,::::::::::::': ....................... .................. :::::....... ....................................... ...... ........................ ................................ .................. .................. .......::::: ................... ................................ ......... .....X,'"..'*::: . ....... ......*.. ............. ........................... ............ ................... ....... ............. ................ ............................................. ...... ........ .................... ......................... .......... ...................... ....... ::::..... ::.-. - . ........... .... ................... ................ MOM ........ .................. V1 ac... .... .. ....... ....... ..... n. ..ro0.M.0nJA_: .0 16 ion., F: h k-li... E.V h .............. ...... ................................ ....... ................................. ................................. ...... *:,*::;....,...................................'..-- ............. .............. ............ .... ........ . ........ . ................... . .............................. ........................................................... ............................................ . ......... ....................................................... .. .............................. d Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife X See the discussion for item 4a. habitat? 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X The development allowed by the M-1 zone will result in some increase in noise generated on the site. The zone does, however require a conditional use permit for use that create undue amounts of noise so that those impacts can be addressed. There are no sensitive noise receptors in the immediate vicinity and no high concentrations of residences. The nearest residences are across the Skyway and are already subject to noise from the road which is probably greater than noise that will com from future development on site. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X The proposal will not expose people to severe noise levels. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce significant X Development under the proposed zone will result in an increase in light on Tight and glare? the vrooerty that will bo conGiatent with ioidu�trlal ana e6rhmercial development. There are no sensitive light receptors in the immediate vicinity that will be affected by the increase in lighting. 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a substantial X The proposal will not alter the land use in the area. The General Plan Land alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Use Element was amended in 1986 to designate this property for industrial development. This designation is also consistent with the City of Chico designation. The proposed zone also allows for the development of commercial uses allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural X The ultimate development of industrial uses will result in a corresponding resources? increase in the use of power and natural resources depending upon the use or manufacturing process. Many of the natural resources used may not come from this state or even this country. This is a normal impact of any development and the increased usage will not be undue or abnormal. b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? X The proposal will not deplete any natural resources. 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of explosion or release of hazardous X The proposed zone requires businesses using significant amounts of substances (including, but not limited to, oil, inflammables or hazardous material to obtain a conditional use permit. This pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event will allow for additional environmental evaluation and the imposition of of an accident or upset conditions? conditions to regulate the use of these materials. See the discussion for item 3d for potential releases to flood waters. b. Possible interference with an emergency response - - X The proposal will not affect any emergency services. plan or emergency evacuation plan? II. POPULATION. Will the proposal alter location, - - X The proposal will not significantly affect the population of the area because distribution, density or growth rate of the human the proposed density does not exceed that planned and being developed in the population? area. 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or - - X The proposal will not significantly affect housing demand. create a demand for additional housing? 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle X The proposal will represent an incremental increase in traffic in the area. movement? Skyway is a 4 lane arterial with a estimate capacity of 38,400 ADT. Traffic volumes at the east side of the Skyway/Honey Run Rd. intersection are 15,600 ADT (1992). The volume increases to 18,900 ADT west of Bruce Rd. and 28,200 ADT west of Notre Dame Ave. According to figures on trip generation compiled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 5th edition, development on .. :::.; :>:.::::::..;::;:. :..::;:.>:::>::>;:::::: :;:.::::.:.:..:::.::.;:.;:.::.;:.;:.;:.:.;:.;:.;:.;:.: .;:.::.::..;:.;.;:.;.:::.;:.;::.;:.;.:.::.;:.;:..;:.;.;:.;. ..........:..... 6 m L:.1 m n 1 h . kli t v 1 ti n f:Enver n enta ... m :,:.:::.;.::::::. :>::>:>:.;:.:.. .:.: :.>::.::;::>:>:>::; :..:;.:.:>:. :::.:::;::............:....:>::>::>::>::>::>::>::>::::. >::>:: Environ .: a to ::C ec ...s ::.::E...:a ua. o.. .:o.... ... .... .o...... .. . act...................::....................::..::.::.::........ .:. this site could generate between 39 to 160 ADT per week day per acre. Assuming that approximately 30 acres could be developed, the expected increase in ADT would be 1170 to 4800 trips. The lower figure assumes the uses on site will be 100% manufacturing and the higher number assumes a business park development with mixed uses including retail sales, food services, offices, warehousing, and manufacturing. The latter would be similar to the existing development on the Skyway to the west. At the worst case the traffic on Skyway at Honey Run Road will increase to approximately 20,400 ADT or 53% of estimated capacity. Skyway is a limited access, major thoroughfare. Encroachments are reviewed very carefully .for" safety cons-i.derattons— There are currentlytwoaccess -- - — -- points to the property now. It is recommended that access to the site be limited to 1 access point with a secondary access for emergency purposes only. The access point shall be approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. In a previous review, The Department of Public Works indicated that two would be considered:_1) cross Comanche Creek to the south and use- - -- -- - - - - the existing access point for Baldwin Construction; or 2) align the access with Honey Run Road. In the latter case, plans for a future traffic signal should be made to make turning movements safer. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand X The proposal will not affect parking because the proposal will have to comply for new parking? with the parking requirements contained within Butte County Code section 24- 35. C. Substantial impact on existing transportation X See the discussion for item 13a. systems? d. Significant alterations to present patterns of X The proposal will not alter the present pattern of circulation in the area. circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X The proposal will not affect rail or air traffic. i f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in traffic and related bicyclists or pedestrians? traffic hazards in the area. See the discussion for item 13a. � 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services: a. Fire protection? X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection in the area. The Butte County Subdivision Improvement Standards will require the installation of a pressurized water system with hydrants as a condition of development. Water for the hydrants can come from the extension of a California Water Service line or from wells on site with some on site storage. If the latter is used a CSA shall be formed to oversee the maintenance of the system. Interior fire sprinkler systems will be required on an individual basis according to occupancy and building code. b. Police protection? X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection in the area. The Board of Supervisors has adopted a Sheriff impact mitigation fee that is collected at the time of building permit submittal. This condition reduces the impact to police services to a less than significant level. C. Schools? X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for school services in the area. All new residential units allowed by this project will be subject to the collection of school impact fees, as allowed by the School Facilities Law and adopted by County ordinance. These fees are collected at the time of building permit application. While the school district maintains that the allowed fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees and takes the position that the existing fee structure addresses the impacts of the project. ................ .................... ....... ............... ............................................................. ................ ......... :XXXXXXXXX ............... . ................... 7 ........................... X ......................%...... ... ................................ ......... . ....... . ....... .......... ........ ........... ......................... ........ ....... .. ............. ...:::;: .................. .......... .......... ................... ............................................................................................................................................. : ... X......:::::::::::::*''*.................. ............ ......... ....... ................. .................... .. ...... .: : . ... "......... . .............. ... .. X.: X X ............ X ... ....... :.:..*..:.:Ev IuAtidn:i. iiiiEhvirdnm ........ ........ en m ............ ............ ............... ....... . ........... ... ........ ...................................................... .............................. ......... ................. .. ........ .......... .......M........................ . ......... ............................. .............................. ............................. ..................................... ........ ............................... .............. d Parks or other recreational facilities? X The project is within the Chico Urban Area and will be subject to the collection of recreation impact fees applicable to commercial and industrial development. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in the need for roads? maintenance of roads and other public facilities in the area that will be off set by the increase in property tax and sales tax revenue to the county. f. Other governmental services? X The proposal will result in an incremental increase in demand for all other governmental services in the area that will be off set by the increase in property tax and sales tax revenue. 15. ENERGY. will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X The project will not utilize substantial fuel or energy. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing X The- proposal. will not substantially increase the demand for energy.- - sources of energy-or requi re the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power or natural gas? X The proposal will not affect electrical power or natural gas distribution systems. b. Communications systems? X The proposal will not affect communication systems. C. Water availability? X The proposal will not affect public water systems. Pubic water can be extended to serve the property or water can be supplied by wells on site. d. Sewer or septic systems? X The project is located within the Chico Area Nitrate Action Plan and sewage disposal via septic tanks will be limited by that plan. High groundwater is a concern in the vicinity and winter groundwater monitoring may be necessary. Uses on the property will be restricted until sewer is extended to the site. The property is not currently within the sewer service area which would have to be amended to serve the site. e. Storm water drainage? X The proposal will have to provide a permanent solution for drainage. f. Solid waste and disposal? X The proposal will not have a significant effect on solid waste disposal. 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential hazard X The proposal will not create any health hazard. (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X The proposal will not expose people to any health hazard. 18. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in the obstruction X The proposal will not result in an aesthetically offensive view because it of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the is consistent with surrounding development. proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the X The proposal will not result in an incremental increase in demand for park quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? and recreation facilities. 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration or X The proposal will not affect archeological sites. An archaeological survey destruction of a prehistoric or historic was performed on'the site in 1986 and no significant cultural resources were archaeological site? discovered. ............................ ........... X X.: .................. ................................. ............... ............................... ........... ....... . ... ... ..... .......... .......... ....... .......... ..... ......................... .... ............ .............. :: ..,:: ............... ................... .............. ........... ....................... ..... . ............... ................... ................................... ............................... ......... ........ ........ ............... .......... ........ ................. .... ........ .........................X .................... ................. ............. ......................... ............................................................... ....................... .................. ....... ... ...................................... .................................. ... ................................ ....... .......................... ....................... ... ............... ...... ............... .......... ........ ....... ... ... .......... ............................ ............... ........................................ ::..:: ..: : RE-i'r. ....-..-.iHdn:..:..' . ............................. hVir ..man WRO.A.Mefita ...... .............. ............... ....... . ..... ............................................................ ............................. -.17h kfiq E" ................................... .... ....... ................ ............... . ..... ............. .......... .................... .... .... ............. ............................................................... ................................. ............. ............................................... ....... ................. ............ b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or X The proposal will not affect historic sites. aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a X The proposal will not affect cultural resources. physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or X The proposal will not affect religious resources. sacred uses within the potential impact area? 9 Env nm n . . e. Checki�st:::::<::Evaluation:<.of.:E.:.V mental:.im act............ .................................................................:.:::::.::........ ........................... ....... P:.:::::.:.:::.::.::.::.:::.:::::.::.:::.>:.::.::.:::_:.::.: .::.::.............:::.::.:::_.::::.::.:::.::::.::::.: V. SUGGESTED MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Designate a 100' building and no disturbance setback from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation on Comanche Creek. This area can be improved as a parkway/ greenbelt with the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Also designate a 50' building setback from the top of bank of the flood channel that forms the westerly property boundary. 2. The finished floor elevation of all buildings shall be above the 1 in 100 year flood elevation as determined by a registered Civil Engineer. 3. The storm drainage systAm shall he dasignod to allow "first flush" water runoff from all paved surfaces to be retained in an infiltration pond or area, to reduce impacts to water quality. All drainage discharge shall meet water quality standards administered by Regional Water Quality Control Board. 4. Access to the site shall be limited to one point on Skyway, approved by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Contribute a pro rata share towards the future installation of a traffic signal light at the intersection of Skyway and Honey Run Road if the access is located at this point, if the need for a signal is identified by the Department of Public Works. 5. If a private water system for fire fighting purposes is installed that is not connected to California Water Service, A CSA shall be formed to maintain said system. 6. Proposed uses that do not meet the County standards for sewage disposal with septic tank and leachfield systems must connect to the City of Chico sewer system. These mitigations can be accomplished through the use of conditional zoning, a development agreement and in combination with a parcel or subdivision map. ....... 