ENVIRONMENTAL

INITIAL STUDY &

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Zone Amendment 21-0002
Hawes River Acres, Et al.

July 21, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY &

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WITH
References and Documentation

Prepared by
SHASTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1855 Placer Street, Suite 103
Redding, California 96001
 SHASTA COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY & MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
1. Project Title:
Zone Amendment 22-0001 (Hawes River Acres, Et al.)

2. Lead agency name and address:

Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Planning Division
1855 Placer Street, Suite 103
Redding, CA 96001-1759

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Lio Salazar, Planning Division Manager, (530) 225-5532

4. Project Location:
The 145.34-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Dersch Road and Deschutes
Road at 6171 Deschutes Road, 6465 Deschutes Road, and 21945 Dersch Road, Anderson, CA 96007 (Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers (APNs) 057-190-031, 057-190-036, 057-190-037, 057-190-041, and 057-190-040).

5. Applicant Name and Address:

Hawes River Acres
P.O. Box 52
Palo Cedro, CA 96073

6. General Plan Designation:

Mixed Use (MU) and Limited Agriculture (Ac-g)

7. Zoning:
Planned Development (PD), Limited Agriculture combined with Building Site 10-Acre Minimum Lot Area (A-1-
BA-10), Limited Agriculture combined with Building Site 20-Acre Minimum Lot Area, Interim Mineral Resource,
Restrictive Flood, and Designated Floodway (A-1-BA-20-IMR-F-2-F-1), and Limited Agriculture combined with
Restrictive Flood (A-1-F-2).

8. Description of Project:

The project site is composed of five developed parcels totaling approximately 145.34 acres that are used for a
retail/wholesale farm supply store (APN 057-190-031), an agritourism/agritainment area and crop land (APN 057-
190-036), single-family residences (APN 057-190-040), and a wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and
crop land (APNs 057-190-037 and 057-190-041). Topography within the project site is predominantly flat with a
slight south to southwest facing aspect that drains toward the Sacramento River as the elevation changes from high
points at the northern and eastern extents of the project site. Two seasonal drainages area present within the southern
portion of the property. One flows through APN 057-190-040 between orchard and crop land and the other flows
through APN 057-190-041 within a forested riparian area located along the southern boundary of the project site
which is the northern bank of the Sacramento River. Stillwater Creek flows through the southwest corner of the
project site to its confluence with the Sacramento River. Very little of the project site has been undisturbed by
commercial, residential, and agricultural development and activity, including the forested riparian area which is
developed with driveways and foot trails that access the riverbank.

An approximately 38.82-acre portion of the project site is subject to a Planned Development (PD) zoning ordinance
and associated conceptual development plan (CDP) that was adopted in 2006 (APNs 057-190-031 and 057-190-
036).

The intent of the 2006 PD regulations and development standards are to promote 1) the development and operation
of uses consistent with the Mixed Use (MU) general plan land use designation to facilitate the development of
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 1
 retail/wholesale sales of agricultural products; and 2) agriculture-related recreational/amusement activities for
families and the public at large, which promote “custom farming” and showcase agriculture as a primary use on
lands with a Part-Time Agriculture (A-cg) general plan land use designation. The ordinance goes on to describe the
retail/wholesale farm supply store and associated uses and buildings, a number of specific agriculture-related
recreational/amusement activities that are limited in scale, intensity, and in many cases temporary in nature and/or
in keeping with intermittent or seasonal use, and specifies other uses permissible with a zoning, administrative, or
use permit provided they are consistent with the underlying general plan land use designation. The CDP adopted
with the 2006 PD shows the general location of the retail/wholesale farm supply store and associated uses and
buildings on APN 057-190-031 and the area approved for agriculture-related recreational/amusement activities on
APN 057-190-036 which includes an activity area, pumpkin patch, and corn maze. The development plan shows
parking for all PD uses is to be located on APN 057-190-036.

In the intervening years, Hawes River Acres, the applicant, has held its annual Fall Fest during the month of October
and other events throughout the year, including but not limited to, other festivals, a mud run which was approved
as an assemblage of people in accordance with the PD zone district, weddings, fundraisers, concerts, civil war
reenactments, and other uses involving public visitation to the property; expanded activities and improvements into
the pumpkin patch and corn maze area shown on the CDP (areas reserved for agriculture) and to other lands within
the project site; and expanded the area used for parking to include other areas within the property to accommodate
high rates of attendance and/or large events. Additionally, the applicant developed several unpermitted uses,
structures, facilities, and utilities on APN 057-190-036 that are not addressed in the PD or CDP, were determined
to exceed the intent and development standards of the PD, and that are and out of compliance with construction
requirements and the California Health and Safety Code.

In 2017, by letter the Shasta County Department of Resource Management informed the applicant of these issues,
the need to come into compliance with the PD ordinance, and the need to address other Building, Environmental
Health, and Fire Department concerns regarding uses, structures, facilities, and utilities that had been developed
and operated contrary to the PD ordinance and other applicable requirements. It was the applicant’s position that
all uses, structures, facilities, and utilities that were the subject of the letter met the intent of the PD as they are
typical of businesses engaged in what is commonly referred to as agritourism or agritainment. On this basis, and to
address the land use and zoning issues described in the 2017 letter, the applicant filed an application in 2021 to
amend the zoning of the property.

The project is a zone amendment that proposes to amend the 2016 PD text and CDP as it relates to APN 057-190-
031, which is occupied by the retail/wholesale farm supply store and parking for the agritourism/agritainment area,
and to change the principal zone districts of APNs 057-190-036, 057-190-037, 057-190-041, and 057-190-040 from
PD and A-1 to C-R (no change is proposed to the combining districts for these APNs, including to the limit of the
F-2 and F1 zoning present within the southern portion of the project site, the Building Site (B) zone districts
applicable to APNs 057-190-037 and 057-190-041, and/or the Interim Mineral Resource (IMR) zone district
appliable to APN 057-190-041).

The proposed PD text amendment would change the text of the PD to allow a proposed electronic reader board type
sign, allow the continuation of parking for agritourism/agritainment area uses, and delete those provisions
applicable to the portion of the PD zone that is allowed to be used for an agritourism/agritainment area and crop
land (APN 057-190-036) as this area is proposed to change from PD to the C-R zone district as described below.
The proposed PD CDP amendment would show the PD in greater detail, add an existing retail building that was
built without a permit, which would allow for the issuance of a building permit to correct this violation of the
building code, the proposed electronic reader board sign, future expanded parking area, septic system improvements
to serve an existing retail building, a fire hydrant system, and agricultural well. The proposed amended PD text and
CDP are attached.

The amendment to C-R for APNs 057-190-036, 057-190-037, 057-190-041, and 057-190-040 would change the
change the principal zone district for these properties to C-R and, through the adoption of the proposed C-R zoning
text and conceptual development plan (CDP), would define, clarify, recognize, and establish allowable agritourism
and agritainment uses, allowable improvements, and applicable regulations and standards within the proposed C-R
zone district.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 2
 Aspects of current operations at the project site are currently in violation of the PD, CDP, and Shasta County zoning
plan. If the requested zone amendment is approved and enacted, compliance with the associated development
standards bring the existing operation into compliance with zoning related land use requirements and establish the
standards under which the uses and development may be conducted going forward.

The proposed C-R zone district would allow existing uses and improvements that are consistent with the current
PD zoning text and CDP; legalize existing commercial recreational uses and improvements that were established
in violation of the zoning ordinance; allow new agritourism/agritainment uses that are similar in character and
impact to such uses that have been carried out at the project site; and allow overnight lodging.

The proposed C-R, for land use purposes, would define agritourism and agritainment, legalize uses those uses,
buildings structures, and other improvements are inconsistent with the current PD; expand the existing agritourism
and agritainment activity area, and establish a line that limits agritourism and agritainment activities on the southern
portion of the project site to those that can be conducted in orchard or field, or within existing disturbed riparian
areas of the ranch without new permanent improvements such as weddings, civil war reenactments, mud runs, etc.
that can be conducted with or without the use of temporary event tents, trellises, lighting, etc. (excepting an existing
small scale train and future zipline shown on the CDP); increase the maximum structural height limit for amusement
rides; clarify and modify hours of operation; provide for overflow parking; provide for overnight lodging; clarify
lighting standards, clarify driveway access requirements, clarify applicable safety standards, and clarify food
facilities standards. The proposed C-R text and CDP are attached.

In Fat v. County of Sacramento (2002), 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, (citing Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999)
76 Cal.App.4th 1428) the court found that the County’s preparation of a negative declaration was not erroneous
because it was based on the existing environmental setting that included previously constructed unlawful uses. The
court in Riverwatch stated that “in general preparation of an EIR is not the appropriate forum for determining the
nature and consequences of prior conduct of a project applicant.” Riverwatch at 1452. In other words, the level of
activity and associated environmental impacts resulting from the illegal establishment of a land use may be
considered baseline conditions against which the significance of project impacts should be considered.

Therefore, the baseline conditions for this project include the level of activity and associated environmental impacts
in existence on March 1, 2023, at which time an early consultation project referral was sent to potential trustee,
responsible, and interested agencies to inform them of the proposed use permit application and solicit responses
regarding potential CEQA related concerns. Additionally, any past physical changes to the environment that have
resulted from continued expansion of operations since March 1, 2023 that are not recommended to be rectified in a
manner that would result in new physical impacts to the environment are also considered baseline conditions for
the analysis contained herein (i.e. an area disturbed by grading activity or vegetation removal that is not proposed
to be corrected, rehabilitated, or restored in a manner that would result in physical changes to the environment as
part of the project such as from corrective grading or revegetation activities). Finally, physical changes to the
environment that have resulted from continued expansion of operations in conflict with the requirements of the
Shasta County Zoning Plan since March 1, 2023, that could result in cumulative or indirect impacts on the
environment are not considered part of the baseline conditions and for the purposes of this project and analysis have
been considered in analyzing and determining the significance of environmental impacts from the project.
Additionally, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted for the project as it pertains to the uses described in
the PD text and CDP adopted in 2006 for APNs 057-190-031 and 057-190-036.

The attached revised PD CDP/C-R CDP details activity areas, buildings, structures and/or other improvements that
were known to be existing at the project site as of March 1, 2023, and those proposed for the future. All features in
the inventory list (“South Structures (Hawes Agritainment)” and “North Structures (Hawes Ranch)”) labeled with
an (E) and shaded yellow, green, or red are existing and require a local building permit or permit from the State of
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order to come into compliance with
building and other codes, if such approvals have not already been obtained. Those features in the inventory list
labeled with a (P) are proposed future improvements for which it is evident that a local building permit or permit
from HCD would be necessary, excepting portable restrooms. Unlabeled features are uses, activity areas, buildings
and/or structures that are both existing or proposed in the future for which a local building permit or permit from

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 3
 HCD may or may not be necessary and are shaded blue. Of these, those proposed in the future include slide mountain
and slide mountain zip line. Additionally, there are features shown on the site plan that a not listed in inventory or
addressed in the legend which are existing or proposed for the future. Those proposed for the future, include a roller
coaster, and paintball area; a fire hydrant system to serve the retail/wholesale farm supply store uses and agritourism
and agritainment activity area; electrical system upgrades, ADA path, a septic system, and an agricultural well.
Since the preparation of the proposed CDP, it is known that several amusements have been installed at the project
site, including the truck ride, ladybug ride, fish ride, carousel, Scrambler, and Tilt-O-Whirl, a Little Dipper roller
coaster, paratrooper ride, swing ride, and dirt hill/slide which are shown on the proposed CDP.

As noted above many of the uses proposed to be defined as agritourism and agritainment for the purposes of the
proposed C-R zone district have been carried out within the project site. Those that have not are similar in character
and impact those that have been carried out previously in so much as members of the public would visit the property
to carry out activities at the property that rely upon the agricultural use and/or setting and various improvements
(an exception to this would be overnight lodging which would be an activity of a character and impact that has not
been carried out at the project site previously). Activities that have been carried out include those that attract guests
to the property throughout the day/night during normal operational hours, such as during the Fall Harvest Festival,
and those that involve an exclusive event that attracts a large group of guests that may arrive near the approximate
starting time and leave at the end of the event such as a fundraiser, concert, or wedding. At times, the property has
been open to both a general admission event and an exclusive group event on the same day during normal operating
hours. Typical event days have attracted approximately 3,000 guests with the largest single day attendance being
10,000 persons which occurred on a day that involved a general admission event and an exclusive concert special
event. Events have typically occurred over 1 to 4 days, primarily Thursday through Sunday, and from 1 to 4 times
a month from spring through Christmas with the fall season being the busiest.

