The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGRD 06-07ami - c $ e e 469yC Ae n : DI, i OM o 12ify pipe o-#*Af eouh o)n P �I t v (SLY. OL) dselD 96—"UL)Iqwnico) INUNOO 83811 83WnSN03-ISOd %oz wnWINIW '83dtfd MUM , �TK • Viol is_ qac a °� V' I lv� Cp-*-eco 002 36-291 10. DANIEL ALLEN NO - V: ' L . ,, � � :•�� , :'S�`,�, o . •. .; ^`� �► �� 4� �' ,. ��. , � � � �� 0 1 t' � � 1 1� �� G ��4 �r o- Ix _: ', '1 � ''-.Z. 1 , ��. _� }J9 E s �' '.c ; 1 j �ttS ��.� ,: ,� n r y , �` ,�� %x � i .. v .r 1 I X 1 � �.1 L. ' 6�� k y"� � a�N � �y� t � � ' �'l. i '� P`i` � i Si a �� ' � � �`� e� �� '�1� �` - 4 �� i� 1 ' 0 1 f r. 01 6 DAt,-;lEl.."ALtF_N 7 Cji'A� y V 4; I r 003 36241 4 GANI.Et.. ALLEN � rat �� r..;Ja ►.a E.1 ►J ►.� ►.! ^j T.AtSC, 0/ 1!?, w o �V V Cos-tco 012 36291 8 DANI Et. ALLEPai. 011-1 C169 :.1 H. N ►,! 11.14%Z095. 0/ 102, • � CV "7o 0 s2L ° '•' ti•4w' _ A .. � ' � t , .-a . y Y• 7't r k fir .4,�� •, •': � � � `` _ 1 * . Costco 013 36291 %I EL. ALLEN C 11 'T Ct C y �O �[ os Oro 14 3-.,2? 1 F i �_tu re 038 DANIEL ALr.Pf . o• • .. `i r•�x h F t�� r �'•� +•�� '-r ta!� + a ,Rv1+�{` s 1.:� _ .off - r �� . rte. 04 .. •:!� �. • - ` - `•.fit. .. �+• �', { � + +l �' ��+.3rS�„ �c� �.a Cost 015 36291 IP��cture 039 DAh[J.E ALLEFI_w f VO I t�3 = :'J c� 36291 12 DANIEL ALLEN VON ,dNQ'tc:c, 004 Sp, o 55 362S�J--Il DAt-TIF-) ALLEN !I t-1 Amyl t-1 z os tl� 0,..- 1 [-A 1) rA C`3 Costco 003 36291 01111,1069 N N .14 1.1 100 -Aa.: DANIEL W.J. rto J �' ,, . '� �' ,-� J , ... �`;- � .J �': �` / �� ^� .. ., �`'� �� ,, i, �d gtco Gi11 36291 7 GRANIEL. ALLFN 'p � � as ct AL L Costco 009 36291 5 DIA IIEL HLLEN 0 � ov Costco 006 36291 2 DANIEL ALLEN Ol 1, I'l 069 1.1 11 .1.1 ,.-! 11,14 zciu51 0/ "!3!3. o 'kn kli rl �J"f t', t' y ] Q0 F tl r' .t . fi!'+ ear{�i• t ,: w ¢'M'..fir •,f. � a , , ,. •� ��k3 � � .... i ,.��' .. '1. __ `l •'� O NAY'' 1i.Y r I �'li'ti ��'al7�'(�.�, vk�. fie • � j� � _ 4 F�� r � 5 Ff^ - l s`k .�� •L' "^nal �� 4 . AML ',GF,, r -4Q ppi. '—*os-tco 007 36 ,q1 3 ALLEN ppi. CLAY SELZER'S POND CENTERVILLE RD. CONTIGIOUS PROPERTY NORTH OF CENTERVILLE CEMETERY �+�� y e ♦.a. z �y� ve f � i ..: t r. •w- ,: �'�5;'rte+ P C+ �F,3'r�`, �.�t �- ;r� t;•♦ !t� - -- -` — +�ti � +:;. .1.•:fir_. U.6. _ I 1 r - 04/30/2007� r , L ar • ' • 04/30/2007 .1 L • 04/30/2007 S%',"y-r+�•1., .R,r Wr' y.j.,. 17' ' rMt� '�T-� •moi..' ��T� 'J.� " �ti�r/M k'C�' '.�'- _.cI'�O w.t !.ice'.'. 47i. m • f �+ 4s{l �7V�',� t r 1 / �I ' w 1� /G q. x/ r A 1' / i 1�•1 in I ':T February 5, 2007 Butte County Planning [ #7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 BUTTE COUNTY FEB 1 12001 UVEWOUNT gkas SUBJECT: Grading permit application File# GRD -06-01, requested by Signalized Intersections West, LLC and the Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dear Sirs: As residents and homeowners of Butte Creek Canyon for over twenty years; we are compelled to voice our serious concerns about numerous misstatements and inaccuracies that we have found In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration that you prepared for the Butte County Planning Commission. We further ask that you inform us on how the following issues will be address before proceeding any further in the adoption process. We believe that these issues must be acknowledged and adequately addressed ASAP. Much of the data provided in the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the data provided by Gilbert Engineering for Signalized Intersections West is inaccurate or misleading. These inaccurate statements show a total disregard for the county codes, and also for the environmental, historic and scenic values of Butte Creek Canyon. Following is a list of a few of these inaccuracies: Item1 - Page 1, item K of the Initial Report states that there is a 16' wide driveway. The road is not 16' wide. Of the 376' illegal road cut, only 44 feet is at 16 feet wide, leaving'the remaining 332 feet at 10' or less in width. The steep eroding cut banks will, in time, diminish the width of the road. Item 2 - Page 1, item L of the Initial Report uses the term "small pond" that is directly across from the existing graded driveway. This pond is of historic significance. It is the last site of the historic floating gold dredge that operated in Butte Creek Canyon during California's gold rush era, over 150 years ago, and of great value to canyon residents. Item 3 — Page 8, paragraph 6 regarding the 50' No Disturbance Zone. To date it is this zone that. has had the most disturbances, with no regard to the county codes, wildlife, wetland springs and Indian artifacts in this area. Item 4 — Page 2, item M of the Initial Study states that the banks of the cut are at 33% slope. The banks are actually, on average at a 66% slope. To reduce the slope would require the removal of 45,000 cubic yards of material. Item 5 — page 2, paragraph 2 of the Initial Study regarding erosion control states that hydro seeding and growth has stabilized the soil. This is not true. Gilbert Engineering Inspection report dated March 6. 2006 states that the hydro seeding was done, and states that growth is doing well. This is also a false statement. The banks of this steep cut have exposed a tuffacious ash flow of the Tuscan formation. The high alkali content of this exposed material will not support vegetative growth. To date there is no growth, not even native grasses. • Page 2 February 9, 2007 Item 6 — The original plot plan with encroachment sites were abandoned. As a result the existing encroachment does not meet the mandatory 500' line of site visual clearance. There is only a 270 foot visual clearance at the present site. It therefore poses a very viable traffic hazard to both north and south bound travel on Centerville Road. Also the exiting encroachment erodes directly into the historic pond, contaminating its water quality as seen by the extensive algae bloom since grading operation began. February 2007 historic pond since grading February 1998 pond before any grading Due to the inaccuracies listed above, we do not feel that the county can come to the conclusions reached in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We propose that there is a significant Impact to all of the following: Aesthetics — degrading the natural setting of the canyon Biological Recourses — adverse effects to riparian habitat Cultural Recourses — disturbance to Indian artifacts Hydrology/Water Quality — Degradation / siltation of historic pond and Butte Creek Geologic Processes — substantial erosion of topsoil Transportation/Traffic — present encroachment poses substantial traffic hazard. Until these items are address, we challenge the approval of a grading permit. Respectfully, Tony and Linda Cimino 12401 Centerville Road Chico CA 95928 r 10 -40 Al `- •. ' ,.. COUNTY MAR 13 2007 - DEMENT ER CES lC t1.T .� s 1319r1�42Q� _ . T 'Mr. Geprge Medina 12671 Centerville Rd. Chico, CA 95928-8330. U-9 9Yd9 �C .C'1.. _1...4'; �Q'dd S...{.. 1{f Fri : i iii ??? '?2 '?3ifii:1'ili�il F3 Durling, Carl From: joseph chiapella Uachiapellamd@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:29 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Grading in ButteCreek Canyon: File # Grd-06-01 Dear Mr. Dur,.ling I was involved in the original grading ordinance which was passed by the Board of Supervisors years ago. For other reasons I was on top of the same ridge under Castle Rock yesterday. The devastation is only a little better because of the passage of time and the ingrowth of bushes -twenty years!! The project File #Grd-06-01 on a small scale is equally bad being dangerous from first glance from a traffic viewpoint and worse yet from it's effect on the environment. It is my recollection that this was started without proper authorization; any reasonable view of this project would start with great concern for safety first and the environment ss a cloxe second. Please help in re-evaluating this project. Thank you. Joseph Chiapella,MD. >From: Caroline Burkett <cburk@digitalpath.net> >Reply -To: Burkett Caroline <cburk@digitalpath.net> >Subject: Fwd: Last day to have your voice heard for Butte Creek Canyon >development >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:37:02 -0800 >Begin forwarded message: >>From: "Linda Cimino" >>Date: February 9, 2007 15:20:52 PST >>To: "Burkett Caroline" <cburk@digitalpath.net> >>Subject: RE: Last day to have your voice heard for Butte Creek Canyon >>development >>Caroline, >>I miss spoke earlier. Today is that last day to send in comments >>regarding this project, if you were going to challenge the project in >>court. I have attached a copy of the letter that Tony and I sent in. >>I will keep you in the loop about the hearing date. I am hoping for a >>good turnout of canyon folks. >>Thanks for sending out the email earlier. >>PS very interesting that Castle Rock property is up for sale. >>Linda Cimino >i�%From: Caroline Burkett [mailto:cburk@digitalpath.net] >>Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 11:17 AM >>Subject: Fwd: Last day to have your voice heard for Butte Creek >>Canyon development >>Importance: High >>ATTENTION! I am forwarding this urgent message from Linda Cimino. >>Today is the deadline to give a written response to the Proposed >>Mitigated Negative Declaration for Signalized Intersection West, LLC >>for parcels »017-090-038 & 039 across from the duck pond on Centerville Road. If >>you have not written a letter you may email it today to the address >>Linda has provided below. 1 > 5- >>Begin forwarded message: >>Subject: Last day to have your voice heard for Butte Creek Canyon >>development >>Caroline, >>Can you please send this out to other canyon residents on our email list? >>Today is the last day to voice any objections to additional grading >>to be done at the project across from the duck pond. >>Pat Bernedo, the Teresa Kludt and Tony and I have set letters to the >>county. Teresa has also sent some to our Supervisors. >>I called Carl Durling, the Butte County Planning employee that is >>over seeing this. His email address is cdurling@buttecounty.net, he >>stated that emails to him about the project would suffice. >>The project name is Grading permit application File# GRD-06-01, requested by Signalized Intersections West, LLC >>Thank you! >>Linda Cimino Check out all that glitters with the MSN Entertainment Guide to the Academy Awards® http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline2 N Durling, Carl From: Rkwilladsen@cs.com Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:16 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION WE ARE COMPLETELY AGAINST THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE SIGNAL WANTING TO BE PUT IN ON CENTERVILLE ROAD. FILE# GRD -06-01. THANK YOU RON AND SALLY WILLADSEN 1966 FLATIRON ROAD CHICO, CA 95928 2/14/2007 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Caroline Burkett [cburk@digitalpath.net] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 4:08 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Yamaguchi, Kim; Kirk, Maureen; Dolan, Jane; Connelly, Bill; Josiassen, Curt Subject: Initial Study, Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for Signalized Intersection West, LLC To: Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Commission Attn: Carl Durling To Whom It May Concern: This email is in response to the above mentioned initial study (negative declaration) Butte Creek Canyon parcels 017-090-138&139, in application for a grading permit by Signalized Intersections West, LLC. Signalized Intersections, initially without a grading permit, cut into a hillside to create a road with a dangerous approach to Centerville Road, graded the property that is the source for the historic duck pond across the street from "driveway", and flatten an acre of land in such a way it does not reflect the environment around it. In the process the remnants of an Indian village were bulldozed over, including two large grinding stones, trees cut down indiscriminately, and a flat scar left cut in the hillside --as seen from Centerville Road. To have this report made after the damage was done is at the least ironic, and for those of us in the canyon that wish to preserve the natural environment, and history of a beautiful and unique part of the county, a disaster. I am not an engineer, but the amount