10 .... .. . .. .. o.....o . _ o...._e...ta_:....._. :act::::::::::::::::::.::::.::.:::::::::::.............................................................................................:.. P:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::.:::::::::..,::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.::::::::::. DATA SHEET A. Project Description 5. Visual/Scenic Quality: Good. 1. Type of Project: Rezone 6. Acoustic Quality: Fair. 2. Brief Description: Rezone from U to M-1 on 43 acres 7. Air Quality: Fair, with periods of marginal air quality during periods of stagnant valley air. 3. Location: Located on the westerly side of Skyway near the intersection of Honey Run Road, south of Chico Biological Environment: 4. Proposed Density of Development: Unknown 8. Vegetation: Grassland with some riparian vegetation along Comanche Creek 5. Amount of Impervious Surfacing: Potentially substantial with up to 75% of the site being overcovered. 9. Wildlife Habitat: Small birds and animals common to valley grasslands. 6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s): The property has access to Skyway Cultural Environment: 7: Method of Sewage Di[syaaal; Indlvldual sepLlc systems proposes. 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources in the area: High 8. Source of Water Supply: Individual wells. sensitivity area. 9. Proximity of Power Lines: To property. 11. Butte County General Plan designation: Industrial 10. Potential for further land divisions and development: The potential 12. Existing Zoning: U will exist for future land divisions with no minimum parcel size under the proposed zone. 13. Existing Land Use on-site: Ag building, two silos, two billboards B. Environmental Setting 14. Surrounding Area: Physical Environment: a. Land Uses: North: grazing; East: Skyway, church, and rural residential; South: Baldwin Construction yard; 1. Terrain West, U.S. Plant Introduction Station a. General Topographic Character: Level valley land b. Zoning: U, PQ, M-2, FR-2, FR-5, and FR-160 b. Slopes: 0 to 3% C. Gen. Plan Designation: Public, Industrial, and C. Elevation: 230 to 255 feet above sea level. Agricultural Residential d. Limiting Factors: None d. Parcel Sizes: 2 to 100+ ac. e. Population: Sparse 2. Soils a. Types and Characteristics: North of Edgar Slough: Tuscan 15. Character of Site and Area: Fringe of Chico Urban Area Stony Loam; south: Vina Loam. Poor subsurface drainage and shallow soil on the Tuscan Stony Loam, Vina Loam is well 16. Nearest Urban Area: Chico, adjacent to the northwest drained and generally suited for agriculture. b. Limiting Factors: Subsurface drainage in the Tuscan Stony 17. Relevant Spheres of Influence: CARD Loam, moderate liquefaction potential in the Vina Loam 18. Improvements Standards Urban Area: Yes 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zone: Moderate Earthquake Intensity zone VIII. 19. Fire Protection Service: b. Erosion Potential: Low a. Nearest County (State) Fire Station: Station #44 C. Landslide Potential: None approximately 2.2 miles away. d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified b. Water Availability: Fire tankers only. e. Expansive Soil Potential: Moderate to low 20. Schools in Area: Chico Unified School District. 4. Hydrology a. Surface Water: Flood channel borders on the west, Comanche Creek on the south, and Crouch Ditch traverses though the center. b. Ground Water: Abundant valley aquifers. C. Drainage Characteristics: The parcel drains to the south and west d. Annual Rainfall (normal): 26 inches per year. e. Limiting Factors: Flood plain covers a majority of the property D ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL l. Butte County Planning Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element.. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. Agricultural Preserves Map, established_hy Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: 3. Butte County PlanningButte County Planning Department, 1987. Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety element. oroville, CA: Ce2a Hill, 1977' 13, National Flood Insurance Flood Insurance Rate maps. Federal Emergency 3. Butte County Planningdepartment. Subsidence and Management Agency, 1989. Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. ozovilze, Cu: Cs3M Hill, 1977. 14. nSGa Quad Maps, Chico, Calif. 4. Butte County Planning15. soil map, chico (1925) /Oroville (1926) Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: Krea. United States Department of CsoM sill, 1977' Agriculture. 5. Butte County Planning . Expansive Soils 16, Soil Survey of Chico (1925) /Oroville Map 111-3, Safety element. orovilIe, CA: Ca2M United States Department of Hill, 1977. Agriculture. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise element 17. Butte County Planning Department. Map IV-1, Scenic Highway element. Oroville, CA: CountV Fire Protection Jurisdictions and oe2M Hill, 1977, Facilities Maip. Butte county fire Department and California Department of 7, Butte County Planning Department. Forestry, 1989. Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8, Butte County Planning Hazard classes Map 111-4, safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. g, Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity May. orovilla, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 20. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA 11. Northwestern District Department of Water concentration in Shallow Wells.Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, June 10, 1993 in the Butts County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEMS ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATION MEASURES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:00 a.m. P.J. Keating Materials Corp D/B/A Concrete Products Industries - Use Permit to allow a Ready Mix Concrete Plant on property zoned M-2 (Heavy Industrial) located on the southwest side of Skyway approx. 1600 ft. South of Honey Run Road, identified as AP 040-020-141, Chico. (CBS) 0a.m. Forrest Young - Rezone from "U" (Unclassifed) to M-1 (Light Industrial), located on the Southwest side of Skyway across from Honey Run Road and North of Edgar Slough, identified as AP 040-020-087, 040-020-148, Chico. (CB) (File #93-17) ITEM DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. Mary M. Cooper - Variance to the required sideyard setback to allow a storage shed 18" from property line instead of the required 5', on property zoned R-1 (Residential) located at 1785 Estates Way, approx. 500' north of Earl Avenue, identified as AP#002-040-016, Chico. (TL) The above mentioned applications, maps and Negative Declarations are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. 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 B.A. KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday May 6, 1993. M PTTmTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMI: ON 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 538-7601 TO• DATE: FEBRUARY 17,. 1993 RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EYALUATION AP # 040-020-087 040-020-148 FORREST YOUNG Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: REZONE TO M-1 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SKYWAY ACROSS FROM HONEY RUN ROAD AND NORTH OF EDGAR SLOUGH, CHICO ZONED U We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and '71Will be preparing an environmental document, either -a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental- Impact- Report (EIR) : Please provide. any:.factual statements.,-.-ideas. for :invest:igation,. or .opinions you can offer " n in your area of concer .or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or .economic .impacts that this project may generate.- - Please respond' w thin .14 days 6f :the above-noted date. If no response is- generated by--this. -inquiry, then it "shall-be- assumed that there are no significant environmental_ impacts_ which are potential from- the project: We appreciate any assistanceyouu can provide. :. . Sincerely, Larry Pa' er Planning Technician Comments: Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . Yes No T2/ N- R.2E. M. D.B.QM. 40-02 CROUCH DI TCH�11#• q� O �\ I X148 I ,B� pop, r°� n2.nsAC 80.40 'I ✓ 2 i)'M 49-24 MONEY RUM ee K -i Nu"a G U3 �y 1 / —39 �— �= 11.43 21.55AC � /! I :. 1 •. 48.29 AC I I—41 '17291 AC, 0<7<. -'.:;�_ ' i !•i -\ I 131.04 AC 1 S.8 PIA 88-28 • _E 1` •r. _ r'?-4.,�2.,_0 9 z ;• 142 d 4;�Y --j- aE\. \\\ 'S.7 AC'-.�✓ l� . i6'.69Ac $YY -'1'� .� Ac :;�' i. s .j //I o~' ..�_ �.____ 140 Fo4l F4 0] \,. 9/j. �c `3 140` c 40 79 -''.•," 1°Q:.-Y'' •,; Tye �� A�1128•lo — ` e �`. \�'• ,� l N V 9 IB.09AC i7J I;,1 H" VI' SIU t129' t Z A v p9 208.374C U.6�•�y-�� ti. 