tehama county planning commission

of 3

TEHAMA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 444 Oak Street, Room "I'

Red Bluff, CA 96080 Phone 530 527-2200 Fax (530) 527-2655

Commissioner Bill Moule District 1 Commissioner Lynn DeFreece – Chairperson District 2 Commissioner Gary Durden – Vice- Chairperson District 3 Commissioner Gordon Clemens District 4

Commissioner Delbert David District 5 Airport Land Use Commissioner Lynn Chamblin Airport Land Use Commissioner R. J “Tony” Miller

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

DATE: Thursday, October 15, 2015

TIME: 9:00 AM

LOCATION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAMBERS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 727 OAK STREET RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA 96080

Use of Cell Phones During Meetings: The Commission appreciates your cooperation

in turning off all cell phones during the meeting.

Recording Device used to record the meeting.

I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

II. CITIZENS CONCERNS This time is set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on any item of interest to the public that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. No action may be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(typically, this applies to items meeting criteria as an off agenda emergency). The Chair reserves the right to limit each speaker to three (3) minutes. Disclosure of a speaker’s identity is purely voluntary during the public comment period.

III. MINUTES OF THE MEETING A). Approval of Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2015.

Agenda Tehama County Planning Commission October 15, 2015

of 3

IV. REGULAR ITEMS

1. CONTINUE THE TEHAMA COUNTY’S AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN UPDATE (ALUCP) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONSIDERATION- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning

RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Airport Land Use Commission consider the following recommendations:

1. Receive the information provided on the progress of the Draft Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan process and the coordination with local Jurisdictions.

2. Open the meeting for public comment to receive and accept said comments for the record and hold the Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Draft comment period open for 30 days to allow for further dialogue between the County Planning Department staff and City of Red Bluff staff. The 30 days shall commence on October 15, 2015 when said item is introduced and open for public comment and end on November 16, 2015.

3. If necessary, provide direction to staff.

2. General Plan Amendment 2015-1B Merlin Miller.- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planing ACTION:

A. Conduct a Public Hearing - To amend the General Plan on approximately 5 acres, changing the General Plan designation from RS; Rural Small Lot to GC; General Commercial. The site currently has an existing building with a workshop utilized for metal fabrication.

B. I move to make the following, or similar, findings as presented in the

Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment A and recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as meeting the requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines.

C. I move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a

resolution approving General Plan Amendment 2015-1A to amend the General Plan on approximately 5 acres, changing the General Plan designation from RS; Rural Small Lot to GC; General Commercial subject to the conditions and Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Agenda Tehama County Planning Commission October 15, 2015

of 3

Or in the alternative:

D. Failing to adopt findings, recommend denial of General Plan Amendment 2015-1B.

V. ADJOURN NOTE: Any written materials related to an open session item on this agenda that are submitted to the Planning Department less than 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission Meeting, and that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act, will promptly be made available for public inspection at the Tehama County Planning Department, 444 Oak Street, Room “I”, Red Bluff, California, during normal business hours. Anyone wishing to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission may do so within 10 calendar days for Use Permits and Tracts (Subdivisions). A $270.00 filing fee ($440.00 filing fee if appealing a Public Works condition) must be submitted with the letter of appeal. Requests for a re-hearing must be submitted within 5 calendar days for General Plan Amendments and Rezones. The appeal/request with fees must be submitted to: Tehama County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, P.O. Box 250, 633 Washington Street, Room 12, Red Bluff, CA 96080. Postmarks will not be accepted.

MINUTES, AGENDAS and AGENDA MATERIAL are available on our website at www.co.tehama.ca.us

http://www.co.tehama.ca.us/

(ID # 6545)

Planning Commission

Meeting Date: October 15, 2015 Department: Planning Local

Prepared By: Carina Valle Preparer Phone: 530-527-2200

Preparer Email: [email protected] Regular Item

Minutes of the Meeting

Requested Action(s) A). Approval of Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2015. Background Information:

4.1

Packet Pg. 4

of 3

TEHAMA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 444 Oak Street, Room "I'

Red Bluff, CA 96080 Phone 530 527-2200 Fax (530) 527-2655

Commissioner Bill Moule District 1 Commissioner Lynn DeFreece – Chairperson District 2 Commissioner Gary Durden – Vice- Chairperson District 3 Commissioner Gordon Clemens District 4

Commissioner Delbert David District 5 Airport Land Use Commissioner Lynn Chamblin Airport Land Use Commissioner R. J “Tony” Miller

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

MINUTES FOR THE MEETING HELD ON: October 1, 2015 LOCATION: Board Chambers Administration Building 727 Oak Street Red Bluff, CA 96080 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairperson DeFreece, Clemens, David, Moule,

Durden COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:

PLANNING STAFF PRESENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning Katie Younger, Planner I

Brian Briggs, Deputy County Counsel Will Pike, Chief Surveyor

Chairperson DeFreece called the Planning Commission meeting to order.

I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairperson DeFreece led the Pledge of Allegiance.

II. CITIZENS CONCERNS

III. MINUTES OF THE MEETING

1. Minutes of the Meeting A). Approval of Meeting Minutes of September 17, 2015.

4.1.a

Packet Pg. 5

Att

ach

men

t: O

cto

ber

1, 2

015

PC

Min

ute

s (

6545

: M

inu

tes

of

the

Mee

tin

g)

Minutes Tehama County Planning Commission October 1, 2015

Page 2 of 3

RESULT: APPROVED [4-0]

MOVER: Gary Durden, Vice-Chairperson

SECONDER: Dave David, Commissioner

AYES: Moule, Clemens, David, Durden

ABSTAIN: DeFreece

IV. REGULAR ITEMS

1. 32nd Annual Planning Commissioners Conference- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

The Commission will need to nominate and select two Commission Members to

attend the Annual Conference.

That the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Nominate and Select two Commission Members to attend

the 32nd Annual Planning Commissioners Conference.

Commissioners Clemens & Durden were nominated.

RESULT: APPROVED [5-0]

MOVER: Gary Durden, Vice-Chairperson

SECONDER: Gordon Clemens, Commissioner

AYES: Moule, Clemens, DeFreece, David, Durden

2. PUBLIC WORKSHOP; DRAFT REZONE# 15-07, TEHAMA COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE AMENDED ZONING MAP UPDATE (GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASE II)- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Planning Commission consider the following recommendations:

1. Receive the information provided on the progress of the Draft Rezone #15-07, Tehama County Comprehensive Zoning Update (General Plan Implementation Phase II) process.