Events at the have typically been served by portable toilets, excepting for a time during which a bathroom trailer
was connected to an existing septic system that resulted in failure of the system. The project includes the proposed
construction of an on-site septic system capable of serving up to 500 persons per day which will be used to serve
employees and smaller group events such as weddings or other activities that will not exceed use of the system by
more than 500 persons per day. The Shasta County Environmental Health Division has determined that the
intermittent nature of the agritourism and agritainment uses and events is consistent with temporary use and can be
served by portable toilets. The project also includes the proposed construction of a lift station and leach field to
serve the retail building on the wholesale/retail farm supply parcel. Water service is from an existing well. If the
applicant were to host 25 or more guests per day for 60 or more days per year, water service would have to be from
a permitted small public water system which would likely require construction of a new well as part of the small
public water system. Access is from existing driveways on Dersch Road and Deschutes Road. Electric utility service
is from Pacific Gas & Electric. Liquid propane gas service is from local vendors. Waste disposal service is from
Waste Management. Project activities and proposed zoning changes that would result in new or increased physical
impacts on the environment, include construction, installation, and use initiation of the improvements and activities
described above as future or proposed, improvement of driveway encroachments, landscaping and screening, and
maintenance activities.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The project site is located at the intersection of two County arterial roads and is situated in a flat alluvial plain that
extends northward from the Sacramento River, which flows along the southern extent of the project site, and
westward from Cow Creek which is situated approximately 0.45 miles to the east of the project site. The topography
of the area rises sharply upward to a western plateau that is situated approximately 0.01 miles west of the project
site. Stillwater Creek flows in a southerly direction through the plateau to its confluence with the Sacramento River.
The majority of bottomlands in the vicinity are developed and being used for agriculture with most being cultivated
for field or row crops. Natural drainages within these lands have in some cases been developed to function in
conjunction with man-made irrigation systems to serve agricultural uses. The banks of natural drainages within
these properties are in some cases populated with narrow bands of riparian vegetation. Undeveloped bottomlands
to the northwest are populated with grassland, scattered California native oak trees, and wetlands. Residential
properties to the west and upslope on the plateau are developed within grassland and California native oak
woodlands.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 4
 Lands in close proximity to the project site include a mix of large undeveloped and full-time agricultural lands,
smaller parcels developed with rural residential uses, and a veterinary clinic. Immediately to the west across
Deschutes Road and in general vicinity of the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Dersch Road and Deschutes
Road is a concentration of approximately 60 residentially developed properties all within 0.75 miles of the project
site, including approximately 16 immediately across Deschutes Road from the project site. Properties to the north
are primarily designated for part-time and full-time agricultural use and mixed use. Some of these parcels are
develop with residences but at a much lesser density when compared to the residential area to the west. Lands
immediately to the east are designated for full-time agricultural use with residentially designated land beyond.
Parcels to the east are generally large and sparsely populated with residences. Lands on the south side of the
Sacramento River are designated for natural habitat, and part-time and full-time agricultural use. There are
approximately 6 residences directly across the river from the project site. There are additional residences on the
southern bank of the river as well as denser concentrations of residentially developed part-time agricultural
properties, including a neighborhood of approximately 70 residences within approximately 0.5 miles of the southern
extent of the project site.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.):
Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Building Division
Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Division
Shasta County Department of Public Works
Shasta County Fire Department
State of California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, Amusement Ride and Tramway Unit

11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested
consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for consultation that
includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.?
In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the Wintu Tribe of Northern California &
Toyon-Wintu Center (Tribe) filed and Shasta County received a request for formal notification of proposed projects
within an area of Shasta County that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribe. Pursuant to PRC
§21080.3.1 the Department of Resource Management sent a certified letter to notify the Tribe that the project was
under review and to provide the Tribe 30 days from the receipt of the letter to request formal consultation on the
project in writing. The Tribe received a certified letter of notification on March 3, 2023, with the 30-day notification
period ending April 3, 2023. To date, no response has been received.

NOTE: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and
project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse
impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental
review process. (See Public Resources Code section21080.3.2.) Information may also be available from the
California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section
5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office
of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions
specific to confidentiality.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is
a APotentially Significant Impact@ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy

Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous

Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources

Noise Population / Housing Public Services

Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources

Mandatory Findings of
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire
Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)

On the basis of the initial evaluation:

 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.

 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant
effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.

 I find that the proposed project MAY have a Apotentially significant impact@ or Apotentially significant unless mitigated@
impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain
to be addressed.

 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 6
Copies of the Initial Study and related materials and documentation may be obtained at the Planning Division of the
Department of Resource Management, 1855 Placer Street, Suite 103, Redding, CA 96001. Contact Lio Salazar, Planning
Division Manager, at (530) 225-5532.

~ 21~, /-z..s
Lio Salazar Date'
Planning Division Manager, AICP

Yt:ZP'L
Paul A. Hellman Date
Director of Resource Management

Initial Study - Zone Amendment 2 1-0002 - Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 7
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except ANo Impact@ answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A ANo Impact@ answer is adequately
supported if all 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 ANo 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.
APotentially Significant Impact@ is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more, APotentially Significant Impact@ entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) ANegative Declaration: Less-than-significant With Mitigation Incorporated@ applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from APotentially Significant Impact@ to a ALess-than-significant Impact.@
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-
significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, AEarlier Analyses,@ 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 ALess-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 the following:

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-significant.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 8
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Significant Significant Significant Impact
Section 21099, would the project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not 

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

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing 

visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The highest quality scenic vista in the vicinity of the project is the western slope of the southern extent of the Cascade Range,
including Lassen Peak, situated east of the project site. This scenic vista is visible from public vantage points along Dersch and
Deschutes Road and is viewed by road users, including motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Users approaching the project site
on Dersch Road from the west have a direct line of site to the scenic vista. From these public vantage points the scenic vista appears
elevated above and generally unobstructed by existing improvements at the project site which appear in the foreground. If the
project is approved, all existing improvements would remain in the foreground. With the exception of certain amusement rides that
are proposed to exceed the structural height limit of the current PD and be up to the proposed height limit of 75 feet, all proposed
improvements would meet current height limits and/or be at ground level. Amusement rides that would exceed current height limits
would not be in direct line of sight when approaching the project site from the west and would not substantially obstruct the scenic
vista or be in the line of sight for extended periods of time when approaching or passing by the project site from the north, east, or
south. Therefore, project impacts on a scenic vista would be less-than-significant.

b) The project site is not visible from a designated scenic highway.

c) The existing visual character and quality of the site is characterized by its multiple existing uses, including the retail/wholesale
farm supply store, an agritourism/agritainment area, single-family residences, a wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, crop
lands, outdoors storage of farm and agritourism/agritainment equipment, and supplies, and parking, and multiple existing structure
types including retail buildings, commercial storage buildings, agricultural buildings, amusement rides and amusement attractions.

The visual character of project surroundings is predominantly characterized by large agricultural parcels that are situated in the
northeast, southeast, and northwest quadrants of the Deschutes Road/Dersch Road intersection. These properties are primarily used
for cropland and are very open with improvements that are not screened or otherwise obscured from public view. The southwest
quadrant of the Deschutes Road/Dersch Road intersection is characterized by rural residential development on parcels ranging
from approximately 0.5 acres to 25 acres in size, including uses and structures typical of rural residential development such as
residential buildings, garages, carports, agricultural buildings, and outdoor storage of items. Similar residential development exists
along an approximately 0.25-mile segment of Deschutes Road north of the Deschutes Road/Dersch Road intersection. A veterinary
clinic exists at the northeast intersection of the Deschutes Road/Dersch Road.

If the project is approved, all existing improvements would remain. With the exception of certain amusement rides that are proposed
to exceed the structural height limit of the current PD and be up to the proposed height limit of 75 feet, all proposed improvements
would meet current height limits and/or be at ground level. If the project is approved the existing visual character of the project
site and surroundings would not significantly change as experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.

d) Improvements at the project site include outdoor lighting. Existing and proposed project lighting plan is required to meet Shasta
County Zoning Plan Section 17.84.040 which requires all lighting to be designed and located so as to confine direct lighting to the
premises and directs that a light source shall not shine upon or illuminate directly on any surface other than the area required to be
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 9
 lighted and that no lighting shall be of the type or in a location such that constitutes a hazard to vehicular traffic, either on private
property or on abutting streets. While existing and proposed project lighting may be visible from other premises, the nearest
premises within line of sight of project lighting not owned by the Hawes Family are across Dersch and Deschutes Road from the
project site. Given the distance between these premises and the project site, proposed project lighting would not shine upon or
illuminate directly on these premises or constitute a vehicular hazard or be a significant source of glare. Compliance with Shasta
County lighting standards. Shasta County development standards typically applied to C-R zone districts that involve buildings and
structures, include the use of non-reflective construction materials. Conformance with Shasta County Zoning Plan and the proposed
C-R development standards address lighting concerns. Conformance with these requirements would be confirmed through the
review of building plans submitted with building permit applications. The project would not create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in a non-urbanized area.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In Significant Significant Significant Impact
determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant Impact With Impact
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Mitigation
Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) Incorporated
prepared by the California Dept. 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 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: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a-b) The parcel occupied by the retail/wholesale farm supply store and the activity area established subject to the 2006 PD zone district
are identified as urban and built-up land on the map titled Shasta County Important Farmland 2018 prepared by the State of
California Department of Conservation. Other lands within the project site are identified as Farmland of Statewide Importance,
Unique Farmland, Prime Farmland and Other land. Since the adoption of the 2006 PD and prior to March 1, 2023, the applicant
expanded the activity area into areas that were identified as pumpkin patch and corn maze on the CDP which are areas identified

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 10
 as Farmland of Statewide Importance and Unique Farmland. If the project is approved expansion and associated improvements
made in this area would remain and the designations would likely be revised to urban and built-up land with a future update of the
Shasta County Important Farmland map. Overall, a majority of the project site is not proposed to be urbanized or built-up for
agritourism/agritainment use. If the project is approved the use of the southern portion of the property for agritourism/agritainment
uses that do not involve the permanent improvements such as the mud run, re-enactments, weddings, tours, etc. would continue.
Additionally, the applicant has proposed a limit for southern expansion of agritourism/agritainment uses involving permanent
improvements without approval of a use permit which would allow for consideration of environmental impacts of any proposed
future expansion of permanent agritourism/agritainment improvements on the southern portion of the property. Because the C-R
district relies on the agricultural setting and use, the proposed C-R development standards require that the majority of the property
remain in agricultural use.

The agricultural zoning for the project is proposed to change to be consistent with existing and proposed agritourism/agritainment
uses that complement and support the agricultural use of the property. The project site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
The adjoining property to the east is subject to a Williamson Act contract. It is owned by members of the Hawes family. Existing
uses, buildings, and structures would remain at the project site. Existing uses and improvements at the project site do not conflict
with the use of the adjoining property for agriculture and, consistent with the intent of the C-R zone district, the presence of the
adjacent Williamson Act contracted agricultural property enhances the experience of visitors and stimulate interest in agricultural
properties. Additionally, agricultural use of the majority of the property would be maintained as described above.

c) The project would not 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)). The project site is not forest land, timberland or zone Timberland Production.

d) The project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project site is not forest
land.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria Impact
Significant Significant Significant
established by the applicable air quality management district or air
Impact With Impact
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
Mitigation
determinations. Would the project:
Incorporated

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 

plan?

b) 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?

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely 

affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion: Based on related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the project,
observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a-b) The NSVPA Air Quality Attainment Plan (2021) designates Shasta County as an area of Nonattainment-Transitional with respect
to the ozone California ambient air quality standards. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a group of highly reactive gasses and are also
known as "oxides of nitrogen.” Because NOx is an ingredient in the formation of ozone, it is referred to as an ozone precursor.
NOx is emitted from combustion sources such as cars, trucks and buses, power plants, and off-road equipment. Construction
equipment and activities associated with making proposed improvements would generate air contaminants, including oxides of
nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (PM10), in the form of engine exhaust
and fugitive dust.

Construction activities at the site would produce dust, engine exhaust, fumes from adhesives and/or solvents, and other common
air contaminants typically associated with development projects. Day to day operations and maintenance would continue to
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 11
 generate dust and exhaust from use of mobile equipment, food facilities, generators, etc.

The number of equipment hours needed to construct the proposed utilities, buildings, and structures described in the project
description, would be relatively low because the project site is relatively flat, and the proposed utilities, buildings, and structures
are not substantial in size and/or extensive. With standard air quality measures in place to control fugitive dust, and with the
equipment itself being subject to all applicable emissions requirements for off-road mobile sources of emissions, operation of
mobile equipment during construction is not expected to generate significant emissions.

The facility would continue to generate vehicle trips in proportion to the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply
store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands. The
new retail building proposed for retail/wholesale farm supply parcel, the building proposed for agritourism/agritainment uses, and
operation of existing and proposed amusement rides, would not generate a significant number of new vehicle trips because they
would in many cases be uses by persons who would have otherwise visited the site to partake of existing improvements and
offerings.

The Shasta County General Plan requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Mitigation Measures on all
discretionary land use applications as recommended by the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to
mitigate both direct and indirect emissions of non-attainment pollutants and all activities at the site would be subject to applicable
SCAQMD rules governing air quality. Application of this requirement and compliance with SCAQMD rules in combination with
the limited scope of proposed improvements will not 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 and would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the NSVPA Air Quality Attainment Plan (2021) as adopted by Shasta County, or any other
applicable air quality plan.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area
(NSVPA) 2021 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan for Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin as adopted by Shasta County, or
any other applicable air quality plan.

c-d) The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located west of the project site along Deschutes Road, including
approximately eight single family residence within approximately 120 feet to 275 feet of the developed area of the project site
within which present uses of the property will continue and the proposed development described in the project description will
occur. Additionally, there are a few similarly situated residences to the north of the project site across Dersch Road. As discussed
in section III(a-b) above, the project is not expected to generate substantial pollutant concentrations.