'gym 5I r �1W �-�I@. �:•:Z /1161 `= � `. 1,,!'• .24 am \< � N 10 L M.:RY BILL 3615.07 RANCH ROAD -e- �/- �:,'.�-•/D LC--N•--rG71.7:1- - - 73S'6Y- - -.1! -Br1.06-v- �'•:•`'S.IO I' 2 l53; K;•1n�: ? 1 i / )as.)s 23.02 . •.��-. „ ,� w 1 155 nc. 1� 5 a fRACT10NAL '•,',c,O,.tc po .i/B AC:., 36.39 Ac I z 00! �.. ..;r.* 156' ' 942.95 r) e . 20 .. •:•,i`r.,��t?t.�1'�:_ //B'.?®._.. Ar 2Dof a 2 3 1 a 1 33.N344 AL 5ISIA[. _I I r 14 1p...11 FCA'�F �s 20.01 6'. 7-14 B6 O 996.20966 .z! 4683 �✓�� •1.. PTN PCL 1�.14 t� I \`��• 1 arc cFs o 10 WEST BANK 1983 t27.13Ac.• 10 RS 110 71 ��,'1•!7 nI REM PM 94.7 P6 40.061 t)JI-'69)61411 /� ! •I�, •�'''��;, • 05 Assessor's Map No. 40-02 County of Butte, Calif. REVISED:I I- 90 'TE COUNTY PLANNING COMMI ON 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 538-7601 TO• DATE• FEBRUARY 17, 1993 . 1993 RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP # 040-020-087 040-020-148 FORREST YOUNG Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: . REZONE TO M-1 LOCATED ON THE ,SOUTHWEST SIDE OF SKYWAY ACROSS FROM HONEY RUN ROAD AND NORTH OF EDGAR SLOUGH, CHICO ZONED 'U I We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be -preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Please provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, Larry Pa' er Planning Technician Comments• Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) , or EIR for this project) . Yes No l 014 02.0 - 0E3.7 lzig DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR COMMENTS X RESORIICE MANAGEMENT _ County Public Works �~ County Environmental Health State Water Resources Dept. County Building Department U.S. Forest Service City of Biggs U.S. Bureau of Land Management City of Chico Butte County Mining Committee City of Gridley State Department of Fish & Game City of Oroville California Native Plant Society Town of Paradise State Div. Forestry- attention CHIC-C) Planning Department Craig Carter State Transportation Department _� Regional Water Qual. Control Bd. DOMESTIC WATER SEWERS Butte Water District Richvale Sanitary District California Water Service Co. North Burbank Pub. Util. Dist. Del Oro Water Co. Skansen Sub. (CSA #21) OWID Stirling City Sewer maint. Dist. Thermalito Irrigation District Thermalito Irrigation District Other UTILITIES IRRIGATION WATER PG&E North (Chico) Biggs-W.Gridley Water District PG&E South (Marysville) Butte Water District Pacific Bell Durham Irrigation District State TV Cable OWID Viacom TV Cable Paradise Irrigation District Richvale Irrigation District FIRE PROTECTION Table Mountain Irrigation Dist. E1 Medio Fire Protection Dist. Thermalito Irrigation District X County Fire Department/CDF DRAINAGE DISTRICT MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT X Durham, Oroville or Butte County RECLAMATION DISTRICT POLICE PROTECTION X State Highway Patrol > County Sheriff OTHER COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS SCHOOL DISTRICT RECREATION FACILITIES Paradise Pines Architectural Chico Area Recreation District Control Committee Durham Area Rec. & Park Dist. Butte County Farm Bureau Feather River Rec. & Park Dist. Community Association: Paradise Rec. & Park Dist. Richvale Rec. & Park Dist. State Parks & Rec. Dept. CITY OF CHICO INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DIRECTOR DATE: JULY 30, 1990 FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS FILE REFERENCE: ID MEMO SUBJECT: COMANCHE CREEK RANCH SUBDIVISION MESSAGE Several items should be required at the time or in conjunction with the filing 'of a tentative map for the above subdivision. 1. A complete drainage analysis showing the 100 year flood elevations, downstream channel capacity and impact of the increased drainage. 2. Complete- profiles along all proposed drainage courses through the . subdivision. 3. Research and documentation regarding ownership and water rights along Comanche Creek. Nunes for of Public Works JRN:ce cc: CSD ADPW-E 11-5 8-84 1OOM - ' ApR 2 ?_ 1993 April 19 , 1993 Craig Sanders Butte County Planning Dept . 7 County Center Drive Oroville , CA 95965-3397 Re : Rezone File X693-17 .AP 4040-020-057/148 Dear Mr . Sanders ; We have reviewed your initial study for the above referenced project and the suggested mitigations you have proposed are acceptable . It is our understanding that you will. now recommend our pro- ject for a negative declaration on environmental impact and proceed to the next step . Thank you for your assistance . Sin el , Forrest Youh lip . � E Suite - _ - - Department of Development Services - sr- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 April 5, 1993 Forrest Young 82 Northwood Commons Place, Chico, CA 95926 Re: Rezone, File # 93-17 AP #040-020-057 and 148 Dear Mr. Young: An initial study of your proposed project, a Rezone, indicatespotentially adverse impacts to the environment (refer to the enclosed environmental checklist). To reduce or eliminate these impacts, suitable mitigation measures are required as part of the project. Otherwise, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. An early response to this notification, sent to the Department of Development Services, Planning Division, will expedite the scheduling of your project. Please forward your written response within 15. days from the date of this letter. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning Craig Sanders Associate Planner CBS:jlo IN' .,DEPARTMENTAL MEMORA..._ JM Planning DeParhnent MAR 3 0 1993 TO: Butte County Planning Department Daov1116, jn;a FROM: Craig Eric rogram Manager, Butte County Environmental Health RE: Rezone to M-1 -AP# 040-020-087&148-Property Located on Southwest Side of Skyway Across From Honey Run Road and,-North of Edgar Slough DATE: March 29, 1993 We have received your request for project review and environmental evaluation of the above parcels. We offer the following comments: The Butte County Environmental Health Division has no objections to the rezone of this property. The.property is outside of the Nitrate Action Plan boundaries but within the City of Chico Sphere of Influence. Since the M-1 Zone permits high wastewater generating facilities, connection to a public sewer may be necessary to comply with Regional Water Quality Control guidelines and county policy. If proposed developments are low wastewater generating facilities, complete soil and groundwater investigations will be necessary because sewage disposal area for septic system is limited and portions of the property maybe within a flood plain. In any case, Butte County Environmental Health Division will encourage connection to a public sewer system for wastewater disposal. CJE/kf APPENDIX 1: COIJNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (to he complete y ,ea Agcncy) 1,09 A 85-12=24-02 1. BACKGROUND All A 40-02-87, 11.85_6y 1. Name of proponent RICHARD PETERS-,.___�_, _ 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable) Richard Peters_____________Rolls,-_Anderson...&..-Rolla 30 Northwood Commons P1. .•___.__-965 i_>`_Si.re_eS__ Chemo, CA 95926 Chico CA 95926.__, _ 3. Project description Rezone from 11. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES MAYBE Nil a. Dues 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 P1Hnt 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 J of California history or prehistory? b. Dues the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefit:; to tate detriment of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while long-term impacts will endure into the future.) C. Does the project have impacts which are individu- ally limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of these — -- impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human — beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DE• f-.RMINATIUN (To be completed by the Lead Agemcy) Un the basis of this initial evaluation: — I/W!i find the proposed project COULD NOT hwve' a significant effect on the environment , and a NEGATIVE DECI.AI(ATION will be prepared. 4 I/Wf: find that although the proposed project could have a signifi- cant effect on the environment , there will, not be a significant effect in this case because the lIT ICATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will he prepared. — I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, anti an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPPCT REPORT is required. DATE: sTiltlar _l.� C(tllN'l-Y OF Bt:TTIi,.PL,`,'"%NING,;DEPARTMEN'i C : aF Laur . Tuttle, ssociate Planner Itc t icwed hy: w�►• i I Ask I V. ENVIRONMENTAL I hTI'ACTS -Cc—x_p1 anations o aTT "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached.sheet(s)) :.• ,t,;;YES. MAYBE. NO 1. EARTH.* Will the proposal result in significant: —a.