4.1.a

Packet Pg. 6

Att

ach

men

t: O

cto

ber

1, 2

015

PC

Min

ute

s (

6545

: M

inu

tes

of

the

Mee

tin

g)

Minutes Tehama County Planning Commission October 1, 2015

Page 3 of 3

2. Open the meeting for public comment to receive and accept said comments for the record and hold the Rezone #15-07, Tehama County Comprehensive Zoning Update (General Plan Implementation Phase II) comment period open for 60 days to allow for public comment regarding this item. The 60 days shall commence on October 1, 2015 when said item is introduced and open for public comment and then end on December 1, 2015.


V. ADJOURN AT 10:00 a.m.

4.1.a

Packet Pg. 7

Att

ach

men

t: O

cto

ber

1, 2

015

PC

Min

ute

s (

6545

: M

inu

tes

of

the

Mee

tin

g)

(ID # 6558)

Planning Commission




CONTINUE THE TEHAMA COUNTY’S AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN

UPDATE (ALUCP) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONSIDERATION- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning

Requested Action(s) RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Airport Land Use Commission consider the following recommendations:

1. Receive the information provided on the progress of the Draft Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan process and the coordination with local Jurisdictions.

2. Open the meeting for public comment to receive and accept said comments for the record and hold the Tehama County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Draft comment period open for 30 days to allow for further dialogue between the County Planning Department staff and City of Red Bluff staff. The 30 days shall commence on October 15, 2015 when said item is introduced and open for public comment and end on November 16, 2015.


Background Information: The Tehama County Airport Land Use Commission conducted a workshop on August 6, 2015 in order to finalize the Airport Land Use Plan.

The Tehama County Airport Land Use Commission conducted a meeting on April 16, 2015, which opened the public comment period countywide for 60 days.

4.2

Packet Pg. 8

4.2.a

Packet Pg. 9

Att

ach

men

t: A

LU

CP

SR

10-

15-1

5 (

6558

: C

on

tin

ue

AL

UC

P &

Neg

ativ

e D

ecla

rati

on

Co

nsi

der

atio

n)

4.2.a

Packet Pg. 10

Att

ach

men

t: A

LU

CP

SR

10-

15-1

5 (

6558

: C

on

tin

ue

AL

UC

P &

Neg

ativ

e D

ecla

rati

on

Co

nsi

der

atio

n)

4.2.b

Packet Pg. 11

Att

ach

men

t: A

LU

CP

Let

ter

fro

m C

RB

(65

58 :

Co

nti

nu

e A

LU

CP

& N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tio

n C

on

sid

erat

ion

)

(ID # 6568)

Planning Commission




General Plan Amendment 2015-1B Merlin Miller.- Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of

Planing

Requested Action(s) ACTION: A. Conduct a Public Hearing - To amend the General Plan on approximately 5

acres, changing the General Plan designation from RS; Rural Small Lot to GC; General Commercial. The site currently has an existing building with a workshop utilized for metal fabrication.

B. I move to make the following, or similar, findings as presented in the

Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment A and recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration as meeting the requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines.

C. I move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution

approving General Plan Amendment 2015-1A to amend the General Plan on approximately 5 acres, changing the General Plan designation from RS; Rural Small Lot to GC; General Commercial subject to the conditions and Mitigation Measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Or in the alternative: D. Failing to adopt findings, recommend denial of General Plan Amendment

2015-1B. Financial Impact: none Background Information: The property owner, Mr. Miller, approached the Planning Department to ensure that his small business is an allowed use on this parcel so he could continue to operate. The zoning is C3; General Commercial, which allows Mr. Miller to operate a metal fabrication shop by right. However, the General Plan Designation is RS; Rural Small Lot and the proposed Phase II rezone to a Residential Small Lot zoning classification would not allow him to continue this use on his parcel, except as a grandfathered use. The proposed zoning would prohibit the expansion of the existing use. Mr. Miller would like to grow his business on the location so he submitted an application proposing to amend the General Plan on approximately 5 acres, changing the General Plan designation

4.3

Packet Pg. 12

from RS; Rural Small Lot back to GC; General Commercial. Upon staff’s site visit it was noted that church meetings were being held on the parcel. The applicant confirmed that they were holding church meetings on site. In a C3-S-P; General Commercial, Special Highway Frontage Combining, Special Parking Combining District approval of a Use Permit is required in order to operate a church. The applicant then submitted an application for a Use Permit (which will be considered at a later time).

4.3

Packet Pg. 13

4.3.a

Packet Pg. 14

Att

ach

men

t: G

PA

201

5-1B

PC

SR

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.a

Packet Pg. 15

Att

ach

men

t: G

PA

201

5-1B

PC

SR

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.a

Packet Pg. 16

Att

ach

men

t: G

PA

201

5-1B

PC

SR

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.a

Packet Pg. 17

Att

ach

men

t: G

PA

201

5-1B

PC

SR

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ATTACHMENT A

GPA 2015-1B MILLER FINDINGS/SUBFINDINGS

1. CEQA Finding #1 The Mitigated Negative Declaration meets the requirements of CEQA and its Guidelines. Subfinding/Response #1a An Initial Study has been prepared, a Mitigated Negative Declaration filed and circulated through the CEQA process. Subfinding/Response #1b The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not need to be recirculated despite modification of Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.1 because the substituted Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.1 is equivalent to the unmodified Mitigation Measure, the substituted Mitigation Measure does not itself cause any potentially significant effect, and the substituted Mitigation Measure is adopted as a condition of approval and made a part of the project. 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Finding #2 That the proposal to amend the General Plan on approximately 5 acres, changing the General Plan designation from RS; Rural Small Lot to GC; General Commercial is consistent with the General Plan and the Tehama County Code and the existing C3-S-P; General Commercial, Special Highway Frontage Combining, Special Parking Combining District. Subfinding/Response #2a GOAL LU-3 states, “To promote a development pattern which, whenever possible, maximizes the use of existing infrastructure prior to the construction of new infrastructure. Develop a land use pattern which, to the maximum extent feasible, minimizes the expenditure of public funds for infrastructure construction and maintenance.” Subfinding/Response #2b GOALS LU-8 states, “To develop land use patterns which minimize travel to jobs and services.”