Dust generated during construction of the proposed improvements described in the project description would have the greatest
potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors. The Shasta County General Plan requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best
Available Mitigation Measures on all discretionary land use applications as recommended by the Shasta County Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) to mitigate both direct and indirect emissions of non-attainment pollutants and all activities at
the site would be subject to applicable SCAQMD rules governing air quality. Application of this requirement and compliance with
SCAQMD rules in combination with the limited scope of proposed improvements would minimize exposure of sensitive receptors
to significant concentrations of dust generated by the project.

During construction, the proposed project would generate objectionable odors in the form of fuel exhaust in the immediate vicinity
of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind
of the emission sources. Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. The project would
not attract a significant number of additional mobile sources that spend long periods queuing and idling at the site. Conformance
with Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Mitigation Measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would also
mitigate objectionable odor from fuel exhaust generated during construction.

Based on the discussion in this section and the application of standard mitigation measures as required by the General Plan the air
quality impacts on sensitive receptors from the project would be less-than-significant.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 12
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Have a substantial 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 of regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or Federally protected


wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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 policies 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: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a,b,c,d,e,f) There is little natural habitat uninfluenced by human activity left on the site. If the project is approved all existing
improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment
uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands that have resulted in the present
disturbance and human influence on natural habitat at the project site would continue, including within riparian and wetland habitats
present within the project site. No 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are known to
occur at the project site. The proposed project would not involve significant habitat modification as construction of proposed
improvements described in the project description would take place previously within previously disturbed areas and would not
require tree removal, impact wetland habitats present within the project site though direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means, interfere with any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, nor impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites, and/or would not conflict with any ordinances or policies which protect biological resources. There are no
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community, Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plans for the project site or project area.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 13
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES B Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a


historical resource pursuant to '15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an


archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?

c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of


formal cemeteries?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a,b,c)The project site has been substantially disturbed by human activity, including ground disturbance from agricultural use and
construction of existing improvements. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day
operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless
telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands that have resulted in the present disturbance and human influence on the
project site would continue. The proposed project would not involve significant disturbance of the ground or other natural features
and does not include the destruction or alteration of existing manmade improvements. Therefore, the project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of known historical resource, archaeological resource, or human remains.

Although there is no evidence to suggest that the project would result in any significant effect to archaeological, historical, or
paleontological resources, there is always the possibility that such resources could be encountered. Therefore, the C-R zone district
development standards would require that if, in the course of development and/or operations, any archaeological, historical, or
paleontological resources are uncovered, discovered or otherwise detected or observed, development activities in the affected area
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to review the site and advise the County of the site's significance. If the
findings are deemed significant by the Environmental Review Officer, appropriate mitigation shall be required.

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in
any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site until the coroner has
determined if the remains are subject to his or her authority. If the coroner determines that human remains are not subject to his or
her authority and recognizes or has reason to believe the remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact the
Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
VI. ENERGY B Would the project: Potentially Significant With Less-Than- No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact

a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to 

wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable

energy or energy efficiency?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation. During construction there would be a temporary
consumption of energy resources required for the movement of equipment and materials. Compliance with local, State, and Federal
regulations (e.g., limit engine idling times, requirement for the recycling of construction debris, etc.) would reduce and/or minimize
short-term energy demand during the project’s construction to the extent feasible, and project construction would not result in a
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 14
 wasteful or inefficient use of energy. Furthermore, through compliance with applicable requirements and/or regulations of the 2016
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 – California Energy Code, individual project elements (e.g., building design,
HVAC equipment, etc.) would be consistent with State reduction policies and strategies, and would not consume energy resources
in a wasteful or inefficient manner. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations
of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications
facility, orchard, and crop lands that have resulted in the present disturbance and human influence on the project site would
continue. While many of the amusement rides were present and/or installed at the property before March 1, 2023, not all were
operational and when in operation would be a new potential new source of energy usage. Operation of these amusement rides
would not be more that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable projects. There are no unusual project
characteristics or processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for
comparable projects or the use of equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards and related fuel efficiencies.

b) The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. State and local
agencies regulate the use and consumption of energy through various methods and programs. As a result of the passage of Assembly
Bill 32 (AB 32) (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006) which seeks to reduce the effects of Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions, a majority of the state regulations are intended to reduce energy use and GHG emissions. These include, among
others, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 – California Energy Code, and the California Code of Regulations, Title
24, Part 11– California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The project is a consumer and end user of electricity and
fuel. It is assumed that electricity consumed by the project would be provided by the applicable service provider in accordance
with state renewable energy plans and that vehicles used by the project would conform with state regulations and plans regarding
fuel efficiency. At the local level, the County’s Building Division enforces the applicable requirements of the Energy Efficiency
Standards and Green Building Standards in Title 24.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS B Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, 

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) 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
Publications 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 

Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 

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

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 15
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS B Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 
or site or unique geologic feature?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault;

There are no known earthquake faults in the vicinity of the project site. According to the Shasta County General Plan Section 5.1,
Shasta County has a low level of historic seismic activity. The entire County is in Seismic Design Category D. According to the
Seismic Hazards Assessment for the City of Redding, California, prepared by Woodward Clyde, dated July 6, 1995, the most
significant earthquake at the project site may be a background (random) North American crustal event up to 6.5 on the Richter
scale at distances of 10 to 20 km. All structures shall be constructed according to the seismic requirements of the currently adopted
Building Code (CBC). Compliance with these CBC standards and site/project specific soils report recommendations, if necessary,
in accordance with the CBC standards, would ensure that the structures and associated improvements are designed and constructed
to withstand expected seismic activity and associated potential hazards

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction;

According to the California Department of Conservation, the project site and surrounding area are not designated as earthquake
hazard zones indicating that there is a low risk of ground failures during seismic activity including fault rupture, liquefaction, and
landslide. The project site is located in the South Central Region (SCR), which is identified as an area of moderate liquidation
potential liquefaction in Section 5.1 of the Shasta County General Plan. There is no evidence of seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction on or near the project site. All structures shall be constructed according to the seismic requirements of the
currently adopted Building Code (CBC). Compliance with these CBC standards and site/project specific soils report
recommendations, if necessary, in accordance with the CBC standards, would ensure that the structures and associated
improvements are designed and constructed to withstand expected seismic activity and associated potential hazards

iv) Landslides.

The project site has relatively flat topography, the region is at low risk of seismic-inducted landslide according to the California
Department of Conservation, and the project site is not located at the top or toe of any significant slope. There is no evidence of
landslides on the subject property or the surrounding area.

b) The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project site consists of seven soil series, classified
by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Web Soil Survey
as 1) Hillgate loam (Hb ), with very slow runoff and no to slight erosion potential; 2) Churn Loam (CcB), with 3 to 8 % slopes, is
well drained, with slight to moderate erosion potential and slow to medium runoff potential; 3) Churn Loam (CcA), with 0 to 3 %
slopes, is well drained, with no to slight erosion potential and slow to medium runoff potential; 4) Los Robles Loam (LcA), with
0 to 3 % slopes, is well drained, with no to slight erosion potential and slow runoff potential; 5) Reiif Loam, seeeped (RmA), with
0 to 3 % slopes, is well drained, with no to slight erosion potential and very slow runoff potential; 6) Riverwash (Rw), is well
drained, with very high erosion potential and slow runoff potential; and 7) Cobbly alluvial land (Ck), is well drained, with very
severe erosion potential and slow runoff potential.

No grading or development is proposed within Riverwash and/or Cobbly alluvial land at the southern end of the property. A
grading permit is required prior to any grading activities. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and
the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences,
wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands that have resulted in the present disturbance and human influence
on the project site would continue, including within existing disturbed Riverwash and/or Cobbly alluvial land at the southern end
of the property. While Riverwash and/or Cobbly alluvial land at the southern end of the property has and continues to be disturbed
by human activity, aerial imagery indicates that the riparian zone has, since the soil survey was conducted in 1974, become more
densely vegetated likely due to management practices of the landowner. This vegetation acts as a buffer strip along the river.

The proposed improvements described in the project description would not involve significant soil movement. If soil movement
needed for construction was to the extent at that a grading permit were necessary, the grading permit would include requirements
for erosion and sediment control, including retention of topsoil.
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 16
c) The project would not 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 landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The topography of the site
is predominantly level, approximately 400 feet above mean sea level, with slopes between 0 and 3 percent. All structures shall be
constructed according to the seismic requirements of the currently adopted Building Code. If a geotechnical report is required in
accordance with the code, the report would address any geotechnical deficiencies. The project would not 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 landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

d) The site soils are described as having moderate shrink-swell potential in the “Soil Survey of Shasta County.” All structures shall
be constructed according to the seismic requirements of the currently adopted Building Code. If a geotechnical report is required
in accordance with the code, the report would address any geotechnical deficiencies. The project would not 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 landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

e) Soil testing for the proposed septic system was conducted by Mark Cramer, Registered Environmental Health Specialist #5969.
Mr. Cramer also prepared a preliminary design of the proposed system for the project. The soil testing performed by Mr. Cramer
indicates the project would have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

f) The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, 

that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for 

the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Discussion: Based on these comments, the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff
review of the project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a, b) In 2005, the Governor of California signed Executive Order S-3-05, establishing that it is the State of California's goal to reduce
statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels. Subsequently, in 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill AB
32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act. In part, AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt
regulations to achieve a reduction in the State's GHG emissions to year 1990 levels by year 2020.

California Senate Bill 97 established that an individual project's effect on GHG emission levels and global warming must be assessed
under CEQA. SB 97 further directed that the State Office of Planning and Research (QPR) develop guidelines for the assessment of a
project's GHG emissions. Those guidelines for GHG emissions were subsequently included as amendments to the CEQA Guidelines.
The guidelines did not establish thresholds of significance and there are currently no state, regional, county, or city guidelines or
thresholds with which to direct project-level CEQA review. As a result, Shasta County reserves the right to use a qualitative and/or
quantitative threshold of significance until a specific quantitative threshold is adopted by the state or regional air district.

The City of Redding currently utilizes a quantitative non-zero project-specific threshold based on a methodology recommended by the
California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) and accepted by the California Air Resources Board. According to CAPCOA's
Threshold 2.3, CARB Reporting Threshold, 10,000 metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents per year (mtC02eq/yr) is recommended
as a quantitative non-zero threshold. This threshold would be the operational equivalent of 550 dwelling units, 400,000 square feet of
office use, 120,000 square feet of retail, or 70,000 square feet of supermarket use. This approach is estimated to capture over half the
future residential and commercial development projects in the State of California and is designed to support the goals of AB 32 and not
hinder it. The use of this quantitative non-zero project-specific threshold by Shasta County, as lead agency, would be consistent with
certain practices of other lead agencies in the County and throughout the State of California.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies four primary constituents that are most representative of the GHG
emissions. They are:

• Carbon Dioxide (C02): Emitted primarily through the burning of fossil fuels. Other sources include the burning of solid waste
and wood and/or wood products and cement manufacturing.
• Methane (CH4): Emissions occur during the production and transport of fuels, such as coal and natural gas. Additional
emissions are generated by livestock and agricultural land uses, as well as the decomposition of solid waste.
• Nitrous Oxide (N20): The principal emitters include agricultural and industrial land uses and fossil fuel and waste combustion.
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 17
• Fluorinated Gases: These can be emitted during some industrial activities. Also, many of these gases are substitutes for ozone-
depleting substances, such as CFC's, which have been used historically as refrigerants. Collectively, these gases are often
referred to as "high global-warming potential" gases.

Construction emissions from the proposed project would be significantly less than the quantitative non-zero project-specific thresholds
described above. The scope of the proposed project improvements described in the project description will not involve a significant
number of equipment hours to complete and would not generate significant traffic volumes during construction. All off-road equipment
used during construction would be in conformance with applicable emissions standards. If the project is approved all existing
improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses,
single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands continue at a level consistent with past activities.
Post construction operations of the site are not expected to generate significant GHG emissions based on the small scale of the proposed
operations and because the proposed project will replace an existing retail store located 0.20 miles from the proposed project. Therefore,
this project is not expected to be a significant source of construction or significantly increase operation GHG emissions.

The proposed project would not conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation pertaining to GHGs. As described, all development
in the unincorporated County, including future project-induced development, is required to adhere to all County-adopted policy
provisions. Furthermore, the project is proposed at a location consistent with the urban growth anticipated for the site in the 2018
Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region (RTP/SCS), and therefore will not obstruct
the achievement of the RTP/SCS emission reduction targets.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the Significant Significant Significant Impact
project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

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 reasonably 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 or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?

f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a 
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Discussion: Based on these comments, the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff
review of the project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a-b) If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm
supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop
lands continue at a level consistent with past activities, including the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
commonly used in agricultural operations such as fertilizers, flammable gases, fuels, oils, and solvents. The retail/wholesale farm
supply store is subject to and maintains a Hazardous Materials Business Plan which is required to store hazardous materials in
reportable quantities (55 gallons (liquids), 500 pounds (solids), or 200 cubic feet for a compressed gas).