of grading done to this one acre to my "educated" eye is greater than 6% to 0%s. The Driveway is not safely placed to avoid danger to vehicle traffic in this area of Centerville Road. It is also questionable how the grading of.the driveway and the slopes above it would withstand erosion and flooding from the rain and wind driven storms that visit this area frequently. I live in a flat area down the road from this development and last winter our cul de sac became a raging creek from the storms. The historic duck pond will be seriously damaged, and Centerville Road become quite dangerous in a similar storm because of the grade and location of this driveway. I suspect that current unhealthy nature of the duck pond is a result of the grading of its water sources from the parcels. No consideration was given by SI to the natural environment when grading (illegally). No consideration was given to the Indian artifacts that have been graded over. No consideration was given to the water sources for the duck pond. And, no consideration has been given to the neighbors and community surrounding this development. The county has no jurisdiction over aggressive, belligerent behavior by this developer towards many of my neighbors whose property borders SI's. They have had to incur large legal fees to protect their property and rights. It does have the authority to request the property be restored to it's original condition and the developer held accountable for the destruction he caused to the environment and history of these parcels. SI plans to develop another 200 acres up the road from this property. If the county does not hold him responsible now for his actions --what can we expect in the future? The behavior of Signalized Intersections, from illegal to aggressive, is a signal to the county that all is not going to be as it should. I hope that the county takes particular interest in the development of these parcels and asks the company to restore the property to its original state. Those of us fortunate to live in the canyon treasure the wildlife, the natural environment, the Indian history and the mining history. Too much damage has been done to the canyon already. Visitors come here not just from all over the county, but all over the state to enjoy the natural resources here. Since I was a child living in the San Francisco bay area I used to visit this area. One of my favorite walks was to the duck pond. I want it protected. We need the county to look closely at the direction the canyon is going in and to protect it for future generations. 1 -V Thank you for your consideration, Caroline Burkett 11925 Castle Rock Court Butte Creek Canyon Chico, CA 95928 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Wolfe, Gordon [GWolfe2@csuchico.edu] Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 2:55 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: File# GRD -06-01 Dear Mr. Durling, As a resident of Butte Creek canyon, and as a biologist whose research involves the protectioA of natural resources, I wish to voice my concern about the grading permit application (File# GRD -06-01, requested by Signalized Intersections West, LLC, for parcels 017-090-038 & 039 across from the duck pond). Ido not think there has been adequate public input on the impact of this project on either the natural feature_ s or traffic of the canyon. Thank you, Gordon Wolfe 5376 Nimshew Run Ln Chico, CA 95928 (530) 961-3909 r 2/9/2007 l Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: BGBurnham@aol.com Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:51 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Signalized Intersection West, LLC File number GRD 06-01 Dear Mr. During, This is to lend support to those who have already expressed their concern regarding this development. I understand prior on the grading on this property was done without permit. The road looks like it! Who will oversee further potential work on the property 017-090-0380 & 039? 1 would hate to see this development raise the hackles of more canyon residents as did the proposed canyon condos back in 1980. You may know that one resulted in a ballot initiative which the opponents of the development won. It's a lot less effort for everyone to see to it that this project is tightly scrutinized. Thanks for your efforts, John & Bonnie Burnham 12108 Centerville Road Chico, CA 95928 2/9/2007 Teresa Kludt, J.D. Attorney at Law 5357 Nimshew Run Lane Butte Creek Canyon Chico, Ca. 95928 February 9, 2007 Jane Dolan Butte County Supervisor - District 2 196 Memorial Way Chico, Ca. 95926 Re: Objection to a grading permit application Project Location: Butte Creek Canyon Project Applicant: Signalized Intersection West, LLC (GRD 06-01) Dear Jane, FEB 13 2007 SUPERVISOR JANE DOLAN DISTRICT 2 , It would be wrong for an out-of-town developer to come into Butte County, ignore rules, then be "excused" by being granted a post -development permit with a list of inadequate mitigations. tib This is precisely what the Butte County Development Services Departments is proposing. As you may recall, grading through a hillside in Butte Creek Canyon was commenced in 2005 without required permits. A "Stop Work" order was issued by the County. (See attached Chico News and Review article, dated September 1, 2005.) Since then the Development Services Department of Butte County has prepared an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which is now being reviewed. Enclosed please find a copy of my husband's and my letter of objection to the Butte County Planning Division I join many canyon residents in being very upset by the grading that was done without the required permits and by the subsequent environmental damage that was caused by it. A huge visual scar has been created in an area you know is a popular scenic gem of the county. You might want to take a drive up Centerville Road and see the site and its impact for yourself. I understand the post hoc grading permit application will be before the Planning Commission soon. I and many other canyon residents expect to strenuously object to the proposed mitigations and to oppose granting of this application. Because the applicant proceeded without permits or approval, I will be asking that the applicant be ordered to restore the land to its original condition --before the illegal grading occurred. I ask for your support in denying this after -the -fact grading permit application. Thank you for protecting and preserving Butte Creek Canyon. Sincerely, Z��e �_ Teresa Kludt 4 1 of I nUp;11 w n n.,.......- - -- To print: or select File and then Print from your browser's menu This article was printed from the Newsildeatures ber 1, 2005. } section of the Chico News and Review originally published Sepbem t i o This article may be read online ar. http://www.newsreview.cOm/chico/Content?oid=42991 Copyltght @2007 Chico Community Publishing, Inc. panted on 2007-02-0410:33:05. R ed tags, red flags Two -home. pmJect in Butte Greek Canyon hides larger -Proposed development Drive up Centerville Road through Butte Creek Canyon. high above the Honey Run Bridge, and you'll see it --a huge notch in the hillside where workers have carved a dirt driveway straight up toward the towering buttes above. look a little closer and you'll see a neon -orange cam led� W� de of the road, a so-called red tag* left Public� inspectors that has the effect of sfiopping any construction project in its tracks. But it's what you won't see that bothers carryon residents. The stop -work order pertains to a project that would put two homes on two 4o -acre parcels, each sharing m commfear the on driveway. But some adjacent property for an roject is project a stealth development meant to dear the way subdivision that, if realized, could change the character of the neighborhood forever. canyon resident Mark Lightcap said he was approached by the owner of the property above Centerville Road nearly two years ago and told about a plan to build IS homes in�cllside near d noise his own property. Such a project would impact in the area, require the widening of a fire mad aid partially transfbffn much of the bucolic 200 -acre parcel it would be built on. Lightcap said. "Going from "My wife and I just sort of gasped,' kind of scary to us. We told nothing a all to all that just seem him we appreciated him meeting with us but we would not be in favor of that:." Making the grade: County Inspectors Put a stop work order on this project in BdMe Creek Canyon, which was undertaken without Some canyon neighbors said fire two -home a grading permit: project is just the first step, taken by property owners who wish to build IS homes on an adjoining piece of property. photo By Josh if Oar _ - - - -- No_g;_o,`,-h canyon: Going track as 2r as I981, canyon residents have; fought to keep their quiet, rural hiiLsides free of major developments. They"Ve lr_en successful for tine most Pa K. kng a �S-`ondo Project that had been previously approved by county supervisor's in the early'8Gs and then, a are a father -and -son team Made up fe,^' years later, fighting off a is -home Proles at We same The -owners of the property nagement location. of Dan and Ben Alien, who run Leaseb� Asset PertYis i Ltd., a Poway development company' Th Irrbersecuorrs, LLG Dan stered under another Allen Company, g Allen, the father, reportedly made his fortune building Wal-Mart Ben Allen, Dan's son, at first said there were only stores and is hoping m retire In the canyon. When reached for comment, would eweMuallY be built; each on their own Then he admitted that two h 0 of adjacent property, he said, "I think rd plans m build one home on the Property- development parcel. But when asked about plans to -build an. 18 -home better say 'no comment es to be clustered In According to Alien's project engineer, plans call f the 18 horn rlle Road and existing nel9hborsll uEaRhome d Open sps amund sbe In excess , where they ill be less visible to each other, as well a5 to d possiblylinked with Center Gap undisturbed, a said. easements 2,000 squat'c feet and will share access from a singledriveway, be kedo leave creelcs and trees would ensure large areas remain undeveloped, and attention by canyon reside Geoffrey Pow' who said he is concerned about The issue was brought to the News 8r Review's a prime spawning ground and has spring-run ard from neighbors that at mud from the two -home project finding disturbance Its:' ofNay Nadnto er cert n acorn -grinding sits, also is worried about the possiblefor cutting. When Fridcer inquired about it to bounty Planners, he said he was least 20 oak trees in the area had been marked resources to oversee it: ford that the county was aware of the work being done but lacked fire he said. -I became more . 'I think a lot of neighbors were concerned �.. We assumed they had gotten the necessary phis " 214!200.710:33 http://www.newsreview.com/chico/PrintFriendly?oid=oid`/o:3A4z9y I concerned when I found out they had not gotten a grading permit." County public works director Mike Crump confirmed the two -home project was red -tagged, Aug. 26, coincidentally the same day the CN&R called the county to ask about the project. Crump was unaware of (or at least didn't mention) any plans to build 18 additional homes in the area, which is zoned as Foothill -Residential, a designation that provides for one home per lot, with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. But he said it is becoming more common for developers to start a project without pulling county permits, especially in rural areas where inspectors are scarce. Contractors have long complained that building permits take months longer to procure in Butte County than in neighboring counties. "With the pace of development and the price of land going up it's become more economically viable to build homes in more out-of-the-way places; Crump said. 'We're getting more complaints from neighbors; but then a lot of times [builders) actually have the permits." Gary Hunt, whose company, Gilbert Engineering, was hired to cut the driveway for the two -home project, said the county gave him the go-ahead, issuing an encroachment -permit which Indicated the grade, width and length of the driveway. 'To me, that's saying 'go ahead and build your road;' he said, noting. that.his original plans called for.a much shallower cut Into the hillside. 