4.3.b

Packet Pg. 18

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T A

FIN

DIN

GS

-SU

BF

IND

ING

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

Page | 1

ATTACHMENT B GPA 2015-1B MILLER

CONDITIONS/MITIGATIONS

Condition #1 COMPLIANCE WITH AGENCY REQUIREMENTS. In the case of future development, the Permittee shall obtain any and all local, state and/or federal permits, licenses, and/or other approvals for the construction and/or operation of the Project. This shall include, but not be limited to, local requirements by Tehama County Environmental Health Department, Tehama County Planning Department, T e h a m a C o u n t y B u i l d i n g a n d S a f e t y D e p a r t m e n t , Tehama County Air Pollution Control District, Tehama County Public Works Department, and Tehama County Sheriff/Coroner's office. Permittee shall likewise comply with all such permit requirements. Tehama County Planning Department

CONDITION #2 INDEMNIFICATION. As a condition and in consideration of the approval of this General Plan Amendment and Rezone, the Permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless, at the Permittee’ s sole expense, the County of Tehama and its employees, officers, contractors, and agents (the "County Indemnities") from and against any claim, action, or judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the County Indemnities, or any of them, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or otherwise challenge the County's decision to issue this Rezone to the Permittee, any environmental review or absence thereof associated with the proposed project, or the manner in which the County interprets or enforces the terms and conditions of this General Plan and Rezone at any time. The Permittee shall further pay all losses, liabilities, damages, penalties, costs, awards, judgments, fees (including reasonable attorney’s fees) and expenses arising from such claim, action, or judicial or administrative proceeding. Counsel for the County Indemnities in any such legal defense shall be selected by the County. Upon request of the County, the Permittee shall execute a formal written agreement containing the foregoing terms, but the Permittee’ s obligations hereunder shall be fully operative and enforceable regardless of whether such an agreement is executed. Tehama County Planning Department Condition #3 ADDRESSING. Addressing of all parcels shall meet or exceed Article III of Tehama County Ordinance 1537, Sections 9.14.040, 9.14.048, 9.14.049, 9.14.050. Tehama County Cooperative Fire Protection

4.3.c

Packet Pg. 19

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T B

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

-MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

EA

SU

RE

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R

Page | 2

Condition #4 “KNOX” KEY BOX. Installation of a “Knox” key box in accordance with California Fire Code Section 506.1, is required to allow for immediate access to secured buildings. Tehama County Cooperative Fire Protection Condition #5 ANNUAL INSPECTION. This project will be subject to annual “Fire Safety Inspection” per California Fire Code. Tehama County Cooperative Fire Protection Condition #6 FUTURE EXPANSION. Future expansion or the addition of “new” structures will be subject to conditioning by the latest version of all adopted codes. Tehama County Cooperative Fire Protection Condition #7 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT. The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Red Bluff for any new development that occurs on the site. City of Red Bluff Condition #8 STORM WATER DISCHARGES ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DISTURBANCE. Construction activity, including demolition, resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or more must obtain coverage under the CGP. The GPA 2015-1B (Miller) Project must be conditioned to implement storm water pollution controls during construction and post construction as required by the CGP. To apply for coverage under the CGP the property owner must submit Permit Registration Documents electronically prior to construction. Detailed information on the CGP can be found on the State Water Board website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/gen_const.shtml

Condition #9 Potable Water Supply. The community water system must comply with standards set fourth by the State of California Safe Drinking Water Act to meet drinking water standards for a public water system.

A. A 72 hour well pump capacity step draw down test shall be performed to determine aquifer capacity to support water quantities for a community well.

B. The water well and system capacity must meet the maximum daily demand and have

100% redundancy. Tehama County Environmental Health Department Condition #10 PUBLIC OR COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS. Proposed public or community water systems shall comply with Section VII, A., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., and 9. of the Land Division Standards and California Water Quality Control Monitoring Regulations. Tehama County Environmental Health Department

4.3.c

Packet Pg. 20

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T B

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

-MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

EA

SU

RE

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/gen_const.shtml

Page | 3

Condition #11 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL STORAGE. All hazardous material storage shall comply with the standards contained in the 1985, or most recently adopted, edition of the Uniform Fire Code, Article 80, title hazardous materials. Tehama County Environmental Health Department Condition #12 SOLID WASTE. Solid wastes shall be properly stored and disposed of weekly at a permitted landfill. Tehama County Environmental Health Department Condition #13 WATER DISTRIBUTION PROTECTION. In the case of future development the land owner is required to upgrade the City of Red Bluff’s water facilities within the easement fronting the property to be consistent with the landowner's level of development within the easement. City of Red Bluff MITIGATION MEASURE V.D.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION. All developers shall be informed by the Tehama County Planning Department at time of submittal of development plans for the project site that, “Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any development activities, work shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures to reduce any archaeological impact to a less than significant level before construction continues. Such measures could include (but would not be limited to) researching and identifying the history of the resource(s), mapping the locations, and photographing the resource. In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of any human remains, all work is to stop and the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains.” MITIGATION MEASURE IX.A.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The Developer/Applicant shall comply with the following;

A. All the pertinent requirements of Title16, Subdivisions, Chapters 16.04 thru 16.40 of the

Tehama County Code, the Tehama County Land Development and Engineering Design Standards (TCLD&EDS), and the Subdivision Map Act, as amended.

B. The requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding

storm water permitting via Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). MITIGATION MEASURE IX.A.2 WATER QUALITY PERMIT. Applicant shall obtain a General Construction Activity Permit from California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the start of any work related to road construction of access road, grading or building construction if total disturbed area is greater than one (1) acre.

4.3.c

Packet Pg. 21

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T B

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

-MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

EA

SU

RE

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R

Page | 4

MITIGATION MEASURE IX.A.3 GRADING PERMIT. The Applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and obtain a Grading Permit from Tehama County Public Works prior to the start of any grading or work related to construction of access or building. Applicant shall submit a Site Development Plan to scale showing all temporary and permanent improvements, preliminary grading, drainage, any piping, tanks or other appurtenances directly relating to this project and how they meet the TCLD&EDS, as well as complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any grading or construction will not increase current storm water time and concentration runoff. MITIGATION MEASURE #XVI.F.1 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE AND TRANSIT IMPACT FEE. Prior to construction of any improvements within the rezone area, Subject to a proposed subdivision/parcel map/tract map, a Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program shall be established, with the assistance of the project proponent/developer, to mitigate the project’s reasonable share of impacts on County roadways, the State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems affected by the project. The Program shall collect funds from this project and all future projects that affect such County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems, in an amount sufficient to construct the improvements to fully mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of the projects upon the affected County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems.

The project proponent/developer shall have the necessary studies (including all documentation required under the Mitigation Fee Act) prepared in coordination with the Tehama County Public Works Department and Caltrans to establish the Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program, which shall be in place prior to construction of any improvements within the rezone area. The project proponent/developer shall be reimbursed through the Program for the full amount of costs incurred in preparing the necessary studies, to the extent permitted by law. The County shall collect the established fee at the time of building permit issuance.