Construction of the proposed improvements described in the project description may involve the transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials but the scope of the proposed improvements would not require routine transport, use, or disposal. Neither
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 18
 would it require storage of such materials in reportable quantities. Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment.

c) The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

d) The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled by the California Department
of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

e) The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

f) The project is located at the intersection of two County maintained arterial roads. A review of the project, the Shasta County Multi-
Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, and the Shasta County Emergency Operations Plan, indicates that the proposed project
would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan as there is no emergency response plan for the project area.

g) The Shasta County Fire Department has indicated that the project is located in an area which is designated a AAHIGH@ fire hazard
severity zone. All project roadways, permanent driveways, and buildings and structures are or will be required to be constructed
in accordance with the Shasta County Fire Safety Standards. These standards also require the clearing of combustible vegetation
around all structures for a distance of not less than 30 on each side or to the property line. The California Public Resources Code
Section 4291 includes a “Defensible Space” requirement of clearing 100 feet around all buildings or to the property line, whichever
is less. Additionally, the C-R development standards require improvement of a fire suppression system, including on-site fire
hydrants.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?

b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere 

substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site:
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
(iii) 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; or
(iv) impede or redirect flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of 
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality 
control plan or sustainable management plan?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality. The proposed improvements described in the project description would not involve significant soil
movement. If soil movement needed for construction was to the extent at that a grading permit were necessary, the grading permit
would include requirements for erosion and sediment control, including retention of topsoil. Through adherence to construction
standards, including erosion and sediment control measures, water quality and waste discharge standards will not be violated. Nor
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 19
 would surface or ground water quality be otherwise substantially degraded. A grading permit will be required. The provisions of
the permit will address erosion and siltation containment on- and off-site.

b) The project is served by well water from the Redding Groundwater Basin. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
does not identify the Redding Area Groundwater Basin as being over-drafted nor expected to become over-drafted. If the project is
approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store,
agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands continue at
a level consistent with past activities. Therefore, the project would not substantially deplete decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin.

c) If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply
store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands
continue in the same general manner. Construction and use of the improvements described in the project description would increase
impervious surface area within the project site but would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, or
add substantial impervious surface area, in a manner which would (i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii)
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; (iii) 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; and/or (iv) impede or redirect flows.

d) The project site is adjacent to the Sacramento River. An approximately 64-acre area of the southern portion of the project site is
with a flood zone. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the
retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility,
orchard, and crop lands continue at a level consistent with past activities, including in areas within the F1 and F2 flood zones. None
of the proposed improvements described above are proposed within a flood zone, Therefore the project would not increase risk
with release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones due to project inundation.

e) The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable management plan.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Less-Than- No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated

a) Physically divide an established community? 

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with 

any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project does not include the creation of any road, ditch, wall, or other feature which would physically divide an established
community.

b) The purpose of the commercial recreation (C-R) district is to provide opportunities for the development of privately owned land
for commercial recreational activities which need or utilize, and provide for the enjoyment of, the natural environment. This district
is consistent with all general plan designations provided the proposed use blends harmoniously with the natural features of the
surrounding area. Any commercial recreation use or combination thereof which is arranged and designed in such a manner as to
result in a development that is internally compatible and compatible with the natural environment is permitted in the C-R district.

Agritourism and agritainment are in general commercial enterprises that link agricultural production and/or processing with tourism
to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch, or other agricultural business for the purposes of entertaining or educating the visitors while
generating income for the farm, ranch, or business owner by providing an opportunity for entertainment in an agricultural setting.
Use of agricultural property for such uses has grown in popularity and is generally compatible with the agricultural use of property
as one purpose of inviting the public to agricultural lands to enjoy such uses and to connect them with agriculture.

The use of the current PD zone for agritourism/agritainment on the project site was established in 2006. As noted in the project
description, the applicant has held its annual Fall Fest during the month of October and other events throughout the year, including
but not limited to, a mud run which was approved as an assemblage of people in accordance with the PD zone district, and other
festivals, weddings, fundraisers, concerts, civil war reenactments, and other uses involving public visitation to the property,
expanded the activity area into the pumpkin patch and corn maze shown on the CDP (areas reserved for agriculture) and to other
areas that make up the project site, and expanded the area used for parking to include other areas within the property to
accommodate high rates of attendance and/or large events. Additionally, Hawes River Acres developed several unpermitted uses,
structures, facilities, and utilities on APN 057-190-036 that are not addressed in the PD or CDP, were determined to exceed the
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 20
 intent and development standards of the PD, and that are and out of compliance with construction requirements and the California
Health and Safety Code.

The applicant has proposed rezoning the property to rectify current violations of the PD ordinance. While the wholesale/retail farm
supply would remain PD and be amended as described in the project description, the proposed C-R zone district would be more
consistent with the existing and proposed agritourism/agritainment uses proposed for the rest of the project site and would allow
existing uses and improvements that are consistent with the current PD zoning text and CDP; legalize existing commercial
recreational uses and improvements that were established in violation of the zoning ordinance; allow new agritourism/agritainment
uses that are similar in character and impact to such uses that have been carried out at the project site; and allow overnight lodging.

If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and those described in the project description above. The
proposed improvements described in the project description above are not extensive and would be similar in character to existing
improvements. That said, intent of C-R zoning that the commercial recreational use blend harmoniously with the natural features
of the surrounding area. The natural features of the surrounding area are characterized by developed agricultural and residential
lands on a generally level alluvial plain that rises in elevation along the eastern and western edges of the plain. Development at the
project site blends with these features similarly as other commercial, agricultural, and residential development in the vicinity in so
much as development is generally visible on the open plain or in some case wholly or partially screened from view by natural or
planted vegetation.

Nonetheless, the scope and scale of development at the project site is more extensive and intense than many properties in the
vicinity which is attributable to it being used for multiple purposes, including a working farm, and managed as a single unit.
Additionally, certain agritourism/agritainment improvements such as go-carts, bumper cars, and amusement rides that are difficult
to make or give the appearance of an agricultural theme. Therefore, the recommended C-R development standards include that the
applicant prepare and implement a landscaping and/or agricultural plan that provides full or partial screening and/or a composition
of elements that greater harmonizes areas developed with permanent agritourism/agritainment buildings, structures, and
amusements with the natural features of the surrounding area for consistency with the intent of the C-R zone district.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES B Would the project: Potentially Significant Less-Than- No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated

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: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a-b) Approximately 3.6 acres of the project site that is situated along the Sacramento River at the southern extent of the project site is
zoned Interim Mineral Resource (IMR). The interim mineral resource (IMR) district is intended to be combined with any principal
district to protect mining operations which are short-term (i.e., less than thirty years of expected operation), and to allow for
compatible land uses while protecting the potential for mineral resource development. The application of this district to the project
stie is in recognition of alluvial sand gravel resources associated with Sacramento River. If the project is approved all existing
improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment
uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands continue, and the proposed
improvement described in the project description would be constructed. These activities and improvements would not result in the
loss of availability of mineral resources that may exist within the IMR zone district, a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the State, or 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.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 21
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
XIII. NOISE B Would the project result in: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase 

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

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or 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?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The current PD zone district includes noise limits established by the Shasta County General Plan. The General Plan Noise Standard
for non-transportation noise sources is 55 dB hourly Leq daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.), and 50 dB hourly Leq nighttime (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). The PD standards provide that if a noise complaint is received and it is verified that the noise limits may be
exceeded, the Director or Resource Management shall require the applicant submit a professional acoustic analysis which the
Director may require be prepared by a third party at the applicant’s expense. If the professional acoustic analysis determines that
noise limits are exceeded, the applicant would be required implement sound attenuation measures recommended by the analysis.
To date, the Department has not received noise complaints regarding the use of the subject property. If the project is approved all
existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply store,
agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands continue in
the same general manner and the C-R development standards would include the same or similar noise related development
standards as the current PD.

Temporary project related noise sources would include human speech and the use of vehicles and equipment during construction
of the proposed improvements described in the project description above. Temporary noise impacts are proposed to be minimized
with a development standard that would limit the hours during which on-site activities can take place which is routinely
recommended for discretionary projects that involve construction.

While many of the amusement rides were present and/or installed at the property before March 1, 2023, one or more were not
operational and when in operation would be a new potential new source of noise that could impact sensitive uses nearby, including
several single-family residences across Deschutes Road from the project site. Information on noise generated by the amusement
rides is not available. Given the relatively small scale of the amusement rides proposed for operation and the distance between the
project site and sensitive receptors, the proposed operation of the amusement rides is not expected to generate excessive noise. The
PD standards regarding noise would be incorporated in the proposed C-R development standards and would be applicable to all
amusement ride operations.

b) Amusement rides made operational after March 1, 2023, could be a source of potential ground borne vibration. Given the relative
small scale of the amusement rides proposed for operation and the distance between the project site and sensitive receptors, the
proposed operation of the amusement rides is not expected to generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise
levels. Nonetheless, the PD standards regarding noise that would be incorporated in the C-R development standards as described
above would include provisions addressing groundborne vibration and noise complaints.

c) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 22
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING B Would the project: Significant Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated

a) Induce substantial unplanned 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 people or 

housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply
store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands
continue at a level consistent with past activities. The project does not include the development of new homes or businesses, nor
does it include the extension of any permanent roads or other infrastructure that would induce growth. It would not create a
significant number of new jobs. Therefore, it is not expected to induce substantial growth in the area.

b) The project does not include destruction of any existing housing. The project would not displace substantial numbers of people or
existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or Significant Significant Significant Impact
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically Impact With Impact
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause Mitigation
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable Incorporated
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any
of the public services:
Fire Protection? 
Police Protection? 
Schools? 

Parks? 

Other public facilities? 

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

The project would not 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:

Fire Protection:

The project is located in AHIGH@ fire hazard severity zone. However, no significant additional level of fire protection is necessary. The
C-R development standards require installation of a fire suppression system, including fire hydrants.

Police Protection:

The County employs a total of 165 sworn and 69 non-sworn County peace officers (Sheriff’s deputies) to serve a population of 66,850
persons that reside in the unincorporated area of the County (United States Census Bureau April 1, 2020). This level of staffing equates
to a ratio of approximately one officer per 286 persons. The project was referred to the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office which returned
the referral with no comment. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the
retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility,
orchard, and crop lands continue at a level consistent with past activities. The project would not significantly increase the need of police
protection and the project would not warrant any additional Sheriff’s deputies.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 23
Schools:

The resultant development from the project will be required to pay the amount allowable per square foot of construction to mitigate
school impacts.

Parks:

The County does not have a neighborhood parks system.

Other public facilities:

None

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
Potentially Significant Less-Than- No
XVI. RECREATION: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated

a) Would the project increase the use of 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 physical effect on the environment?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The County does not have a neighborhood or regional parks system or other recreational facilities. The project would not increase
the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated but rather would continue to offer alternative recreational opportunities to the region at
a level consistent with past activities.

b) School facilities are typically used for sports and recreation. The City of Redding also has a number of recreational facilities. In
addition, there are tens of thousands of acres of rivers, lakes, forests, and other public land available for recreation in Lassen
National Park, the Shasta and Whiskeytown National Recreation Areas, the National Forests, and other public land administered
by Bureau of Land Management. The project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Construction of some of the improvements described in project description
would be associated with the use of the project site for commercial recreation. The scope of this improvements is minimal and as
discussed in this document will not result in significant adverse physical effects on the environment.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: Potentially Significant Less-Than- No
Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy 
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 
Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)?

c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design 

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?


Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 24
Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of the retail/wholesale farm supply
store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications facility, orchard, and crop lands
continue at a level consistent with past activities. Therefore, the Department of Public Works has indicated that the project would
not produce a significant increase in traffic and would not conflict with a program, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

b) The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Senate Bill (SB) 743 of
2013 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 et seq.) established a change in the metric to be applied in determining transportation
impacts associated with development projects. Rather than the delay-based criteria associated with a Level of Service (LOS)
analysis, the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a result of a project is now the basis for determining CEQA impacts with
respect to transportation and traffic. As of the date of this analysis, the County of Shasta has not yet adopted thresholds of
significance related to VMT. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations of
the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications
facility, orchard, and crop lands continue at a level consistent with past activities and generate VMT that is commensurate with
that level of activity. Therefore, the project would not result in additional light vehicle trips beyond existing conditions in the
project vicinity

c) The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

d) The project is located at the intersection of two County maintained arterial roads. The project has been reviewed by the Shasta
County Fire Department which has determined that there is adequate emergency access. The project does not in including any
proposed improvements that would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Significant Less-Than- No
project: Significant With Significant Impact
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated

a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in 

the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of

Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical
resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or

ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its

discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as there is no evidence of
historical resources at the site that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources; or a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1, the Wintu Tribe of Northern California & Toyon-Wintu
Center (Tribe) filed and Shasta County received a request for formal notification of proposed projects within an area of Shasta
County that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribe. Pursuant to PRC §21080.3.1 the Department of Resource
Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 25
 Management sent a certified letter to notify the Tribe that the project was under review and to provide the Tribe 30 days from the
receipt of the letter to request formal consultation on the project in writing. The Tribe received a certified letter of notification on
March 3, 2023, with the 30-day notification period ending April 3, 2023. To date, no response has been received.