'The only way to get into that property is to do What we're doing. The bureaucracy's become so cumbersome they didn't tell us we needed a grading. permit.' Hunt said he has already applied for the next batch of permits and will comply with i neighborsareumping to conclusion abonty regulations. He also ut the that the Aliens hope to build 18 homes on the adjoining property. 9 project, which he said would have a 'minimal Impact' on the area. .Dan Allen is only doing this because he wants to live in a nice, natural setting; Hunt said. 'We are saving trees wherever we can. If there's a rock outcropping we leave it. We're not trying to trash the environment." Having been in the homebuilding business for some three decades, Hunt said, he has heard --and even sympathized with—neighbors' complaints before. "Everybody's suspicious of -developers until they want to build their own house; he said. "They bought their lots but they didn't buy their view. One thing I will say is that they are getting a lot better than what they would get if Dan Allen would've sold the property to someone else.' Fricker said he didn't object to anyone building homes in the area as long as they follow the rules. "I'm not against development but the checks and balances are there for a reason," he said. 'One thing I would hope that comes out of this is that rogue developers won't think they can just go do things without going through the process.' 2/42007 10:33 AP BRUCE AND KATE HICKS 12428 Centerville Rd COUNTY Chico, CA 95928 530 - 345-6645 FEB 0 8 2.007 DE tOMp I SERVICES February 8, 2007 To: Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Project Name: Initial Study - Signalized Intersection Grading Permit -GRD 06-1 Project Location: Butte Creek Canyon Type of Application: Grading Permit To Whom This May Concern, We are writing in response to the proposed grading permit application. considered under the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for a grading permit application under the project name "Signalized Intersection Grading Permit GRD 06-01". We strongly believe that an Environmental Impact Report should be required. We are very concerned that the company scared a pristine hillside with this road cut:. A serene section of road with an historical pond filled with wildlife has been greatly impacted because of this slice into the hillside. The pond itself has never been the color it is now in the 11 1/e years we have lived here. This at least suggests an impact that should be further studied. As neighbors we worry about the impact of this cut being used as a road. Any sensors or lights he would need to put up to make it safe to enter of depart from would further deteriorate the serene nature of the area. We are concerned that his company will continue in their bad judgment at the expense of Butte Creek Canyon and all of it's residents. With rain finally coming to our area what will the silt be like? The impact of this on the wetlands and waterways around this road cut do not seem adequately addressed. We are greatly concerned, given their recent work, that they will continue to go ahead without permits and then just "pay a fine" and continue to do as they wish without regard to regulations, the canyon, or it's resident wildlife. We don't want to see our canyon ruined because of lack of oversight:. Please deny this application. Sincerely, Bruce and Kate Hicks In"Tw! A-ln-t ,l iQ lrl)ff3iit� )�j'/'irli)rr.t .�iJily :{;i [Wiei f i(I-fiinfttAN t-iJ QStJ �iccY�rr Iriih:,sJ rttri;a,.,?l +xtt t)JCttrlSi:'.i 2 - vbui? Lti)irir :,jrrr>L`. laojn111 i<lYi3ti :� it:i3't� �.rt31�t :TtU7�f;JrJ� )�'�f'3i�� ' tirrss'? �rriai3�ti) :i)o[lr�itggf�'to :.r�r�t� b8' sbiariao rioi soilggs .firmsri pnlbmp baebigp iq 9ft OJ eenor ae-i r i vni'li-m kna 9W s •ioi roriG'inlJJO eViyei 9l.'i beii:giaif4'l beaogonq bn6 ybuj2 lciZ;ni grit •isbnu 3irrrsoq enibwsi^.c nwoemoint bssii3ngi2" Jmsn 10eju,;q gri7 .gbnu noi:lsoilggs 3ir,rieq sit uluort� , loggq Iosgml luinsaincriivn ris gvgilsd ylpmja 9V+,i .'rO-aO ORG bmitipm ."LJO bal-1-i aid4f rlriw 5biel!id 9r1ijcI'lq s b3' can ynrigmoo sdj J6ri1 ber eonoo y7ev ens. SW V!3saryp nogd nd siilbliw d.jiw bollii brioq ns rUw boon lo rloiloea en.9,1zr A sri n9ud,iav9n 2rri ilse?i bnoq erlT .9biallid 9rb o.ini socia ai0i io sauf,39 i beso grni icurni ns e3a9pp1)2 3r rsl is 2ir:T .m9ri hent 9v(;r! 9w m6sy ni wan 2i .ti nolo:j .beibu.,2 ierljiui sd bluoria 3rrIj ynA boos n as b9zu pnisd aw) airi;t Io Jo8grni erif Jundia yn�iow sw modripiar, 2A bluow moii aicggb io i3j,-,e W sir a Ji oAam o1 qu Juq w been bfuow ori a dgit -io mcanga .80'113 9M fio g-luJen wne lsa 901 a'Aroh9job i,963%A er2nygx9 :irij -16 Ingingbui bBd-iisrit ni gunijrioa MW ynearnoil 20 lsrb bamsonco 9'ls r^,W 69 e -wo ca griirnoc; yllonii nice rlJi1ly' .e:tngbiam a. ii Io lIs l,na nuynrJ Agw-D e3ju8 Io Lnuo-is a:,uw7e'3w bns abnelJ9•:v srla no 2idi }o :r3sgrni sriT %. i! ed Jiia s►•!j l!iw Jrtiw i�sa7e�ibbr yl9Jr3up rbc rrio43a fan ab �u bt;r, l air!1 bseft cp os 9u"ibno'7 Ilivv y9ril ufij ,ii1o1}y� ;)rlaocf'1 -iierb rievig juer ,.-moo f.las ip e,! sW Ji]Or Av" dab y9rtj 213 Otto C,a ouriifna:) brr8 "soil 6 #3q" 4Uj n:-:rlj fjrj iJrtrr3�9q �!�,^. lii'4 •iuo ssz of 7nraw 7'nab )W .:)ii1blI JosNag•i a'Ji -io .novneo 2t114, ,. fmifiblugo 3 W b•;sp;ai .njbc-.,AIggs airil ync" in Mori lo 9a:jer_,sd bsnun novnav ylo•1g0r;i2 abiri >:ajn;A brio: eokr,8 N, February 6, 2007 Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Orovi►le, CA 95965 Subject: File # GRD 06-01 Bum M VVUNW t FES 0 8 2007 DEW P This letter is written to challenge the Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration for File # GRD 06-01. Some important facts that were not included in the report should be addressed first. This grading was undertaken without any approved permits or plans to move earth. The applicant simply had an encroachment permit which is for private work in the -public right of way. The removal of an estimated 8600 yards of earth is significantly greater than the 1000 yards allowed before a grading permit is required. The work on this project was halted by a Stop Work Order issued by Mike Crump, Public Works Director, due to illegal grading activities. This grading took place across Centerville Road within 50' from an historic pond that measures 91' x 264'. The drainage from this project discharges directly into this pond through a preexisting culvert. The location of the driveway cut on Centerville Road is not located in the approved driveway locations of the original parcel map. When the subject parcels were divided by parcel map in December 2002, two driveway locations were approved as part of the original parcel map. One driveway location was approximately 100' north of the pond and the second was approximately 100' south of the pond. The drainage from these approved driveway locations would not have impacted the pond at all. The location of the driveway does not meet the line of site requirement standards of 500' visibility on Centerville Road. By moving the driveway to its graded location, it created a traffic hazard by not having the proper visibility north from the driveway and south for the -traffic traveling down the canyon. The applicant also potentially violated 3 other notes, on the parcel map addressing grading, impacting the 50' "No Development Zone", and the requirement to obtain an Erosion Control Plan. There were no existing roads located on the subject property that were identified on the Parcel Map. Concerning the Initial Study that was prepared for GRD 06-01 1 have the following comments. Some of the wording on page one and page two could be misleading to the reader or is just incorrect. The statement in K. page one "The grading excavations that are the subject of this Initial Study and Grading Permit have already taken place under a Butte County encroachment permit." This statement is misleading since an encroachment permit only covers work in the public right of way and in no way gives the applicant any authority to move earth on private property. Also on page 1, M. The statement "The request includes three previously completed components:".... The fact is that none of these components are complete and will not be complete without substantial additional movement of earth. The statement on page 2, top of the page, "Banks have a maximum slope of 33% with a maximum height of 30"' The slopes on the banks that are visible from the road have a 'slope that is closer to 75%. Attached is an illustration on how to calculate the percentage of slope and some sketches of different slope percentages. The statement on page 2, item 3, "There is no evidence of bank failure or soil erosion." There is evidence of soil erosion on the banks. In regards to the recommended mitigation measures, of the seven recommended measures, 3 were requirements of the original parcel map dated December 2002. Mitigation measure #1 is simply a road maintenance agreement which would be a standard requirement. Article 1 of the Butte County Grading ordinance states " The Grading zone is an area including unique resources. It is noted for its scenic natural beauty, for its streams, creeks, and vernal pools, for its diversity of vegetation including rare and endangered plant species, for its fish, and other wildlife, and for its sources of water. All of this said resources are subject to serious damage by improper and uncontrolled grading, including, but not limited to, erosion and siltation jeopardizing or destroying fish and other wildlife and the disruption or contamination of sources of water being used for domestic and other purposes. The purpose of this article is the control of erosion and siltation, the enhancement of slope stability, the protection of said resources and the prevention of related environmental damage by establishing standard and requiring permits for grading." The visual impact of this major driveway cut cannot be mitigated with landscaping. I have been standing at the pond and viewed bike riders snap their heads up the hill and gasp at the site of this project. The drainage impact of this project cannot be mitigated. Habitat destruction can take place rapidly by moving massive amounts of earth in a sensitive area or it can take place slowly, year by year, changing the drainage pattern on a hillside and depositing the water in an existing pond and wetland. I respectfully request that you deny the applicant this grading permit and require the applicant to restore the hillside to its original condition. Access to the parcels should be limited to the two approved driveway location on the original parcel map. Sincerely, Patrick Bernedo 4691 Cable Bridge Drive Chico, CA 95928 530-345-4562 SEs I 51Natures, d—in". l9; rnalC,;al, .eqV—;an r and/D, e,<a'.O:;On 5 not b ring c St.