In the alternative, this Condition shall be deemed satisfied if the builder/owner elects to pay a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area, Column “Transportation”, in which case all development undertaken pursuant to this project shall pay either the Countywide transportation impact fee, if such fee has been adopted at the time the building permit for such development is obtained, or, if no such Countywide fee has been adopted, a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area, Column “Transportation”.

MITIGATION MEASURE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT. Applicant shall obtain a Biological Resources Assessment before any new development occurs in the shaded portion of Attachment A.

4.3.c

Packet Pg. 22

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T B

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

-MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

EA

SU

RE

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R

Page | 5

4.3.c

Packet Pg. 23

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T B

CO

ND

ITIO

NS

-MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

EA

SU

RE

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R

4.3.d

Packet Pg. 24

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T C

VIC

INIT

Y M

AP

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ATTACHMENT D GPA 2015-1B MILLER

AERIAL MAP

4.3.e

Packet Pg. 25

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T D

AE

RIA

L M

AP

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ATTACHMENT E GPA 2015-1B MILLER

LAND USE MAP

4.3.f

Packet Pg. 26

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T E

LA

ND

US

E M

AP

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ATTACHMENT F GPA 2015-1B MILLER

ZONING MAP

4.3.g

Packet Pg. 27

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T F

ZO

NIN

G M

AP

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ATTACHMENT G GPA 2015-1B MILLER

SITE PHOTOS

Looking West

Looking North

4.3.h

Packet Pg. 28

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T G

SIT

E P

HO

TO

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

Looking South

Looking East

4.3.h

Packet Pg. 29

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T G

SIT

E P

HO

TO

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.h

Packet Pg. 30

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T G

SIT

E P

HO

TO

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.h

Packet Pg. 31

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T G

SIT

E P

HO

TO

S (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.i

Packet Pg. 32

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T H

RE

SO

LU

TIO

N (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.i

Packet Pg. 33

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T H

RE

SO

LU

TIO

N (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.i

Packet Pg. 34

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T H

RE

SO

LU

TIO

N (

6568

: G

EN

ER

AL

PL

AN

AM

EN

DM

EN

T 2

015-

1B M

ER

LIN

MIL

LE

R (

OW

NE

R))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 35

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 36

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 37

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 38

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 39

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 40

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 41

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Exhibit “A” Vicinity Map

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 42

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Exhibit “B” Aerial Map

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 43

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Exhibit “C”

Land Use Map

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 44

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Exhibit “D” Zoning Map

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 45

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Exhibit “E” Site Photos

Looking West

Looking East

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 46

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Looking Northwest from the parking lot

Looking North

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 47

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by

the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of

and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 48

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (PSI) (PSUMI) (LTSI) (NI)

I. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,

but limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character

or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare

which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion: The adopted 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update discusses implementation measures set to preserve the aesthetic quality of Tehama County and encourage new construction projects to minimize alteration to scenic views. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view shed that provides a source of aesthetic value.

a) No Impact. The project is not located within or near a scenic vista. b) No Impact. The project would not damage scenic resources in the area. c) No Impact. The project will not degrade the visual character of the site or surroundings. Any future project must

satisfy the Planning Departments standards that would ensure uniformity and cohesiveness with existing structures. d) No Impact. The project will not create any new sources of light or glare.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 49

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. --Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or

Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or

a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of

forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion: The California Department of Conservation maps and tracks the conversion and use of unique, prime farmland and farmland of importance in the state. This monitoring program is to ensure that class I soils are maintained for agriculture use and urban growth remains buffered from these areas. It is encouraged that all new growth happen on land not designated as prime farmland or on viable soil. The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update recognizes 2 types of agriculture land in Tehama County; that which is suited for grazing and livestock and that which is suited for field crops and orchards. The project site is in an area recognized as residential, according to the Tehama County General Plan.

a) No Impact. The project site will have no impact on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or any other lands mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

b) No Impact. The project site does not fall within an area contracted with the Williamson Act. c) No Impact. The project will have not cause changes to the existing environment or cause the conversion of

Farmland to non-agriculture use. d) No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of forest land or convert forest-land to non-forest use. e) No Impact. The project will not involve changes to the existing environment.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 50

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


III. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to the following determinations. Would the Project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase

of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutants concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

Discussion: All new residential or commercial developments in the County are required to pay a standard Air Pollution Control fee to help mitigate the effects of new construction and population growth, collected by the Tehama County Air Pollution Control District. Contractors are given the option of paying the Indirect Source fee or provide on or off-site mitigation through Alternative Emission Reduction Plan. Other measures are discussed in the 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update which suggest limitations on idle time for diesel trucks and other high pollutant emitting equipment. New development would create localized, acute sources of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide from construction associated trucks and equipment, particulate matter and other emissions.

a) No Impact. The project will not conflict with or obstruct any applicable air quality plan. Any future projects proposed on the site would be subject to Air Quality Control measures discussed in the General Plan.

b) No Impact. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

c) No Impact. The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. As mentioned, all future development on the project site is subject to meet air quality standards.

d) No Impact. The project will not expose any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) No Impact. No objectionable odors will be created because of the project.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 51

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or

through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian

habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources , such as

a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion: The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update maps and defines areas of important biological resources. The County works closely with the California Department of Fish and Game to protect biological resources and mitigate effects future growth will have on these resources and their habitat. Highly sensitive biological resources habitats are found in the northern and eastern corridors of I-5 and along the Sacramento River which do not affect the project. The project is not located near any riparian, woodland or chaparral lands. The Tehama County Board of Supervisors has adopted a resolution in order to protect and conserve oak woodlands in the area. The resolution encourages preservation measures through an Oak Woodland Management Plan for landowners and developers. The ultimate goal of the management plan is to encourage voluntary woodland preservation.

a) Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. There are no development projects proposed at the site currently. The potential for future development within the project area could potentially affect biological resources. A biological resources assessment is required before any development may occur in the shaded area on Attachment A.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 52

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


Mitigation Measure BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT: Applicant shall obtain a Biological Resources Assessment before any new development occurs in the shaded portion of Attachment A.