Implementation of the condition of approval described in the Cultural Resources section of this document will ensure impacts to
tribal cultural resources will be less-than-significant.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Less-Than-
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the Potentially Significant With Less-Than- No
project: Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact

a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new 

or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocations of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 
project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) 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?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, 

or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?

e) Comply with Federal, State, and local management and 

reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion: Based on the related documents listed in the Sources of Documentation for Initial Study Checklist, staff review of the
project, observations on the project site and in the vicinity, the following findings can be made:

a) The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water or, wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas or telecommunications facilities, the construction, or
relocations of which could cause significant environmental effects. The project is served by existing individual wells and an on-
site septic system. The project includes new agricultural wells and septic system, electrical system, and fire protection water system
improvements as described in the project description. Impacts from the construction of the septic systems and wells have been
considered and discussed in the relevant impact analysis sections above and will not result in significant impacts.

b) The project will be served by individual wells. Well water is sourced from the Redding Groundwater Basin. The California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) does not identify the Redding Area Groundwater Basin as being over-drafted nor is it
expected to become over-drafted. If the project is approved all existing improvements would remain and the day-to-day operations
of the retail/wholesale farm supply store, agritourism/agritainment uses, single-family residences, wireless telecommunications
facility, orchard, and crop lands continue at a level consistent with past activities and well water usage would be commensurate
with that level of activity. The availability of well water at the property was not significantly impacted by recent drought. Therefore,
there are sufficient water supplies available to serve to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years.

c) On-site septic systems will be used. No other wastewater treatment system would be affected by the project.

d) The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The project would be served by Waste Management disposal
services and by the West Central Landfill which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.

e) The project would comply with Federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 26
 XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Significant Significant Significant Impact
project: Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate 
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated 

infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including 
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Discussion:

a) The project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project would
conform to Shasta County Fire Safety Standards and ensure that adequate emergency ingress, egress and fire suppression water
would be provided for the site. It would not conflict with any other aspect of the County’s adopted Hazard Mitigation Plan.

b) The project is in the “High” fire hazard severity zone with topography on the site being predominantly flat. The proposed project
would not alter the topography, modify or redirect prevailing winds or include significant new sources of potential ignition that
would significantly exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.

c) The project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?

d) The topography of the site is relatively flat. The project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 27
 Potentially Less-Than- Less-Than- No
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact With Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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 the self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, substantially 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? (ACumulatively considerable@
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection 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:

a) Based on the discussion and findings in Section IV. Biological Resources, there is no evidence to support a finding that the project
would have the potential to substantially 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 the self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal.

Based on the discussion and findings in Section V. Cultural Resources, there is no evidence to support a finding that the project
would have the potential to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

b) Based on the discussion and findings in all Sections above, there is no evidence to suggest that the project would have impacts that
are cumulatively considerable.

c) Based on the discussion and findings in Section XIII. Noise above, there is evidence to support a finding that the project would
have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Mitigation/Monitoring: None proposed.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 28
 INITIAL STUDY COMMENTS

PROJECT NUMBER Zone Amendment 21-0002 – (Hawes River Acres, Et al.)

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Special Studies: The following project-specific studies have been completed for the proposal and will be considered as part of the
record of decision for the Negative Declaration. These studies are available for review through the Shasta County Planning Division.

1. On-Site Sewage Disposal Analysis and Septic System Design, Mark Cramer, Registered Environmental Health Specialist
#5969, 08/10/22 and (revised) 10/12/2022.

Agency Referrals: Prior to an environmental recommendation, referrals for this project were sent to agencies thought to have
responsible agency or reviewing agency authority. The responses to those referrals (attached), where appropriate, have been incorporated
into this document and will be considered as part of the record of decision for the Negative Declaration. Copies of all referral comments
may be reviewed through the Shasta County Planning Division. To date, referral comments have been received from the following State
agencies or any other agencies which have identified CEQA concerns:

1. California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Conclusion/Summary: Based on a field review by the Planning Division and other agency staff, early consultation review comments
from other agencies, information provided by the applicant, and existing information available to the Planning Division, the project, as
revised and mitigated, is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental impacts.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 29
 SOURCES OF DOCUMENTATION FOR INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

All headings of this source document correspond to the headings of the initial study checklist. In addition to the resources listed below,
initial study analysis may also be based on field observations by the staff person responsible for completing the initial study. Most resource
materials are on file in the office of the Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Planning Division, 1855 Placer Street, Suite
103, Redding, CA 96001, Phone: (530) 225-5532.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING

1. Shasta County General Plan and land use designation maps.
2. Applicable community plans, airport plans and specific plans.
3. Shasta County Zoning Ordinance (Shasta County Code Title 17) and zone district maps.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

I. AESTHETICS
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.8 Scenic Highways, and Section 7.6 Design Review.
2. Zoning Standards per Shasta County Code, Title 17.

II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.1 Agricultural Lands.
2. Shasta County Important Farmland 2018 Map, California Department of Conservation.
3. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.2 Timber Lands.
4. Soil Survey of Shasta County Area, California, published by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest
Service, August 1974.

III. AIR QUALITY

1. Shasta County General Plan Section, 6.5 Air Quality.
2. Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin, 2018 Air Quality Attainment Plan.
3. Records of, or consultation with, the Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Air Quality Management District.

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.2 Timberlands, and Section 6.7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
2. Designated Endangered, Threatened, or Rare Plants and Candidates with Official Listing Dates, published by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
3. Natural Diversity Data Base Records of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. Federal Listing of Rare and Endangered Species.
5. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
6. State and Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Animals of California, published by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
7. Natural Diversity Data Base Records of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.10 Heritage Resources.
2. Records of, or consultation with, the following:
a. The Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, Department of Anthropology,
California State University, Chico.
b. State Office of Historic Preservation.
c. Local Native American representatives.
d. Shasta Historical Society.

VI. ENERGY
1. California Global Warming Solutions Acto of 2006 (AB 32)
2. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – California Energy Code
3. California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 – California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)

VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 5.1 Seismic and Geologic Hazards, Section 6.1 Agricultural Lands, and Section 6.3 Minerals.
2. County of Shasta, Erosion and Sediment Control Standards, Design Manual
3. Soil Survey of Shasta County Area, California, published by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest
Service, August 1974.
4. Alquist - Priolo, Earthquake Fault Zoning Maps.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Shasta Regional Climate Action Plan
2. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (White Paper) CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 30
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 5.4 Fire Safety and Sheriff Protection, and Section 5.6 Hazardous Materials.
2. City of Anderson and County of Shasta Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
3. Records of, or consultation with, the following:
a. Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Division.
b. Shasta County Fire Prevention Officer.
c. Shasta County Sheriff's Department, Office of Emergency Services.
d. Shasta County Department of Public Works.
e. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region.

X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 5.2 Flood Protection, Section 5.3 Dam Failure Inundation, and Section 6.6 Water Resources
and Water Quality.
2. Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Shasta County prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, as revised to date.
3. Records of, or consultation with, the Shasta County Department of Public Works acting as the Flood Control Agency and
Community Water Systems manager.

XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Shasta County General Plan land use designation maps and zone district maps.
2. Shasta County Assessor's Office land use data.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Shasta County General Plan Section 6.3 Minerals.

XIII. NOISE
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 5.5 Noise and Technical Appendix B.

XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 7.1 Community Organization and Development Patterns.
2. Census data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
3. Census data from the California Department of Finance.
4. Shasta County General Plan, Section 7.3 Housing Element.
5. Shasta County Department of Housing and Community Action Programs.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 7.5 Public Facilities.
2. Records of, or consultation with, the following:
a. Shasta County Fire Prevention Officer.
b. Shasta County Sheriff's Department.
c. Shasta County Office of Education.
d. Shasta County Department of Public Works.

XVI. RECREATION
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 6.9 Open Space and Recreation.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
1. Shasta County General Plan, Section 7.4 Circulation.
2. Records of, or consultation with, the following:
a. Shasta County Department of Public Works.
b. Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency.
c. Shasta County Congestion Management Plan/Transit Development Plan.
3. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Rates.

XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1

XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Records of, or consultation with, the following:
a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
b. Pacific Power and Light Company.
c. Pacific Bell Telephone Company.
d. Citizens Utilities Company.
e. T.C.I.
f. Marks Cablevision.
g. Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health Division.
h. Shasta County Department of Public Works.

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 31
 XX. WILDFIRE
1. Office of the State Fire Marshall-CALFIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps

XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

None

Initial Study – Zone Amendment 21-0002 – Hawes River Acres, Et al. Page 32
PROPOSED ZONE DISTRICTS
ZA21-0002
HAWES RIVER FARMS, ETAL
 NO. DATE REVISIONS
1 10/26/22 SHASTA COUNTY SDP COMMENTS
HAWES AGRITAINMENT
2 01/18/23 SHASTA COUNTY SDP COMMENTS, DATED 01/12/23
21923 DERSCH ROAD 9512 CROSSROADS DR. STE. A
APN 057-190-036 butler REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96003
3 07/19/23 OWNER UPDATES ENGINEERING GROUP WWW.BUTLERGROUP.US

JOB NUMBER
DATE ISSUED

SHEET NUMBER
ANDERSON, CALIFORNIA T. 530.222.5211

19.318.7
10/26/22

C1.0
CIVIL STRUCTURAL SURVEYING
OVERALL SITE PLAN
 26
24
23
65

22

25
20

21
1

65
27
2

19
18
3

46
4

30
28

29

50
17
5

62
A

34

49
63
7

51
35
G

64
36

37

54
16

52
B

10A

10B

SILO
39

RESTROOM
38

59
41

57
65

53
11A
C

11B

40

42

58
D

60

HEARSE
56
15

43

55
E

14
H

31
44
32
6
H

46
I

13
F-i
F-ii

12
45
J
NO. DATE REVISIONS
1 10/26/22 SHASTA COUNTY SDP COMMENTS
HAWES AGRITAINMENT
2 01/18/23 SHASTA COUNTY SDP COMMENTS, DATED 01/12/23
21923 DERSCH ROAD 9512 CROSSROADS DR. STE. A
APN 057-190-036 butler REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96003
3 07/19/23 OWNER UPDATES ENGINEERING GROUP WWW.BUTLERGROUP.US

JOB NUMBER
DATE ISSUED

SHEET NUMBER
ANDERSON, CA T. 530.222.5211

19.318.7
10/26/22

C2.0
CIVIL STRUCTURAL SURVEYING
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

14 March 2023

Lio Salazar
Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Planning Division
1855 Placer Street, Suite 103
Redding, CA 96001

COMMENTS ON ZONE AMENDMENT 21-0002 (HAWES RIVER ACRES, ET AL.),

APN NUMBERS 057-190-036, 057-190-037, 057-190-041, 057-190-040, 057-190-031,
ANDERSON, SHASTA COUNTY

The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley Water Board)
is a responsible agency for this project, as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). On 3 March 2023, we received your request for comments on Zone
Amendment 21-0002(Project).

The applicant proposes a zone amendment to the existing and/or proposed permanent
agritourism and agritainment uses, structures, installations, and improvements to be
allowed within an expanded activity area located on property currently subject to the
existing Planned Development zone district. Applicant also proposes new structures
including certain amusement rides, storage buildings, a restroom building, and onsite
wastewater treatments system. Minor road improvements would be included. The
Project site is located at 6465 Deschutes Road, 21923 Dersch Road, and 21945 Dersch
Road in Anderson.

Based on our review of the information submitted for the proposed project, we have the
following comments:

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401, Water Quality Certification

The Central Valley Water Board has regulatory authority over wetlands and waterways
under the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Water Code, Division 7
(CWC). Discharge of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States requires a
CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley Water Board.
Typical activities include any modifications to these waters, such as stream crossings,
stream bank modifications, filling of wetlands, etc. 401 Certifications are issued in
combination with CWA Section 404 Permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The proposed project must be evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters,
Zone Amendment 21-0002 -2- 14 March 2023

including wetlands and other waters of the State. Steps must be taken to first avoid and
minimize impacts to these waters, and then mitigate for unavoidable impacts. Both the
Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained prior
to site disturbance. Any person discharging dredge or fill materials to waters of the State
must file a report of waste discharge pursuant to Sections 13376 and 13260 of the
California Water Code. Both the requirements to submit a report of waste discharge and
apply for a Water Quality Certification may be met using the same application form,
found at Water Boards 401 Water Quality Certification and/or WDRs Application
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/#resources).

General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land
Disturbance Activities (CGP)
Construction activity, including demolition, resulting in a land disturbance of one acre or
more must obtain coverage under the CGP. The 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 Water Boards
Stormwater Construction Permits
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.
shtml).