- o' 30% o, qre unless a , Cnnt,r4 Plnh aeaa,ed ay o `ect�< 4 Wng;neera 01 Olhel auOin.d to O! siOh,h ris SVDnh;lted rl0 In'd ODP,Ored ay Ine Deaa --ell •n Pub C a4s I P 2 Ine Dual ding se000 from a lice and reo, of Inc p,oaerly Ines ooll be OI lens, 10 lel I 501 isfy Publ;e Resources Code 4290(Fne nSa:e Regula ti'ns). D S. Fire SuOP,eSS;On SD,ihVle, st51<mS Shall j De i Io11ed ;n all n s;dehlial S:ruClureS in Oc<a„alce + the National Fire Plole ion ASSOC;a I;Oh—i—e, 10, the n e101:On OI i—er SyslemS ana Ino IO,;” d»aping, and rnaale nome5. Nor FPA Stan al 13D. -less a Pr essuri;ea COmmunil� ore system. n;tb nya,ans + 0; .meet rl.c D,Oor:n. emu sbecdicc6ons. Sanas the DOr<CIS \ A ?.easo,es small be :csm tocohaal fug;;;re dust erh;ss—s nom ana oy an o. e, C•.r 919 15 On51-60n associated +;t' . en1;a L' . S:On Oara W:; .6-'Vea Sures al0 0 �\ PARCEL 2, 1 20 ROS 95 `eacee a dost e,';ss;onec n De PDlan Ine 2 q � r�--•'�-� \ � gin•.e o alfa Coa,::y Air ouol'c;. Inonagc �-,n Dstar. \ \\ 5 Sher;!! FacilitiesFee s paa. 01510nt Io Ine DI -S-0- of CnoD:er 3. A,:%cle Ino I Impact F non be v / 2u;te Counlr Cl— Pl- to :ne ;ssacnee o: 0 building Dermis. Ine fee a --h; Shall be .,I ";.a. ane [aNleled 15 0! ine date of ODOnm;on f , D..nO;nq a,,m:t /PARCEL 1 , 120 ROS 95 6. PabhC empty Secill be IFSPOnlf;ble f ma;nlcnan<e of the Stab s;gr , a<ea,acnce «, : Cir;, a Code Section 845. m o e o: :he Oe nclue;ng ine stop sign. soon be shared Dy those 100' LEACNFIELD 100' LEACNFIELD Droner lies «;;n.n o 1eg'1�nteresl in Ine,w riga;-of-hey o as m n FREE SETBACK FREE SETBACK b0 7 Fencing fe, o s the, than resseen;;0� areas Shan be Ifrn lee to ma,;mum of f \ J• \ - _ F FRO. EDGE OF 0' sl,a'Cs The Ion t stIonal shall .e (5) nee R0. CFN rERLINE ry `ea DC c: lease 5;•le<n (16) ;acnes ObOve Ina ground end ine upDM 1 t - \ '619.0 /' OF CREEK. POND.s;,ond snob De Is than faly-e;gh1 (48) inches'ba.e the q•ouha o \ (/// s�i e Consvdcl;on. ;nstala;ion os dr.eloomen: of sbda0,e pr racanes on the Darces ; mc;nq c 191,84. ]/ minimum, 0r;.e«ay s;'nd0res. building setbec%s. and oaae mg, shall comet «;tn ine 1a. s F:ge a50, A S4d.ld O Regulation of Butte County, PuDic Resources Code 4290, and ell othe, cook—te Slav: end CO,,: \ \ Codes. ordinances ono reg,tctiohS in effect at the of ODDh<ot;Oh to, ;mD,o.emeht o y 9 At the time of Duna;ng pe,mit oopl;<ot;on. if a Dee, Pcrd I Pac, tees) ;S _,endy tn`effect. ;t �` / Shall be Paid Dior to the ISsuchceP of the ouoila;ng Permit, _ C:e ^.c0 PgRCEI\i 10 E,ceDl f0, 1000 01 Cl;r ey c ssing, n Svucwres. -Ping. rill m r;al. ana/a .clion 40.01 ACS \ PARCEL 2 K// j /' S0' 8 ILDING Snon Pe -11-0 «kinin the 50-1001 "No De.elopment Zohe- as deD;c;ed. um;lec �egreGon ,emowl s 0.00 AC. T/7/A�y" SEreacK LINE to, n00a cancra \\ O "( necessary 3 DHmi9sible «ifnin the "NO DerelODmMI Zone': nOnP.er, ell li' and \�\ HO s / Oi, ;nq and VCalI,ses hal` be retc; ee and all .egetat;on remora Shall be cDp,preo Dy the Deportment 500.70 fish \ O \ It Prior to development '<tirit g req arca of a Ca;fah;a EXISTING DRIVEWAY Department O�'isn aid Came Shan ybe 1106 ea. Co 1 act the Cofifo,n;oeD lion . ,S 9 PARCEL 1 O DepOr;m en; 0r FPn and come / \ e9H \ `\ CIP f0, tar lner in!Orm':;On re9or a;nq not; IiCOI;On re0uirem ems. 22.06 AC. P 12. During derel'Pmen1 aC iaGes. should any archaeological a,tifoct5 be d;score•ea. the 8—e C—y PlPnning D;r;s;on s II De notified ;mmea;olel o g;s y, and all .his Shall cease antl ' Dual lf'ga ng to t e.am;ned ine '`:;:Oc15 and the Site and submitted his a her Ii -an l0 Ihe Planar. S 29�0/� / \ �•\ Hf \ \ \ rt /2tgq, end recommended CI .,once :o can F -s. Recommencement of c-s,,u ;l shah De onlyg occa 'Prim the OpPro'ot Of ine IPI'noing D;re;on. 0.0 A /� \ me derelooment ihh—t fee to, Schaal facilities shall be Pad p,;O, to ;ssuahc`of l-4cinq be—its \ l ( O— ht ni!I be aste—iled and ca1<ulo,ec as of ine dote of appl;<ation 10, the ouil0ing 2 qn 50' BUILDING b V l4, DeDe,mitsc �9 rC SETBACK UNE r IOpmenl 01 these DO,cels hoy regw,e ocy+hent ;,to the wale, Tende, Fand 15.20ding sites mus: De located on Porcels 1. 2. one 3 so as :o (31 -;de :he ,eau;,eo smog, a \ 7 sp osol O,ea.OD; c;h Health Department o- i a,;a, ;O q,ad;nq 1o, d,ir ay orsite pad. \ \ 16. No nate, —111 may be located -;1n;' 100 fee: at the usable se -age d;sdosa oles 0n parcel 1. 2. and 3. v. Site distance fb, 50 mon (des;q.+ speed) ;s 500 feet 10, st' ;ng The site distance ct :, e \ `\ af—set O,ivenOy P as following 1464 `PROPOSED DRIVEWAY a. The D,op05ed `a.ivenay for Par<e1 3 nos O site distance Of 700-750 !` et �� D. Tne ','Dosed 0,;,e«ay for Po,cel 2 nos a site distance of 1.000 feet LEGEND ;/ SCALE: 1"=300' USE481LE Si'r.AGE DISPOSAL -REAS PROPOSED ADDITIONAL :VAP SHE'E'T PARCEL A1.AP FoR H, -IRR)' H. BAU!VER ET U\` THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, P.aRCeL s, of ".. Roy' 95. SECTION 19 DESCRIBING CONDITIONS AS OF THE DATE OF FILING THIS MAP, AND IS uu7'Te COU,VTY. CALIFORNIA NOT INTENDED TO AFFECT RECORD TITLE INTEREST, IN ACCORDANCE .SIERRA WEST S•URVf.YIAiG WITH SECTION 66434.2(a) OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT. 5437 BLACK OLIVE DR. (530)877-6253 PARADISE. CALIFORNIA 95969 SEPTEMBER. 2001 SCALE:I"=.500' APN Olt -280-I19 SNEEI 3 OF 3 3oox /SS PRGe 96 ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM road pic rower perty Address F County State Zip Code der/Client 1. .r;`I'r'r.'.•i" STOP R :l;- rl. 00 NOT REMOV. _?RK NOTICE I•. 4. ' ^ yy YOU ARE IN % P. AT ciCALIFORNIA SU 1-0 `+G S'A%L t t€ AND THE { b OE t CCiT At;T THE f.t .ai - ..a;QN BEFOREy" t „K nay j ANS Ft HTwt Z %-CRK ON THIS s t.t t CATE -`'�-�•, 4 ,, as r G; oUILOING OFFICIAL (� 1` �� l ) ' �� - - COUNTY OF BUTTE M"T OF OEVLLOPMENT Oe- SuIL04NG OIVIa ON �- / 1. .r;`I'r'r.'.•i" .tit [.- • :l;- 4 .4 fir• • ta�tT ..:+ BERNEDO APPRAISALS Yew from Centerville Road Stop work issued by county Yew road from pond Borrower Property Address City Chico Lender/Client ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM County Butte State CA Zip Code 95928 BERNEDO APPRAISALS Photo of road cut on Centerville Road 12-20-2006 Photo looking south on Centerville Road showing the roadside ditch overwhelmed with water and silt runoff. Photo looking north on Centerville Road showing rrmnoff overwhelming ditch and running across Centerville Road into the driveway and the pond at 12302 Centerville Road ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM BOffOwer Property Address Centerville Road City Chico County Butte State CA Zip Code 95928 Lender/Client t � � J •/ ' � _rem' �'.� "L -rya .. moi- ,�.f i �. , o BERNEDO APPRAISALS Photo of pond adjacent to road cut 12/20/2006 Photo of water and silt runoff from road cut Photo north showing muddy pond from runoff of road cut pill. y_y*:•31'_". '•�.� til ,Y �., .7t �st os ji ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM Borrower Property Address Centerville Road City Chico County Butte State CA Zip Code 95928 Lender/Client BERNEDO APPRAISALS View of silt that has run across Centerville Road from road cut. 2-28-2006 View of debris and silt runoff into the driveway at 12302 Centerville Road from road cut across Centerville Road View of mud on Centerville Road from road cut. 'gyp dols lsnuoo of a!qm uo!s.anuoa .agulvaaiad adols Buumvaw jg{ q!nu of oq.L SIVSNHddV 0C13NH38 sawBap ul adols of e6alueaied ul adolo p oIgw uo!wolluoo at? a'Bf ) JI D'aZ U C'ZI aOz o'Bf 6$1 !•Ez I 5D1 I ,Gt a•of 2z I.- el?, s Be n8! SZE f all a•GI la D't 'Lil TOE .01 Z'S - 'Al /.'f17. di W9 EZ 'a'f vi (moo) (%ladoiS (adnlsP) (%)adolS ( (s -gyp) (%)odolS (i) SeDClueolad'ul odols m4 aleilY1T'J ! aln8lj - ,aoiEap of om:tuayad ul adgs.io p- a1 zM algm e,ll asn /• 'ofewond ul OdOls.11 BuDeingm 1B11V atltps ml! W 4U1<wl 044sl-7 001 * _ (%) odolS -- alnGed ul uaND elnuuol ow Dysn aBus.oaM T 1( 1n edols ell) einSnew of 9 ACM lsoldw.s e1(L ' *60MGwad pue saaAW mop4t rs a 1. adals W alnseaw of sAum uowwoo oMlale ateyl uagDWapu2'1 87b56 aPoj d.z VZ) mels aAng ,Guno� oa(ga dui peoga(p"a7ua:) ssa.lppVAyladoid Jamomo8 p0od VV"UNZUUV "c3vc3:JU1VPIO IVIYUIIIUUV ADDITIONAL PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM Borrower Property Address Centerville Road City Chico County Butte State CA Zip Code 95928 Lender/Client BERNEDO APPRAISALS Measuring the slope This sketch represents a 33% slope. The Initial Study states that "Banks have a maximum slope of 33% with a maximum height of W." 30/91 x 100 = 32.97% The sketch at the right illustrates a slope of 70.78%. 30/42.5 x 100= 70.58% By comparing this sketch to the photograph above it appears clear that the slope of the bank is greater than 70% BUTTE LW COUNTY FEB 0 *9 2007 DEVELOPMOT M SERVICES , February 5, 2007 Butte County Planning Division #7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 SUBJECT: Grading permit application File# GRD -06-01, requested by Signalized Intersections West, LLC and the Notice of Intent to Adopt A Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dear Sirs: As residents and homeowners of Butte Creek Canyon for over twenty years; we are compelled to voice our serious concerns about numerous misstatements and inaccuracies that we have found In the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration that you prepared for the Butte County Planning Commission. We further ask that you inform us on how the following issues will be address before proceeding any further in the adoption process. We believe that these issues must be acknowledged and adequately addressed ASAP. Much of the data provided in the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the data provided by Gilbert Engineering for Signalized Intersections West is inaccurate or misleading. These inaccurate statements show a total disregard for the county codes, and also for the environmental, historic and scenic values of Butte Creek Canyon. Following is a list of a few of these inaccuracies: Item 1 - Page 1, item K of the Initial Report states that there is a 16' wide driveway. The road is not 16' wide. Of the 376' illegal road cut, only 44 feet is at 16 feet wide, leaving the remaining 332 feet at 10' or less in width. The steep eroding cut banks will, in time, diminish the width of the road. Item 2 - Page 1, item L of the Initial Report uses the term "small pond" that is directly across from the existing graded driveway. This pond is of historic significance. It is the last site of the historic floating gold dredge that operated in Butte Creek Canyon during Califomia's gold rush era, over 150 years ago, and of great value to canyon residents. Item 3 — Page 8, paragraph 6 regarding the 50' No Disturbance Zone. To date it is this zone that has had the most disturbances, with no regard to the county codes, wildlife, wetland springs and Indian artifacts in this area. Item 4 — Page 2, item M of the Initial Study states that the banks of the cut are at 33% slope. The banks are actually, on average at a 66% slope. To reduce the slope would require the removal of 45,000 cubic yards of material. Item 5 — page 2, paragraph 2 of the Initial Study regarding erosion control states that hydro seeding and growth has stabilized the soil. This is not true. Gilbert Engineering Inspection report dated March 6. 2006 states that the hydro seeding was done, and states that growth is doing well. This is also a false statement. The banks of this steep cut have exposed a tuffacious ash flow of the Tuscan formation. The high alkali content of this exposed material will not support vegetative growth. To date there is no growth, not even native grasses. • Page 2 February 9, 2007 Item 6 — The original plot plan with encroachment sites were abandoned. As a result the existing encroachment does not meet the mandatory 500' line of site visual clearance. There is only a 270 foot visual clearance at the present site. It therefore poses a very viable traffic hazard to both north and south bound travel on Centerville Road. Also the existing encroachment erodes directly into the historic pond, contaminating its water quality as seen by the extensive algae bloom since grading operation began. mar February 1998 pond before any grading February 2007 pond since grading Due to the inaccuracies listed above, we do not feel that the county can come to the conclusions reached in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We propose that there is a significant Impact to all of the following: Aesthetics — degrading the natural setting of the canyon Biological Recourses — adverse effects to riparian habitat Cultural Recourses — disturbance to Indian artifacts Hydrology/Water Quality — Degradation / siltation of historic pond and Butte Creek Geologic Processes — substantial erosion of topsoil Transportation/Traffic — present encroachment poses substantial traffic hazard. Until these items are address, we challenge the approval of a grading permit. Respectfully, Tony and Linda Cimino 12401 Centerville Road Chico CA 95928 February 1995: Historic Pond before grading February 2007: Historic Pond after grading Teresa Kludt, J.D. BUTTE Walt Schafer, Ph.D. COUNTY 5357 Nimshew Run Lane FEB 0 a 2007 Chico, Ca. 95928 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES February 5, 2007 To: Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Project Name: Initial Study - Signalized Intersection Grading Permit GRD 06-1 Project Location: Butte Creek Canyon Type of Application: Grading Permit To Whom This May Concern, We are writing to object to the proposed grading permit application considered under the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for a grading permit application under the project name "Signalized Intersection Grading Permit GRD 06-01." We do not believe that the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the negative