b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located on a riparian habitat or other identified sensitive habitat

however a biological resources assessment is required a portion of this site. (See Attachment A). c) Less than Significant Impact. There are no known federally preserved wetlands in the project area however a

biological resources assessment is required on a portion of the project site. (See Attachment A). d) No Impact. The project will not interfere with migratory movement of wildlife. e) No Impact. The project does not conflict with any biological protection or preservation policy or ordinance. f) No Impact. The project will not affect any habitat conservation plan for the county and the project area does not

contain oak woodland.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 53

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion: A study was conducted by the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NEIC) to identify archeological and cultural resources possibly located in the project area. The NEIC, which monitors historical inventory for 11 Northern California Counties, thoroughly researched their official records including National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Landmarks, Handbook of the Indians of California and Historic Spots in California and concluded that no cultural resources currently exist in the project area. Because new construction could require the need for grading and excavating, it is possible that cultural resources could be discovered at this time, including human remains. The adopted 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update addresses the need to protect and preserve historic and archeological significant resources in the county and has implemented the condition that should any new construction or development site encounter any historical resources, the County Planning Department shall be notified immediately and all work shall cease promptly.

a) No Impact. The project would not cause substantial adverse change to any historical resource. b) No Impact. The project will not cause adverse change in significance of an archeological resource. c) No Impact. The project would not destroy any unique paleontological or geologic feature. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. To reduce potential impacts associated with cultural

resources the following mitigation shall be applied to the project: Mitigation Measure V.D.1: CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION. Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any development activities, work shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures to reduce any archaeological impact to a less than significant level before construction continues. Such measures could include (but would not be limited to) researching and identifying the history of the resource(s), mapping the locations, and photographing the resource. In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of any human remains, all work is to stop and the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 54

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial

adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as

delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42?

2) Strong Seismic ground shaking? 3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seiche/tsunami? 4) Landslides?

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable

or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the latest Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risk to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion: The region of Tehama County is relatively safe from earth quake activity because of its geographic location and lack of proximity to any active fault lines. The California Geological Survey maps fault activity and has noted nothing more than the potential for minor seismic ground shaking secondary to earthquakes outside of Tehama County. The County may also experience minor ground shaking as a precursor to eruption of Mt. Lassen. The Alquist-Prilio Earthquake Fault Zoning Act restricts new construction in zones which soils are at risk of displacement; however, Tehama County does not fall within this zone. All new construction in the county is required to meet California Building Code which addresses seismic design requirements, such as automatic earthquake gas shutoff valves in high-occupancy facilities and engineered assessment of potential soil and seismic impacts in the case of earthquake activity. New projects developed on land with the potential of landslide or failure is to be included in these plans provided by the project applicant. Grading and excavation done by new developments are closely monitored by the Public Works Department and an engineered plan for these procedures is required.

a) No Impact

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 55

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


i. The project will not expose people or structures to the risk of harm or death involving rapture of known earthquake fault.

ii. The project will not expose people or structures to the risk of harm or death involving strong seismic shaking.

iii. The project will not expose people or structures to the risk of harm or death involving seismic related ground failure including liquefaction.

iv. The project will not expose people or structures to the risk of harm or death involving landslides

b) No Impact. The project will not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. c) No Impact. The project is not located in an unstable area or area that could become unstable. d) No Impact. The project is not located on expansive soil. e) No Impact. The project will not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative

waste water disposal systems.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 56

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly

or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan or policy or

regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion:

a) No impact. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to the significant adverse environmental impacts of global climate change on a cumulative basis. This project would not generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature whether it is measured directly, indirectly, or cumulative.

b) No impact. Tehama County implements AB32 and SB375 to acknowledge GHG emissions and its level of significance within environmental quality review. The project does not propose any GHG emissions levels that would cause any adverse effect upon the state’s air quality.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 57

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the

environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of

hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion: Certain types of land use designations are allowed use to store and transport hazardous material when issued a Hazardous Material Business Plan. Storage of hazardous materials is monitored by the Tehama County Environmental Health Department. All types of storage and transport of hazardous materials are required to comply with California Health and Safety Code. The most common types of sites which hazardous materials could be found are heavy and lite industrial use, mining operations and petroleum/propane fueling and storage units. It is not presumed that commercial development would expose any persons to the storage or transport of hazardous materials.

a) No Impact. The project does not include the transport, use or disposal of hazardous material. It is not presumed that any future development on the site would include transport or storage of any hazardous material.

b) No Impact. There is no reasonable foreseeable cause for a significant hazard to the public through upset or accidental conditions resulting in the release of hazardous material into the environment.

c) No Impact. The project site is within one quarter mile of a school but will not emit hazardous emissions or handle

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 58

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. d) No Impact. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous material sites. e) No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. f) No Impact. The project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrips. g) No Impact. The project will not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan. h) No Impact. The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk involving wildland fires.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 59

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of

the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would

exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area

as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures

which would impede or redirect the flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion: The primary source of water in unincorporated areas of Tehama County is groundwater. There are over 10,000 wells meeting the water needs of 59 percent of the population. The 2009-2029 General Plan recognizes the need to encourage population density growth in areas which can support further use of the water table and will not deplete the water source. Water districts are encouraged to grow to meet the needs of the growing population and their expansion is supported by the County. Tehama County General Plan policy states that for all new large construction projects, proposed water supply and delivery system is in place before construction begins. Goals of the 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan are set out to protect water resources

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 60

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


in the county for future needs, encouraging water conservation and protection of groundwater supplies from urban pollutants in runoff.

a) Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project does not violate any water quality standards, however future commercial facilities constructed on the site may significantly contribute to the storm water runoff unless properly controlled. The following Mitigation Measures will reduce the potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant: Mitigation Measure IX.A.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The Developer/Applicant shall comply with the following; A. All the pertinent requirements of Title16, Subdivisions, Chapters 16.04 thru 16.40 of the

Tehama County Code, the Tehama County Land Development and Engineering Design Standards (TCLD&EDS), and the Subdivision Map Act, as amended.