Post-Construction Storm Water Requirements

Studies have found the amount of impervious surface in a community is strongly
correlated with the impacts on community’s water quality. New development and
redevelopment result in increased impervious surfaces in a community. Post-
construction programs and design standards are most efficient when they involve (i) low
impact design; (ii) source controls; and (iii) treatment controls. To comply with Phase II
Municipal Storm Water Permit requirements Shasta County must ensure that new
developments comply with specific design strategies and standards to provide source
and treatment controls to minimize the short and long-term impacts on receiving water
quality. The design standards include minimum sizing criteria for treatment controls and
established maintenance requirements. The proposed project must be conditioned to
comply with post-construction standards adopted by Shasta County in compliance with
their Phase II Municipal Storm Water Permit.

Application/Report of Waste Discharge

If it is determined that there will be a discharge of waste to land that cannot be permitted
under Shasta County’s Local Agency Management Program (LAMP), a Report of Waste
Discharge (ROWD), Form 200 and supporting information must be submitted at least
140 days prior to discharge. The Central Valley Water Board will consider the
information submitted and either issue or waive Waste Discharge Requirements.
Information can be found at Water Boards Central Valley Permit Information
(https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/help/permit).
Zone Amendment 21-0002 -3- 14 March 2023

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at
(530) 224-4784 or by email at [email protected].

Jerred Ferguson
Environmental Scientist
Storm Water & Water Quality Certification Unit

JTF: db

cc:
via email: Wendy Johnston, VESTRA Resources, Redding
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
SHASTA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 378-1948 AS IT PERTAINS TO APN
XXX-XXX-XXX, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA, A
PORTION OF THE ZONING PLAN (ZONE AMENDMENT 21-0002 – G & W HAWES
FAMILY TRUST, HAWES FAMILY ACRES, AND THE CAROL LEE ENGELHARDT
2019 REVOCABLE TRUST)

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. The following described real property is hereby rezoned from the Planned
Development (PD), Limited Agriculture (A-1), Limited Agricultural combined with Building Site
10-Acre Minimum Lot Area (A-1-BA-10), Limited Agricultural combined with Building Site 20-
Acre Minimum Lot Area (A-1-BA-20), and Limited Agricultural combined with Building Site 20-
Acre Minimum Lot Area, and Interim Mineral Resource (A-1-BA-20-IMR) zone districts to the
Commercial Recreation (C-R) zone district (no change is proposed to the limits of the BA-10, BA-
20, IMR, Restrictive Flood (F-2) and Designated Floodway (F-1) combining districts that affect
the subject real property) as shown on Exhibits A, C1.0, and C2.0 and incorporated herein.
East Anderson Area – Located generally at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Deschutes Road and Dersch Road at 6465 Deschutes Road and 21923 and 21945 Dersch
Road, Anderson CA 96007, all being within a portion of Section 7 of T.30N., R.3W and
more specifically described as Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 17-19 (28PM40) and Parcel
1 and the Remainder Parcel of Parcel Map 3-94 (31PM51) and further described as
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 057-190-036, 057-190-037, 057-190-041, and 057-190-
040 as those APNs are assigned for purposes of the 2023 Regular Assessment Roll.
SECTION 2. The Board of Supervisors adopts the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) determination of a Negative Declaration based upon the following findings:

A. An Initial Study has been conducted by the Shasta County Department of Resource
Management, Planning Division, to evaluate the potential for significant adverse
environmental effects and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
before the agency that the project as revised and mitigated may have a significant
adverse impact on the environment;

B. A *********** has been prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse

(SCH#********) pursuant to CEQA. The environmental documentation as considered
for this project reflects the independent judgment of the approving authority; and

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be operative only upon the timely completion of the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall pay the Shasta County Clerk’s document handling fee for posting a
Notice of Determination (NOD) for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15075 or for posting a Notice of Exemption (NOE) and shall also
pay the appropriate fees pursuant to Fish and Wildlife Code Section 711.4 (AB3158). All the fees
DRAFT
described in this section must be paid in full to the Shasta County Department of Resource
Management within thirty calendar days of the passage of this ordinance.
If the condition set forth herein is not timely completed, then this ordinance shall have no force or
effect.
SECTION 4. The purpose of this C-R zone district is to allow agriculture-related
recreational/amusement buildings, structures, installations, and activities for families and the
public at large that combine primary elements and characteristics of Shasta County and
surrounding agriculture and tourism opportunities as a both a place and destination, that provide
experiences for visitors that stimulate interest in agricultural properties, participation in
agricultural activities, and enjoyment of agricultural lands in Shasta County.
SECTION 5. The following regulations and development standards shall apply to the C-R
zone district:
A. Property. The real property described in Section 1 above is more specifically shown on
the Proposed Zone District Map attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A1 and
shall be referred to as the “Project Site” within this ordinance.

B. Intent: The regulations and development standards of the C-R zone district are intended to
promote:
1. The development of agriculture-related recreational/amusement buildings, structures,
installations, activities and uses for families and the public at large that combine
primary elements and characteristics of Shasta County and surrounding agriculture and
tourism opportunities as a both a place and destination, that provide experiences for
visitors that stimulate interest in agricultural properties, participation in agricultural
activities, and enjoyment of agricultural lands on a working farm, ranch, or other
agricultural operation or agricultural plant and fields.
3. The development, operation, and maintenance of said agriculture-related
recreational/amusement buildings, structures, installations, activities and uses for the
education and enjoyment of visitors, guests, and clients and generation of income for
the agricultural property owner or operator.
4. The continuation of agricultural and other existing uses within the C-R zone district.
C. Definitions:
1. Agritourism: For the purposes of this C-R ordinance agritourism shall mean
educational activities that are to take place at a working farm, ranch, or other
agricultural operation or agricultural plant and are offered to the public, whether by
invitation or not, including but not limited to, school tours, agricultural/environmental
education center, education and interpretive seminars, clinics, tours, youth camps, field
days, u-pick operations, roadside stands, wine/beer and/or food tasting, cooking
demonstrations, and similar uses that involve direct and active observation,
participation, consumption, etc. of agricultural uses and/or agricultural products that
DRAFT
are grown and/or produced at the premises, and uses that are similar as may be
determined by the Director of Resource Management prior to initiation of the use and
subject to the applicable requirements of the C-R zone district.
2. Agritainment: For the purposes of this C-R ordinance agritainment shall mean uses,
other than agritourism as defined herein, including activities, entertainment, events, and
good and services that are to take place at a working farm, ranch, or other agricultural
operation or agricultural plant and are offered to the public, whether by invitation or
not, and that do not require direct and active observation, participation, consumption,
etc. of agricultural uses and/or agricultural products that are grown and/or produced at
the premises but are enhanced by passive enjoyment of the agricultural setting while
engaged in an agritainment activity, including but not limited to, harvest festivals and
fairs, corn mazes, barn dances, weddings, anniversaries, concerts, dances, music
festivals, petting zoo, runs, walks, and races, hunting/working-dog trials, hay rides,
reenactments, theme park activities with agricultural theme, farms stays, farm
vacations, corporate retreats, guest house, bed and breakfast, camping, dry RV
hookups, brewery and/or winery/distillery, farm-themed children play areas, children’s
discovery farms, food and drink, picnicking tents, amusement rides, livestock shows,
rodeos, and other special events, haunted forests, haunted corn maze, haunted rides and
similar uses. Conduct of said uses may include the use of props, air pneumatics, fire
animatronics, electronics, and actors, and uses that are similar as may be determined
by the Director of Resource Management prior to initiation of the use and subject to
the applicable requirements of the C-R zone district.
3. Amusement Rides: For the purposes of this C-R ordinance, amusement rides shall mean
and include but not be limited to, trains, roller coasters, carousels, ziplines, mega slides,
tilt-o-whirl, ferris wheel, paratrooper, scrambler, bumper cars, go carts, circular kiddie
rides, drop attractions, mechanical bull, and rides and uses that are similar as may be
determined by the Director of Resource Management prior to initiation of the use and
subject to the applicable requirements of the C-R zone district.

4. Amusement Activities and Attractions: For the purposes of this C-R ordinance,
amusement activities shall mean and include but not be limited to children’s swings
(tire, regular, etc.), cow trains (pulled with a tractor and made out of 55-gallon barrels),
corn cob cannons, corn maze with haunted-house and/or a haunted corn maze and/or
haunted rides, duck/pig races, flower farm (persons can pick from a variety of flowers
grown onsite), fishing pond, petting zoo, hay pyramids, bale mazes, obstacle courses,
tunnels, forts, and hay jumps, hay bale mazes. hay bale obstacle course, tunnel, and
fort, hay jumps, hay rides, inflatable facilities, including bouncing rubber fun houses,
combo units, and bungee bounces., etc. with an agriculture theme, lawnmower
races/go-kart races, grain train (grain carts pulled by tractor), children’s play fort, tire
play area, ball zone play area, slides of all types, including slide mountain, livestock
slide trailer, dirt hill/slide, etc., stagecoach rides, pizza farm (i.e., area shaped like a
pizza with a slice represented as a crop or livestock used to make a pizza), pig races,
pumpkin patch for individual pumpkin picking, pumpkin blasters, slings, cannons, and
DRAFT
catapults, standard games such as horseshoes, volleyball, tether ball, football,
basketball, baseball, cornhole, etc., with an agricultural theme, tricycle maze for small
three-wheeled bikes, miniature golf, movies (both drive-in and sit down), rope course,
obstacle course, forts, paintball field/gallery, paintball rides, paintball, airsoft, gel
blaster, and similar activities, climbing wall, tractor pull, fire pits, barnyard billiards,
pony/horse rides, corn flyer, pumpkin swing, gold panning and gem stone collecting
and activities and attractions and uses that are similar as may be determined by the
Director of Resource Management prior to initiation of the use and subject to the
applicable requirements of the C-R zone district.
D. Uses permitted:
1. All permitted uses in the A-1 zoning district (Shasta County Code (SCC) 17.04.020).

2. Agritourism and agritainment uses, including amusement rides and amusement

activities and attractions, that involve the use of existing and proposed buildings,
structures, installations, and improvements described and/or shown Exhibits C1.0 and
C2.0 of the conceptual development plan adopted in conjunction with this ordinance.

3. Tent or dry recreational vehicle camping within the area shown on Exhibit C2.0 of the
conceptual development plan adopted in conjunction with this ordinance.

4. Agritourism uses and agritainment uses that do not involve the use of new buildings,
structures, installations, and improvements, whether temporary or permanent, or
overnight lodging, except as otherwise provided.

5. Food and beverage service, including alcoholic beverage service, and other retail
concessions accessory to agritourism and agritainment uses.

6. Agritourism and agritainment uses that involve the use of temporary buildings,
structures, installations, and improvements provided said temporary buildings,
structures, installations, and improvements are removedwithin 5 days of the event.

E. Uses permitted with a Zoning Permit:

1. Those uses allowed with a Zoning Permit in the A-1 zone district (SCC 17.04.025)
provided said uses do not require modification of the C-R conceptual development
plan.

F. Uses permitted with an Administrative Permit:

1. Those uses allowed with an Administrative Permit in the A-1 zoning district (SCC
17.04.030) provided said uses do not require modification of the C-R conceptual
development plan.
DRAFT
G. Uses permitted with a Use Permit:

1. Those uses allowed with a Use Permit in the A-1 zoning district (SCC 17.04.040).

2. Those uses allowed with a zoning permit and/or administrative permit in the A-1 zoning
district (SCC 17.04.040) that would require modification of the C-R conceptual
development plan.

3. Other permitted uses described in Section 5(H) that would require modification of the
C-R conceptual development plan.

3.. Agritourism and agritainment uses that involve the use of permanent buildings,
structures, installations, and improvements south of the line on Exhibit C1.0 of the
conceptual development plan adopted in conjunction with this ordinance that
demarcates the limit of southern expansion without approval of use permit and/or
modification of the conceptual development plan to include new permanent buildings,
structures and improvements for uses otherwise permissible in this C-R zone district.

H. Other Permitted Uses

1. The uses allowed by, and subject to the provisions of SCC 17.88.010 through SCC
17.88.150, excepting those that would modification of the C-R conceptual development
plan.

2. Other uses found to be similar in character and impact to those listed in sections C(1)
and E(1) above, as determined in accordance with SCC 17.94.030, modification of the
C-R conceptual development plan.

I. Development Standards

1. The general development standards described in the A-1 zone district (Shasta County Code
Sections 17.04.025) and the Shasta County Zoning Plan are applicable, except as otherwise
provided herein.

2. Hours of Operation, Attendance, and General Operations:

a. Agritourism and agritainment operational hours of shall be limited to the time from
7 a.m. through 12 a.m. and in no case shall guest activities extend beyond 10 p.m.,
Sunday through Thursday, or 12 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, excepting overnight
lodging and extended hours as may be allowed with prior written approval of the
Shasta County Department of Resource Management Director or their designee on
a limited and case by case basis during the holiday seasons and for special events.

b. Activities confined to indoor areas are permitted without restriction as to the day or
time.
DRAFT
e. Agricultural use and activity shall be preserved and maintained as the primary use
on the majority of the property and shall not be permanently or, for extended
periods of time, temporarily displaced.

f. Agricultural activities shall be temporarily postponed and/or delayed while

agritainment activities occur if such activities would conflict with each other and/or
create potential safety concerns. Such postponement or delay shall be the minimum
necessary to eliminate the conflict and/or safety concern.

g. If, in the course of development and/or operations, any archaeological, historical,

or paleontological resources are uncovered, discovered or otherwise detected or
observed, development activities in the affected area shall cease and a qualified
archaeologist shall be contacted to review the site and advise the County of the
site's significance. If the findings are deemed significant by the Environmental
Review Officer, appropriate mitigation shall be required.