--,,Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? y x b: 'I 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, x either on or off-site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach — -- sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? C. h. Exposure of people or p.operty 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 amoient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or — — 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 eith=r marine or fresh waters? x 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? X 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 alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved ozygen or turbidity? _ 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? ;;:a; Reduction -in the amount.,of; water; otherwise•:-,uc.,',) available for public water supplies? j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? �( -2- YUS MAYBE Nig q, PLANT-LIFE. Will the .proposal.result ,inisubstantial: a. ange in the ,diversity" of:species, or number. 'ofany species of.;plants (including trees,- . shrubs, grass, •crops, and .aquatic plants)? �( gib. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. ,Introduction of,new •species ,of .plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish- ment of existing species?. d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in. substantial: a. C ange in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthic organisms or insects)? �y b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a •barrier to the migration or movement of animals? �< d. ,Deterioration to existing -fish or wildlife. (�' habitat? _✓ 6. NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a.T•ncreases in existing noise levels? �! b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce significant light and glare? 'L 8. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in a su stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? _ 10. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve: a.A risk of explosion or the release of hazard- ous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, 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, ista' r�iion, density, or growth rate of the human .population? _ 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing; .. or create. a demand for additional housing? . I r.:!r.r -.i- —�..n,rpo-imnsv..�'4C'� 17W[vw9n+a�afsnr+wwv.++iwm'a�nn1^rw..Te^^i' .. .raloogwewnonmr ^ ® YES MAYBE NO 13.•: TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will .theproppsal,',;; result in: 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 resu t in a need for new or altered governmental services: a. Fire protection? �( b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. 'Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 1S. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in: a—Use of substantial amounts of fuel .or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing —' sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following: a. Power. or natural gas? b. • Communications systems? X c. Water availability: d. Sewer or septic tank? — _j e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a. CreatioF of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. AESTHETICS. Will 'the proposal result in .he 0o st�ruction'of any- scenic vi.sta:'or view open to the public, or will the proposal�result•in •the creation of-an aesthetically offensive sire open to, public view? J( j I YES MAYBE No 19 r'':'',RF.CREATION. Will the, proposal .result in an impact., uponTe :quality.:or quantity''of existingrecreational opportuni'ties7 _ 20 .CULTURAL'::RESOURCES t"�� " O TG:Ja 7 r i r.'tii bi,l� rT1 it the ms'proposalViesulV"Ifi the'glteration� Y*R�oftoi^ the+-destruction :of`a4pi6histiiric'orU J S '�'-�=-�histoiic archaeological=site?' ' ' x b. - Will the proposal result in adverse physical bi:*iisthetic,effects to a prehistoric or historic.buil'ding; structbre!or object? _ _ J c: Does`the' proposal hive''thelpotential to -cause a�physical=change which would affect innique - `%!'%'<"ethnic-cultural values?!"' •�• - ' ,�, d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or!sacred!uses ;within:the potential impact : area?. V. DISCUSSION_OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP 40-02-87 & 1'1=05-69' See 'attached. � .. ,, .11.jY;•�:il, .IFi :ir :�i:'I .:USj: hG'VYr.;,b• � � . -5• 0 O' t pISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP 40-02-87 and 11-05-69.''. pro lect Description Rezonu.to M-2 on 43 acres to permit a 50,000-square-foot industrial ,' complex. Caribou Mountaineering will locate on site. Caribou manufactures sleeping bags, backpacks, totes, luggage and related accessories. Production Inputs are shipped from back East and assembled here In Chico. Although goods are shipped nationwide, most sales are made back East. Caribou is now located in Chico, employing 150 people. Caribou is a sewing operation. Thev have no smokestacks, no heavy metal wastewater, no toxic wastes. Caribou Is quiet. Outdoor activity is limited to employee and truck traffic., and employee recreation at lunch. The complex does not Include retail sales. lbs Construction of the complex will overcover a minimum of 6.2 acres. Soil disruption will be somewhat higher. Construction Hill.*1. not entail extensive cut and fill . Terrain Is level . No mitigation . necessary. tct Grading will be required to facilitate stormwater drainage''. 101 The land will be converted from agricultural to Industrial use. Impacts resulting from conversion were addressed In the Chico area - , EIR, 1982. 3b,c06et Almost no surface water runoff Is generated by the field'. ' With development, surface water runoff from roads, parking areas; and rooftops will greatly increase. A drainage plan is now being prepared by a local engineering firm. Off-site improvements may be required if downstream channels are at capacity. 3d,J: The flood control channel (Little Chico Creek ) is deslgnated' a 'Lone A floodway on the federal flood maps. Nearly half of the parking area and roadways are within the floodway. This problem can be ; resolved three wayst • Move complex 300 feet northeast; • Construct a levee on both sides of the channel , ,Joining with the levee Immediately south; or I • Provide engineering analysis which proves federal flood map is Incorrect. it aft Petroleum products leaked by cars will be deposited in area.' ' t creeks with the first major !storm of the season.. Caribou does not generate industrial wastewater or store toxlc'.:, chemicals. No mitigation required. i •.•w.wr.✓u✓.w wn r..r u...`r..—.wr.r.r. �. _ -✓� w.•w`r.Y✓✓... Y--�YWY'1u.Y........rte •./... 3t11 Water is not used In the manufacturing process. Water Is only used For landscaping, employee restrooms and lounge. . One well on sit@ should,•provlde sufficlent water for all needs. The well -shall be,. installed under permit- and inspection by the Butte County Health' Deps+rt:ment.'• `.All water shall meet the California Clean Water Act standatrds. 4b.c.5dt Comanche Creek supports a band of riparian vegetation whIgh widens at the southwest property corner. A 60-foot setback from the creek has been proposed. Riparian vegetation should be preserved to aid in bank stability, provide shade and Improve aesthetics. Riparlatl habitat also provides food and cover for numerous birds. Proximity of Butte Creek Rock has compromised the overall wildlife value of Comanche Creek. 71 Caribou is a daytime operation with limited nighttime lights. Ot The land was previously designated Industrial by the 1982 Chico Area Land Use Plan. Lands immediately south are industrial . industrial development NI11 not be out of character with surrounding uses. The site is now designated Agricultural-Residential. A General Plan Amendment to Industrlal .is pending. In the event this GPA is denied, a dental on the Rezone will be recommended. t2t Caribou should result in no negative Impacts to surrounding ' housing. It's quiet and has no discharge to air or water. 13a.b: Caribou now employs 150 persons, with plans for expansion to 200. Trip generation rates for small freestanding manufacturing are 2.71 trips per employee. Traffic generation is 150 x 2.71 - 407 200 x 2.71 - 542 Traffic occurs at non-peak hours which minimizes impact. Caribou runs one shift, 7130 a.m.