impacts of this grading application. We believe that there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacts" from this grading permit application, that the application should be denied, and, at the very least, that an Environmental Impact Report should be required. We believe that the grading permit should be denied and that the land should be ordered to be restored to its previous condition. It is important to note that the applicant/owner, Signalized Intersection West, LLC, chose to "act first without permission" in the grading that is currently being reviewed and attempting to be mitigated. A huge environmental scar has already been created to which the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate. Please consider the following points based on criteria from the application form: 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Aesthetic/Visual resources: Potentially Significant Impacts a. Has'substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista. b. Substantially damages scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state highway. c. Substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d. Creates a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Butte Creek Canyon is undeniably one of Butte county's visual gems. Its Honey Run Covered Bridge, Centerville Schoolhouse and Museum, and Centerville Cemetery are listed on numerous visitor and historical publications. It may not yet have an official "scenic highway" designation, but its beauty and importance to the quality of Butte county's image cannot be denied. Applicant's grading at the Centerville Road entrance has literally sliced a hill in half. The steep 30 foot high and 33% slopes of the sides of the walls of the grading cut are not natural. Nor can they ever be made to "look natural" with landscaping or maintenance as suggested by a private road agreement. Applicant's road cut, if the application is approved, would result in an ugly, unnatural scar along a gently winding country road in a unique, peaceful, scenic area. Applicant's grading cut now abruptly and unnaturally opens directly across from a old, historical duck pond known as the Harvey Johnson Pond. This area is a serene wildlife -filled pond and wetlands area where abundant deer, wood ducks, and other species abound. Lights, gates or other sensors monitoring applicant's driveway access would create a new, substantial light source and glare. Clearly, the scenic vista and visual character would be significantly altered should applicant's grading permit be approved. Applicant's holdings of contiguous and adjacent lands are ample and contain less severe access possibilities such as: less extreme slopes, pre-existing undeveloped roads, and trees and brush that could naturally buffer the visual impacts of an access road. Why such an extreme, disruptive, environmentally harmful grading cut was done without permission at its current location can only be answered by the applicant. However, the mitigation measures offered by the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are inadequate. The grading application form also includes that the following factors be considered: 4.4 Biological Resources: Potentially Significant Impacts Would the proposal: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and,Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any actors are introduced (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration report states that applicant's project: "Has a potential to have a significant impact to fish or wildlife habitat." Yet the Initial Study does not check the "Potentially Significant Impact" box. Instead, the study states that: "collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4 and 14 CCR 73 is to be required." The payment of fees as a "mitigation" is insufficient. Applicant should not be able to "buy his way out" of a significantly destructive project by the payment of fees to Fish and Game. The impact of applicant's grading proposal diminishes the precious habitat in Butte Creek Canyon and cannot be adequately mitigated by the payment of "fees" to a state agency. Additionally, the Initial Study does not state how it arrives at its classification of "less than significant impact" for many of the categories listed above. The following have not been adequately addressed in the study and should be: • Reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, fish or invertebrates). • Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat for foraging, breeding, roosting and nesting. • Barriers to movement of any migratory fish or wildlife species. • Factors such as fencing, noise, presence of human and domestic animals. Resident historical perspective can attest that the area of applicant's project is uniquely lush in wildlife habitat. Most visually prominent is the permanent deer population that lives in area of applicant's project and the nearby pond and wetlands. For several years local residents have been making their own "road signs" warning of deer in the area of applicant's project and advising motorists to slow down for the deer crossing the road. The Initial Study also notes that applicant has already impacted .05 acres of Riverine Wetlands by his unapproved grading with an additional impact on wetland seep contemplated. The biological quality of the environment in Butte Creek Canyon is important for all of Butte county. Applicant's prior unapproved grading and current project application contemplate significant impact and irreparable harm to the biological resources in Butte Creek Canyon that should be more adequately addressed by an Environmental Impact Report, or the application should be denied. 4.5 Cultural Resources: Potentially Significant Impact a. Causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section 15064.5. The Initial Study states that the project site is located in an area considered to have a high archeological sensitivity: " Disturbance on the soil during grading operations may uncover and disturb cultural resources that lie below ground surface." Mitigation Measure No. 5 suggests that a qualified archaeologist should be consulted and appropriate mitigation procedures be implemented should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural resources. It is disturbing to realize that applicant has already excavated 8,600 cubic yards of material --without oversight and without a grading permit. This proposed step to mitigate the potentially significant impact requires a level of compliance with rules and regulations that applicant has not yet demonstrated and requires oversight that cannot be provided. Noting that his original encroachment permit called for a much shallower cut into the hillside, Gary Hunt, whose company, Gilbert Engineering, was hired to cut the driveway (See Chico News and Review, "Red Tags, Red Flags," September 1, 2005), stated, "The only way to get into that property is to do what we're doing. The bureaucracy's become so cumbersome they didn't tell us we needed a grading permit." This illustrates that the County cannot always provide the necessary oversight. Applicant's project cannot be sufficiently mitigated to ensure safety of potentially sensitive archaeological findings and should be denied. 4.6 Geologic Processes: Potentially Significant Impact b. Results in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The Initial Study states: "There is a significant (high) potential for soil erosion on the project site (Butte County General Plan GIS data)." Additionally, the Initial Study documents that: "(D)uring construction of the major 300 -foot cut, significant soil erosion took place. Water born soil crossed Centerville Road and entered a small pond on the opposite side from the driveway cut. This soil was in turn transported into Butte Creek a major year round water course with significant flora and fauna (fish) habitat." (Emphasis added.) This is the harm that has already occurred, despite a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) permit that applicant appears to have obtained after the work started. The Initial Study continues to document soil erosion and soil still reaching grade level at Centerville Road. Mitigation measures suggest conformance with the SWPPP and use of the "Best Management Practices." These mitigation measures appear insufficient for the protection of the environment. The grading permit should be denied due to the potentially significant environmental impact. Applicant's grading has already proceeded without the necessary care and attention to the significant negative impacts it has produced. Butte County and Butte Creek Canyon have suffered because of it. For the reasons stated above, and all of the concerns raised by others, we request that applicant's grading project request be denied and applicant be ordered to restore the land to its previous condition. At the very least, applicant's proposal raises items of potentially significant impact, and an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Very truly_. yours, Teresa Kludt Walt Schafer Schafer February 5, 2007 BUTTE Butte County Department of Development Service CORN* Planning Division FEB 0 ? 1007 Re: Initial Study —Signalized Intersection West LLC (GRD 06-01) DEVEW:pm N,,SERVICES Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration To Whom It May Concern: My family and I have lived in Butte Creek Canyon since 1996. We have observed with great distress the appalling actions of Dan and Ben Allen, working under their company name of "Signalized Intersections" (hereby referred to as "SI" in this letter). I have recently read the Initial Study referenced above, and am writing to state my objections to the proposed grading permit. It is my opinion that had SI applied for a grading permit containing specifications matching those of the existing, illegal road cut, the permit would have been denied. SI's claim that they weren't told that they needed a grading permit is laughable and unbelievable. The fact that their illegal road cut now has to be studied and go through a process of negative mitigation, at tax -payer's expense, is frustrating, to say the least. Even more frustrating is the possibility that SI will just pay whatever fine that might be assessed, and the Allens will get away with what they did. What kind of message would this send? The possibility of silt reaching Butte Creek and negatively affecting the salmon worries everyone I've spoken with that is closely following this issue. What also concerns me is the pond (locally known as "Harvey Johnson's Pond") that is directly across from the road cut, and which received much of the silt -laden run-off from the road cut that occurred during the winter rains. For months now the entire pond has been bright pink with some sort of algae bloom. Long-time residents I've spoken with that live near the pond have never seen it like this before. I have personally observed many of the creatures that live in and around the pond: wood ducks that raise their ducklings in it year after year, mallard ducks, geese, muskrats, bullfrogs, herons, fish, and turtles, just to name a few. Is this over -bloom of algae going to be detrimental to their survival? I would consider this a "potentially significant impact" to those creatures! This unsightly, unnatural, steep -sided road cut is an offensive scar in the natural landscape of our beautiful, scenic canyon. There are other, far better, far safer, more gently graded areas that SI could have chosen to cut their access road. Why SI chose to ignore the more obviously suitable access areas is a mystery. I believe that the grading permit should be denied, and that SI should be required to restore the area to its original condition. Sincerely, z. G o Cen f -e► -vi l Ie- 6" r October 1.7, 2005 Butte County Development Services Attn: Joe Hunter 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Butte Creek Canyon Developer, Signalized Intersections West LLC Dear Planning Director, The following is a list of concerned residents that have contacted Supervisor Dolan's office regarding activities in Butte Creek Canyon by Signalized Intersection West LLC. They are requesting to be kept, informed on projects proposed by Signalized Intersection West LLC in the Butte Creek