Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
025-030-066
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE #: UP 03-15 PROJECT TYPE: Use Permit APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis ADDRESS: 7 Bob Way, Oroville, CA 95966 PHONE #: (530) 534-6856 OWNER: Dawn Arsanis ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. PROPERTY ZONED: AR -1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) LOCATED: on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville AP#: 025-030-066 TOWN/AREA: Oroville GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AR (Agricultural -Residential) 1. Application accepted: April 22, 2003 Amount: $ 1,114.00 Receipt #: 21096 2. Comments sent to: Environmental Health, California Department of Forestry, Development Services Director, Assessor, Public Works Director, Agricultural Commission, County Counsel, Animal Control, CalTrans (Traffic) 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 6. Assigned To: Steve Betts 7. Environmental Determination: 8. Staff Report: State Clearinghouse No: tL Subject. to Fish & Game: Categorical Exemption-CEQA# Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report Gen. Rule Ex. -CEQA # 15061.(bx3) Other Project Video: �k S 9. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 10. Publication Notice Written: 61` J --e5 � Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: -//—. 6 -'o /_/ Number of Notices: A0 12. Newspaper Publication Date: �— �� ° 5� l UJ C P G B 13 Planning Commission Heari g(s):_ Action taken: in Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): Action taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Adopted: 15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature: 16. N.O.E. / N.O.D. / APPENDIX G: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: 19. Copy of Use Permit / Variance to Planning Technician: l2 - v 1 Dawn Arsanis, Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs on property zoned AR -1 (Agricultural — Residential —1 acre parcels). The property is located on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville. APN 025-030-066 (SB) (UP 03-15) Mr. Betts gave a brief summary of the project. He explained how our deposit applications work and the reason staff is recommending denial. Chairman Leland questioned whether this hearing could be continued to give the applicant time to renew the deposit amount. Mr. Wannenmacher read from the County Code as follows: "In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied." The hearing was opened to the public. Wendy Castillo, Animal Control, said this violation has been going on for over a year. She informed the Commission that she has had the applicant in court over this matter. She said one of the problems is installing a septic system which to her knowledge has not been done. She said the last time she was out there, Ms. Arsanis had 13 dogs. Clay Hemstalk submitted pictures of the dogs roaming free in the neighborhood and three letters against this permit. He said some of the dogs have Parvo and Ms. Arsanis does not seem concerned. He asked that this permit be denied. Harold McCarthy said Ms. Arsanis is irresponsible and a constant problem. He also asked that this permit be denied. Ms. Castillo said she was not aware of these complaints. The hearing was closed. Mr. Betts explained that if the kennel permit is denied, Ms. Arsanis will be required to reduce the number of dogs on her property to five or fewer. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and unanimously carried to deny without prejudice the Use Permit (UP 03-15) for Dawn Arsanis subject to the following findings: I. Find that the denial of this project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act). These sections state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Ii. Deny without prejudice Use Permit 03-15 for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030-066 based ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 22, 2004 ■ PAGE 21 ■ upon the following finding: a. The applicant has not provided additional funds as required by Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) to replenish the initial processing fee deposit ,submitted with the application. r 5 ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 22, 2004 ■ PAGE 22 ■ Karen Starkey, Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 41.16 acre parcel into two 20 plus acre parcels on property zoned TM -20 (Timber Mountain — 20 acre parcels). The property is located approximately 1,500 feet west of Cohasset Road, at 156 Laughing Fox Lane, about 14 miles northeast of Chico. APN 056-120-044 (NIM) (TPM 03-21) Mr. Michelena gave a brief summary of the project. He said this parcel falls within Fish and Game's designated Critical Deer Herd Range. Staff is recommending denial. He said he could not come up with a mitigation measure on this issue. He said Fish and Game will not give their approval or write a mitigation measure for this project. Chairman Leland said the alternative is for the applicant to do an Environmental Impact Report ,(EIR) or for the Commission to deny this project. The hearing was opened to the public. Ken Henderson, representative for Karen Starkey, said when the property was first purchased the applicant spent thousands of dollars to split this property with no previous mention of it being in a Critical Deer Herd area. He noted that the applicant could build a second dwelling without splitting the property. Mr. Michelena agreed that a second unit could be put on the property as it is. Chairman Leland said the Commission is only looking at the lot split request today. He said there are a lot of restrictions on property. He explained the appeal process. He noted that if you let one parcel in the area split it would set a precedence for more parcels to come in for division. Commissioner Lambert went over how the Deer Herd Study was done. r The hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commission Nelson, and unanimously carried to deny the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 03-21) for Karen Starkey due to non-compliance with Butte County Code General Plan Critical Winter Deer Herd Area 40 -acre minimum parcel size. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ APRIL 22, 2004 ■ PAGE 20 ■ Page 1 Amount Total DNB Amt 44.25 Billable 24.58 Billable 4.92 Billable 68.00 Billable 108.17 Billable 52.12 Billable 31.47 Billable 44.25 - Billable 32.45 Billable 12/8/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 10:24 AM Pre-bill Worksheet Nickname Arsanis..UP 03-15 1 UP 03-15 Full Name John & Dawn Arsanis Address 7 Bob Way Oroville CA 95966 Business Fax Home 534-6856 Other Project Type UP Deposit Status Deposit Project Planner Steve Betts Salutation Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time 4/22/2003 Carl 59.00 0.75 Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 4/22/2003 Steve 59.00 0.42 Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 4/23/2003 Steve 59.00 0.08 Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 4/23/2003 Roni 34.00 2.00 Clerical Activities Clerical application processing (not categorized elsewhere). 4/24/2003 Larry 59.00 1.83 Mapping Mapping 5/2/2003 Steve 59.00 0.88 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/6/2003 Steve 59.00 0.53 Site Review Field review of project site/vicinity including travel time. 5/6/2003 Steve 59.00 0.75 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/14/2003 Steve 59.00 0.55 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. Page 1 Amount Total DNB Amt 44.25 Billable 24.58 Billable 4.92 Billable 68.00 Billable 108.17 Billable 52.12 Billable 31.47 Billable 44.25 - Billable 32.45 Billable Amount DNB Amt 27.53 11.80 15.73 16.72 25.57 9.83 14.70 54.80 21.63 20.29 11.25 Page 2 Total Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable 12/8/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 10:24 AM Pre -bill Worksheet Arsanis.UP 03-15:John & Dawn Arsanis (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time 5/21/2003 Steve 59.00 0.47 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/22/2003 Steve 59.00 0.20 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/22/2003 Steve 59.00 0.27 Correspondence - Planner Complete / comments letters 6/6/2003 Steve 59.00 0.28 Correspondence - Planner Letter to Dawn Arsanis 8/6/2003 Steve 59.00 0.43 CEQA Changes to Initial Study 8/6/2003 Steve 59.00 0.17 Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 8/15/2003 Steve 59.00 0.25 Report &/or Project Analysis Work on agenda report 8/18/2003 Steve 59.00 0.93 Report &/or Project Analysis Work on agenda report 8/19/2003 Steve 59.00 0.37 Report &/or Project Analysis Printed and reviewed staff report. Sent it to JB. 8/26/2003 Joe 59.00 0.34 Management Review Management Review 8/29/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . Amount DNB Amt 27.53 11.80 15.73 16.72 25.57 9.83 14.70 54.80 21.63 20.29 11.25 Page 2 Total Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Total of billable expense slips $0.00 - Amount Total Total of Fees (Time Charges) $673.81 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $673.81 Accounts Receivables Date Type Description 4/22/2003 CRED Credit -Initial Deposit ($700.00). 4/22/2003 INV Invoice $36.00 4/22/2003 PAY Payment -Thank you ($36.00) Total Accounts Receivable ($700.00) Total New Balance ($26..19) Amount to replenish account to $700.00 $700.00 12/8/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 10:24 AM Pre -bill Worksheet Page 3 Arsanis.UP 03-15:John & Dawn Arsanis (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 10/13/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 11.25 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 10/22/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 11.25 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 11/24/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 11.25 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . TOTAL Billable Fees 12.50 $673.81 Total of billable expense slips $0.00 - Amount Total Total of Fees (Time Charges) $673.81 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $673.81 Accounts Receivables Date Type Description 4/22/2003 CRED Credit -Initial Deposit ($700.00). 4/22/2003 INV Invoice $36.00 4/22/2003 PAY Payment -Thank you ($36.00) Total Accounts Receivable ($700.00) Total New Balance ($26..19) Amount to replenish account to $700.00 $700.00 RECEIVED FROM 0 V% COUNTY OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIPT OROVILLE, CA PLANNING BAG #3`12 utaZ ; DATE 63036 4!2212003 FUND FUND DESCRIPTION TITLE CODE DEPT CODE ACCT CASH CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE: 422 RECEIPTS: .21095-2108 PLANNING APPL FEES GENL 00110 440001 4210900 10`1001 1,093.8B Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-15 $700 #011-030-036 Ubiqui el Lsng Co UP 02-14 $293.88 LAND DEVELOPMENT GENL 0010 440004 4611700 101001 1601.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-15 $130 ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH . GENL 0010 540003 4614901 101001 185.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 0 Aasanis UP 03-15 $185 FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 0100 4617240 101001 43.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-11 $43 ,NODINOE CLERI'C'S FILING FE GENL; 0010 470001 46123`19 101001 36.00 ($36) Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 173-15 $36 TOTAL $ 1,507.09 APPROVED BY:. RECEIVED BY: AUDITOR -CONTROLLER TREASURER By: X, OA By: white=treasurer pink --auditor canary --depositor golden rod --file 0 c% COUNTY OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIPT OROVILLE, CA RECEIVED FROM PLANNING BAG #312 DESCRIPTION FUND FUND DEPT TITLE CODE CODE ATR NO DATE ACCT CASH CODE CODE DEPOSIT DATE: 422 RECEIPTS: 21095 -211 - `PLANNING APPL FEES GENL 0010 v- - 440001 4210900 101001 - Project Nunn Ser _ Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-15 $700 #011-030-086 Ubiqui el Lyng Co UP 02-14 $293.88 LAND DEVELOPMENT GENL 0010 4401104 4611700 101001 Project Numaer Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanb UP 03-15 $150 ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH GENL (1010 540003 4614901 101001 Project Num:)er Amount of Fee #025-030-066 d Aasanis TP -03=151-$185 FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 0100 4617240 101001 Project Number Amount of Fee #025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-15 X13 NODINOE CLERKS FILING FE GENL 0010 470001 4612319 101001 ($36) Project Number Amount of Fee €4025-030-066 D Aasanis UP 03-15 $36 63036 412212003 AMOUNT 1,093.88 1 x.00 185.00 43.00 36.00 TOTALS 1,507.00 APPROVED BY:. RECEIVED BY: AUDITOR -CONTROLLER TREASURER OA By: vvhite--treasurer pink --auditor canary --depositor golden rod --file i 9—W wlnnnn� MW DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on page 2 APPLICANT'S NAME: (If app ication is different from owner an affidavit is required.) ASSESSOR'S P L NUMBER: �C�wc1 ( 5 oar - - 4966 ADDRESS: STREET, CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE) BJP NAME= OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any) TELEPHONE: X30 53y- 156 LOCATION OF PROJECT (Major cross streets and Address, if any) 1 Go GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED OWNER'S NAME: TELEPHONE: DA w A-f-.5pro 1S (530)53 1- �85� ADDRESS: ' CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE: . -1 Bob WA- ©2ov I I E R54bfo ZONE GENERALPLANI EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE (in Square Feet or Acres) I EXISTING STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) oIx3a (A) '�,3l me i SCL3 rp ccs A,.,d P.4,--4 L< < =r (Check One) (Check One) ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER APPLICATION REQUESTED ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP RUSE PERMIT BUTTE ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP F-1MINORMINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION ❑ VARIANCE APR 11 1003 ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION ❑ MINOR VARIANCE DEVELOPMENT ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT SERVICES ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ OTHER PROJECT DESCRIPTION FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division, describe the number and size of parcels.) i (- KG�)✓v✓(r�I UWcTd°� ao'x3d SI6e col4hrCE /0"0-D A41AcA v>�r1J- OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND AC'CURAT'E. (If an is to be authorized, execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit with this application.) /agent DATE: �da/ l��J SIGNATURE: �Q�u.M aIrscIlY 'to KAFORMS\UNIFORM APPLICATION Page I of 2 F-1 AGENT AUTHORIZATION TO: Butte County, Department of Development Services: D!'t Uj n 4�+ 49 Phone Numbe 'C�5�44 Jb Print Name 1��2 1n Mailing Address F^'c' is hereby authorized to process the application for on my property, identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Num r: APN# - - This authorization allows representation for all appli ions, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including d ument(s) relating to record title interest. Owner(s) of Record: (sign and prinf`na I A --w G AY-'A--1-Ws . Print Name Print Name Signature Signature Architect and/Eiineer: Phone Number Print Name of A itect/Engineer Mailing ddress FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COUNTY Verify: APR [ Z 2003 Date Received: �-`� .4 AR D 3 Total Amount Received: //�% DEVELOPMENT RVICES ❑r -AP Numbers) ❑ Legal Description r ❑ Owners Authorization ❑-Zoning Requirements ❑4'oject Description ❑-Eopies of plot plan Taken by: e,&21— d-UZLkM(, Receipt No. a- /0 PW/LD / Sp Planpp'f 9 E.H. ($,S CDF y 3 NOD/NOE Fees 36, Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will be returned upon final action. Current fee for this application is as of _�--- Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". K:`d'ORn,IS\ JN11F0RM APPLICATION o 3 Page 2 of 2 (�� COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed By Project Applicant) GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name and address of owner, and/or. devel 11 A u w) 4ir51A V1 I S -1 i 2 3. GI W Date Filed &L .4 A aP el 3 VP 03 --(5' , and/or project sponsor: Address of project: 7 806 6)q- Z Assessor's Parcel Number: Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 5. Existing general plan designation: 6. Existing zoning district: AW — 7. How is land currently used? ivl opnn ZAn h 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Project Description: 9. Site sizer b')C � � s � ' 0 ro /() �C-fnfyds �� X� 0 A�9 enc�o� P cres/Sq. Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: Total: 11. 'Plans attached: Yes X No 12. Proposed development schedule 13. Associated projects 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development Compact: 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Attach description of project containing the following information: 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 19. If the project involves a minor variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential �[ ureas or public lands or roads. l� 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. J 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ W Environmental Setting: (Attach brief description) 32 Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 3 Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. -BUTTE COUNTY APR 1Z1003 DEVELOPMENT �`JI� �v /�r5 � u,6 D3 <S SERVICES Date Signature , x4 sh Es . r✓ s �-i nc I� n►r1� S I -r -lA3i I Y. 16 Ir- en11e1S V-�_1`J t-- I)C�U r c. jSL � �o00 orn G (v11 rpu KAPlanning\FORMS\Submittal\ENV-INFO. FRM 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING APPLICATION FEE SCHEDULE TOTAL -FEE FEES COLLECTED FEES DEPOSIT ATB-, Administrative Permit/Temp. Mobile Home "Aunt Minnie" $ „A t. '300 $ 300 ; .. Administrative Permit/Temp. Mobile Home Renewal "Aunt Minnie" $ . 50 $ 50 Administrative Permit/Honie Occupation,' $ : ¢:' 10. V1.110 Administrative Permit/Temporary Uses $ 50 $ 50 Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Plan Review $ 300 $ 300 ✓ Appeals. from administrative actions, actions of the planning commission or advisory, agency.-. $ 50 $ 50 Certificate of Merger Fee pper resulting lot $ 476 $110 + $20/lot Conformance Report $ 50 $ 50 Counter/Phone Research Fee & Written Response`' Minimum fee Hourly fee $ . 30: $ 59 ,. Development Agreement $` 2,316 ' ° -$2,200 >' Extension of Time for Filind Final Ma $:: . • 280. $ 280 Final Map Checking Fee 4 or less parcels. 5 or more parcels $590 + $20/lot $10.0 $840 + $151lot., $ 350 1/ Subdivision & Final Parcel Maps (+lot fees below)' Per lot fee - Subdivision Per lot fee - Final Parcel Maps General Plan Amendment $ 2,079 $2,000 Land Conservation Agreement LCA inclusion $ - 250 $ 250 Land Conservation A reement LCA -withdrawal=.,,.: $ 1,000 .$-11,000 + Legal Lot Determination/Certificate of Com liance °a , $ :. ;. 982 $160 Lot Line Adjustment-:. : ` Deeds $ ; " 499 $'160' $ Uning Inspection Fee $ • 350 $ 175 iMini , ng and Reclamation $ . 1,620 $1,500 ✓ Minor Use Permit $ 521 $ 350 V Minor Variance $ 386 $. 350 14 Mitigation Monitoring Fee $ 350 $ 350 ✓ Parcel Map Per lot fee $. 1;415. +, $20/lot + EH $1,000. Planned Unit Development $ -2,576 $ 2 600'- Predevelopment Conference - per meeting fee excluding those required for plannedunit developments 243 $ 59 " Preparation of Environmental-ImpacVReport (EIR) and/or cost of consultant's services as established by tri -parties a reement x Varies Varies I/ Reapplication within one 1 year $ 150 $150 Rezone ;°'9•":ti �Y 43 $ 2,516 $2,000 . Subdivision Map (Application Fee) 1-49 lots (plus per lot fee, below) 1-49 lots, per lot 50+ lots $ 296. $ 50. $ 2,401 $2,000 $1,000 ' + $5/lot + EH '"$1901+E $ 11(:111T61 $' 700 ✓ Variances $ M,4 $ 700✓$x185 a$I;SQ'S tr��$4 1$36�� Waiver (Application Fee)$ 1,756 $ 1 000>' 261 310", , $12 $re36 S $ R Zoning Ordinance Amendment $ 1,327 $ 1,000' PI66_5.,R6awa.IMZ * HourlyFees; Deposits; BillingProcedures nS �achaddifio`ial me required Planner $ 59 Administrative Services Assistant $. 45 Source: Butte County Code, Chapter 3 Office Assistant $ 34 When Vis displayed in the ATB (Additional`Time Billed) Column, the corresponding $ in the deposit column is the minimum amount. * Additional fees may be required at the hourly rate. FISH ARID GAME FEE - An additional fee of $850 - $1,250 may be required if it is determined that the project has significant impacts to fish & Wildlife Resources. K:/Forms/Planning Fee Schedule 1/15/03 +The Butte County Department of Development Services is authorized to collect fees as set forth in The Code of Butte County California, Chapter 3, Fees. 'Excerpts from the Code are referenced as follows: Article III. PAYMENT OF COUNTY FEES AND CHARGES; RETURNED CHECK CHARGE Sec. 3-31 Payment of County fees and Charges by Personal Check; Returned Check Charge If any personal check offered in payment of any county fee or charge, pursuant to section 6157 of the Government Code, is returned without payment, for any reason, a charge of twenty- five dollars ($25.00), hereby established in accordancewith section 54985 of the Government Code, shall be imposed on such returned check and added to the county fee or charge in question. Article IV. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PROCESSING FEES Sec. 3-40. Payment of Fees Required. The fees specified in this article for the processing of applications for land use entitlements shall be paid at the time of the filing of the application. In no event will an application be determined or deemed complete unless and until the applicable application fees have been paid in full. Sec. 340.5. Waiver, Refund or Transfer of Fees. All or part of any fee specified in this article may be waived, refunded or transferred to a related application upon the order of the board of supervisors, 'if the applicant is a public entity or non-profit charitable organization or if the board finds that it is otherwise in the public interest to do so. BUTTE COUNTY 344 Hourly Fees; Deposits; Billing Procedures. APR Z 1 1003 (a) Hourly, fees for the department of development services are set as follov*v page for hourly rates for the planning division) (b) The applicant shall deposit with Butte County the sum set forth herein for each application up to a maximum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) for concurrent applications, with the exception of subdivision and site improvement at construction inspection, which requires a 3% deposit of estimated construction costs. (c) When the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, unless a lesser amount is approved by the director of development services or his designee, or except for additional deposits for subdivision and site improvement inspections which shall be 1/3ra of the original deposit. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. IA\ V—A, nU, 11 t— in n cP.nnrntP. h1)dQP..t control account. M 0 USE PERMIT • APPLICATION PACKET CHECKLIST UP -0 3 -- t y' This checklist is designed to assist applicants in making sure all necessary information is included in their application packet. Please include this checklist along with your submittal. Applicant Planner L� A completed, signed, Uniform Application and Environmental Information form. If the application is signed by an agent for the property owner, an agent authorization form must be submitted along with the Uniform Application. The application shall not be accepted unless signed by the owner or authorized agent. 2. El/Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of the deposit will be returned upon final action, if any remains.) (Planner advises applicant) 3. D/Thirty-five(35) copies of plans which shall include a detailed site plan drawn to scale. All p P plans shall be drawn on uniform size sheets no greater than 24" x 3.6". The finished plans shall be folded to 8 %" x 11 P. The detailed site plan must include: a. Name and address of Applicant, Engineer and/or person who prepared the plan b Property lines and lot dimensions BUTTE COUNTY c. Assessor Parcel Number(s) and the street address. APR 2 2 2003 DEVELOPMENT d. N1 Proposed use and/or uses of the property. SERVICES e. Proposed landscaping plan, if applicable. p g f. Dimensioned locations of existing and proposed improvements on the property (including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways, parking areas, wells, septic tanks and leach fields). ❑ Distances from an significant natural and constructed features of theproperty,such _ Y g as streets, access roads, streams, rock outcroppings, major tree stands, storm drains, bodies of water, railroads, to the property lines. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 1 . 4 5. 0 Location of all slope banks, ponds, creeks, buttes, sloughs, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, irrigation canals and existing vegetation worthy of consideration for preservation, such as oak trees. I. ❑ Any existing faults or fractures and geologic hazards. ❑ North arrow and scale of drawing. All plans shall be drawn to an engineering scale Jg P g g with the preferred scale of 1" = 20', with a north arrow preferably oriented to the.top of sheet. k. 1� ❑ All plans must be clear and legible. One copy of 8 ''/2" x 11" transparency reduction of the detailed site plan. L'J A vicinity map showing closest major cross streets, zoning and existing land use. After a meeting with a Butte County Planner the following checked items will be required to be submitted at the time of' application: (optional) 6. ❑ ❑ One (1) set of colored plans mounted on foam boards, which shall include an illustrative site plan, illustrative building elevations, and any necessary cross-sections. Portions of this requirement may be waived by the Planning Manager. Portions waved ❑ YES ❑ NO 7. ❑ ❑ One (1) full size reproducible sepia for each sheet in the plan set of the detailed site plan. 8.. ❑ ❑ Building materials on a sample board, 8 %i" X 11". 9. ❑ ❑ Detailed site plan including the following: a. ❑ ❑ Building setbacks from the ultimate road right-of-way (front, rear, sides). b. ❑ ❑ Proposed and existing on-site driveways and/or roads. c. ❑ ❑ Location, height, and materials of walls and fences (sections may be required). d. ❑ ❑ All driveways, drawn to scale, on adjacent and across the street properties within 100 feet of the subject site. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 2 0 e. ❑ Existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and existing paving widths on-site or within 100 feet of the site, on adjacent and across the street properties. F. EJ f] Typical street section(s). g. ❑ �__] - Nearest cross streets on both sides with plus or minus distances from subject site. h. ❑ q Approximate location of all buildings within 100 feet, on adjacent properties. i. ❑ Proposed method of sewer and water connection or alternative method of sewage disposal and potable water supply. j . ❑ ❑ I Existing and nearest fire hydrants. l:. ❑ ❑ Access, both pedestrian and vehicular, showing service areas and points of ingress and egress. 1. ❑ Q Internal circulation pattern. m. ❑ U Elevation contours, at a minimum per USGS maps. 10. ❑ ❑ Illustrative Site Plan The plan should include a graphic scale and north arrow, all proposed and existing improvements, landscape concepts such as earth mounding and meandering walkways, walls, ground cover, trees, shrubs, shadows, paving and other elements as may be necessary to illustrate the site plan. (Dimensions may be excluded from this plan.) 11. ❑ 1� Conceptual Grading Plan Items to be shown Nnclude: a. ❑ b. ❑ c. ❑ Natural areas to be preserved. Proposed cut and fill areas in contrasting colors of zipatone pattern. Existing and proposed contours within 100 feet of project boundaries. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 3 d. ❑ Proposed drainage and flood control facilities. e. ❑ r Erosion control measures (e.g. - slope landscaping). f. ❑ U Natural drainage. g. ❑ Elevations and finished contours. h. E] [:1 Location of retaining walls, drainage channels and existing structures. I. ❑ I❑ Location, elevation and size of proposed building pads. 1 ? . ❑ ❑1 I Ilustrative Building Elevations Illustrative building elevations showing all sides of existing and proposed buildings and structures. Illustrative building elevations means architectural elevations showing typical materials to be used, trees, landscaping and shadows to give the elevations graphic dimension. Additional information may be required in order to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the above submittal information -or to complete any required environmental review documents, as deemed necessary by the Department of Development Services, Public Works, Environmental Health Division, Butte County Fire Department, or Agriculture Commissioner. Signature: T)G�,�,c.Iylf moi' S���c.,p Applicant/Representative Signature:, �2y Planner Receiving Application KAVI; nim_ FORMS\Suhmival\CI-IECKLIS\USEPERMI.FRM Date"' (aa f O3 Date: P;- A -y44,(4- 0.3 BUTTE COUNTY APR Z 21003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IF I NSUFFICI ENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 4 Smooth Feed SheetSTM K:\PROJECTS\UPC\ARSANIS\LabelsUPO 3-15.doc 025020050000 POOR MONTY W 19 GOLD RUN CT OROVILLE CA 95965 025030016000 BETTIS JOHN JR & MARGARET 28 GROVER LN OROVILLE CA 95965 025030059000 HEMSTALK CLAY W & CHERYL JT 29 BOB WAY OROVILLE CA 95965 025030063000 BLAKEJOLENE 270 OAKVALE AVE OROVILLE CA 95966 025030067000 BROWN JACK L 17 GROVER LN OROVILLE CA 95965 025030071000 MCDONALD THOMAS & HELEN TR 12 GROVER LN OROVILLE CA 95965-9654 025030066000 ARSANIS DAWN 7 BOB WAY OROVILLE CA 95965-9676 025020051000 WIDENER RAYMOND PO BOX 751 PALERMO CA 95968 025030054000 HUSE STEVEN J & BRENDA L DIAS P O BOX 8157 FREMONT CA 94537 025030060000 MCCARTHY HAROLD V III & CLAU 1720 LAKE ST SAN MATEO CA 94403-1023 025030064000 SCHMELTZ SAMUEL W & MICHELL 40 BOB WAY OROVILLE CA 95966 025030068000 CARTER SHERMAN D & WILMA A 10 OAKWOOD LN OROVILLE CA 95965 025030072000 POOLE THOMAS E,ETAL 7126 DANBROOKE WEST BLOOMFIELD MI 48322-2951 Use template for 51600 025020048000 JOHNSON DON CARLOS 3416 HWY 70 OROVILLE CA 95965 025030002000 ORTIZ RUDOLPH & CHRISTINE 7249 HENNESSY CT SACRAMENTO CA 95828-5911 025030057000 NORMAN JOE & JOSLYN 92 BOB WAY OROVILLE CA 95965-9676 025030062000 EVERETT JERRY E & SUSAN R 416 POPLAR ST GALT CA 95632-1521 025030065000 PLASTER LYDIA P O BOX 383 PALERMO CA 95968 025030070000 PERKINS IZORA A 94 GROVER LN OROVILLE CA 95965 025230103000 PROSSER JEAN A 150 LOVERS LANE BOULDER CREEK CA 95.006 WAVER ® Address Labels Laser 5160® �ra1L ti-�s/1F' CU2�'-OBD—®lr�(o UP Q2tS7-030 -O J.,c, 1,0 AszSA,� �S lovs - 020- oy 8 OS i 025-030-{O021 Z- 2 o S i=1'��-5--�•�L� G I " I R I � Butte County Deparanent of DevelopE�- x ment Services PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile April 22, 2004 ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Re: Use Permit, UP 03-15, APN: 025-030-066 Dear Ms. Arsanis: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held a meeting on April 22, 2004, your request for a Use permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. on property zoned AR - 1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) and located on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville, was denied without prejudice. Should you desire to appeal this decision you must do so, in writing, prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday, May 3, 2004 to the: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 The appeal fee of $50.00 must be paid at that time. If you do not appeal, and there are no other appeals within the 10 calendar -day appeal period, the action of the Planning Commission is final. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Stephen Betts at 538-7153between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, /"� Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Services Support Assistant Ar cc: Land Development Environmental Health CDF Building Division Bletters\rnerge IetterADEN1AL.dot 4 From: QTGrama@aol.com Date: Sunday, April 18, 2004 03:28:36 PM To: hemstalk(asoftcom.net Subject: Letter from Claudette April 17, 2004 Butte County Planning Commission Attention: Yvonne Christophter Page 1 of 2 Regarding: Dawn Arsanis Use Permit for a dog kennel on property at 7 Bob Way We are responding to the notice we received for the Public Hearing scheduled for April 22, 2004. We are neighbors of said property and are against the building of a large dog kennel. As it stands now there are numerous dogs on the property and do not appear to be well care for. Dogs are constantly out and roaming the area. The dogs have damaged cars on the block, entered our properties and eaten our pet's food and dragged away personal belongings ( such as shoes and toys). Barking is often a problem. It would seem a kennel would be the answer but we are sure it would not solve the problem. There doesn't seem to be enough supervision and to just have a large number of dogs locked up will create another set of issues. The breeds vary, so the animals themselves do not always get along. We were /�, 621 //;-1 Z/O 9(-/ 4/21/04 Page 2 of 2 0 told Dawn is part of a dog rescue group, therfore we do not know if these animal have had shots or how they were previously treated. Abused dogs are often unfriendly and we do have small children. If they are left locked up barking is sure to be a bigger problem and the lack of care we see now makes us concerned that a cleanliness problem will be inevitable. We hope you will take this into consideration when making your deciosion. Clay and Cheryl Hemstlalk 29 Bob Way Harold and Claudette McCarthy 49 Bob Way 4/21/04 To whom it may concern, We are writing a request for the denial of the 15 -dog kennel on bobway. We feel that the dogs that she has in car right now are not properly taken care of, they are constantly in all the neighbors' yards including mine, four to five dogs at a time. She has told us that some dogs have parvo and still continue to come in our yards. Several dogs have been hit and killed on highway 70 out of her yard. I am constantly cleaning up dog messes. They have killed to of my cats in my yard. There are numerous little kids on our street and the dogs run at will. This has been going on for a couple years now. We feel she cannot take care. of the dogs she has now, therefore we request the denial of any more dog kennels, for the safety of our children and the drivers on highway 70. Sincerely, Clay W. Hemstalk /Ch ryl A. Hemstalk To:Butte County Planning Commission Re: Proposed 15 dog Kennel on Bob Way Please see attached photos. We are writing to request the denial of the proposed 15 dog kennel on Bob Way. This request is made for the following reasons: The property is inadequately secured for the existing animals housed at this location. On a regular basis, multiple dogs are loose in the neighborhood (see photos). The petitioner has made attempts to close holes under the fences utilizing logs— unfortunately the animals are nontheless able to escape. This poses a concern for the safety of the animals due to the proximity to the highway, and for residents of our neighborhood. Recently, 2 very large dogs(possibly great danes) were in our driveway when we arrived home— because we are unfamiliar with these animals, we must admit to being concerned for the safety of our children, and made our way into the house as quickly as possible. Although the petitioner is to be admired for her intentions to aid homeless and abandoned animals, we respectfully request her petition be denied. Si rely, Samuel and Michelle Schmeltz Property Owners 40 Bob Way f . ` `! ..r ��- ��. 1 ��., � �, �= F + _J i � �_ � z � o ��:� � ;, �, o �r �. � �i�✓ off, i �; � � � � �_ I � � � j v- � �, �, � .:-� , �. _ II _ �� �' ��� t ` - � � �� -� — � � �� 'C � ' �� � � p t -0 � 7 � � r,� � ' I a � �� y � f�_ q - y, � � y> � Y" � �..�d �' � ;� � - �� �- •OVA � r Yr. � I^ { ^ ,r ..,_4 Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Betts, Planning Division SUBJECT: Denial of Use Permit 03-15 (Arsanis) Planning Division Phone: 538-7153 DATE: For the April 22, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting FAX: 538-7785 This project is for a Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. The Planning Division has expended the $700.00 Planning Division processing fee deposit that was submitted with this project. Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) states that when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the original deposit, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, unless a lesser amount is approved by the Director of Development services or his designee. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Five (5) invoices were sent to the applicant requesting additional funds to replenish the $700.00 deposit. To date, the applicant has not provided the Planning Division with the required funds. Staff spoke with the applicant on April 12, and she stated that she wanted the project to go forward and would mail a check to the Planning Division. However, as of April 15, the check had not been received by the Planning Division. Staff prepared an Initial Study for this project, which was signed by the applicant, and the Planning Commission staff report was almost completed when work was halted due to depletion of the $700.00 deposit. Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) is very clear that the project must be denied if the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application. Based upon this section of County Code, staff recommends that the project be denied'without prejudice. Denial without prejudice, would allow the applicant to resubmit her application within one (1) year of denial. 1 L Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: I. Find that the denial of this project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act). These sections state that CEQA doe's not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. II. Deny without prejudice Use Permit 03-15 for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030- 066 based upon the following finding: a. The applicant has not provided additional funds as required by Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) to replenish the initial processing fee'deposit submitted with the application. k:\planning\projects\upc\arsanis\pc denial memorandum.doc N Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Steve Betts, Planning Division 0 SUBJECT: Denial of Use Permit 03-15 (Arsanis) Planning Division Phone: 538-7153 DATE: For the April 22, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting FAX: 538-7785 A This project is for a Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. The Planning Division has expended the $700.00 Planning Division processing fee deposit that was submitted with this project. Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) states that when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the original deposit, no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds to restore a balance equal ' to the amount of the initial deposit, unless a lesser amount is approved by the Director of Development services or his designee. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Five (5) invoices were sent to the applicant requesting additional funds to replenish the $700.00 deposit. To date, the applicant has not provided the Planning Division with the required funds. Staff spoke with the applicant on April 12, and she stated that she wanted the project to go forward and would mail a check to the Planning Division. However, as. of April 15, the check had not been received by the Planning Division. Staff prepared an Initial Study for this project, which was signed by the applicant, and the Planning Commission staff report was almost completed when work was halted due to depletion of the $700.00 deposit. Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) is very clear that the project must be denied if the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application. Based upon this section of County Code, staff recommends that the project be denied without prejudice. Denial without prejudice would allow the applicant to resubmit her application within one (1) year of denial. 1 e Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: I. Find that the denial of this project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Sections 15270(a) and (b) of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act). These sections state that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. II. Deny without prejudice Use Permit 03-15 for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030- 066 based upon the following finding: a. The applicant has not provided additional funds as required by Butte County Code Section 3-44(c) to replenish the initial processing fee deposit submitted with the application. k:\planning\projects\upc\arsanis\pc denial memorandum.doc 2 f - I# L. AR2112 AR C -1 AR -1 • R M-2 t FW AR -1' AR Ln Ln AR -1 In 1 r U U' O � > l n C R 1' - J � 1 !: 300 0 300 800 900 1200 1500 law 2100 2100 2700 3000 Feet BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMIWIISSION Applicant: Dawn Arsanis Owner: Same Hearing Date: April 22, 2004 @ 9:00 a.m. Existing Zone: AR -1 (Agricultural Residential, 1 acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. District # 1 Assessor Parcel No: 025-030-066 Ffle:UP 03-15 s.,....ar.�a•w. _ iww,.�. w..•+.+a...ni......r.. - - �..f...�......r.a.. n.r....w-r..m..o.•..• ...•.n.......u..r...� ...... VT ti ._._._ _._. _.__...._._ _ �._" i r:t ? `.�,,[2—r(3 � — --4}—ctttt,•��I� f, `.l :2r4t°�:it��t " (.riff Ff ,l,s t .:R:irtJ!)[+.,r� tro f:mrl_'t j h'f Iilf? '{121Y.: r(! ' (V Q i f If H !t qA, :'1.fiit� ?`L :•!►{'ll;r Lf trirr: `i 1 :Ioli ')it oa( ofo-'Sv :u/ Ni -11A ealkr SA :a i l OF! t:'mrfLq t'.'l.'¢.'yY:Ky-gatasaoa'.:: :re e-6+C]c. r_:trr'^ne+rt. . .. . � 1 }•„Tj � r it t siot + i 1 • a f _ i'•^PA s.,....ar.�a•w. _ iww,.�. w..•+.+a...ni......r.. - - �..f...�......r.a.. n.r....w-r..m..o.•..• ...•.n.......u..r...� ...... VT ti ._._._ _._. _.__...._._ _ �._" i r:t ? `.�,,[2—r(3 � — --4}—ctttt,•��I� f, `.l :2r4t°�:it��t " (.riff Ff ,l,s t .:R:irtJ!)[+.,r� tro f:mrl_'t j h'f Iilf? '{121Y.: r(! ' (V Q i f If H !t qA, :'1.fiit� ?`L :•!►{'ll;r Lf trirr: `i 1 :Ioli ')it oa( ofo-'Sv :u/ Ni -11A I AR 21/2 M-2 r 2 Palermo Rd C-1 AR -1 U � BAR -1 U ------ ---- Gol Run --- ---� ----------- N 1.01 1.06 Lo Bob Way ---,.-Grover ------3.21 ---- - -2 2.04 f =Pro -ed Location 4 O k Ln f AR -1. c Dad's Ln --------------- - AR'1 U U - 300 0 300 600 90 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 Feet BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMNIISSION Applicant: Dawn Arsanis Owner: Same Hearing Date: April 22, 2004 @ 9:00 am Existing Zone: AR-1(Agricultural Residential, l acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. District # 1 Assessor Parcel No: 025-030-066 File:UP 03-15 cic i .. .. bo,) W j -+a�a*.Krs..aEx:n+v+weraa��,�raewms.-�aoasrcvrw,.• s � I ,.49 'Orf �waa.+ wswR• 5„arw+�c�,+�a.,:a-�;iwnk,�mxer+avc�rr sx _ ew�me:�".n�'.. y.+.,,,.........�..,...��...�....,.......W.....�.��i....,,..�.,r1..,..,....■1,�.�.�{.,.,.o,.��.,.,�..«..�....,q�/��..i..1�.,./(.p�.,...._./_...y}���.+y�----��,�//{t.�`,�...w..�.Yg.«...�-..»T.�..,.� -.- _ �ilS.J�ICatI'�T,1�.1 d i yr V, .1�J,l,..fe ��l'y'...�I� __-___._...... _�•..-.� ,,,�\� �!rtc{ .'►ui�l'��'i � rl �:��. n•ria:tT :►anstl:�r�J•. ISI'O'i�/7! IfiG I ,I! it, :l : �sf {i.i��1.: )l`ti'A. } I -RA mw -N onil;phO rfl.li 0i4'N U t a-)Fi .=�:;f, ct �,t �u 7rrl I:nrr�:>I frit? t; :,t,:i.l. ��r i'�tr:�'� 9e• 1 :yr tu�r:�}� %i £l311J: hn-Ifi`t -uVe:ler•A 0 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING April 14, 2004 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Re: UP 03-15, AP: 025-030-066 Dear Ms. Arsanis: Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a Use permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. on property zoned AR- 1AR- 1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) and located on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville. Should you have any concerns with the report or conditions of approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns. A public hearing has been set for April 22, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Stephen Betts of this office at 538- 7153, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, -, � Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative . Support Services Assistant Enc. cc: Environmental Health Land Development K:Uetters\merge letters\SCHEDULE.dot • '. Betts, Steve From: Wannenmacher, Felix Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 3:32 PM To: Betts, Steve; Baker, Joseph Cc: Miller, Gloria Subject: Arsanis Denial Memo (UP 03-15) . Hi Steve and Joe, I have reviewed the memo and have the following comments. In finding 1, delete "for" in the last sentence. Add a sentence about not requiring F&G fees. Have you had any contact with the applicant after you sent the invoices? Say so and explain what it was, if any. Did you give a letter explaining the process or only invoices? Tell the Comm what you did. Felix CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain. confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this email and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by emailthat you mistakenly received this message. Thank you. t (SPACE FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In The Matter Of Notice of Public Hearing. NO. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of California ss. County of Butte The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: ' That I am, and at all time herein mentioned n was a citizen of the United States and not a party to nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of . The Chico Enterprise -Record The Oroville Mercury -Register That said newspaper is one of general circula- tion as defined by Section 6000 Government ' Code of.the State of California, Case No. 26796 by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa- per at all times herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and County of Butte; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was published in said newspaper on the following days: April 8, 04. 0 Dated April 9, 2004. at Chico, Cal' ornia. (Si a re) April 5, 2004 0 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will be held on April 22, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for the following project. Dawn Arsanis, Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs on property zoned AR -1 (Agricultural — Residential — 1 acre parcels). The property is located on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville. APN 025-030-066 (SB) (UP 03- 15) If you challenge the Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this project, please contact Stephen Betts, project planner, at the Butte County Planning Division at (530) 538-7153. YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Oroville Mercury on April 8, 2004 • • Butte County Depa anent ofDevelopment Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538.7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING January 20, 2004 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA, 95966 Re: Use Permit, UP 03-15, 025-030-066 Dear Mr. Arsanis: In an effort to keep our customers informed, we are notifying all applicants of their current status and assigned planner. This is to inform you that Your project has been assigned to Stephen Betts and he can be reached at 538-7153, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Your project is tentatively scheduled for February 12, 2004. Should you have any questions regarding your application, please call the planner listed above. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Cc: Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:35 AM To: Baker, Joseph Subject: Review of Arsanis Use Permit report Joe, Attached for your review is the staff report for the Arsanis Use Permit. Thanks. S Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7153 8/19/2003 Interoffice Memorandum. TO: Mike Vieira, Building Division Manager FROM: Steve Betts '56— SUBJECT: Request for Comments, Arsanis Use Permit, APN 025-030-066, File # UP 03-15 DATE: August 18, 2003 Planning Division Phone: 538-7153 FAX: 538-7785 We received this Use Permit application quite a while ago but did not send a request for comments to your division for review. So, attached please find an application and a site plan for the proposed kennel for your review. A list of the standard Building Division conditions is also attached. I looked in the Building Division file and did not see any code enforcement actions. I believe that code enforcement action was taken and that the applicant went to court. Can you provide me with copies of any code enforcement documentation that may have ` occurred? Thanks. — See GOtiIk-�G�/S ISXd'3 STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT PLEASE CONTACT THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS BUIILDING PERMITS t/ V 1. Building Permits Required. Prepare # r sets of construction plans and make an application for permit. Construction shall comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Plans shall be prepared, sealed and signed by a California Licensed Architect or Registered Engineer for non-residential buildings and certain residential buildings. V/ 2. Proposed improvements constitute a "change in use" or "change in the character of use" as stated in the building code. Improvement plans shall incorporate all code -required elements for the new use. /r puat,16 11!45 A6ra S ro S'tTE 3. All structures shall be made accessible to the disabled. Disabled accessible parking and an accessible path of travel shall be provided. / /F AOf TE-l!)cr Copc.EA �/ 4. Proposed improvements shall comply with Title 24 energy conservation regulations. Appropriate compliance forms (two sets) shall be submitted indicating compliance with those standards. 