B. The requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding storm water permitting via Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Mitigation Measure IX.A.2 WATER QUALITY PERMIT: Applicant shall obtain a General Construction Activity Permit from California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the start of any work related to road construction of access road, grading or building construction if total disturbed area is greater than one (1) acre. Mitigation Measure IX.A.3 GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and obtain a Grading Permit from Tehama County Public Works prior to the start of any grading or work related to construction of access or building. Applicant shall submit a Site Development Plan to scale showing all temporary and permanent improvements, preliminary grading, drainage, any piping, tanks or other appurtenances directly relating to this project and how they meet the TCLD&EDS, as well as complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any grading or construction will not increase current storm water time and concentration runoff.

b) No Impact. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Future development on the site is encouraged to promote water conservation and seek other means of water supply before construction.

c) Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See Section (a) above. d) Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. See Section (a) above. e) No Impact. The project will not contribute to water runoff exceeding the capacity of storm water drainage systems. f) No Impact. The project will not substantially degrade water quality. It is not expected that any future development

would substantially degrade water quality. g) No Impact. The project is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area. h) No Impact. The project is not located within a 100 year flood hazard area and will not redirect flood flows. i) No Impact. The project is not located near a levee or dam. j) No Impact. The project is not inundated by seiche, tsunami or mudflow.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 61

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


X. LAND USE AND PLANNING

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (include, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update has implemented goals which encourage growth of urban areas in the County. In order to promote growth and create organized, efficient development, the County is encouraging mixed-use development to utilize services and small, disconnected developments are discouraged. Tehama County has three incorporated cities: Red Bluff, Corning and City of Tehema. Many small communities make up much more of the population of Tehama County, including Gerber, Proberta, Lake California, Bend, Los Molinos and Vina. The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan update recognizes several special planning areas located in areas whose growth could be accommodate by existing goods and services. The project is zoned commercial and has been used for commercial land. Development here would satisfy the goal of the General Plan update: to maximize the use of existing infrastructure, minimizing the expenditure of public funds for new infrastructure construction and maintenance.

a) No Impact. The project will not divide an established community. b) No Impact. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. c) No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans in the area.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 62

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the

residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important

mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion: Tehama County offers an abundance of mineral resources derived from the extraction of non-metallic sources such as sand, gravel and volcanic cinder. These resources are heavy to transport and become valuable to construction projects when found locally. All excavation done at constructions sites is required to conform to Tehama County’s Surface Mining Reclamation Act (SMARA) regulations, per the 2009-2029 General Plan. SMARA recognizes 32 mineral excavation sites which are permitted in the county, none of which occur on or near the project site. Mineral excavation sites are identified and monitored by the State Geologist as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) or Scientific Zones in order to conserve mining resources for future use. These areas are to be protected and buffered from future development through buffer zones and setback requirements from non-compatible land use.

a) No Impact. The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value as the project area is not located in a MRZ or Scientific zone.

b) No Impact. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral source as the project area is not located in a MRZ or a Scientific Zone.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 63

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XII. NOISE Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan

or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion: The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update promotes the mitigation and control of noise causing sources. Sources of existing noise-producing areas have been identified as near airports (Corning and Red Bluff), near railways and busy roadways (I-5, Southern Pacific Railway). It is encouraged that a buffer be created to protect sensitive receptors from noise and limit new noise-producing sources. There are two municipal airports in Tehama County: in the cities of Corning and Red Bluff. The closest to the project site is the Corning Municipal Airport, which is more than 10 miles away.

a) No Impact. The project would not result in the exposure of persons to excess noise. Any future projects at the site would be required to conform to noise standards implemented in the 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan.

b) No Impact. The project will not expose persons to excess groundborne vibration or noise levels. c) No Impact. The project will not permanently increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity. d) No Impact. Noise levels are not likely to increase with the project. e) No Impact. The project is not located within the Tehama County Airport Land Use Plan. f) No Impact. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 64

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating

the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion: The General Plan recognizes population growth will occur and has implemented goals to prepare and accommodate this growth in nearly all of its elements (ex: Economic Development, Land Use, Transportation, Safety, Public Services and Open Space and Conservation). General Plan goals are set to encourage growth in an organized, cohesive pattern through the use of existing urban centers (infrastructure), major roadways, utilities, public facilities and the expansion of these services as they are needed.

a) Less than significant Impact. The project itself will not induce population growth. Population could increase with the project through the proposal of new businesses.

b) No Impact. The project will not displace a substantial number of housing. c) No Impact. The project will not displace a substantial number of people.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 65

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse

physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection? 2) Police protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public facilities?

Discussion: The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update recognizes several goals to further meet the public service needs of Tehama County. The County works closely with related agencies in order to monitor and develop the need for local services. Goals of the 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update are set to meet the goals of the county quickly, efficiently and in a cost-friendly manner at the time services are needed or underfunded. The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update recognizes the possibility of future population growth and that public services will need to increase to meet these needs. Periodic evaluation of and communication with public service departments will ensure the proper growth of these services when the time comes whether that be through the construction of new facilities or increased funding to existing ones.

a) 1. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have adverse physical impacts on or physically alter fire

protection and facilities. Should future development occur on the site, public service needs will be periodically reevaluated to consider any new population growth.

2. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have adverse physical impacts on or physically alter police protection and facilities. Should future development occur on the site, public service needs will be periodically reevaluated to consider any new population growth.

3. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have adverse physical impacts on or physically alter school facilities. Should future development occur on the site, public service needs will be periodically reevaluated to consider any new population growth.

4. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have adverse physical impacts on or physically alter parks and recreation facilities. Should future development occur on the site, public service needs will be periodically reevaluated to consider any new population growth.

5. Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have adverse physical impacts on or physically alter any other public facilities. Should future development occur on the site, public service needs will be periodically reevaluated to consider any new population growth.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 66

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of the existing

neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or

require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment?

Discussion: Because of its geographic setting, Tehama County offers an abundance of recreational outlets within its several national parks and access to the Sacramento River. The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan encourages the growth of recreation facilities in order to meet the needs of a growing population. It is to be expected that with new development, the recreational needs of the population will not grow and new parks or facilities won’t need to be built.

a) No Impact. The project will not increase the use of existing recreation facilities. b) No Impact. The project does not include recreational facilities, and would not have an adverse effect on the

environment.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 67

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standard and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion/management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including

either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access

f) Conflicts with adopted policies, plans, programs, regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities?

Discussion: The roadways of Tehama County are classified as mostly rural. While there are some major sources of transport (I-5, Highway 99E, Highway 99W and Highway 36), most circulation is done on arterial and connector roadways. The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update recognizes several essential roadways which include Bowman Road, Jelly’s Ferry, 99E, 99W and South Avenue. As populations increase and development occurs, it is expect that these roadways will need to be evaluated and updated to meet increased capacity and safety needs. Through a Roadway Master Plan, the County has identified roadway enhancement and safety projects to ensure alignment of future development along these roadways.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not create a substantial increase in traffic. The project is located off of Baker Road.

b) No Impact. The project will not exceed a level or service standard for designated roads or highways.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 68

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


c) No Impact. The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project may potentially increase hazards due to road features

including a sweeping curve. e) No Impact. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access. f) Potentially significant unless Mitigation incorporated. Future commercial buildings on the

area would have minor long-term impact on demand for alternative transportation facilities due to the limited population growth to the project area. Construction activities associated with future commercial activities and access road development may generate short-term disruption to area roadways from an anticipated increase in traffic levels. However, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be temporary, and in compliance with a Tehama County Encroachment Permit, which would require traffic control implementation, if needed. The following mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts associated with increased traffic to a level of less than significant:

Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.1 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE AND TRANSIT IMPACT FEE. Prior to construction of any improvements within the rezone area, a Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program shall be established, with the assistance of the project proponent/developer, to mitigate the project’s reasonable share of impacts on County roadways, the State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems affected by the project. The Program shall collect funds from this project and all future projects that affect such County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems, in an amount sufficient to construct the improvements to fully mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of the projects upon the affected County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems.