-3:30 p.rm. Summertime hours = are 6100 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Butte County Code Section 24-35 requires that a minimum of 70, parking spaces be provided. One space to be sized for handicapped .. persons. One loading dock shall be Installed. Skyway Is a limited access major thoroughfare. Encroachments` are reviewed very carefully for safety considerations. Public Works has indicated that the proposed driveway location is unacceptable.' Two alternatives have been proposedt (1 ) use of the Mathews Ready Mix Road; or (2) locating the access across from Honey Run (Centerville) Road. Alternative (1 ) entails a bridge over Comanche Creek and ,•r possibly widening and resurfacing of Mathews' road. Alternative (2)*.J would Increase the access road's length by 50 feet. 14at Fire protection needs vary with constructicn materials and methods. For example, an all-steel building or concrete tilt-up with:;` steel truss probably will not require interior sprinklers. A concrete'.' tilt-up with wood truss, or steel shell with wooc frame walls may require sprinklers. Sprinklers need pressurized water, whether from a, community line or tank on site. ;;,.;: , ': ''w•s,' A7N. -7- Mltigat ton recommended: f r t . Bui1dinp to be entirely conatrueted of :nonflanmabls..materIaIal r r t•: +vp 7 :i �, � �,� �dt4 d.41. � Y .� 1 ;- ,�� t:.'t`��'t.i� •t +,`f's?�;•4,�. 2. InstalIl:tan;Interior.4pr ntiler''ayatem 'fed by=a':pressuriied tank..p%j,' sI eywhlch 'meeta,CDF.,'specl`ftcatlonsi ,or'; 3. Install?.ari interior'.sprinkaer; aystem:�fed•by' a Callfornla•Water . {_ I tn®v:,and' Instal I.'a::hydrant.' .:`.• 14bt Securlty .fencing should be Installed to minlmlze unauthorized :' entry. _ 16dt . Sewage disposal must comply with the Nitrate Action Plan, 1000. gallons/ac./day. r✓y.,µ i,._ 4 �,. _ � ^j• # At n F•t y5 y ,r. V ` RECOMMENDED MITIGATION:MEASURES t . Orainege"plan to'•be submitted 'to Department of Pub IIc Works for•. `' approval:.: PIan 'to',IncIude proof of downstream•.channel•` capacltyr': ! 2. - Relocate.complex outside of floodwayl or construct so alon' g' .. flood control channel from Skyway south to existing Ieviel--or.;,`Y.'; submit .englneering data proving complex Is outslde •of ,floodway:'' 3. Preserve all riparian vegetation along Comanche Creek and the . ' i flood control channel . 4. Maintain a 50-foot development setback from all waterways and I stands of riparian vegetation. 5. Enter Into agreement with Mathews Ready Mix to share- ex"' j access onto Skyway. Bring road (or that portion used)I•;apron":and. 1 left-turn lane up to full County. standards. 6. Install bridge over Comanche Creek. Obtain streambed alteration :* agreement from Department of Fish and Game. 7. Building to be constructed of nonflammable materialsso that i� Uniform Building Code does not require sprinklers. f B. Comply with Nitrate Action Plan. e f { I i - 1 -9- Applicants Richard Peters Assessor's Parcel`..N.,,;, 40-02-87,'-and-.1 1-05-�6§"�:, Log N 85-12-24-02- DATA SHEET A. Pro_lect Description 1. Type of Projects Rezone. 2. 9rlef Descriptions Rezone to M-2 on 43 acres. 3. Locations South and west of the Skyway near its Intersection with Honey Run Road, and east of U.S. Plant Introduction Garden, southeast Chico. 4. Proposed Density of Developments 50,000-square-foot complex. S. Amount of Impervious Surfacing$ 6.2 acres •/-. 6. Access and Nearest Public Road(s)s . Access from Skyway. 7. Method of Sewage Disposals. Septic system proposed. 8. Source of Water Supplys.. Well proposed. 9. Proximity of Power Lines$ Along.Skyway. ' 10. Potential for further land divisions and developments Expansion of Caribou would be possible. 8. Environmental Settlnn Physical Environments 1. Terrain a. General Topographic Characters Leval valley land. b. Slopes: 0-39. c. Elevation: 230-255% d. Limiting Factorss None. 2. Solis a. Types and Characterlsticss North of Edgar Slough: Tuscan Stony Loam. South: Vina Loam. Development will be In Vina Loam area, .a deep, well-draining soil. b. Limiting Factors: Moderato liquefaction potential ; potential subsidence area. 3. Natural Hazards of the Land a. Earthquake Zones Moderate. b. Erosion Potentials None. c. Landslide Potential: None. d. Fire Hazards Unclasslfled/Moderate. e. Expansive Soil Potentials Moderate. 4. Hydrology a. Surface Waters Flood channel borders on the west; : Comanche creek borders on the south; Edgar Slough'crosses to the north.. b. Groundwater: Historically available. c. Drainage Characteristics: Drains southwest into Comanche Creek. d. Annual Rainfall (normal ): 26". T' e. Limiting Factors: Flood hazard along Hest boundary. 5: .Visual/Scenic Quality: Vie" of plant garden, creeks- -.;',..,.; 6. ..'A.Acoustic Quality: Fair. 7.."%:`Air 0ualltys Fair. BiolonI&I Envlronments S. Vsoetatlon: Grassland With oaks along waterways, some"' ' riparian along Comanche Creek. 9. Wildlife Habitats Disturbed habitat, limited wildlife value,' Cultural Environments 10. Archaeological and Historical Resources In the areas low and unknown. 1 11. Butte County General Plan designations Agrlcultural-Residential . General Plan Amendment to Industrial has been initiated by P:annin•a Commission. 12. Existing Zonings "0... 13. Existlra Land Use on-sites Ag building, silos; 2 billboards.. 14. Surrounding Areas a. Land Usess North: grazing land, resldent,al . East:' Skyway, rural residential . Souths Butte Creek Rock9 Jessup Door. Wests U.S. Plant Intr3duction Garden. b. Zonings "U"9 M-2, FR-1609 FR-Z. c. Gen. Plan designations: Public, Indistrlal , Agricultural-Residential . d. Parcel Slzess 40 to 150 acres. e. Populations Sparse, growing to nortnWest. 15. Character of Site and Area: Fringe ur' industrial area. 1F. Nearest Urban Areas Chico, adjacent to northriest. ! 17. Relevant Spheres of Influences Chico (see Item 8)9. Butte II County Mosqulto.Abatement. t ! 18. Improvements Standards Urban Areas Improvements will be required: drainage, roadway, left-turn pocket. 19. Fire Protection Services j a. Nearest County (State) Fire Stations 0449 2-1/2 miles West. b. Water Availability: Engine capacity. 20. Schools to Areas N/A. -11- 14 FILE NO.1 86-25 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS -, April 9, A986 APPLICANTS Richard Peters OWNERS Same REQUESTS Rezone from U to M-2 AP NO-1 40-02-67 and 11-05-69 SIZES 39 •/- acres ' LOCATIONS West side of The Skyway opposite Its * Intersection with Humbug Road EXISTING ZONINGt U ZONING IIISTORYS Zoned U Sept. 17, 1985, Ord. No. 2488 E SURROUNDING ZONINGS U, M-2, FR-5, FR-160, M-1 , City of Chico SURROUNDING LAND USE' N1 Grazing land, residential . Et ' Skyway, rural residential .' St Butte Creek Rock, Jessup Door. Wt U.S.' Plant Introduction Garden. SIIE IfISIORYt Site designated Industrial by 1982 Land Use Plan. Redesignated Agricultural-kesidentlal at Chico's request. Subject of a Planning Commission-initiated General Plan Amendment to Industrial :. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS Industrial approved 3/18/86 as part of the Chico Area Consistency Project. APPLICABLE REGULATIONSt Butte County Code Sections 24-26, -27, Cg�nenta Recalvedt ' Public Workss See attached memo. CLty gf Chlcot "No comment." ' +.,,.�ved,�.'1 l r►fi. a .o 1.x+4 o an o 9 g Z i ot Mt a7�n17711; rcM':_ '►a»�Ccj�n�P Zlp lCti+g jI0 .�.7a ayd .,no��7l -it - j -f'os50- ov' TvAl r* 'W"as 14xms vi IfVN Ti 4.)(OJQVI T'Vv s-&r7%jA% ' �o;;;�j�01+•f,��„�•�,eo� �°'`fid )p"b�"�"11t10;� �alle�l�''�"� aYdnv -wit��^►7 tv+ti 7q 11Q''Is wi}ex�M'ria�P "'S • YS��yd • ; � 'At pd ms•µ».�8� �.y{-yams ot �l4'►ts� Yo �r�+��evd�u s! }'.�. rtt- "•e ,na�l C rsa�w++ a�wd �4ve! a ';19^�``",�id"�-��"rl'�eld "°�oy 't��`t'�Y�T'"'� Ott°S "tf• �° T.t,,.,,,,.��nb� � . Pyeo�joie- �'Iarb nal" IVW!lq 'MS e;'•ll tj Tit �9 "elf jerols�4 1��m+� rlt + lenordJe Twe rDgiW$ "!nboy 'AlrA �a�s oso�oyd red Wnxm r o enoYJ�e -� �•�•�e .�_ • 'y�s a�ycl►eAe aq -fox �t;m e,�e� -�e'tt- p`"e��t�ldmo� s! 4�•'�'fi:r0w� -y�,ficr►.�w►py� 1�txr �.i��.�1 v,o9,YeJ �"�} ��o�r�d4 .�x►.e� .�..wr••t.fQ��e s;�'1 :., `t w19 d:.,r �.►tt8,trgex�i��o s:�� r� ��tx�n� s! -} ?'I�1� . nt x t � P Y��yt%a �!c e 's f.Xo�s t,�arw,w�( ao';NeJ �P} r�!�•�;,c�. ��K„t�enc �o ,,.o�,,,rrc4� .j.�,u it a� o t s! »+o-Z a�/ '''i't' -tQ 71- r e wets 7�a P ti•'n •}r-„•.•t�,eJ a� t�� ' �8''Qr •I :arra w F ` ” 1 ) p-20.Q� il27fBnf % 'r°'0 ' �1t1 I r°u1.4 -?1aP S pyec�►of wode wnpuciow* p q wjapdaa-�a�u� F. COUNTY PL,4NN IS COMMISSION } 51AFF FINDINGS - April 99 1986 Pope 2 The project Is a rezone to M-2 on 43 acres. Caribou Mountalnieri'ng will locate on site in a new 50.000-square-Foot complex. Caribou Is:a sawlnH operation, manufacturing sleeping bags, backpacks and sccessorles.