5. Proposed improvements shall comply with Butte County Code and FEMA Flood Hazard Prevention regulations. A FEMA Elevation Certificate, prepared by a qualified professional, shall be completed and submitted with improvement plans for the Building Division. 6. Proposed improvements shall comply with recorded map conditions applicable to construction. 7. Proposed improvements shall comply with Public Resources Code 4290 Fire Safe Construction standards. 8. Development fees for the proposed residential or non-residential improvements shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. The fees shall be those in effect at time of application, and shall include, but not be limited to, School Fees, Park and Recreation District fees, Water and Sewer Service Fees, Permit and Plan Check fees, and Fire Protection Fees. I. EXISTING STRUCTURES 1. Comply with the Uniform Building Code for property line clearances considering use, area and fire -resistiveness of existing buildings. 2. Existing building(s) shall be made to comply with current Building and Zoning regulations for the intended new use of the building(s) or the existing building(s) shall be demolished. Lteroffice Memorandum TO: Mike Vieira, Building Division Manager FROM: Steve Betts 5&— SUBJECT: Request for Comments, Arsanis Use Permit, APN 025-030-066, File # UP 03-15 Planning Division Phone: 538-7153 DATE: August 18, 2003. FAX: 538-7785 We received this Use Permit application quite a while ago but did not send a request for comments to your division for review. So, attached please find an application and a site plan for the proposed kennel for your review. A list of the standard Building Division conditions is also attached. I looked in the Building Division file and did not see any code enforcement actions. I believe that code enforcement action was taken and that the applicant went to court. Can you provide me with copies of any code enforcement documentation that may have occurred? Thanks. August 12, 2003 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 L A N D O F N AT U RA L W EA L T H A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Re: Revised Initial Study for the Use Permit Project for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025- 030-066, File # UP 03-15 Dear Ms. Arsanis: Enclosed please find a revised Initial Study for your Use Permit project. The Butte County Inter -Departmental Review Committee recently reviewed your Use Permit project and had several concerns about your project. The County Counsel's Office also reviewed the initial study after you had signed it and recommended several changes. The only significant change to the initial study was that a mitigation measure was added to address impacts to cultural resources, which is found in Section 4.5 of the initial study. Please review the enclosed revised initial study and recommended mitigation measures. If you agree to the mitigation measures, please sign Section 8 of the Initial Study and return to the Planning Division. The initial study will be released for public review and the project set for a public hearing by the Planning Commission once we have received the signed initial study. If you do not agree to the mitigation measures, please contact this office as soon as possible to discuss possible alternatives. Should you have any further questions regarding this revised initial study, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538- 7153, or via e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner Enclosure: Revised Initial Study for the Dawn Arsanis Use Permit, File # UP 03-15 0 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Castillo, Wendy [WCastillo@buttecounty.net] Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 12:02 PM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Arsanis Use Permit for a Dog Kennel Hi Steve, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.15 total dogs is appropriate. Kennel license within thirty days of approval of use permit. Annual inspection of premises by Animal Control.lnstall separate septic as required by Environmental Health. I think that the only other concern or condition that we would have is housing of the animals. In the past she has housed animals in travel type trailers. We do not feel this practice is appropriate as the elements could negatively affect the health of the animals (i.e..over heating in the summer)aside from that think everything is covered. Could you send me a copy of the use permit as it will be sent to the planning commission? Thanks Wendy. -----Original Message ----- From: Betts, Steve [mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:38 AM To: Castillo, Wendy Subject: Arsanis Use Permit for a Dog Kennel Wendy, I am getting ready to take this project to the Planning Commission but I have not received any written comments from your department. Did you have any? We spoke on the phone on 4/28/03 and you said that she has room for 15 dogs and that you wanted a septic system put in. You indicated that you would have written comments. So, if you have written comments please send them to me as soon as possible. You can send them via e- mail if that is easiest for you. I will let you know when we have this use permit scheduled for the Planning Commission and maybe you can be there to answer any questions that may come up. Thanks. -S- Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7153 *** eSafe scanned this email for malicious content *** *** IMPORTANT: Do not open attachments from unrecognized senders *** 8/11/2003 U Page 1 of 1 z� Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 9:38 AM To: 'wcastillo@buttecounty.net' Subject: Arsanis Use Permit for a Dog Kennel Wendy, I am getting ready to take this project to the Planning Commission but I have not received any written comments from your department. Did you have any? We spoke on the phone on 4/28/03 and you said that she has room for 15 dogs and that you wanted a septic system put in. You indicated that you would have written comments. So, if you have written comments please send them to me as soon as possible. You can send them via e-mail if that is easiest for you. I will let you know when we have this use permit scheduled for the Planning Commission and maybe you can be there to answer any questions that may come up. Thanks. _S_ Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7153 8/6/2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR UP 03-15 (Arsanis) Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsat•File # UP 03-15 • COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR USE PERMIT 03-15 (Arsanis) 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Dawn Arsanis B. Staff Contact: Stephen Betts, Senior Planner (530) 538-7153 C. Proiect Name: N/A D. Proiect Location: On the southwest corner of State Route 70 (SR -70) and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville E. Type of Application: Use Permit F. Assessor's Parcel Number: 025-030-066 G. Project Site Size: 2.2 acres H. Current Zoning: AR -1 (Agricultural Residential, 1 -acre minimum parcel size) I. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential J. Environmental Setting: The project site is developed with a dwelling unit, several accessory structures, a dog kennel, a septic system, and a well. The whole parcel is surrounded by a chain link fence. Vehicular access to the project site is from Bob Way. Vegetation on the site consists of non-native trees and bushes around the dwelling, a large open area of grass, some fruit trees, and bushes, some of which are very tall, along the south, east, and north property lines. The project site and the surrounding parcels are not subject to a California Land Conservation Act agreement ("Williamson Act"). The site is not located within a 100 - year flood zone or an airport land use compatibility zone. The site is level and does not contain any drainages, wetlands, or swales. Noise levels on the project site, especially at the dog kennel, are relatively high due the project site's location adjacent to SR -70. The applicant currently has a total of 14 dogs on the property — 6 rescued adult dogs, a litter of 6 rescued puppies, and 2 personal dogs. The dog kennel is located in the southeast corer of the project site, approximately 11 feet from the south property line and approximately 45 feet from edge of pavement of SR -70. The dog kennel consists of wood side walls, chain link fence for front and back walls, a wood roof, and a concrete floor. Black plastic tarps cover the front of the kennel. Hay is used as bedding material. Odors from the kennel were only noticeable when adjacent to the kennel. The dogs were mostly quiet when staff conducted a site visit (5/19/03). The project is located in an area with rural residential development, horse keeping, scattered orchards, and some pastures. Surrounding uses include dwellings at rural densities, undeveloped parcels, and SR -70. The nearest off-site dwelling unit is located 237 feet to the south of the kennel (this house appears to be abandoned). The next closest dwellings are located on the east side of SR -70, at a distance of 280 to 300 feet from the kennel. Three dwellings to the west and northwest are located between 335 and 586 feet from the kennel. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • K. Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is surrounded by low-density residential uses or undeveloped property. Zoning on all of the surrounding is AR -1 (Agricultural Residential, one acre minimum parcel size). L. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a Use Pemiit to allow a private dog kennel. The applicant rescues dogs from shelters and attempts to find new homes for them. The applicant does not board dogs owned by others. A maximum of fifteen (15) dogs would be allowed. (Note: Butte County Code allows no more than five dogs over the age of four months to be kept on a single parcel for any reason whatsoever [Butte County Code Section 24-305.260]; more than this number is considered to be a kennel, even if all the dogs are owned by the parcel owner/resident). Approximately once per week a prospective dog owner will come to the property to look at the dogs. The applicant occasionally takes some of the dogs off site to attend various animal adoption events. The hay in the kennel is removed weekly and the concrete floor cleaned at that time. The applicant intends to replace the black plastic tarps with bamboo shades. Solid wastes from the dogs are currently picked up daily and burned on-site or placed in the trash for disposal at the Neal Road Landfill. The applicant would be required to obtain a sewage disposal permit from the Environmental Health Department for a septic system to handle solid wastes from the dogs on the site. The applicant would also require a Kennel Permit from the Environmental Health Department's Animal Control Division for the kenneling of more than five dogs. M. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Development Services Department, Butte County Environmental Health Division, Butte County Animal Control 2.0 DETERIVIINATION [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] 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 have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. rP. f2A52!?f_ Pre pa phen Betts, Senior Planner Re iewe Joe Baker, Planning Manager & Date (, L& A Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsams, File # UP 03-15 • 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [X] 4.3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [ ] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [X] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • 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) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETICNVISUAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The project would allow the keeping of up to 15 dogs in an area surrounded by agricultural residential properties or undeveloped parcels. SR -70 is located adjacent to the project site. The dog kennel consists of wood side walls, a wood roof, chain link fencing on the front and back, and a concrete floor. Black plastic tarps cover the front and back of the kennel. The applicant intends to replace the plastic tarps with adjustable bamboo shades. A fenced exercise area is located adjacent to the kennel. Due to the presence of bushes along most of the project site's boundaries the kennel is difficult to see from off the site. The kennel can be seen from SR -70, but the view is only fleeting to motorists due to the high speed of vehicles traveling on this roadway. The applicant does not propose to enlarge the existing kennel structure or add outside lights. Considering the existing uses that surround the project site, the agricultural character of the project area, and the bushes along most of the property lines, which would help shield the kennel from off-site view, no substantial conflicts with the established character or function of the area are anticipated. The project site is not within or adjacent to a designated scenic highway. This project would not significantly impact a scenic vista. The impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ G Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or qualityof the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? Impact Discussion: The project would allow the keeping of up to 15 dogs in an area surrounded by agricultural residential properties or undeveloped parcels. SR -70 is located adjacent to the project site. The dog kennel consists of wood side walls, a wood roof, chain link fencing on the front and back, and a concrete floor. Black plastic tarps cover the front and back of the kennel. The applicant intends to replace the plastic tarps with adjustable bamboo shades. A fenced exercise area is located adjacent to the kennel. Due to the presence of bushes along most of the project site's boundaries the kennel is difficult to see from off the site. The kennel can be seen from SR -70, but the view is only fleeting to motorists due to the high speed of vehicles traveling on this roadway. The applicant does not propose to enlarge the existing kennel structure or add outside lights. Considering the existing uses that surround the project site, the agricultural character of the project area, and the bushes along most of the property lines, which would help shield the kennel from off-site view, no substantial conflicts with the established character or function of the area are anticipated. The project site is not within or adjacent to a designated scenic highway. This project would not significantly impact a scenic vista. The impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ G Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsa3•iis, File # UP 03-15 • 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The project site is located in a rural area that contains scattered agricultural uses, such as livestock grazing and orchards. The project site contains some fruits trees, but no commercial agricultural uses are currently established on the site. No significant agricultural uses are established on any of the surrounding parcels. The small size of the project parcel, at 2.2 acres, precludes most types of commercial agricultural operations. The project does not propose to convert any farmland to non-agricultural use and would not have an impact.on any agricultural uses. The project is not subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan because the project site has an Agricultural Residential General Plan land use designation. The Butte County Agricultural Commissioner's Office commented that this project does not have any agricultural issues. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as X shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the X X California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? X X c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in X conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: The project site is located in a rural area that contains scattered agricultural uses, such as livestock grazing and orchards. The project site contains some fruits trees, but no commercial agricultural uses are currently established on the site. No significant agricultural uses are established on any of the surrounding parcels. The small size of the project parcel, at 2.2 acres, precludes most types of commercial agricultural operations. The project does not propose to convert any farmland to non-agricultural use and would not have an impact.on any agricultural uses. The project is not subject to the provisions of the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan because the project site has an Agricultural Residential General Plan land use designation. The Butte County Agricultural Commissioner's Office commented that this project does not have any agricultural issues. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.3 AIR QUALITY: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Significant with Less Than Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan9 X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient X air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated "attainment" if these standards are met and "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PMio). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The project will not create fugitive dust, oxides of nitrogen, or reactive organic gases emissions because the dog kennel already exists and the only new construction that may occur is the installation of a septic system. Very little vehicular traffic would be generated by the proposed kennel, so there would not be a significant increase in vehicle emissions in the project area. The installation or expansion will not cause significant fugitive dust or any other type of emissions. An increase in odors on-site would be expected as a result of the keeping of up to 15 dogs on the project site. The nearest off-site dwelling unit is located 237 feet to the south of the kennel (this house appears to be abandoned). The next closest dwellings are located on the east side of SR -70, at a distance of 280 to 300 feet from the kennel. Three dwellings to the west and northwest are located between 335 and 586 feet from the kennel. Solid wastes from the dogs may create objectionable odors if not properly disposed of in a timely manner. Additionally odor could come from the soiled runoff associated with cleaning of the kennel floor. Due to the long distances between the kennel and the nearest off-site dwellings, no significant odor impacts are expected to occur to the residents of the nearby dwellings. Mitigation Measure # 1, found in section 4.8 below, requires the applicant to pick up the dog wastes on a daily basis and to dispose of them in an on-site septic system. With this requirement, no significant odor -related impacts are expected. Mitilzation Measure: None required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Significant with Less Than Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X Impact Discussion: Both the California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have established air pollution standards in an effort to protect human health and welfare. Geographic areas are designated "attainment" if these standards are met and "nonattainment" if they are not met. In addition, each agency has several levels of classifications based on severity of the problem. Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" nonattainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PMio). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. The project will not create fugitive dust, oxides of nitrogen, or reactive organic gases emissions because the dog kennel already exists and the only new construction that may occur is the installation of a septic system. Very little vehicular traffic would be generated by the proposed kennel, so there would not be a significant increase in vehicle emissions in the project area. The installation or expansion will not cause significant fugitive dust or any other type of emissions. An increase in odors on-site would be expected as a result of the keeping of up to 15 dogs on the project site. The nearest off-site dwelling unit is located 237 feet to the south of the kennel (this house appears to be abandoned). The next closest dwellings are located on the east side of SR -70, at a distance of 280 to 300 feet from the kennel. Three dwellings to the west and northwest are located between 335 and 586 feet from the kennel. Solid wastes from the dogs may create objectionable odors if not properly disposed of in a timely manner. Additionally odor could come from the soiled runoff associated with cleaning of the kennel floor. Due to the long distances between the kennel and the nearest off-site dwellings, no significant odor impacts are expected to occur to the residents of the nearby dwellings. Mitigation Measure # 1, found in section 4.8 below, requires the applicant to pick up the dog wastes on a daily basis and to dispose of them in an on-site septic system. With this requirement, no significant odor -related impacts are expected. Mitilzation Measure: None required. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or X regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community X identified in local or regional plans, policies, and ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 Impact Discussion: The project site consists mostly of irrigated grass, some 20 fruit trees, and non-native trees and bushes around the existing dwelling. Bushes are also located along most of the property lines. The project site does not contain any vernal pools, wetlands, swales, or creeks. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB using Rarefmd 2, Government Version, Jan -02-2003) was reviewed to determine if any special status species or habitats occur on or near the project site. The CNDDB showed that no special status species or habitats on or near the project site. The project is not expected to create any impacts to biological resources. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than NO Reviewed Under Would the proposal: Significant with Significant Impact Previous Impact Mitigation Impact Document Incorporated regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X 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 X reservation policy ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X conservationplan? g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, X threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, X amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? X j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? X k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could X hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Impact Discussion: The project site consists mostly of irrigated grass, some 20 fruit trees, and non-native trees and bushes around the existing dwelling. Bushes are also located along most of the property lines. The project site does not contain any vernal pools, wetlands, swales, or creeks. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB using Rarefmd 2, Government Version, Jan -02-2003) was reviewed to determine if any special status species or habitats occur on or near the project site. The CNDDB showed that no special status species or habitats on or near the project site. The project is not expected to create any impacts to biological resources. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological. sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. Prehistoric resources sites are normally found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above or next to bodies of water. The project site does not contain any of these physical characteristics. No cultural resources or sites of any type are known to be located on the subject site. The project site does not contain any structures that are listed in, or are eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. The only construction that may occur due to the project is the installation of a new septic system. Because of the location and the nature of the project, the potential for uncovering or otherwise disturbing cultural resources as a result of project -related activities is unlikely. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Impact Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous death involving: Incorporated Document a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X X c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X X Impact Discussion: Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological. sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. Prehistoric resources sites are normally found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or above or next to bodies of water. The project site does not contain any of these physical characteristics. No cultural resources or sites of any type are known to be located on the subject site. The project site does not contain any structures that are listed in, or are eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. The only construction that may occur due to the project is the installation of a new septic system. Because of the location and the nature of the project, the potential for uncovering or otherwise disturbing cultural resources as a result of project -related activities is unlikely. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including X liquefaction? 4. Landslides? X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsa•File # UP 03-15 • Impact Discussion: The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 4.15 miles east of the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975 resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known active earthquake fault exists in the project area. The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes between 6 to 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County, 1977). Approximately five miles west of Butte County there is a north trending fault system known as the Willows fault. This fault is approximately 40 miles long and displaces Cretaceous sediment in the Sacramento Valley. It does not appear to displace surface sediment and has been mapped principally by geophysical methods. However, there have been enough historical seismic events in the vicinity of this fault to conclude that it should be considered potentially active (Butte County General Plan 1977). A moderate earthquake occurred on the afternoon of Friday, August 10, 2001, centered about nine miles west of Portola, California, and about 50 miles east of the project site. Very little damage occurred as a result of this earthquake, which was had a magnitude of 5.5, but brief groundshaking was felt in Chico during the earthquake and the aftershocks. This earthquake occurred in the Mohawk Valley Fault Zone, and this area of California experiences a magnitude five or higher earthquake approximately every 20 years, according to the University of California, Berkeley Seismological Laboratory. Historical events in the area include the following: Table 1 Historical Seismic Events near Recent Portola Event Near Portola — Mohawk Valley Fault Zone Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than 1875 Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under 40 km to the ESE near Verdi Impact Mitigation I Impact Previousmpact Document Incorporated b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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 X 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 X substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal X or wastewater? Impact Discussion: The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone or an aftershock zone. The only known active fault in Butte County is the Cleveland Hill fault, located approximately 4.15 miles east of the project site, where activity on August 1, 1975 resulted in the Oroville earthquake. This earthquake had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and resulted in approximately 2.2 miles of ground rupture along the western flank of Cleveland Hill. In the northwest comer of Butte County near Chico there are a series of short, north-northwest trending faults similar to the Cleveland Hill fault. These faults appear to be an extension of the Bear Mountain Fault or Foothills Shear Zone. Minor seismic activity has occurred in the area of these short faults; however, other geologic evidence indicates these faults are not active (Butte County General Plan 1977). No impacts are anticipated since no rupture of a known active earthquake fault exists in the project area. The 80 -mile -long Midland-Sweitzer fault is located approximately 50 miles southwest of the project site. This fault is considered active and has caused historic earthquakes of Richter magnitudes between 6 to 6.9 in the area in 1892. There is some speculation as to the exact location of the historic earthquake epicenters and some question if they actually occurred on the Midland-Sweitzer fault (Butte County, 1977). Approximately five miles west of Butte County there is a north trending fault system known as the Willows fault. This fault is approximately 40 miles long and displaces Cretaceous sediment in the Sacramento Valley. It does not appear to displace surface sediment and has been mapped principally by geophysical methods. However, there have been enough historical seismic events in the vicinity of this fault to conclude that it should be considered potentially active (Butte County General Plan 1977). A moderate earthquake occurred on the afternoon of Friday, August 10, 2001, centered about nine miles west of Portola, California, and about 50 miles east of the project site. Very little damage occurred as a result of this earthquake, which was had a magnitude of 5.5, but brief groundshaking was felt in Chico during the earthquake and the aftershocks. This earthquake occurred in the Mohawk Valley Fault Zone, and this area of California experiences a magnitude five or higher earthquake approximately every 20 years, according to the University of California, Berkeley Seismological Laboratory. Historical events in the area include the following: Table 1 Historical Seismic Events near Recent Portola Event Near Portola — Mohawk Valley Fault Zone Year Magnitude Location 1875 6.2 40 km to the NNE near Janesville 1888 6.2 20 km to the SSW near Blairsden 1959 5.6 40 km to the ESE near Verdi ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Aro File # UP 03-15 • 1966 1 6.0 1 60 km to the SSE near Truckee Source: Adapted from information provided by the California Division of Mines and Geology and posted on the UC -Berkeley Seismological Laboratory web site (hitp://www.seismo.berkeley.edu/seismo). Like most of central California, the site can be expected to be subjected to seismic ground shaking at some future time. Accordingly, all buildings and other improvements will be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code requirements. Because the project appears to be located such that the probability of significant groundshaking is low, because the project does not propose the addition of significant structures that would be at risk to seismic activity, and because any structures that are built during the course of the project will be designed and installed in accordance with Uniform Building Code standards for the appropriate Seismic Hazard Zone, potential geologic impacts would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a generally low potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. There is a moderate soil erosion potential for the project site, according to Butte County General Plan GIS data. The project does not involve any activity that would result in significant soil erosion impacts. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a high expansive soil potential. The project involves only the use of property for a private dog kennel. The dog kennel is already constructed and no significant impacts due to expansive soils are expected to occur to it. No new buildings are proposed to be placed on the project site. The Butte County Environmental Health Division did not indicate that the soils on the site would be incapable of handling another septic system on the site. Soils in the area tend to be adequate for septic systems. The site does not contain any slopes, drainages, wetlands, or swales, and is not located in a 100 -year flood zone, all of which could preclude the installation of a new septic system. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or X 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 X materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn.Arsams, File # UP 03-15 • Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No Reviewed Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Would the proposal: Significant Incorporated Significant d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of Impact Mitigation Impact impact p Previous hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Incorporated Document Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, X would it create a significant hazard to the public or the X 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 X project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuationplan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland foes, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or X where residences are intermixed with willdlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. The project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and is not near any listed site or site known to contain hazardous materials. The project site is not located within the 65 or 70 CNEL noise contour of any airport, nor is it located in any aircraft overflight area, according to the Butte County General Plan. The California Department of Forestry has submitted conditions which are to be met before approval of the project which would reduce any potential impact regarding fire. Compliance with these measures, which are included in the development application materials, is to be accomplished in coordination with the Butte County Fire Department. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ Less Than Reviewed Potentially Significant Less Than No Under Would the proposal: Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact impact p Previous Incorporated Document a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Aro File # UP 03-15 • Would the proposal: Potentially significant Less Than significant with Less Than significant No Reviewed Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production X rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in X substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or X amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation X map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, ury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: Water for the proposed kennel would be obtained from an existing on-site well. A dog kennel use does not typically require large quantities of water; the heaviest usage of water would be to clean out the kennel and to flush dog wastes into a septic system. The project site is located in an area that has large groundwater aquifers. Because the proposed dog kennel would not require large amounts of water and because groundwater supplies in the project area are large, the project would not cause a reduction in the local groundwater table or reduce the water production of any existing well. No alterations in the drainage patterns of the project site would occur and the project would not cause an increase in soil erosion. The project site does not contain any drainages (streams, creeks, swales, ditches) that could be impacted by the project. The only ground disturbance that may occur as a result of this project is the installation of a new septic tank and leachfield, which would not require a large amount of soil disturbance that could result in soil erosion. Solid wastes from the dogs may cause significant surface and ground water quality impacts if not properly disposed of in a timely manner. Stormwater runoff from the site could be contaminated with dog fecal matter and could possibly end up in nearby wells or downstream drainages. Mitigation Measure # 1 is recommended that requires the applicant to pick up the dog wastes on a daily basis and to dispose of them in an on-site septic system. With this requirement, no significant odor -related impacts are expected. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • The County Environmental Health Department requires the installation of a new septic system to handle the solid wastes from the dogs. Use of a septic system for disposal of dog wastes would not cause a significant decrease in water quality, provided the septic system functions as designed.. With the implementation of the mitigation measures included below, the impact would be less than significant. The floor of the dog kennel would need to be cleaned on a regular basis in order to prevent significant odors. The soiled runoff from cleaning of the floor currently flows directly into the soil surrounding the kennel. Over time, this could lead to significant ground and surface water impacts. In order to prevent significant water quality impacts, the runoff from cleaning of the kennel floor is required to be directed into the on-site septic system. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone or 500 -year flood zone as shown on Butte County GIS maps, which are based on Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0990C, dated June 8, 1998. The property is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure # 1: The project applicant shall pick up solid wastes from the dogs at least once per day and dispose of the wastes in a septic system approved by the Butte County Environmental Health Division. All water runoff from cleaning of the kennel floor shall drain into the septic system. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. Timing: The mitigation measure shall be adhered to during the entire operational life of the kennel. Monitoring: The applicant shall be responsible for picking up dog wastes at least once per day and disposing of them in the on-site septic system approved by the Environmental Health Division. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that drainage from cleaning of the kennel floor drains into the septic system. The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to complaints concerning odors. Mitigation Measure # 2: Prior to issuance of the Use Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a specific plan for disposing of dog waste, which shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Department for approval in conjunction with their review of the septic system. The project applicant shall implement any measures recommended by the Environmental Health Division and Animal Control Division for disposing of the dog waste. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. Timing: Plans for disposal and recommendations of the Environmental Health Division and Animal Control Division shall be adhered to during the entire operational life of the kennel. Monitoring: Building inspectors shall spot check for aspects of the plan that involve improvements to the property. The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to complaints concerning odors. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 0 4.9 LAND USE: Impact Discussion: The proposal would establish a dog kennel in an agricultural -residential area. It would not divide any established community. The proposed project is located in an area zoned AR -1 for agricultural -residential uses on parcels of one acre or more in size. Kennels are a permitted use in the AR -1 with the approval of a Use Permit. For the approval of the Use Permit, the applicant is required to present information, including plans or other information, that is substantial enough to make an informed decision. The Planning Commission reviews the proposal and will grant a Use Permit "the proposed uses of property will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies, and that the use would not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies, and that the use would not be unreasonably incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the county" (Butte County Code, Section 24- 45.10). This Initial Study, the review by the Planning Commission based on information from planning staff and the applicant, and subsequent review of the project by the Department of Environmental Health will ensure compliance with all land use plans and policies and ensure the proposed project would not impair the health, welfare, or safety of Butte County residents. The property is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would be incurred. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Would the proposal: Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Document a. Physically divide an established community? Incorporated X Document b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning X ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation 11 plan or natural community conservation lan? X Impact Discussion: The proposal would establish a dog kennel in an agricultural -residential area. It would not divide any established community. The proposed project is located in an area zoned AR -1 for agricultural -residential uses on parcels of one acre or more in size. Kennels are a permitted use in the AR -1 with the approval of a Use Permit. For the approval of the Use Permit, the applicant is required to present information, including plans or other information, that is substantial enough to make an informed decision. The Planning Commission reviews the proposal and will grant a Use Permit "the proposed uses of property will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies, and that the use would not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies, and that the use would not be unreasonably incompatible with, or injurious to, surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the county" (Butte County Code, Section 24- 45.10). This Initial Study, the review by the Planning Commission based on information from planning staff and the applicant, and subsequent review of the project by the Department of Environmental Health will ensure compliance with all land use plans and policies and ensure the proposed project would not impair the health, welfare, or safety of Butte County residents. The property is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would be incurred. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ Less Than Reviewed Potentially Significant Less Than No Under Would the proposal: Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Ars• File # UP 03-15 0 Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Mitieation Measure: None required. 4.11 NOISE: Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? X b. Result' the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? X Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. Mitieation Measure: None required. 4.11 NOISE: Impact Discussion: Ambient noise on and around the project area is affected primarily by extensive vehicular traffic on SR -70, which is adjacent to the project site's east property line. The dog kennel is located in the southeast comer of the project site, near SR -70. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than No Reviewed Under Would the proposal: Significant with Significant Impact Previous Impact Mitigation Impact Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other X agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without theproject? 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, X . would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: Ambient noise on and around the project area is affected primarily by extensive vehicular traffic on SR -70, which is adjacent to the project site's east property line. The dog kennel is located in the southeast comer of the project site, near SR -70. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 • The project would create additional noise in the project area by allowing the keeping of up to 15 dogs on the project site. The nearest off-site dwelling unit is located approximately 237 feet to the south of the kennel (this house appears to be abandoned). The next closest dwellings are located on the east side of SR -70, at a distance of 280 to 300 feet from the kennel. Three dwellings to the west and northwest are located between 335 and 586 feet from the kennel Since distance from a source of noise has an attenuating effect — for every doubling of distance, the level of sound decreases by approximately six decibels — noise levels at nearby homes from barking dogs can be expected to be minimal due to the long distance from the kennel. The noise from vehicular traffic on SR -70 may help.mask any barking originating from the proposed kennel. Additionally, given the agricultural zoning and character of the area, the sensitivity to noise impacts in this area is relatively lower than other more populated urban areas of the county. To ensure that dog -related noise does not become a problem, the mitigation measure included below reduces any potential impact. The project is not located in the 65 or 70 CNEL airport noise contour, according to the Butte County General Plan. Mitigation Measure # 3: If the Department of Development Services or other County departments receive noise -related complaints regarding the project and the level of noise is in excess of established standards, the applicant shall implement recommendations of the Department of Development Services to reduce the noise impacts. In response to any pattern of noise complaints, the Development Services Department, at the expense of the applicant, shall conduct a noise analysis to establish the compliance of the project with standards in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Currently, the Noise Element establishes that acceptable levels of noise for the project area of up to 60 decibels Ldn or CNEL. If noise levels are in excess of established standards, the project applicant is required to reduce noise levels through recommendations of the Development Services Department, which may include, but are not limited to, building noise attenuation devices that provide some relief to nearby homes, erecting a sight obscuring fence so that the dogs can't see off the site, placing bark collars on the dogs that bark, or other recommendations. Any implemented recommendations to reduce noise would be subject to Building Permits and other applicable conditions. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. Timing: The applicant shall implement measures to reduce noise impacts as required by the Department of Development Services as a result of complaints during the operational phase of the project. Monitoring: The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to noise complaints. 4.12 HOUSING: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Significant with Less Than Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 �I Impact Discussion: The project would not affect the population of the area. The project would not displace individuals or housing. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Impact Discussion: The project site is located in an unclassified area with regards to fire hazards, indicating that it is either in an urban area or an agricultural area. The site is not located within the State Responsibility Area. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Butte County Fire Department in coordination with the State Division of Forestry. The project is required to comply with conditions specified by the Division of Forestry, to be accomplished in coordination with the Butte County Fire Department. The project is required to comply with Department of Forestry conditions. The project will not increase the level of fire service needed on the site. The proposal may result in minimal increase in demand for police services. Responses to noise complaints or other complaints at the property would not affect the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide law enforcement services since the project would result in very little change from existing conditions. The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for school facilities in the area. The project would not result in significant impacts to area parks and facilities. A less -than -significant impact is anticipated on other public services. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in X order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X L Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The project site is located in an unclassified area with regards to fire hazards, indicating that it is either in an urban area or an agricultural area. The site is not located within the State Responsibility Area. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Butte County Fire Department in coordination with the State Division of Forestry. The project is required to comply with conditions specified by the Division of Forestry, to be accomplished in coordination with the Butte County Fire Department. The project is required to comply with Department of Forestry conditions. The project will not increase the level of fire service needed on the site. The proposal may result in minimal increase in demand for police services. Responses to noise complaints or other complaints at the property would not affect the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide law enforcement services since the project would result in very little change from existing conditions. The proposal would not result in an increase in demand for school facilities in the area. The project would not result in significant impacts to area parks and facilities. A less -than -significant impact is anticipated on other public services. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsams File # UP 03-15 • 4.14 RECREATION: Impact Discussion: No recreational facilities are proposed under this proposal. No impacts on existing or future recreational facilities are expected. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Potentially Less Than Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Significant with Less Than Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Incorporated Document a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility X would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the X environment? X Impact Discussion: No recreational facilities are proposed under this proposal. No impacts on existing or future recreational facilities are expected. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in X either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or X highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in X location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X L Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus X turnouts, bicycle racks)? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Ars•, File # UP 03-15 • Impact Discussion: The project site fronts on Bob Way, with SR -70 lying on the project site's east property line. The project site does not have direct vehicular access to SR -70, and the driveway to the dwelling on the site is from Bob Way. No new driveways or access points are proposed. There would be no significant increase in traffic associated with the project because the dogs would be owned by the applicant and no boarding of dogs owned by others would be allowed. Approximately once per week a prospective dog owner may come to the project site to look at a dog. The amount of vehicular traffic generated by prospective dog owners would be minimal and would not have an impact on vehicular circulation on Bob Way or SR -70. While vehicle speed on the adjacent SR -70 is high, there is very good sight distance in both directions of SR-70at Bob Way, which would allow vehicles on Bob Way to safely enter the highway. A center turning lane on SR -70 allows for a safe left turn onto Bob Way. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Impact Discussion: The proposed kennel would include a septic system for sewage disposal and an on-site well for domestic water. Thus, the project would not have an impact on any wastewater or water treatment facilities. No off-site storm water drainage improvements should be required due to development of the project site. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ Potentially Less Than Significant Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant with Significant No Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could X cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements X needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? L Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste? X Impact Discussion: The proposed kennel would include a septic system for sewage disposal and an on-site well for domestic water. Thus, the project would not have an impact on any wastewater or water treatment facilities. No off-site storm water drainage improvements should be required due to development of the project site. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Ars• , File # UP 03-15 • The project may increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minimal amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would have little or no impact on the capacity of this landfill. No impact would occur with respect to federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (SECTION 15065: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Less Than Significant No Reviewed Under Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Previous Document Incorporated a. 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 self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal X community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection X with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human X beings, either directly or indirectly? With the implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment beyond the impacts discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study. The project has the.potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.8 — Hydrology and Water Quality, and 4.11 — Noise. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of mitigation measures included in each of these sections and summarized in the following section. 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure # 1: The project applicant shall pick up solid wastes from the dogs at least once per day and dispose of the wastes in a septic system approved by the Butte County Environmental Health Division. All water runoff from cleaning of the kennel floor shall drain into the septic system. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn Arsanis, File # UP 03-15 Timing: The mitigation measure shall be adhered to during the entire operational life of the kennel Monitoring: The applicant shall be responsible for picking up dog wastes at least once per day and disposing of them in the on-site septic system approved by the Environmental Health Division. The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that drainage from cleaning of the kennel floor drains into the septic system. The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to complaints concerning odors. Mitigation Measure # 2: Prior to issuance of the Use Permit, the project applicant shall prepare a specific plan for disposing of dog waste, which shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Department for approval in conjunction with their review of the septic system. The project applicant shall implement any measures recommended by the Environmental Health Division and Animal Control Division for disposing of the dog waste. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. Timing: Plans for disposal and recommendations of the Environmental Health Division and Animal Control Division shall be adhered to during the entire operational life of the kennel. Monitoring: Building inspectors shall spot check for aspects of the plan that involve improvements to the property. The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to complaints concerning odors. Mitigation Measure # 3: If the Department of Development Services or other County departments receive noise -related complaints regarding the project and the level of noise is in excess of established standards, the applicant shall implement recommendations of the Department of Development Services to reduce the noise impacts. In response to any pattern of noise complaints, the Development Services Department, at the expense of the applicant, shall conduct a noise analysis to establish the compliance of the project with standards in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Currently, the Noise Element establishes that acceptable levels of noise for the project area of up to 60 decibels Ldn or CNEL. If noise levels are in excess of established standards, the project applicant is required to reduce noise levels through recommendations of the Development Services Department, which may include, but are not limited to, building noise attenuation devices that provide some relief to nearby homes, erecting a sight obscuring fence so that the dogs can't see off the site, placing bark collars on the dogs that bark, or other recommendations. Any implemented recommendations to reduce noise would be subject to Building Permits and other applicable conditions. Plan Requirements: This mitigation measure shall be a condition of the Use Permit. Timing: The applicant shall implement measures to reduce noise impacts as required by the Department of Development Services as a result of complaints during the operational phase of the project. Monitoring: The Animal Control Division and/or the Planning Division shall respond to noise complaints 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities May. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County GIS Data. Oroville, CA: November 2001. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Man 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ Project Name: Use Permit for Dawn APa.is,'File # UP 03-15 6. Butte County Planning Department. 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. C112M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. CH2M Hill, 1977. 10. Butte County Planning Department C112M Hill, 1977. 11. Butte County Planning Department. C112M Hill, 1977. 12. Butte County Planning Department. CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. 1989. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: C112M Hill, Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: Subsidence and Landslide Potential Man 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, Flood Insurance Rate Mans. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [ ] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [ ] ALUC [X] LAFCo [X] Assessor [X] Development Services [ ] Chico Unified School Distr. [ ] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [X] CA Department of Forestry [X] Caltrans (Traffic) [ ] Central Reg. Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wldlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [ ] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [ ] Oroville Union School Dist. [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept. [ ] OWID [ ] LOAPUD [ ] PG&E [ ] Pacific Bell [ ] Palermo Union School Dist. [X] Animal Control 8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Dawn Arsanis Use Permit (APN # 025-030- 066) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. Me hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. Ina Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date Project Sponsor/Project Agent k:\projects\upc\arsanis\arsanis use permit initial study.doc Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ July 3, 2003 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Suite Co L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 Re: Use Permit Application for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030-066, File # UP 03-15 Dear Ms. Arsanis: On June 6, 2003, this department mailed you the initial study for your project. The initial study is an environmental review -of your dog kennel project and contains several mitigation measures whose purpose is to prevent significant environmental impacts. The California Environmental Quality Act requires that applicants agree to the mitigation measures. Your signature is required on the initial study, which signifies that you agree to the proposed mitigation measures. To date, we have not received the signed initial study back from you. If you fail to return the signed initial study to this department we will have to recommend denial of your project to the Butte County Planning* Commission. Please contact me as soon as possible if you do not agree to the mitigation measures. If you would like, you can arrange a meeting with me to discuss the initial study and the proposed mitigation measures. If I do not hear back from you by July 31, 2003, your project will be scheduled for a Planning Commission meeting with a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission denies your project you would be allowed to have only five dogs over the age of four months on your property. Failure to comply with this regulation may result in further code enforcement action. Should you have any further questions regarding this Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7153. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner 'gatte, Count -11-1 LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY } - PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 June 6, 2003 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Re: Use Permit Application for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030-066, File # UP 03-15 Dear Ms. Arsanis: Pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3), an Initial Study has been prepared to determine if the above -referenced project would have significant adverse effects on the environment. The Initial Study determined that a mitigation measure is necessary to prevent the project from causing significant impacts to the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Please review the enclosed initial study and recommended mitigation measure, noting particularly any environmental problems which could be minimized or avoided by the care and manner in which the project is carried out. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires that the project applicant, or his or her agent, provide a written consent to the proposed mitigation measures prior to release of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for public review. The recommended mitigation measure constitutes a revision to the project. If you agree to the mitigation measure, please sign Section 8 of the Initial Study and return to the Planning Division. The Initial Study will be released for public review and the project set for a public hearing by the Butte County Planning Commission once we have received the signed Initial Study. The signed Initial Study must be returned to this office before we can schedule your project for a Planning Commission meeting. If you do not agree to the mitigation measure, please contact this office as soon as possible to discuss possible alternatives. Should you have any further questions regarding this Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7153. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner Enclosure: Initial Study for the Dawn Arsanis Use Permit, File # UP 03-15 utte County LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 May 23, 2003 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Re: Use Permit Application for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025-030-066, File # UP 03-15 Dear Ms. Arsanis: Thank you for the submittal of the above referenced application received on April 22, 2003. The project application, site plan, and related items have been reviewed by County Agencies in order to determine the completeness of the application. Enclosed please find copies of the comments we have received from agencies regarding this project. These comments have been received as part of the initial thirty (30) day review of the project. Please review these comments and the conditions that are requested as part of the project's approval. Should you have any further questions regarding these comments, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538- 7153, or via e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner Enc. r� 04 4� ffatte, County L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH AND B E A U T Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 May 23, 2003 Dawn Arsanis 7 Bob Way Oroville, CA 95966 Re: Application Complete — Use Permit Application for Dawn Arsanis on APN 025- 030-066, File # UP 03-15 Dear Ms. Arsanis: Pursuant to Section 65943 of California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, the above referenced project was deemed "complete" on May 23, 2003. Environmental review will be conducted within the next 30 days pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7153, or via e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, r Stephen Betts Senior Planner DEPARTMENT OAEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 TO: Public Works Director FROM: Steve<Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis, Use Permit - UP 03-15 APN: 025-030-066 DATE: April 23, 2003 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. PROJECT LOCATION: on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville County Supervisor District No: 1 ZONING: AR -1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels).. GENERAL PLAN: AR (Agricultural -Residential) If a response cannot be submitted prior to May 8, 2003, please call Steve Betts at (530) 538-7153. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for August 28, 2003 before the: Planning Commission F-1 Development Review Committee COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): By: Date: J410' ?J�JR��°FIVE® APR 2 3 2003 COUNTY Of BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV. APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis AGENT: FILE #: UP 03-15 s BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT DATE: April 23, 2003 APN: 025-030-066 PLANNER: Steve Betts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: A. STREETS 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits obtain encroachment permit for all new or existing driveway approaches and construct them to County standards, as specified in County Improvement Standards. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits deed to Butte County, in fee simple, _ feet of right-of-way from the centerline of The right of way shall be sufficient for the installation of standard No. S-5 at all street intersections. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits submit road and drainage improvement plans for the installation and construction of the street frontage improvements on to standard, including but not limited to P.C.C. curb, gutter and sidewalk and the required street section for parcels with gross acreage of one acre or less. Construct or install the required improvements. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits dedicate a one foot "no access strip" or relinquish abutters rights to Butte County, along the Jwy frontage of parcel except at appfeyed-aQcese points. ,? B. DRAINAGE 1. Prior to the recordation of the issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits establish 100 year floodplain elevations and the lowest floor elevations for any structures. Show on the site plan map for building permits the elevations (by contours) and the location of an accepted NVGD benchmark and a temporary benchmark on-site. C. . LEGAL LOT STATUS 1. Prior to the issuance of the Use Permit, prove, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that the parcel of the subject application is a legal parcel. RECEIVE® APR 2 3 2003 COUNTY OF BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV DEPARTMENT OF IVELOPMENT SERVIC S Rror� SPR 25 2003 PLANNING DIVISION yc BUTTE 9�C04 IURE��p4� 7 County Center Drive COUNTY Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 MAY 0 12003 FAX: (530) 538-7785 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Agricultural Commissioner FROM: Steve Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis, Use Permit - UP 03-15 APN: 025-030-066 DATE: April 23, 2003 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. PROJECT LOCATION: on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Orovi I le County Supervisor District No: 1 ZONING: AR -1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) GENERAL PLAN: AR_(Agricultural-Residential) If a response cannot be submitted prior to May 8, 2003, please call Steve Betts at (530) 538-7153. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for August 28, 2003 before the: Fx1 Planning Commission F-1 Development Review Committee COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): AD ►A-,r-.-r_u 4W4 tssv�= DEPARTMENT OF IkELOPMENT SERVICES • 'PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 TO: California Department of Forestry FROM: Steve Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Dawn Arsonis, Use Permit - UP 03-15 APN: 025-030-066 DATE: April 23, 2003 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. PROJECT LOCATION: on the southwest corner of Highway 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville County Supervisor District No: '1 ZONING: AR -1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) GENERAL PLAN: AR (Agricultural -Residential) If a response cannot be submitted prior to May 8, 2003, please call Steve Betts at (530) 538-7153. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for August 28, 2003 before the: Fx� Planning Commission 1-1 Development Review Committee COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis AGENT: FILE #: UP 03-15 • BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT DATE: April 23, 2003 APN: 025-030-066 PLANNER: Steve Betts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: 1. Construction, installation or development of structures or facilities on the parcels/lots shall comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations, (Public Resources Code 4290), and all other applicable State and County codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of application for improvement permits. 2. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. 3. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 4. In lieu of a pressurized water system or water storage tank, payment of $200.00 per created parcel into the Battalion _ water tend fund, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant spacing _ feet, hydrant size _ inches, and residual fire flow _ gpm. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. 6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment may be made into the hydrant fund at a cost of $1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $ 7. Prior to recordation of the Map or application for a building permit, the applicant shall pay the then current fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund. �( 8. Provide an all weather access of at least 10 foot wide and with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus to all structures. DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES • PLANNING DIVISION Environmental Health 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 APP 2 4 2003 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca TO: Environmental Health FROM: Steve Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis, Use Permit - UP 03-15 APN: 025-030-066 DATE: April 23, 2003 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. PROJECT LOCATION: on the southwest corner of Highway 70'an of Oroville rFiw'County Supervisor District No: 1ZONING: AR -1 (Agricultural -Residential, 1 -acre parcels) *$ 2003 GENERAL PLAN: AR (Agricultural -Residential) BUTTE COUNTY If a response cannot be submitted prior to May 8, 2003, pie P roll 538-7153. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for August 28, 2003 before the: Fx_1 Planning Commission 1-1 Development Review Committee COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached), By: 161 l lL' lel IK�G Date: u AP 026-030-066 Dawn Arsanis UP 03-15 'V Mailing List Distribution U oFC AR 21/2 M-2 AP z POW= Rd G-1 AR -1U AR AR, r ' AR -1 U Gai Run Ct .OFC _ ----- - -------------------------- - AR 1.01 1.09 h -2 --.--__---- ------- 3.21 2.04 Project Location k 4a AR -1 AR AR-1 AR r. o. .. U U :rt CPC i+ v. i t J'� t 300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1900 2100 2400 2700 3000 Feet BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING CONMUSSION N Applicant: Dawn Arsanis Owner: Same Hearing Date: Existing Zone: AR -1 (Agriz-Aftuul Residential, 1 acre min.) Supervisorial Request: Use Permit to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. District # 1 Aasessu~ Parcel No: C125-030-066 Flle:UP 03-15 rr A:, !� � r_; to M n! �MVti Is 39kalklq r -RA ft : i f 9v C:;� CJii u r_^bar �^aeeas.rerr�ti aa-�� .���'e�a`srecyr7v�"'ra°sa��._. :'i?^iIf' ir,� •.f• r; '.C' Int-.jiil{yl � (./`, (1 ..,. � ffS?�- ._i� .S� jl.r.,,...�.7?f: �-S{<�.:'tf14i!C �.jfliflf/(� _..-.•.....- .�-����L.f; '1rIli"".i�� ':-'1 01 (14 101, 1°,Pf?•J.i � 200 L Trkoll;. '1f'rt?: r1 _c ) :I�3ran-jV ��lc)I± OPO -?,o :U;f LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: UP 03-15 AP# 025-030-066 APPLICANT: Dawn Arsanis, 7 Bob Way, Oroville, CA 95966 PHONEM : (530) 534-6856 OWNER: Dawn Arsanis REPRESENTATIVE: REQUEST: Use Permit application to allow a dog kennel for up to 15 dogs. SIZE: 2.2 t acres LOCATION: on the southwest corner of Hi hg_wav 70 and Bob Way, at 7 Bob Way, south of Oroville SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # 1 EXISTING ZONING: AR -1 (Agdcultural-Residential, 1 -acre parcels) ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AR (Amicultural-Residential) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: ASSIGNED PLANNER: Steve Betts Date Application Received 04/22/03 Date Project Assigned 04/22/03 30 Day Complete 05/22/03 Preset Hearing Date 08/28/03 �: 0 0 "DRAFT" LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO:y2 t93- ! J AP# 49o2S--430- 4944, APPLICANT: N[S i -2 6,06 VAS, OWNER: SAS -4a' REPRESENTATIVE: S'—''i-' PROPOSED REQUEST: (to be filled out by person taking in application) [JSGr! G' A4t'i 1�O (�"Tf AQLtSly/ �¢ DB�i kc�..itiG-'f� /�✓ Y4�4� A le - ( FINAL REQUEST: (to be filled out ley project,planne> SIZE: 9,;.f A-c%ee LOCATION: S,ou rAwe-S no et-- /+ 2v .4 ,v o BO Q t-- � cr SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # d . EXISTING ZONING: A R -1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: A R I .M. M1. m M.7 R T T Mot MR—M, PLANNERS INITIALS aC�, 1 � a(SO (5- COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST County Offices and Cities: ,/ CalTrans (Traffic)" _ Dept. of Water Resources _ Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) V/ Chief Administrative ricer X Develop. Services Directory X Public Works Director X Environmental Health X Assesor V _ Building Manager _ Sheriff _ BCAG _ ALUC �fiiMIR89�' _ Air Quality Mgmt. _ Butte Co. Farm Bureau Biggs Gridley Chico _ Oroville _ Paradise/ ✓ _ Chico Airport Commission Information System Dept. X County Counsel Animal Control X Agricultural Commission a' . Irrigation District: _ Butte Water —Biggs/W. Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation _ OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito IrrigationDistrict _ Other Sewer _ Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21) _ L.O.A. PUD Fire Protection X California Department of Forestry "� _ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts _ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec. & Park Paradise Recreation & Park Richvale Recreation & Parks Utilities _ PG&E North - Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell PG&E South - Oroville Viacom Cable TV State.Agencies ,/ CalTrans (Traffic)" _ Dept. of Water Resources _ Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Central Reg. Water Quality Cont. —.Caltrans, Aeronautics Program _ Department of Conservation _ Off. of Mining Reclamation _ Dept.Social Services, Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies _ US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management Army Corps of Engineers _ National Marine Fisheries Sservice Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc. _ Lime Saddle Dist _ Drainage _ Reclamation _ Butte Co. Mining Committee _Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. _Mosq. Abatement. Oroville/Butte Co _ Community Association _ Butte Env.l Council _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Forest Ranch Community Assoc. Butte Ck. Watershed Conservancy 91 _ Dept. of Fish and Game _ Highway Patrol Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations US Fish & Wildlife Service School Districts K:\Planning\Forms\DISTR.wF .............. ..................... I ............. ........... - - - - - - - - I - - - - LIM ----------- --------------------------------------------- I ------- ----- ....................................... ................................. ....................... 7 ....... 7 ................ BUTTE COUNTY . . ................ ........................ ....... ............... .... .... . .............................. ......... ------------- ---- ................................... ....... ......................... ----------- --------------------------------------------- I ------- ----- ....................................... ................................. ....................... 7 ....... 7 ................ BUTTE COUNTY i PTN. SEC. 11- T. 18N. R. JE. M.D.B. & A CR 02 SEC 433 137 138 137 138 275 132 132.45 Lni -1 �2 35 36 41 . 57 12 62 22 63 32 64 42 65 M 54 .92 ACf 1.04 AC .1.05 AC 1.04 AC 2 1.05 AC 2.09 AC , !1 132 ------- =-=--- --------------- 1 132 1 132.98 GROVER LANE --------------------B , --------------------------W�---- ---------------- �+. 61 3CD 60 ? 1 i! PM 81-20 o A + t5 1 , r 14 i 13CD c 3.29 AC 2.09 AC 2.09 AC 2.02 ACt 433 275 275 275 e OAK GROVE SUBDMSION 15 M.O.R. 15 0 w Q F- V) 1 1.32 REVISED BY SDT REVISED ON 346-200 EFFEC NE 00-01 ROL 132 264 , 132 132.45 Lni 6;7 �2 35 36 O @5 O6 tn 7O 1.55 ACt .92 ACt .92 ACf .92 ACt .92 ACt 1.$5 -AC± .92 ACt -.93 ACf , !1 132 132 1 264 1 132 1 132.98 GROVER LANE 162 ' 234 133.07 � LIJ 14 1 1 i! 16 o A + t5 1 , r 14 i 13CD c 7� 16 15 14 53 30 L'A O9 O8 1.811: ACt I .92 ACf .92 ACt .92 ACf 1.02 ACf 1.75 ACf i .92 ACt .93 ACt + 132 132 264 132 133.60 132 `, 24 3 .81 ACt 2_ .'c =% 43 C52 2�+ 45 46 70 72 73 41 40 21 22 23 -H -H 25 L, .84 ACt .92 ACt .92 ACt 42 a .92 ACt .92 ACt .92 ACf .92 ACt ' 132 132 92 132 66 66 OAKWOOD LANE 132 + 132 132. 134.22 40 68 3, 39cqf :8 37 36 v5 34 33 32 31 Ln ACt �1 30 29 50 s 37 38 " .58 ACt .62 o M 1.85 ACt .92 ACt .92 ACt .92 ACf .92 ACf .92 ACf .94 ACt i 57 ACS 69 264 1 132 1 1 1 1 132 1 134.75 F3 1 Butte County Assessor's MOP Book 25, Page 03 Am fmis am for mmmont uIPOm my and �mayy caw&uto kO pa�ML . CREMID BY CREATED ON 12-9 REVISED BY SDT REVISED ON 346-200 EFFEC NE 00-01 ROL The Butte Cou Asaeaw 5 Oti4ce —i-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -�..... . ........ I I � , I I D 1 i Q I 1 � I I I 1 I I I o 1co i I I 1 I I 1 I � � I I I I I ( I I , I , 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I Q I I � , I A so 1 IL 1 ----- - --------------------------------------- • HIGHWAY 70 I z 0 I 1 t1 r w n Ic odf.r» b n.. qr&-Bm v m a w A .ad. ay�fplka6a0sr�n,�� ad^d�af: Anel>!� -ehc*-. be wd-oro mry:dAr-�oh•.�sspt. br:a�a�rd .�qA C . ro. 1°' u DwrM,iMv.fillhe'�fdoerdd`tab'P�- m � . .wonm. sodad dRrains' OM•' dr♦H b�. YM- P ni ..hu -e. bayit to . irafiov Dmn C)w• yter. to .tlr as wnt d: ww Werk . z 0 BUTTE COUNTX APR 2 2 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DRAWN -..BY .> SFTE: , PLAN :,BOB WAY LOT i DAR`REN DIVER i0ROVIkLE CALIFORNIA:'95966 158 ACACIA=•AVE 3ELEPHONE ;•: 0) :370.—%504 J I 1 , BUTTE COUNTX APR 2 2 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DRAWN -..BY .> SFTE: , PLAN :,BOB WAY LOT i DAR`REN DIVER i0ROVIkLE CALIFORNIA:'95966 158 ACACIA=•AVE 3ELEPHONE ;•: 0) :370.—%504 J 0 I p 6 I I I I I o m I I£ /�`• I I K 1 I O� y1 r I w I I I I I , _________________________________________________1 ___-IOCIIWAY 70 ,___________J _ • SHO PAN ' DRAWN BY DARREN DIVER p 0 6 :M:,-= �p _ t c A 'BOB WAY LOT 1 OROVILLE CAUFORM1A 95966 �p � ~ � 156 ACACIA AVE w TEIERMONE •(510) 370-7501 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —r...... rri I I I I � ' I I � Z 1 ' I I I I I , I , I i o I vw I , I I � I i I I ' I I ' I 1 ¢ 11--o-- I I I � L-----�R-------------------------------' --------- lilt� HIGHWAY 70 z 0 4 rn O ft > 2 rn 1}1w: aM.�paaMieatlr�.as•tr P�Oi t7 m = and'oappl�4 d Oan�OM� ad dial net be wd-an any obw wort,wmq* by aWawnent wth m rn u e .• Dartw-pwti MMltw�dnWnWom,@ha loin pra- wwa Orf �ded'dY+wnrles-and �Ali't10vafF- .r.. N to- ode � abw�wlt7r�vio d bragM to' natfea. Dunn Ohwr ,lar to t!n .� oannlwsnwlt at -am AM. . C �0&1 Roa"ivnrl APR 25 2003 SITE PLAN BOB WAY- LOT' 1 BUTTE COUNTY APR z Z 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DRAWN-- BY D•ARR°ER. DIVER OROVILLE- CALIFORNIA 95966 15W -ACACIA AVE - TELEPHONE= (030):370-7504