3. Outdoor Storage

a. No outdoor storage of junk or wrecked vehicles or equipment is allowed, except for

items used in haunt attractions.

4. Overnight Lodging

a. No overnight lodging shall be offered, rented, leased, or let, or otherwise made

ready and put into use except in conformance with all applicable regulations and
without first obtaining all applicable approvals and permits, including but not
limited regulations and permit reequipments of those of the Shasta County
Department of Resource Management, Shasta County Tax Collector, and
California Department of Housing and Community Development.

b. Overnight lodging stays shall not exceed 72 hours in duration.

c. Quiet hours for overnight lodging shall be observed after 10 p.m. and before 8 a.m.
The use of portable and/or on-board generators shall be prohibited.

5. Buildings, Structures, Installations and Other Improvements

a. No building, structure, installation, or other improvement, whether temporary or

permanent, shall be constructed, erected, installed or otherwise made ready and put
into use except in conformance with all applicable regulations and without first
obtaining all applicable approvals and permit, including but not limited regulations
and permit requirements of those agencies with jurisdiction including but not
limited to the Shasta County Department of Resource Management, Shasta County
Fire Department, Cal/OSHA-Amusement Ride and Tramway Development Unit,
and California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
DRAFT
b. Sea van/ cargo containers, mobile utility trailers, and/or similar containers may be
used for storage. Any such items used for other purposes such as for haunted
attractions, food and beverage services, souvenir stands, and similar uses, whether
temporary or permanent, shall meet all applicable requirements of those agencies
with jurisdiction, including but not limited to the Shasta County Department of
Resource Management, Shasta County Fire Department, and California
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Such items may
remain in a fixed location from year-to-year provided the property and items are
being used for agritourism/agritainment uses.
c. The use of tents and other membrane structures, whether temporary or permanent,
for the uses described herein, provided their installation and use conforms to all
applicable requirements of those agencies with jurisdiction, including but not
limited to the Shasta County Department of Resource Management and Shasta
County Fire Department.
d. Proposed buildings and structures should either be painted or constructed of non-
glare materials or of neutral or earth-tone colors.
e. All agritourism/agritainment buildings and outdoor storage facilities shall
complement and/or promote an agricultural, historic farm, and/or fair theme.

f. Amusement rides shall not be greater than 75 feet in height and shall complement
and/or promote an agricultural, historic farm, and/or fair theme.
g. Amusement rides that are 45 feet or greater shall not be located within 100 feet of
a county road right-of-way.
6. Signage:

a. No sign, whether temporary or permanent, shall be constructed, erected, installed

or otherwise made ready and put into use except in conformance with all applicable
regulations and without first obtaining all applicable approvals and permits,
including but not limited regulations and permit requirements of those agencies
with jurisdiction including but not limited to the Shasta County Building Division.

b. Signs as allowed by and subject to the provisions of Sections 17.84.060 through

17.84.069.

c. In addition to signs allowed under 6(b) above, signs that are appurtenant to the
agritourism/agritainment uses are permissible provided said signs contain a sign
area of 32 square-feet or less or 64 square-feet or less, if double sided.

d. Prior to erecting any sign, a sign plan showing the size and location of said signs
shall be submitted to the Shasta County Department of Resource Management
Planning Division for review and approval.
DRAFT
7. Parking:

a. All parking to serve C-R uses shall be provided off-street.

b. The general parking area and accessible parking areas designated on Exhibit C2.0,
and all overflow parking areas shall be in accordance with the design standards of
section SCC 17.86.150 of the Shasta County Zone Plan when used to provide
parking for agritourism/agritainment uses.

c. Parking areas designated for use by patrons of the agritourism/agritainment uses,

whether within the general parking area and accessible parking area designated on
Exhibit C2.0 or overflow parking areas within the C-R zone district shall be
provided according to the ratio of one parking space for every four (4) persons on-
site. All parking shall be provided on site. In no case shall the number of vehicles
present at the property exceed available on-site parking.

d. Parking areas shall be maintained in a manner to control fugitive dust; methods to

include, but not be limited to, the use of water, dust palliatives, gravel, paving etc.
If complaints are received about dust, the Planning Director may specify the
required dust control measures.

e. Parking areas that are not provided on a gravel or bare mineral surface shall be
closely mown to 3 inches or less within 24 hours of being used to provide parking.

f. Tour buses, vans, and school buses shall not idle more than 10 minutes in one hour
(per California Green Building Standards Code) while at the facility, so as to
minimize noise and air quality impacts to the area, and shall be provided adequate
off-street parking and turnaround areas.

8. Noise:

a. If complaints about noise and/or ground borne vibration are received by the
Planning Division, staff is available with noise testing equipment to evaluate any
alleged noise violations. The Planning Director shall review each complaint and
determine whether it can be verified. If it can be verified that noise levels generated
by uses at the property are in excess of 55 hourly Leq dB daytime, and 50 hourly
Leq dB nighttime, the Director shall inform the owner/operator that a report must
be submitted to the Planning Division from an acoustical engineer or other qualified
professional including actual measurements of noise from project operations. The
Director may choose to have the Planning Division hire the acoustical engineer or
other qualified professional to perform the study at the applicant’s expense. In that
event, the owner/operator shall deposit monies with the Division to cover the cost
of the study and the Division’s associated administration costs.
DRAFT

If the results of that monitoring indicate that the County’s noise standards are
exceeded, additional noise control measures shall be implemented as needed. Such
measures could include include but not be limited to maintenance and/or updating
of the amusement ride, modified hours or schedules of operation, physical barriers
such localized noise barriers or blankets, and/or discontinuation of use.

9. Lighting:

a. No use, including vehicles, shall create intense light or glare that causes a nuisance
or hazard beyond the property line.

b. Free standing lighting fixtures, such as those located in parking lots, shall not
exceed 50 feet in height.

c. Stadium lights or other high-mast lighting that exceeds 50 feet, in height is be

prohibited, except as otherwise provided.

d. Temporary lighting for a concert or similar use, activity, or event shall be designed
be done to minimize light pollution and direct lighting away from roadways,
residences, and other sensitive receptors.

10. Air Quality

a. All equipment utilized for construction purposes must meet the current on-road/off-road
emission standards.
b. In the event that diesel engines are utilized during the construction phase to provide power,
all engines must be Tier 4 certified or registered with the Portable Equipment Registration
Program.
c. In the event that any engine greater than 50 horsepower is installed as a stationary source
of power, emergency or prime, an application for an authority to construct shall be
submitted to the AQMD prior to installation.

d. Any person building, erecting, altering, or replacing any article, machine, equipment, or
other contrivance which may cause the issuance of air contaminants, shall obtain written
authority for such construction from the air pollution control officer of the AQMD.

e. No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants
or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety
of any such person or the public, or which cause, or have the natural tendency to cause,
injury, or damage to business or property.

f. All activities associated with a building site for residential, commercial, or industrial use
shall be conducted in a manner to control fugitive dust emissions through the use of dust
palliative agents or the use of water to mitigate off-site impacts.
DRAFT
g. The project shall provide for the use of energy-efficient lighting (includes controls) and
process systems such as water heaters, furnaces, and boiler units.

h. Alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site shall be used by the
project applicant unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the AQMD. Among suitable
alternatives are chipping, mulching, or conversion to biomass fuel.

i. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are
implemented in a timely and effective manner during all phases of project development
and construction.

j. All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded should be sufficiently watered to prevent

fugitive dust from leaving property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation
of an ambient air standard. Watering should occur at least twice daily with complete site
coverage, preferably in the mid-morning and after work is completed each day.

k. All areas with vehicle traffic should be watered periodically or have dust palliatives applied
for stabilization of dust emissions.

l. All on-site vehicles should be limited to a speed of 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads.

m. All land clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation activities on a project shall be
suspended when winds are expected to exceed 20 miles per hour.

n. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose material should be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the
load and the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of CVC Section 23114. This
provision shall be enforced by local law enforcement agencies.

o. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to
prevent a public nuisance.

p. Paved streets adjacent to the project site should be swept or washed if excessive
accumulations of silt and/or mud which have accumulated because of activities on the
project site.

10. Traffic:

a. An encroachment permit from the Shasta County Department of Public Works must
be obtained for any new driveway and, if applicable, existing driveways that are
subject to an existing encroachment permit.

b. A parking and/traffic plan which includes parking layout, patterns of traffic flow,
signage, and provisions for an attendant(s) to implement the plan shall be submitted
to the Department of Resource Management Planning Division for review and
approval.
DRAFT
c. Access driveways to facilities with public access or special events shall, at a
minimum, meet the applicable fire safety standards specified in Section 6.1.2
Private Road, Public Road, and Non-Residential Driveway Standards, of the Shasta
County Development Standards, and shall 1) connect to a County-maintained
public road; or 2) connect to a private road or Permanent Road Division (PRD) that
meets all applicable standards of Chapter 6 Fire Safety Standards or Chapter 2 Road
Policies and Standards of the Shasta County Development Standards, whichever is
the higher standard, as determined by the servicing the Shasta County Fire
Department and the Shasta County Department of Public Works.

11. Fire Safety:

a. A centralized water system providing fire hydrant(s) as specified by the Fire Safety
Standards and California Fire Code is required for this C-R. Improvement plans
shall be submitted to the CAL FIRE / SCFD for review and approval upon adoption
of the C-R and shall be approved by CAL FIRE / SCFD prior to construction of the
fire hydrant system.

b. Required Private fire service mains and hydrants and their appurtenances shall
comply with the currently adopted (at time of construction permit application)
NFPA-24, California Fire Code and Shasta County Fire Safety Standards.

c. Access to any future proposed building construction or change of use or occupancy

of any existing building to paved two lane emergency vehicle access roads and fire
apparatus turn arounds and fire water supplies shall extend on- site in compliance
with the currently adopted (at time of construction permit application) California
Fire Code and California Code of Regulations Title 14 and Shasta County Fire
Safety Standards section 6.12.

b. Existing agritourism/agritainment non-residential roadways, driveways, and

turnarounds shall be in accordance with Section 6.12 of the Fire Safety Standards
prior to initiating the new uses.

b. The applicant shall dispose of any vegetation cleared for construction and/or land
development purposes prior to the final inspection by the Shasta County Building
Division. Disposal shall be in accordance with Air Quality Management
Regulations and state or local Fire Department Burning Permit Regulations.

c. Building and or Fire permit/s shall be required prior to construction or change of

use or occupancy of any onsite buildings regulated by California Code of
Regulations Title 24.
DRAFT
d. Future onsite construction projects shall comply with the building or site operation
use, classification, size, height, access, means of egress, interior or exterior
processing operations, onsite material storage, site identification and addressing,
electrical equipment and wiring and fire protection systems regulated by the
California Fire Code and California Code of Regulations Title 24.

c. Storage, use, and dispensing of hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the
adopted edition of the Uniform Fire Code. Plans shall be submitted to California
Department of Forestry/Shasta County Fire Department for review and approval
prior to construction, storage, or use.

d. Portable fire extinguisher(s) shall be provided in accordance with the adopted

edition of the California Fire Code.

e. All mobile and stationary equipment with non-turbo charged internal combustion
engines shall be equipped with a properly functioning, approved spark arrestor.

e. All vehicles used for construction or operations shall be equipped with a portable
fire extinguisher.

f. Advisory note: The project is located in an area designated as a “HIGH” Fire

Hazard Severity Zone under Section 4203 of the Public Resources Code of the State
of California.

12. Sewage disposal:

a. The appropriate sewage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by all

applicable health and building codes, as interpreted and applied by the Shasta
County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health and Building
Divisions.

13. Potable water:

a. The appropriate potable water facilities shall be provided as required by all

applicable health and building codes, as interpreted and applied by the Shasta
County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health and Building
Divisions.

14. Food facilities:

a. Food and beverage concessions are allowed onsite.

DRAFT
b. The appropriate food facilities approvals and permits shall be obtained as required
by all applicable health and building codes, as interpreted, and applied by the Shasta
County Department of Resource Management, Environmental Health and Building
Divisions.

c. All food service associated with the facility shall comply with the California Retail
Food Code and all applicable regulations of the Shasta County Code including, but
not limited to, Health and Safety (Title 8), Building and Construction (Title 16),
and Zoning (Title 17)

d. Food service associated with a facility may include any onsite kitchen, cooking, or
food-preparation facilities, permanent or temporary.

e. Eating areas, indoor and outdoor, may be allowed in conjunction with a permitted
facility provided all such eating area(s) is (are) located in accordance with the
provisions of the C-R zone district.

SECTION 6. Exhibit C1.0 and C2.0, as they pertain to the real property described in
Section 1 above, are hereby designated Special Zoning Maps pursuant to SCC 17.02.030(B).