Canyon area. Please include these homeowners in any and all future project correspondence. Paul T. Persons X Attorney at Law 1834 Arroyo Canyon Chico, CA 95928 Caroline Burkett 11925 Castle Rock Court Chico, CA 95928 Bruce & Katherine Hicks 12428 Centerville Road Chico, CA 95928 Mark & Darlene Lightcap 4569 Rim View Drive Chico, CA 95928 Kay Simenc P.O. Box 7907 Chico, CA 95927 Richard & Christine Satava 11942 Castle Rock Court Chico, CA 95928 George and Norma Medina 12671 Centerville Road Chico, CA 95928 Please do not hesitate in contacting me if you should have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Mary Brownell Executive Assistant for Jane Dolan, Supervisor District 2, Butte County 196 Memorial Way Chico, CA 95926 (530) 891-2830 Fax (530) 879-2479 LANEDOLAN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE UT 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 U14 PAUL MCINTOSH CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER October 20, 2005 George and Norma Medina 12671 Centerville Road Chico, California 95928 Dear Mr. And Mrs. Medina, COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 Telephone: (530)-538-7631 Fax: (530)-538-7120 MEMBERS OF THE BOARI BILL CONNELL` JANE DOLAr MARY ANNE HOU) CURT JOSIASSEr KIM K YAMAGUCH I am in receipt of.your letter dated October 17 regarding the potential development of a large parcel adjacent to your property by Ben and Dan Allen. These gentlemen also do business as Signalized Intersections West LLC. The Development Services Department, my office and the Butte County Board of Supervisors are all aware of concerns expressed by residents along Centerville Road regarding this potential development. Please know that the Allen's, at this time, have not submitted any application for this property, nor do they have any vested right to develop that property. In order for their proposal to become reality, they would have to apply to have the property rezoned and subdivided to enable the type of development described. Such an application would require numerous public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, including the preparation and hearing regarding an assessment and mitigation of any likely environmental impacts. Your names have been added to a list of concerned citizens regarding this property. If an application is received to develop this property, you will be notified and advised .of your opportunity to comment on that application. 7aul rely, McIntosh Chief Administrative Officer Cc: Development Services Department Members, Board of Supervisors RD ECFHWFE OCT 14 2K5 SUPERVISOR JANE DOLAN DISTRICT 2 Teresa Kludt, J.D. Walt Schafer, Ph.A / 5357 Nimshew Run Lane Chico, Ca. 95928 February 5, 2007 To: Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division Project Name: Initial Study - Signalized Intersection Grading Permit GRD 06-1 Project Location: Butte Creek Canyon Type of Application: Grading Permit To Whom This May Concern, We are writing to object to the proposed grading permit application considered under the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for a grading permit application under the project name "Signalized Intersection Grading Permit GRD 06-01." We do not believe that the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses the negative impacts of this grading application. We believe that there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacts" from this grading permit application, that the application should be denied, and, at the very least, that an Environmental Impact Report should be required. We believe that the grading permit should be denied and that the land should be ordered to be restored to its previous condition. It is important to note that the applicant/owner, Signalized Intersection West, LLC, chose to "act first without permission" in the grading that is currently being reviewed and attempting to be mitigated. A huge environmental scar has already been created to which the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate. Please consider the following points based on criteria from the application form: 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 AestheticNisual resources: Potentially Significant Impacts - a. Has substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista. b. Substantially damages scenic resources, including but not limited to: trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state highway. c. Substantially degrades the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. d. Creates a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Butte Creek Canyon is undeniably one of Butte county's visual gems. Its Honey Run Covered Bridge, Centerville Schoolhouse and Museum, and Centerville Cemetery are listed on numerous visitor and historical publications. It may not yet have an official "scenic highway" designation, but its beauty and importance to the quality of Butte county's image cannot be denied. i Applicant's grading at the Centerville Road entrance has literally sliced a hill in half. The steep 30 foot high and 33% slopes of the sides of the walls of the grading cut are not natural. Nor can they ever be made to "look natural" with landscaping or maintenance as suggested by a private road agreement. Applicant's road cut, if the application is approved, would result in an ugly, unnatural scar along a gently winding country road in a unique, peaceful, scenic area Applicant's grading cut now abruptly and unnaturally opens directly across from a old, historical duck pond known as the Harvey Johnson Pond. This area is a serene wildlife -filled pond and wetlands area where abundant deer, wood ducks, and other species abound. Lights, gates or other sensors monitoring applicant's driveway access would create a new, substantial light source and glare. Clearly, the scenic vista and visual character would be significantly altered should applicant's grading permit be approved. Applicant's holdings of contiguous and adjacent lands are ample and contain less severe access possibilities such as: less extreme slopes, pre-existing undeveloped roads, and trees and brush that could naturally buffer the visual impacts of an access road. Why such an extreme, disruptive, environmentally harmful grading cut was done without permission at its current location can only be answered by the applicant. However, the mitigation measures offered by the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are inadequate. The grading application form also includes that the following factors be considered: 4.4 Biological Resources: Potentially Significant Impacts Would the proposal: a Have a substantial adverse effect, either.directly or through habitat modification on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any actors are introduced (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration report states that applicant's project: "Has a potential to have a significant impact to fish or wildlife habitat." Yet the Initial Study does not check the "Potentially Significant Impact" box. Instead, the study states that: "collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 711.4 and 14 CCR 73 is to be required." The payment of fees as a `mitigation" is insufficient. Applicant should not be able to "buy his way out" of a significantly destructive project by the payment of fees to Fish and Game. The impact of applicant's grading proposal diminishes the precious habitat in Butte Creek Canyon and cannot be adequately mitigated by the payment of "fees" to a state agency. Additionally, the Initial Study does not state how it arrives at its classification of "less than significant impact" for many of the categories listed above. The following have not been adequately addressed in the study and should be: crossed Centerville Road and entered a small pond on the opposite side from the driveway cut. This soil was in turn transported into Butte Creek, a major year round water course with significant flora and fauna (fish) habitat." (Emphasis added.) This is the harm that has already occurred, despite a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) permit that applicant appears to have obtained after the work started. The Initial Study continues to document soil erosion and soil still reaching grade level at Centerville Road. Mitigation measures suggest conformance with the SWPPP and use of the "Best Management Practices."- These mitigation measures appear insufficient for the protection of the environment. The grading permit should be denied due to the potentially significant environmental impact. Applicant's grading has already proceeded without the necessary care and attention to the significant negative impacts it has produced. Butte County and Butte Creek Canyon have suffered because of it. For the reasons stated above, and all of the concerns raised by others, we request that applicant's grading project request be denied and applicant be ordered to restore the land to its previous condition. At the very least, applicant's proposal raises items of potentially significant impact, and an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Very trully- yours, /n Teresa Kludt Walt Schafer DECLARATION OF FEES DUE , (California Fish and Game Code Section 71 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Butte County Board of Supervisors c/o Butte County Administration 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 FEB - 2 2012 I, FILING NO. - y` Project Title/File Number: Signalized Intersection West Grading Permit GRD 06-01 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: I 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION ( ) A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ( ) B. De Minimis Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee I 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED (X) A. Negative Declaration $ 2,101.50 State Filing Fee $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ( ) B. Environmental Impact Report $2,839.25 State Filing Fee I $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee I 3. ( ) OTHER (Specify) CEOA Filing Fee No Effect Determination $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee } PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. (X) PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s) # P2143 2. (.) NON-PAYMENT: • The above fees are required. Not paid. Chief Planning Official By: Tim Snellings, Development Services Title: Director Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: February 2, 2011 TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. s CIM Clerk -Recorder's Department County of Butte ryry r V /~'11YlJ t -L ("RIVIJ L.JJ County Clerk -Recorder **** Duplicate Receipt------------------- *** 1 FISH AND GAME CLERKS FEE 50.00 1 NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2101.50 ---------------------------------------- TOTAL 2151.50 . JOURNAL 2151.50 -----------------------7---------------- CHANGE 0.00 02/02/2012 3:41PM 2012020200104 WS ECR-REC06 Thank You Have a Nice Day! ---------------------------------------- `,Requested By: `",.C. Development Services BUTTE COUNTY RECEIPT Printed: 2/2/2012 *RECEIPT NUMBER PREFIXES* 2:20 pm B/P = Development Services - Building/Planning Division (530)538-7601 EH =. Environmental.Health (530)538-7281. PW = Public Works Department (530)538-7681 Receipt Number: P2143 p tDate'Paid:�2/1/2012 Paid By: Pomerado Partners LLC Received By: COP Project Number: GRD 06-01 Pay Method: CHECK 0489 Site Apn: 017-090-138 Descrintion: grading permit to provide road access to Site Address: 0 CENTERVILLE RD CHICO, CA Applicant: Signalized Intersection West, Fee Description Account Number Fee Amount DPyFi`sst LGame4' Negative Dec`10 ff-0 0 28.0�101146_O t $2;101 50� DPCR Recording°Fe7 Clerk/Recorder:' [0010=470001=461=2319=10100'1' $50:00 �.. Total Fees Paid: $29151.50 RANGE OF RECEIPTS: P2141 - P2143 For the Period 2/12012 thru 2/1/2012 Total Receipts 0010-440001-4210900-101001 Planning Applications (Planning) $2,000.00 TotalReceipts 0010-470001=4612319 101'OO1�RecoiddfFe`el 550:00 Signalized Intersection Rest, 017-090-138, GRD06-01 L, tal Receipts 1001-07280°-1011460 Fiih i n -Gk e? Signalized Intersection Rest, 017-090-138, GRD06-01 Total Receipts $4,151.50 Prepared by: - - cMillan 538-6571 DDS_ACM40B ? lot 