The project proponent/developer shall have the necessary studies (including all documentation required under the Mitigation Fee Act) prepared in coordination with the Tehama County Public Works Department and Caltrans to establish the Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program, which shall be in place prior to construction of any improvements within the rezone area. The project proponent/developer shall be reimbursed through the Program for the full amount of costs incurred in preparing the necessary studies, to the extent permitted by law. The County shall collect the established fee at the time of building permit issuance.

In the alternative, this Condition shall be deemed satisfied if the builder/owner elects to pay a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area, Column “Transportation”, in which case all development undertaken pursuant to this project shall pay either the Countywide transportation impact fee, if such fee has been adopted at the time the building permit for such development is obtained, or, if no such Countywide fee has been adopted, a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 69

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area, Column “Transportation”. Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.2 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Tehama County Public Works Department for the driveway connection to Grant Street (Co. Rd. # 280). This connection will be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawing 0916-Typical Driveway Encroachment with Culvert or Standard Drawing 0917- Typical Private Driveway.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 70

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater

treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion: The 2009-2029 Tehama County General Plan Update has put in place measures to meet the wastewater, solid waste and water supply needs of a growing population in the county. In order meet these needs, it is encouraged that commercial growth developments occur in areas adjacent to existing water districts and wastewater treatment facilities with a significant unused allocation and capacity.

a) No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater requirements. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment

facilities causing significant environmental effect. Future development of the project site would increase dependency on existing facilities that will need to be evaluated and possibly expanded to meet population growth needs.

c) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Future development on the project site will need to be studied and evaluated for its impact on existing storm water facilities.

d) Less than Significant Impact. The project does not require available sufficient water supply. Water supply for future development will need to be evaluated at the time of construction.

e) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects demand, however, this may occur if development occurs on the project site.

f) Less than Significant Impact. The project will not have any impact on the landfill’s capacity to accommodate project needs, however, this will need to be evaluated should any development occur on the site.

g) No Impact. Compliance with federal, state and local statutes related to solid waste do not apply to the project

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 71

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))


Tehama County Planning Department Page 3-1 Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form & Negative Declaration

III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following are Mandatory Findings of Significance in accordance with Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines.

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

c) Does the project have environmental effects,

which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Discussion: The intent of the general plan amendment project is to retain the existing commercial use of the property. The use permit is to establish a church in an existing building. No construction projects are proposed on the site at this time.

a) Less than Significant Impact. The project will have no impact on the environment, fish and wildlife habitat or reduce the number of rare or endangered species. Future development of the site will require a reevaluation of these areas.

b) Less than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts of the project site could include future construction of businesses. Each project should be evaluated on an individual basis for their unique impact on the environment and the county.

c) No Impact. The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects of human beings.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 72

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Tehama County Planning Department Page 3-2 Initial Study, Environmental Checklist Form & Negative Declaration

IV. PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED This section identifies those persons who prepared or contributed to preparation of this document. This section is prepared in accordance with Section 15129 of the CEQA Guidelines. A. COUNTY OF TEHAMA

• Sean M. Moore, AICP, Director of Planning • Tehama County Air Pollution Control District • Tehama County Fire Department • Tehama County Public Works Department • Tehama County Environmental Health Department • Tehama County’s Surface Mining Reclamation Act (SMARA)

B. OTHER AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS • Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System • California Department of Fish and Wildlife

C. REFERENCES 1. Tehama County General Plan Update 2009-2029; 2. Tehama County Zoning Ordinance 3. Tehama County Williamson Act Program 4. Tehama County Preserve Security Maps 5. Tehama County Environmental Health Provisions & Regulations 6. Tehama County Air Pollution Control Guidelines 7. Alquist-Priolo Geological Maps 8. Alquist-Prilio Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 9. Tehama County’s Surface Mining Reclamation Act (SMARA)

AO List. (Adjoining lands within 1,000 feet.) 024-050-03, 06, 08, 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 45, 46 024-040-13, 29, 41, 42, 47, 66

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 73

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 74

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Plan Amendment 2015-1B and Use Permit #15-04,

Merlin Miller owner 12560 Moon Shadow Ranch Road

Red Bluff, CA, 96080

The size and complexity of the proposed project require development of a formal mitigation monitoring program to ensure that monitoring is carried out in all stages. Monitoring is divided into three categories related to the timing of activities and implementation of mitigations. 1. Pre-Construction Mitigations (PC). These are activities that precede any actual land disturbance.

Included among these mitigations are the development of drainage, erosion control and tree management plans. Also included are the delineation of any wetlands that may be subject to development impact and the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Zones (ESZs) around archaeological sites and specimen oak trees.

2. Construction-Related Mitigations (DC). These include implementation of the drainage and erosion

control plans, building setbacks from sensitive areas, and all other measures required to reduce the impacts of construction and development.

3. Ongoing Mitigations (OG). These include the maintenance programs necessary to ensure long-term

control of erosion, protection of surface water quality in runoff, and protection of the wildlife and wildlife habitat resources on the project.

Monitoring will be the responsibility of various county and state agencies, although the physical inspections may be delegated to a private company or individuals chosen by these agencies and/or an environmental coordinator. All costs of mitigation monitoring will be borne by the developers, who are usually required to deposit money with the county or state agency in advance of the required monitoring effort. The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated in the conditions of approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. For tentative maps, some mitigation measures must be completed prior to map recordation (PR). Others are implemented during permitting stages following map recordation (AR), or are ongoing mitigation measures. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that the mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (PRC Section 21081.6). Currently, the applicant is seeking approval of GPA 2015-1B and Use Permit 15-04. A description of the pending project can be found in the initial study. Questions about this monitoring program should be directed to the Tehama County Planning Department.