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days
after its passage. The Clerk of the Board shall cause this Ordinance to be published as required by
law.

DULY PASSED this _______ day of _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSE:

__________________________________
PATRICK JONES, CHAIR
Board of Supervisors
County of Shasta
State of California
ATTEST:
DAVID J. RICKERT
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

By:_________________________
Ordinance No. 378-
Page 1
STRIKEOUT VERSION OF ORDINANCE NO. SCC 2023-_____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA

AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 378-1948 OF THE COUNTY OF SHASTA,
A PORTION OF THE ZONING PLAN (ZA21-0002 - G & W HAWES FAMILY TRUST)

The Board of Supervisors of the County of Shasta ordains as follows:

SECTION l. The following described real property is hereby rezoned from the existing
Planned Development (PD) district and the Limited Agricultural district combined with a
minimum lot area of 10 acres district (A-1-BA-10), to the revised Planned Development (PD)
district. The lands proposed for development are is Assessor's Parcels Numbers 057-190-036 and
(APN) 057-190-031 (Section 7, T.30N.,R.3W.).

East Anderson area - generally located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Deschutes Road and Dersch Road at 6465 Deschutes Road and 21923 and 21945 Dersch Road,
Anderson CA 96007, all being within a portion of Section 7 of T.30N., R.3W and more
specifically described as APN 057-190-031 as that APN is assigned for purposes of the 2023
Regular Assessment Roll. Zone District Map T.30N.,R.3W.

SECTION 2. The Board of Supervisors adopts the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) determination of a ************* based upon the following findings:

A. An Initial Study has been conducted by the Shasta County Department of Resource
Management, Planning Division, to evaluate the potential for significant adverse environmental
effects and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the agency that the
project as revised and mitigated may have a significant adverse impact on the environment;

B. A *********** has been prepared and circulated to the State Clearinghouse

(SCH#********) pursuant to CEQA. The environmental documentation as considered for this
project reflects the independent judgment of the approving authority; and

C. Mitigation monitoring provisions have been considered by the approving authority

pursuant to County Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Procedures. Feasible mitigation measures
have been specifically identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program represents
the program designed to ensure environmental compliance during project implementation. This
program, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, is based on those documents and
materials referred to in the ******************, and incorporated therein by reference, which are
maintained at the County Planning Division's office located at 1855 Placer Street, Suite 103,
Redding, California.

SECTION 23. The following regulations and development standards shall apply to the
revised Planned Development (PD) District:

A. Intent: The regulations and development standards of the PD district are intended to
promote:
Ordinance No. 378-
Page 2

1. The development and operation of uses consistent with the Mixed Use (MU)
general plan land use designation to facilitate the development of
retail/wholesale sales of agricultural products; and

2. To promote and support Aagriculture-related recreational/amusement

recreational/amusement buildings, structures, installations, and activities for
families and the public at large, that combine primary elements and
characteristics of Shasta County and surrounding agriculture and tourism
opportunities as a both a place and destination, that provide experiences for
visitors that stimulate interest in agricultural properties, participation in
agricultural activities, and enjoyment of agricultural lands in Shasta County
which promote “custom farming” and showcase agriculture as a primary use on
lands with a Part-Time Agriculture (A-cg) general plan land use designation.

B. Uses permitted:

1. All permitted uses in the MU zone district (Shasta County Code (SCC) 17.54.025).
Retail/Wholesale Farm Supply Store, consistent with the MU general plan land use
designation, including the following:

a. A barn for storage of feed and planting seeds.

b. A barn for storage of hay and straw.
c. A workshop for farm equipment.
d. Outdoor storage of farm equipment and supplies, including trucks.
e. Outdoor storage of horse shelters.
f. Outdoor storage of fencing.
g. A truck scale.
h. A diesel fuel tank and dispenser.

2. Parking for the use by patrons of the recreational/amusement-type activities on

the conducted within the adjoining Commercial Recreation (C-R) zone district
Children’s swings (tire, regular, etc.).
3. Cow trains (pulled with a tractor and made out of 55-gallon barrels).
4. Corn cob cannons.
5. Corn maze, with haunted-house activities in the evening.
6. Duck races.
7. Flower farm (persons can pick from a variety of flowers grown on-site).
8. Fishing pond.
9. Hay pyramids.
10. Hay bale mazes.
11. Hay bale obstacle course, tunnel, and fort.
12. Hay jumps.
13. Hay rides.
14. Inflatable facilities including bouncing rubber fun houses, combo units, etc. with
an agricultural theme.
15. Lawnmower races.
16. Pizza farm (i.e., area shaped like a pizza with each slice represented as a crop or
Ordinance No. 378-
Page 3
livestock used to make a pizza. For example, wheat for the crust, pigs for the
sausage, olive tree, tomatoes for the sauce.
17. Pig races.
18. Pumpkin patch for individual pumpkin picking.
19. Pumpkin blasters, slings, cannons, and catapults.
20. Standard games such as horseshoes, volleyball, tether ball, etc, with an
agricultural theme.
21. Small-scale children PVC slides, (not adult, commercially-oriented water slides)
with an agricultural theme.
22. Tricycle maze for small three-wheeled bikes.
23. Small-scale, temporary concession stands (i.e., food, souvenirs, etc.) provided
they are: (1) associated with a special event (Halloween festival, Easter celebration,
etc.), and (2) limited duration to not more that 48 hours within a seven-day time
period.
24. Small-scale general store (temporary building), limited to products produced
and/or assembled on-site or made from/of agriculture products (not open to the
general public on a year-round basis for general retail sales).
25. Other uses as permitted in the A-1 or MU zoning districts (Shasta County Code
Sections 17.04.025 and 17.54.025), where consistent with corresponding the
General Plan land use designation.

C. Uses permitted with a Zoning Permit:

1. Those uses allowed with a Zoning Permit in the A-1 or MU zoneing districts
(Shasta County Code Sections 17.04.025 and 17.54.025), where said uses are
consistent with the corresponding general plan land use designation.

D. Uses permitted with an Administrative Permit:

1. Those use allowed with an Administrative Permit in the A-1 or MU zoneing

districts (Shasta County Code Sections 17.04.025 and 17.54.025), where said
uses are consistent with the corresponding general plan land use designation.

E. Uses permitted with a Use Permit:

1. Those use allowed with a Use Permit in the A-1 or MU zoneing districts (Shasta
County Code Sections 17.04.025 and 17.54.025), where said uses are consistent
with the corresponding general plan land use designation.

F. Other permitted uses:

1. The uses allowed by, and subject to the provisions of, Sections 17.88.010
through 17.88.110 and, if accessory to a residence, Sections 17.88.130 through
17.88.150 where consistent with the corresponding MU general plan land use
designation.;

2. The uses allowed by, and subject to the provisions of Sections 17.88.010 through
17.88.150 where consistent with the corresponding A-cg general plan land use
designation.;
 Ordinance No. 378-
Page 4

2. 3. Other uses found to be similar in character and impact to those listed in PD Section
2; Subsections B. through F., Shasta County Code Sections 17.04.010 and
17.04.040 where consistent with the corresponding A-cg general plan land use
designation, and Shasta County Code Sections 17.054.020 and 17.54.040 where
consistent with the corresponding MU general plan land use designation, as
determined in accordance with Section 17.94.030.;

3. 4. Signs as allowed by and subject to the provisions of Sections 17.84.060 through

17.84.069, where consistent with the corresponding MU general plan land use
designation except that animated and/or changeable signs shall not be a prohibited
sign types.

G. Development standards:

1. All parcels shall meet the development standards as described in the A-1 or MU
zoneing districts (Shasta County Code Sections 17.04.025 and 17.54.025) and
the Shasta County Zoning Plan, where consistent with the corresponding
general plan land use designation.

H. Hours of operation:

1. The hours of operation for recreational/amusement-type activities shall be

limited to the time from 8 a.m. and sunset. Extended hours are permitted during
the holiday seasons and for special events such as the haunted house. In no case
shall the hours of operation extend beyond 10 p.m., Sunday through Thursday,
or midnight on Friday and Saturday.

I. Outdoor storage:

1. No outdoor storage of junk or wrecked vehicles or equipment is allowed within

the PD district. Outdoor storage areas associated with the
recreational/amusement type activities shall be screened by a view obscuring
fence.

J. Building design:

1. All buildings and outdoor storage facilities shall complement and/or

promote an agricultural theme.

K. Signage:

1. Prior to erecting any sign, a sign plan shall be submitted to the Shasta County
Department of Resource Management Planning Division for review and
approval.
 Ordinance No. 378-
Page 5
L. Parking:

1. Parking areas designated on the approved Exhibit “A” and for use by patrons of
the recreational/amusement type activities shall be in accordance with Section
17.56.150A of the Shasta County Zone Plan.

2. Parking areas designated or the use by patrons of the recreational/amusement-

type activities on the approved Exhibit “A” shall be provided according to the
ratio of one parking space for every four (4) persons on-site. In no case shall
the number of patrons of the activities exceed available parking.

3. Parking areas shall be maintained in a manner to control fugitive dust; methods

to include, but not be limited to, the use of water, dust palliatives, gravel,
paving etc. If complaints are received about dust, the Planning Director may
specify the required dust control measures.

M. Noise:

*1. In the event that complaints about noise are received by the Planning Division,
staff is available with noise testing equipment to evaluate any alleged noise
violations. The Planning Director shall review each complaint and determine
whether it can be verified. If so, the Director shall inform the owner/operator
that a report must be submitted to the Planning Division from an acoustical
engineer or other qualified professional including actual measurements of noise
from project operations. The Director may choose to have the Planning Division
hire the acoustical engineer or other qualified professional to perform the study.
In that event, the owner/operator shall deposit monies with the Division to cover
the cost of the study and the Division's associated administration costs.

If the results of that monitoring indicate that the County’s noise standards are
exceeded, additional noise control measures shall be implemented as needed.
Such measures could include modifications of project hours of operations, the
use of localized noise barriers, portable sound attenuating blankets suspended
in close proximity to the noise sources or other barrier configurations as may
be appropriate.

N. Lighting:

1. Stadium-style lighting is prohibited Free standing lighting fixtures, such as those

located in parking lots, shall not exceed 50 feet in height.

2. All on-site lighting shall be shielded from surrounding property. No use,

including vehicles, shall create intense light or glare that causes a nuisance or
hazard beyond the property line.
Ordinance No. 378-
Page 6

O. Traffic:

1. An encroachment permit from the Shasta County Department of Public Works

must be obtained for any new driveway.

*2. At least two weeks prior to advertised special events, with specific start and/or
end times and which are associated with the recreational/amusement type
activities, a parking plan which includes parking layout, patterns of traffic flow,
and makes provisions for an attendant(s) to implement the plan shall be
submitted to the Department of Resource Management Planning Division for
review and approval.

P. Safety:

1. Non-residential roadways, driveways, and turnarounds shall be in

accordance with Section 6.12 of the Fire Safety Standards prior to initiating
the new uses.

2. The applicant shall dispose of any vegetation cleared for construction and/or
land development purposes prior to the final inspection by the Shasta County
Building Division. Disposal shall be in accordance with Air Quality
Management Regulations and state or local Fire Department Burning Permit
Regulations.

3. Storage, use, and dispensing of hazardous materials shall be in accordance with

the adopted edition of the Uniform Fire Code. Plans shall be submitted to
California Department of Forestry/Shasta County Fire Department for review
and approval prior to construction, storage, or use.

4. Portable fire extinguisher(s) shall be provided in accordance with the adopted

edition of the California Fire Code.

5. All mobile and stationary equipment with non-turbo charged internal

combustion engines shall be equipped with a properly functioning, approved
spark arrester.

6. Each vehicle shall be equipped with a portable fire extinguisher.

7. Advisory note: The project is located in an area designated as a "HIGH" Fire

Hazard Severity Zone under Section 4203 of the Public Resources Code of
the State of California.

Q. Sewage disposal:

1. The appropriate sewage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by all

applicable health and building codes, as interpreted and applied by the Shasta
Ordinance No. 378-
Page 7
County Department of Resource Management Environmental Health and Building
Divisions.

R. Potable water:

1. The appropriate potable water facilities shall be provided as required by all

applicable health and building codes, as interpreted and applied by the Shasta
County Department of Resource Management Environmental Health and
Building Divisions.

S. Food facilities:

1. The appropriate food facilities approvals and permits shall be obtained as

required by all applicable health and building codes, as interpreted and applied
by the Shasta County Department of Resource Management Environmental
Health and Building Divisions.

*Denotes mitigation measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

SECTION 4. Exhibit C1.0 and C2.0, as they pertain to the real property described in Section
1 above, are hereby designated Special Zoning Maps pursuant to SCC 17.02.030(B).

SECTION 35. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30)
days after its passage. The Clerk of the Board shall cause this Ordinance to be published as
required by law.

DULY PASSED this day of , by the

following vote:

AYES:
NOYES:
ABSENT:
RECUSE:
__________________________________
PATRICK JONES, CHAIR
Board of Supervisors
County of Shasta
State of California

ATTEST:
DAVID J. RICKERT
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

By:_________________________