-,:. Two primary areas of concern were identified in the initial studyl '• access onto Skyway and proximity to the flood plain. : The Director of Public Works has approved an access approximately 100 feet north of where shown on the tentative site plan. Access Includes a left-turn pocket on Skyway, right-turn lane at road approach, accelerating and decelerating lanes, public read approach and encroachment permit. Specific road standards will be at the discretion of Public Works. Three waterways affect the sltes Edgar Slough, Comanche Creek• and the flood control channel . The flood control channel Is a mapped"Zone�.A floodway. The floodway covers a portion of the parking lot. '.Pursuant to information submitted by the Department of Public Works, a parking lot can be constructed in a floodway in compliance with Butte County ordinances. Drainage will be directed towards Crouch Ditch (Edgar Slough) and Comanche Creek. Phis section of Crouch Ditch Is directed Into Edgar Slough west of Highway 99 (per Stuart Edell of Department of Public Works). Copies of the Initial Study have been circulated through the State ., Clearinghouse. CalTrans Indicated that "the cumulative Impacta'.from this and other developments along The Skyway ►:ill someday require • construction of the westbound to southbound loop at the interchange" (Highway 99). They further recommend the County establish a means !to collect fair share mitigation fees. Fees can be collected through a benefit assessment district, or on.,a "pro rate basis" as properties develop. Any system of fee collection must Involve Chico, since most of the Industrial area Is Incorporated. Transportation fees would require adoption of an ordinance by the Board of Supervisors. The Initial study focused on Caribou's operation and Its potential .' Impact. Additional development on the remaining 28 •/- acres has:not been addressed. Because of this, limiting the rezone to the complex' (building, parking and access) Is recommended. Remaining landa•would he zoned "U". An environmental review of further development (w'hether• .'by map or Use Permit) is assured. Without a development agreement-;.. Is no other method to ensure County review of subsequent development;. Rsts=Qt�lffisLat i ons t .��• A. Find that the requirements of, CEGA'have been completed and• :c'(:<.�i . considered and recommend -that the Board of Supervlsora;edopt.�,;�,•. Mitigated Negative De:laration regardinq environmental Impactl,`and .Y .Ww..r.w:...w.w...w..w.....u.....................ww.w.oxo .. .. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNIRG COMMISSION STAFF.:FINDINGS + April 9, 1986 Faye 3 :f.ind"that. th}a- proposed rezone complies with Butte"Count 'Cod "']"" Sect1ons'24-26 and -27 and the General Plan Des1gnatIon1:"and';;;,`<<_'.:' C..: Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a rezoning to,,M=,Q'bn :%AP;40-02-87 (ptn) as shown on Exhibit A (Richard Peters)i D. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution approving the agreement (Peters). Mitigation measures (M) and condltlons:'.are as followst 1. Prior to issuance of building permitst Drainage plan to be " submitted to Department of Public Works for approval. Plan to Include proof of downstream capacity. (M) 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, Meet the requirements of Department of Public Works lncludlngt a. Obtain an encroachment permit for access onto Skyway.':;"; id4Wi ' a BUTTE COUN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 9, .1986 P;+tpe 4 ` c. Install. hydrant Nlthln 300. felt`of°bul ldings'.'. 10 Set finished floor elevation 2' above 'present Bound 1eve1 . ,' (M> • .•:rte � 11 . Preseve all riparian vegetation along Comanche Creek and 'the flood control channel . (M)' 12. Maintain a 50-foot development setback from all waterway8 .and stands of riparian vegetation. (M) 13. Retali sales are not permitted on site without modification' of this conditional rezone. g • c R 14. Applicant must also Comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. If the Planning Commission feels the entire area should be rezoned ;:tlien the'Inittal Study sKduld be revised to address industrial bevel60mi(1t_.0n the entire piece. If the Planning Commission determines that •the',:i- "•. Initial Study is adequate, specific findings to that effect should_6e Included 1 n the motion of approval . The motion to approve a rezone to M-2 on the entire area is as. fol`lows= t A. Find that the requirements of CEOA have been completed and •/•'i.. considered and recommend that the Board of Supervisos adopt'a%� I%. Mitigated r ted Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacti� and B. Find that this proposed rezone complies with Butte County 'Code ` Sections 24-26, and -27 and the General Plan deslgnatloni_:.and C. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a rezoning to,Mf=2 on AP 40-02-87 and AP 11-05-691 andl and D. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolutlon•approving the agreement (Peters). Mitigation measures (M) and conditions are as listed on the preceding motion. LMT/ss Attachments to Commission and Cities$ Location Exhibit Site Plan Initial Study CDF letter Ed Anderson's letter CalTrans letter Department of Public Works memo f t ••+^"'-Mihl `�••rr.r.w...w..w.rw.r.ro+�wrrr,+rrru YY Inter Departmenfai Memorandum = J T t r" �. , t !�^, 4•,t '' r rs` �4nt it'd'-vl n$ TOt Zt5�5;,• h ,,•.Board OF Supervisors Planning; Staff SUl1[CTt -- ;ADDENDUM TO INITIAL STUDY, RICHARD PETERS REZONEILE N0' 86=25 June 10; , 1986 :In the event that Caribou Mountaineering does not' •aeed thea_ `.`-Y= entire 43-acre parcel, the following assumptions are made:- -- *.Manufacturing complex will be constructed as'shown;onrtttie';5,' "site study scheme" prepared by Rolls,•:Anderson'&' Rolls'n`"�:•: occupying 24.32 acres ' -` (more than 5 acres is occupied?by.:x,r„= the flood channel and creek). ,art * Land outside of the complex, landscaping and access willvy be parceled into three lots of 3.4, 3.8 and 11.48 acres '-; ; each. * The three lots will be fully developed under the M-1 zoning regulations. It Potential traffic, water, sewage, drainage, air quality r;c ` and wildlife impacts are as follows: --.Traffic ,rr -t-When the future number of employees is not known,: traffic.;.'. :��'=:estimates can be made off of acreage. Small free-standin manufacturing -i generates 27.3 trips per acre. :;. 18.68 x 27.3 = 510 A.D.T. Traffic volumes at Skyway/Humbug are 12,850, increasinq.ao:�.�„; 14,250 at Bruce (1985). Worst case is 1052 A.D.T. Full buildout of• the'site increase traffic volumes on the Skyway by 6.8 to 7.5$:.--Sky=° way is a 4-lane arterial with an estimated capacity-of-38,400'- (Circulation Element, Figure 4A). Capacity is availableffor,::�' '' full development of the site. Access onto Skyway-will be controlled through`.encroachment':I-4�s; permits. One access has been approved by the Department:-of4:-- 7c•'- ,;'Public Works. e.,Suggested additional'- conditions of zoning_a�4�;�t 15. ..Abando'n two existir. `,> ` , «:d�=•c� (r y�r' g access points serving farm buildings ' and tare shop.. • t •; f}+j''.r r t .. s Yi"••••' .... C-_ )n t;v'1 r lj } is xun ;L - / 'T rl f, - ;11,". V ��X-�� 4 l �/t� 'S�y 1{^y •J}11 ✓ •'F'f i Addendum to Ial Study Richard Peters ezone, File 86-25 ' June 10, 1986 _. .<'• ; ;r. Page .2. 16. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy'; deed and 'record foot no-access strip along Skyway frontage, breaking'for.,; the access approved by the Department of Public:Worksr`t;'., An unknown percentage of the traffic would utilize'the Skyway% Highway 99 interchange. CalTrans has commented that •thisiand other developments.along the Skyway will some day require•;con struction of the westbound-to-southbound loop at th,-a.intersec tion. They suggest the County establish a means to collect""!,*.,,, fair share mitigation fees. Fees can be collected one'of?two ways: contribution of pro-rata share, or benefit assessment': district. Any funding mechanism must apply equally to..City`: and County properties. Water f•' :, .Water demands for industrial uses varym greatly with=they-nuber of employees, landscaping,- and type of manufacturing:''•�'Opera=,;',. tions which require water in the production process will consume the greatest amount. "• e Groundwater has never been a constraint in the area.• Individual wells can supply the lots. Condition 9b of the staff .report ; requires California Water. If Cal Water is a requirement '"the line from Dominic/Skyway will be extended. Butte County:'�engi- neers estimate that extending the line will cost $50,000to ' $75,000 depending on replacement costs, access over the flood channel, etc. A 6" line is needed to serve fire hydrants. Sewage Sewage generation, as with water demands, is dependent'on 'the• number of employees and type of business. For example;,,ware housing generates very little sewage. A labor-intensive'manu- facturing process would generate considerably more. .... The Department of Environmental Health estimates each employee generates 15 gallons per day. The estimate is 20 gallons per day if cafeteria service is provided. Under the Nitrate. Action Plan limit of 1,000 gallons per acre per day, an employee�'� ?.";. .density of 50 per acre is possible. Density is reduced wherel; soils are poor or shallow. >:, ',=•'ri' Any.manufacturing operation will be required to obtain` a..sewage disposal permit from Regional Water Quality Control ;(see"staff report, item 3b) Addendum to InAM al Study Richard Peters ezone, File 86-25 June 6, 1986 1 Page 3 y,•. 