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 75

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

ACRONYMS USED

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CalTrans California Department of Transportation CDF California Department of Forestry CSD Community Services District CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board DEV Developer HOA Homeowners' Association TC Tehama County TCAPCD Tehama County Air Pollution Control District TCBD Tehama County Building Department TCEH Tehama County Environmental Health TCFD Tehama County Fire Department TCPD Tehama County Planning Department TCPWD Tehama County Public Works Department USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers Monitoring Phases PC Pre-Construction DC During Construction OG Ongoing BP During Building Permit Approval Subdivision Map Phase (Tentative Maps) PR Prior to Map Recordation AR After Map Recordation

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 76

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Monitoring Agency: Tehama County Planning Department

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUE: Cultural Resources IMPACT(S): Less than significant impact with Mitigation Measure incorporated No cultural resources have been identified in the proposed project areas. However, it is possible that buried historical or archaeological materials, including human remains could be exposed during excavation and grading activities. Damage to or the destruction of these archaeological materials would be a significant impact. To reduce potential impacts associated with cultural resources the following mitigation shall be applied to the project:

Mitigation Measure V.D.1: CULTURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION. Should any cultural resources, such as structural features, unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural remains be encountered during any development activities, work shall be suspended and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to develop, if necessary, further mitigation measures to reduce any archaeological impact to a less than significant level before construction continues. Such measures could include (but would not be limited to) researching and identifying the history of the resource(s), mapping the locations, and photographing the resource. In addition, pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code, and Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code, in the event of the discovery of any human remains, all work is to stop and the County Coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Implementing Agency: Project applicant Monitoring Agency: Tehama County Planning Department Funding Source: Developer/Applicant Subdivision Map Phasing: N/A Phase of Monitoring: OG/PC Performance Standards (standard for success): As determined by Monitoring Agencies. Additional Notes: COMPLIANCE VERIFIED DATE

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 77

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Monitoring Agency: Tehama County Public Works Department

MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUE: Less than significant impact with Mitigation Measure incorporated The project does not violate any water quality standards, however future commercial facilities constructed on the site may significantly contribute to the storm water runoff unless properly controlled. The following Mitigation Measures will reduce the potential for impacts to hydrology and water quality to a level of less than significant:

Mitigation Measure IX.A.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The Developer/Applicant shall comply with the following;

A. All the pertinent requirements of Title16, Subdivisions, Chapters 16.04 thru 16.40 of the Tehama County Code, the Tehama County Land Development and Engineering Design Standards (TCLD&EDS), and the Subdivision Map Act, as amended.

B. The requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regarding storm water permitting via Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

Mitigation Measure IX.A.2 WATER QUALITY PERMIT: Applicant shall obtain a General Construction Activity Permit from California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to the start of any work related to road construction of access road, grading or building construction if total disturbed area is greater than one (1) acre. Mitigation Measure IX.A.3 GRADING PERMIT: The Applicant shall submit a Grading Plan and obtain a Grading Permit from Tehama County Public Works prior to the start of any grading or work related to construction of access or building. Applicant shall submit a Site Development Plan to scale showing all temporary and permanent improvements, preliminary grading, drainage, any piping, tanks or other appurtenances directly relating to this project and how they meet the TCLD&EDS, as well as complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Any grading or construction will not increase current storm water time and concentration runoff. Implementing Agency: Project applicant Monitoring Agency: Tehama County Public Works Department Funding Source: Developer/Applicant Subdivision Map Phasing: N/A Phase of Monitoring: OG/PC Performance Standards (standard for success): As determined by Monitoring Agencies. Additional Notes: COMPLIANCE VERIFIED DATE

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 78

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Monitoring Agency:

Tehama County Public Works Department MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

ISSUE: Transportation and Traffic IMPACT(S): Less than significant impact with Mitigation Measure incorporated. Future commercial buildings on the rezoned area would have minor long-term impact on demand for alternative transportation facilities due to the limited population growth to the project area. Construction activities associated with future commercial activities and access road development may generate short-term disruption to area roadways from an anticipated increase in traffic levels. However, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be temporary, and in compliance with a Tehama County Encroachment Permit, which would require traffic control implementation, if needed. Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.1 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE AND TRANSIT IMPACT FEE. Prior to construction of any improvements within the project area, a Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program shall be established, with the assistance of the project proponent/developer, to mitigate the project’s reasonable share of impacts on County roadways, the State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems affected by the project. The Program shall collect funds from this project and all future projects that affect such County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems, in an amount sufficient to construct the improvements to fully mitigate the direct and cumulative impacts of the projects upon the affected County roadways, State Highway System, transit, and pedestrian systems. The project proponent/developer shall have the necessary studies (including all documentation required under the Mitigation Fee Act) prepared in coordination with the Tehama County Public Works Department and Caltrans to establish the Roadway Impact Fee and Transit Impact Fee Program, which shall be in place prior to construction of any improvements within the rezone area. The project proponent/developer shall be reimbursed through the Program for the full amount of costs incurred in preparing the necessary studies, to the extent permitted by law. The County shall collect the established fee at the time of building permit issuance. In the alternative, this Condition shall be deemed satisfied if the builder/owner elects to pay a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area, Column “Transportation”, in which case all development undertaken pursuant to this project shall pay either the Countywide transportation impact fee, if such fee has been adopted at the time the building permit for such development is obtained, or, if no such Countywide fee has been adopted, a transportation impact fee that is 25% of the amount listed in the Tehama County Development Impact Fee Program Nexus Study Report, April 2010, Table S.2 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule – Unincorporated Area,

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 79

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))

Column “Transportation”. Mitigation Measure #XVI.F.2 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Tehama County Public Works Department for the driveway connection to Baker Road (Co. Rd. # 280). This connection will be constructed in accordance with Standard Drawing 0916-Typical Driveway Encroachment with Culvert or Standard Drawing 0917- Typical Private Driveway. Implementing Agency: Project applicant Monitoring Agency: Tehama County Public Works Department Funding Source: Developer/Applicant Subdivision Map Phasing: N/A Phase of Monitoring: OG/PC Performance Standards (standard for success): As determined by Monitoring Agencies. Additional Notes: COMPLIANCE VERIFIED (see attached verification report) DATE

4.3.j

Packet Pg. 80

Att

ach

men

t: A

TT

AC

HM

EN

T I

GP

A 2

015-

1B a

nd

UP

14-

04 IS

(65

68 :

GE

NE

RA

L P

LA

N A

ME

ND

ME

NT

201

5-1B

ME

RL

IN M

ILL

ER

(O

WN

ER

))