4 P Chico's Sphere of Influence borders this property on two-'sides'. An amendment to the Sphere is required to extend City sewer . :service. ' The City is willing to consider the Sphore of .Influ- ence change when proper applications are made. Condition 8',i requires applicant to apply for and diligently pursue an amend- ment to Chico's Sphere of Influence for purposes of securing'... sewer service. 4. Existing State and local health standards adequately control;' sewage-related impacts. Drainage Drainage of the property would not be substantially modified':;;; if three lots were sold off and developed in addition to Cari'=;: bou's complex. The property currently drains to Crouch Ditch;: (across the north part) and Comanche Creek (south property�li; y line). Both drainages dump into the flood control channel:-.:`_,;.. The tributary area of these drainages is 2400 acres. Assuming`. full development of the site increases runoff by a factor of 4, runoff is estimated at 4 cfs. Four cfs equals .4% of the total volume during a 100-year storm. when considering drainage impacts, two facts must be kept ino',:: mind. First, full drainage plans must be submitted to, the',."::"''.:'.. Department of Public Works. Drainage is accommodated so that: neighbors are not impacted and no hazardous conditions result.'',- second, esult:':Second, drainage is conveyed by the flood channel. It.has adequate capacity. The channel bypasses residential areas and.': dumps back into Butte Creek south of town. Air Quality Any use which has the potential to generate offensive odor,• .: .1' smoke or dust requires a Use Permit. The Use Permit process,,-,-:i,-::, provides the County with an opportunity to condition uses. The Air Pollution Control District is notified when large industrial building permits are requested. The greatest air quality impact which would result from fulL,�o° or partial development of the site will come from automobiles:?; `. Vehicle emissions may increase 6.8 to 7.5%. Concerns'about: zj•';, point sources of air pollution can be addressed through'the"''` addition of the following condition: C 3.d Prior to issuance of building permit, consult Air Pollution. Control District and obtain an authority to construct when':,'. { necessary. „'+aa Addendum,to Study, Richard Peters Rezone, File 86 25 •' ,. ;µi A.- June.6,-;,1986 r},Sjt ,, '^,r -. ,i -F.�,'S, :pti, r� rt 'lS t':Y IC•y'!4i ' FF Y �.YJ• � 1. ,r -n� i;y 1� r ,Ll!' }� M'a�` .1 mut } �, i t`.f' eY �` ,�r}�f�y1�•}.,..r, .'.Wildlife/Endangered Species ', ' ` ��, ' s .Comanche•Creek 'supports iiparian.vegetation at'tho`eouth prop- ; . erty line."'•,�Vegetation.will be 'protected through Conditions-.11 and 12. Rare and Endangered plant species are located•i to l .' mile west.- The plant site does not affect theso habitats through direct disruption or drainage. The project description and initial study were circulated through the'State Clearinghouse. ; No Sta=e agency, Fish Game, Conservation and.Reclamation included, expressed a concern over wildlife- or vegetation. According to the'maps provided'.to'us by Fish 6 Game;, no Rare';'',, or Endangered species are located onsite. Immediately s'outh•6f'+the.property and`generally:,to`t' e';wes"are existing industrial uses: Jessup Door, Matthews Ready ( Butte Creek Rock, etc. These uses and the City's industrial:''.-, park have reduced the suitability_.of properties west of..',the;<t;` ; Skyway for wildlife uses. ;"",`,•::.- i Cumulative Impacts This site, all 43 acres, was designated fndustrial.by.thet.Chico'• Area Land Use Plan of 1982.,. An EIR was 'prepared on the,plan;�i;,. { certified and.adopted by the Board of Supervisors. "'Cumulative>; , impacts are addressed under Sections 5, E, 11, 15, 17, 18 and.``, The area-wide EIR,.when coupled with site-specific mitigations ',,' .and adopted County ordinances, adequately mitigates-all poten7,"*,. tial impacts. { To mitigate concern over development,of the remaining 18.6+ °:- ,, acres in an M-1 zone, a number of actions could be taken: .."" N 1. Rezone plant site, landscaping and_.aocess_to M-1.—"-Remainder could be zoned .L-I-which-would limit industrial uses and prohibit commercial uses; or Enter into a Development-Agreement• on a specific development;,. plan prior to approving„the,M-1; zone. The Development-Agree= ment' wouldrequire an application to the Commission public hearings before .both,the Commission and Board'of Supervisors. LMT:BAK/sjS �r�•iter p,� .� - ......•.....�..._..,...._........_W..,.....w..+...,r.lrr IerYMYYIl1f►"iYIiAWYI �'". —. HICHAIID.C.Prnits. O.D. ?.w•-- • ••�: • •- q{C.IIRfT AV lNUC,fVlf[t .•` i_= C"ICC.CALIF01141A 95926 �• .:.. ~,.••":'•1?�iKt(:�•Y7'S'!1H:.•.., .}s };'_•. TCL!►MON[IFI{I 743•1911 :•�;nq^;,.:+•.{�ir.�).::., . September 10. 1985' 3� Chairman Butte County Plenning.Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca: 95965 - As 6 result of efforts to resolve discrepancies between the ','•_•• ::':.,_..,,,,..,-„-•' • General Plan of Butte County and the General Plan of. Chien, - two.parcele of property A.P. #040-0Y-0-087-0 and #046-0-069.0,. a total of approximately 39 scree• were recently changed on '• j the Butte County General Plan from industrial to agriculture i residential In order to conform to the designation under the City of Chico General Plan and its "sphere of.influence.' ' t Way the owners, at the suggestion of the Butts County Planning office, then proceeded to request a change in designation Ln the";-: :':• -Chico General Plan from the Chico Planning Commission., Thii:'':.= i commission recommended a change for this property from egrl� culture-residential to industrial to the Chico-City-Council The Chico City Council voted to attire this change to indust- ' 1 rial in their General Plan at their.council meeting of Sept-: , ember 3, 1985. It Is hereby requested that the Butte County Planning Commission ' change the General Plan designation of the obe-va mentioned land.: parcels back to their original designation of.tndustrial. It ie further requested that thews two parcels be rezoned from A-2 to M•1 to coincide with the General Plan of Butte County. { i Some supporting information regarding this matter is as follows[ The property is bounded on the north andd east by the Skyway, and on the south by Vathewe Ready-Mnxf Butts Creek Rock Co., and Jessup Door Co, The quality of the land is not suitable for agri- culture or residential use with at least one third ;' i of t being ” " i q leve cap. An on-site invsntigetion �:�- '•a } will substantiate this. {Y:?:'_}•, l Inter-Departmental Memorandum :TOt Butte County Board of Supervisors FROMt Planning Director SUBJECT: Peters' Rezone (Caribou). File No. 87-21 DATEt December 1, 1987 tt f Your Board initiated a rezone and development agreement for Richard Peters (Caribou) on December 2. 1986. The Planning Coftnission on February 11 and March 11, 1987 held public hearings and recommended that the rezone be approved and that the Board enter into a development agreement to mitigate any potential environmental impacts. Your Board approved the rezone on May- 19, 1987. contingent upon;;the', development agreement being a part of the rezone approval. 'As of the:: ; " date of this memo the development agreement has not been properly signed and returned to the Clerk of the Board, therefore, the zoning ' ' ordinance has never been published and is not in ef..,.;t. The permit streamlining act requires that within one year of an application being complete a decision must be made. The application's was signed on December 31. 1986 and was completed on January 7,•;:1987`'• when the environmental determination, a Negative Declaration 'with mitigations, was forwarded to the Clearinghouse. The Board did'inake &-:. decision on the project within the required timelines," but staff; ' recommends that in order to eliminate any confusion regarding the- status of the subject project that the Board notify Mr. Peters of their intent to rescind the approval on January 5. 1988 due to the failure of . the property owners to sign the Development Agreement. BAK:lr cct . Richard Peters Jeff Farrar a raa s- TOTAL oPUBLIC zo N-. -T-E- APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM DATE RECEIPT Pue"Cj LAFCO E �A.IA.CES D CUMEN S N!.. No PEU� ECEIVED WORK R I, T EALT RECEIPT 13830 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISSUED BY ;• M �IIY. NQ � I f bq •- x 11 I iol ol CIO / " •� ` \I ° I f M,61,ft.615 J ow scz \ I ' s x x f o - y y y • _ .. � x : I I M 4 y • �• _ 111 III .. v\� 5 x cl f I I u11, x y 4 ,4 Ir x x • w I 1 ^' x • Jr. 1 H n �� r (D tai :d cn —� a zd 0 y � cx H 0o O z x c) . i .. HCH O z O H tai z O z tri En m r 1-3 :4 a En oo •(nz n y z r v � z X y x 0 O0t — m r �i0 a ` _moi _ o �\ kDccn � z > ro o --- I �° z o O cn x