0E X 6861 0 witoa�ns NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: ® Butte County Clerk ❑ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 FILING NO. FROM: Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. AP Number: 017-090-138 and 017-090-139 Project Title: Signalized Intersection Grading Permit (Project No. GRD 06-01) Applicant: Signalized Intersection West, LLC, 15644 Pomerado, Suite 303, Poway, CA 92064 Contact Person: Chris Thomas Telephone Number: 530-538-6706 Project Description: Grading of approximately 3,300 feet (total area 1.7 acres) for a paved road leading to two driveways providing access to two home sites on separate parcels. The initial 400 feet from the encroachment onto Centerville Road involves completion of an existing cut into the hillside and laying back of side embankments. After emerging from the cut the access road connects with an existing dirt road that winds upslope some 1,500 feet to two driveways. Access road will be widened to 18 feet to meet Cal Fire PRC 4290 standards, with maximum slopes of 20 percent. Driveways will be paved and widened to 10 feet. Project Location: The project, in unincorporated Butte County about 6 miles by road from the eastern boundary of the City of Chico, is located in Butte Creek Canyon on the north side of Centerville Road, approximately two miles northeast of the Honey -Run Road and Centerville Road intersection and 1,600 feet northeast of Cable Bridge Drive, in Section 19, Township 22 North, Range 03 East, MDBM, within the southern Paradise West and northern Hamlin Canyon 7.5 minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse): 2007012021 This is to advise that the Butte County Lead Agency or Responsible Agency has approved the above- described project on January 26, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the above- described project: 1. The project ❑will, ®will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. ❑An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. ®A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 4. Mitigation measures ®were, ❑were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 5. A statement of overriding considerations ❑was, ®was not, adopted for this project. This is to certify that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is available to the general public at the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center , Oroville, CA 95965. Pee &larco Date Assistant Director Department of Development Services MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Mitigation Measure #1: Preparation and Implementation of a Landscape Plan by a Licensed Landscape Architect Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #1 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "A licensed landscape architect shall prepare a landscape plan for the road cut embankments from Centerville Road to the point where the road emerges from the cut that reduces the visual impact of the current unvegetated road cut embankments and provides for their long- term stability. Plantings shall consist of native grasses, shrubs and trees determined by the landscape architect to be appropriate for Butte Creek Canyon in the vicinity of the project and shall be of a density to minimize future erosion. Timing: The landscape plan shall be attached to the grading plans and installed between November 1 and December 31 or between February 1 and March 15 to optimize establishment in the wet season and maximize the survival rate of the plantings. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #1 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The landscape plan shall also be attached to the grading plan as a separate document. The landscape architect or his or her designee shall monitor the plantings according to the following criteria: A minimum of 80 percent of the total plantings shall survive annually (exhibiting fair or higher health characteristics as evaluated by the landscape architect) and become established in the planting areas. If the plantings fail to meet the performance standard, they shall be replaced annually on a plant -for -plant basis to meet the 80 percent survival goal. Monitoring results shall be submitted in an annual report to Development Services by December 31 each year. At such time as the success criteria have been met for three consecutive years, a licensed landscape architect shall submit a letter to the Department of Development Services verifying that the success criteria have been satisfactorily met, at which time no further monitoring shall be required." 2. Mitigation Measure #2: Implement BCAOMD Level A Air Ouality Mitigation Measures Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #2 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "Dust generated by the development activities shall be kept to a minimum and retained on- site. Follow the air quality control measures listed below: Control Dust a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. d. On-site construction vehicles shall be limited to a speed of 15 mph on unpaved roads. e. Haul vehicles transporting soil into or out of the property shall be covered. f. Existing roads and streets adjacent to the project shall be cleaned at least once per day if dirt or mud from the project site has been tracked onto these roadways, unless conditions warrant a greater frequency. g. Other measures may be required as determined appropriate by the BCAQMD or Department of Public Works in order to control dust. Post Contact Information h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The telephone number of the Butte County Air Quality Management District shall be visible to ensure compliance with BCAQMD Rule 200 & 205 (Nuisance and Fugitive Dust Emissions). Other Construction Practices i. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer's specification. j. Where feasible, give preference to utilizing the following equipment: • Electric equipment • Substitute gasoline -powered for diesel -powered equipment • Alternatively fueled construction equipment on site such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquid natural gas (LNG), propane, or biodiesel. • Equipment that has Caterpillar pre -chamber diesel engines, as practical. • Diesel construction equipment meeting the CARB's 1996 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines. k. Construction workers shall park in designated parking area(s) to help reduce dust emissions." Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving). Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #2 note is included with the grading permit and on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. Public Works inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. The Department of Development Services and Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints." 3. Mitigation Measure #3: Conduct Pre -Construction Surveys for Nestinyi Raptors Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #3 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "In order to protect nesting raptors and their offspring, the following measures shall be implemented to minimize potential impacts resulting from heavy machinery noise, exhaust and dust: a) A qualified biologist in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game shall conduct pre -construction surveys for special -status nesting birds and common raptors if vegetation removal and/or project construction occurs during the nesting season (March 1 to September 15). The surveys shall cover all areas of suitable nesting habitat within 660 feet of project activity (as depicted in Figure 2 to this Initial Study) that are within the project parcels. To the extent possible, the qualified biologist shall also survey suitable nesting habitat from the applicant's property line where the 660 foot survey area extends beyond the project parcels (USFWS 2007). The surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to commencement of project activity. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation shall be required. b) If active nests are found, impacts shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers. Typically implementation of a 500 -foot buffer is appropriate to protect an active nest from disturbance, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, that it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist may be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active. Timing: The pre -construction surveys shall be conducted within 14 days prior to commencement of project activities. If any active nests are found, the qualified biologist shall prepare a map showing the recommended buffers to avoid an adverse impact and verify to the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department that no project activity is occurring in the buffer area until the nest is no longer active. The qualified biologist conducting the pre -construction surveys shall submit a brief report and, if necessary, a map of findings to the Department of Development Services within five days of conducting said survey. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #3 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The biologist's report and, if necessary, map of nest location(s) and buffers shall be reviewed by the Department of Development Services, the Public Works Department, and the Department of Fish and Game." 4. Mitigation Measure #4: Tree Mitigation Plan Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #4 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "Prior to any development activity or the issuance of any permit or approval removing or encroaching upon tree species on the project site (this generally includes the canopy drip - line of trees within the area of ground disturbance and trees subject to changes in hydrologic regime) a Tree Mitigation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, registered professional forester, botanist or landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Development Services or his/her designee that includes: 1) A survey showing the location of all trees five inches or more in diameter at breast height with a canopy drip line that includes the outer edge of the grading; 2) The removal of all trees five inches or more in diameter at breast height shall be mitigated by one or more of the following: replanting and maintaining trees, establishing conservation easements, contributing funds for off-site woodland conservation, and/or other mitigation measures developed by Butte County. Three trees shall be planted, maintained or conserved for every tree of the same species removed. For oak trees, and pursuant to PRC Section 21083.4, replanting cannot account for more than one-half of the mitigation. Replanted trees shall be maintained for a period of seven years after they are planted. If any of the replanted trees die or become diseased, they shall be replaced and maintained for seven years after the new trees are planted; 3) A replanting schedule and diagram for trees removed or encroached upon by permit activities consistent with PRC Section 21083.4(b)(2), applicable mitigation measures, and Butte County Ordinance, if any, shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services or his/her designee. Replanted trees shall be planted in areas deemed appropriate by the Plan, considering future lot development, interference with foundations, fencing, roadways, driveways, and utilities. Trees planted shall be protected from livestock and other animals; 4) Protection measures for trees to be retained within the project site shall be included in construction specifications. Each tree to be preserved shall be surrounded by a tree zone identified by the drip line of the tree. An orange plastic fence or other suitable type of fence shall be used to identify the tree zone during construction activities. No vegetation removal, soil disturbance, or other development activities shall occur within the tree zone in order to protect root systems and. minimize compaction of the soil, unless authorized by Tree Mitigation Plan; and 5) Conservation easements or funds for off-site woodlands conservation shall be proposed to and approved by the Director of Development Services or his/her designee." Plan Requirements: No vegetation removal, grading, road construction, or other earthwork shall be permitted until the tree plan is submitted and approved. Timing: The Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted one month prior to any grading activity. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #4 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans, and shall ensure that the Tree Mitigation Plan is submitted as necessary one month prior to the start of grading work." 5. Mitigation Measure #5: 50 -foot "No Disturbance Zone" Around Riparian Vegetation and Wetlands Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation. Measure #5 note shall be included with the . grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: . "In order to insure protection of riparian vegetation, a 50 -foot "No Disturbance Zone" along each side of the drainage ways and wetlands on the site shall be shown on the grading plan. The 50 -foot "No Disturbance Zone" shall be measured from the top of bank or outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, and 50 feet from the outer edge of wetland vegetation. No structures, dumping, fill material, and/or excavation shall be allowed within the 50 -foot `No Development Zone' as depicted, except for road crossings. Widening of the road as provided in the Attachment 5 site plans shall also be allowed in those areas where the existing dirt road is currently within the 50 -foot "No Disturbance Zone." No fill shall be placed within the drainage ways as measured from their top of bank. Per General Plan 2030 Policy COS -P7.7, during construction activities the "No Disturbance Zone" around riparian and wetland resources within 100 feet of the road and driveway alignments shall be identified by construction fencing placed by a qualified biologist or personnel working under the direction of a qualified biologist. Construction fencing may be removed when paving is completed. After project activities are complete, the "No Disturbance Zone" shall remain in effect in perpetuity. Limited vegetation removal necessary for flood control is permissible within the "No Disturbance Zone;" however, all living and thriving native trees shall be retained and all vegetation removal shall be approved by the Department of Fish and Game prior to approval. Timing: The "No Disturbance Zone" shall be included on the grading plans and submitted to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works prior to the start of work. Mitigation Measure #5 shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving) and in the post -project period. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #5 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The Department of Public Works or Development Services shall spot-check during project activities to insure that the 50 -foot setback and construction fencing requirements are being met. 6. Mitigation Measure #6: Notify Department of Fish and Game Prior to Any Construction within a Streambed Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #6 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "In order to protect riparian and aquatic resources, and consistent with TPM 01-08 Mitigation Measure #5, the California Department of Fish and Game shall be notified per Department of Fish and Game requirements prior to any development activity within the bed, bank or channel of the two principle onsite seasonal drainages. If required by the Department of Fish and Game, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement for activity proposed within the bed, bank or channel of drainages subject to the 50 -foot `No Disturbance Zone' identified in Mitigation Measure #5. Timing: The applicant shall notify the Department of Development Services one month prior to the commencement of project activities that the Department of Fish and Game has been consulted for any work to be conducted within the bed, bank or channel .of the onsite drainages and, if necessary, a Streambed Alteration Agreement has been issued. Mitigation Measure #6 and the provisions of said Streambed Alteration Agreement, if required, shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving). Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #6 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The Department of Public Works or Development Services shall spot check during project activities to insure that any work done within the bed, bank or channel of the onsite drainages has been considered by the Department of Fish and Game and, if necessary, a Streambed Alteration Agreement has been issued." 7. Mitigation Measure #7: Jurisdictional Delineation of Wetlands Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #7 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "In order to assure that jurisdictional wetland features are identified and provided the maximum protection as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a qualified biologist or botanist shall conduct a jurisdictional delineation of the project site wetlands within 100 feet of the private road and driveways. The jurisdictional delineation shall be submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers along with a Preconstruction Notification for the appropriate permit pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act prior to the start of project activities. The applicant shall implement all conditions as may be required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Timing: The jurisdictional delineation shall be performed at the appropriate time of year and in accordance with the applicable protocols provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The requirements of any Section 404 permit issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers shall be adhered to at all times during the project activity. No work shall be allowed without submittal of the Preconstruction Notice and jurisdictional delineation to the United States Army Corps of Engineers and without approval of the appropriate permit pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #7 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The applicant shall inform the Departments of Public Works and Development Services when the jurisdictional delineation will be conducted and shall submit the Preconstruction Notification, delineation and, when approved, the appropriate Section 404 federal Clean Water Act permit to the same Departments." 8. Mitigation Measure #8: Contractor Training and Construction Monitoring Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #8 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "In order to ensure that sensitive resources proximate to the project such as wetlands, riparian vegetation and special -status birds are provided maximum protection, and consistent with General Plan 2030 Policy COS -P7.8, the applicant shall provide a qualified biologist to show construction employees operating equipment the location of the sensitive resources and inform them of the legal requirements to avoid said resources. Consistent with General Plan 2030 Policy COS -P7.9, the applicant shall also have a biologist conduct construction monitoring in and adjacent to all habitats for protected species when construction is taking place near such habitat areas. Timing: The contractor training shall be provided prior to the start of project activities. The construction monitoring shall be required at all times machinery are, as determined by the qualified biologist, proximate to sensitive resources. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #8 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The applicant shall notify the Department of Development Services seven days prior to the contractor training allow a Development Services representative to attend the training. The construction monitor shall submit a brief summary to the Department of Development Services at the completion of project activities, stating whether or habitats for protected species were adequately avoided during grading work." 9. Mitigation Measure #9: Protection of Cultural Resources Found During Work Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #9 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 150 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the resources and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains. Timing: Requirements of the Mitigation Measure #9 shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving). Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that this Mitigation Measure #9 note is included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet attached to the grading plans. The contractor and the on-site supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this mitigation and shall immediately notify the Department of Development Services should any cultural resources be revealed during project activities." 10. Mitigation Measure #10: Obtain Construction Stormwater Permit Coverage Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #10 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans:. "In order to insure control of erosion and sediment during grading, the applicant shall obtain coverage under a General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, as required by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to the start of project activities. The applicant shall forward copies of the General Construction Permit and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to the Department of Development Services. Timing: Requirements of the Mitigation Measure #10 shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving). Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that Mitigation Measure #10 is placed on the grading plan and the grading permit. The Department of Public Works or Development Services shall spot-check during project activities to insure that all aspects of the General Construction Permit and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan are implemented. The Stormwater Monitor shall submit monitoring reports to the Departments of Development Services and Public Works." 11. Mitigation Measure #11: Limit Work to Daytime Hours Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #11 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "In order to minimize evening and nighttime noise impacts to neighbors near the project, place the following note on the grading plan and grading permit, the applicant shall implement the following measures to mitigate construction noise throughout all construction periods: 1. Limit grading activity to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) Monday through Saturday, with no grading activity on Sundays or holidays, with the exception of the northerly driveway, where grading activity shall be limited to said daytime hours, with no grading activity on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays. 2. Use best available noise suppression devices and properly maintain and muffle diesel engine -driven construction equipment. Pursuant to General Plan 2030 Policy HS - P1.9: a. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. b. Locate stationary noise -generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. c. Utilize quiet air compressors and other stationary noise -generating equipment where appropriate technology exists and is feasible. 3. Construction equipment shall not be idled for long periods of time. 4. Locate stationary equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors. 5. Designate a Disturbance Coordinator and post the name and phone number of this person conspicuously at the entrance(s) to the project site so it is clearly visible to nearby residents most likely to be affected by construction noise. This person would manage complaints resulting from construction noise. The Disturbance Coordinator shall contact noise sensitive receptors and advise them of the schedule of construction." Timing: The limitation on work hours shall be adhered to throughout all phases of the grading project (clearance, grading, compaction, paving). Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that Mitigation Measure #11 is placed on the grading plan and the grading permit. Prior to the start of work, the applicant shall designate and forward to the Department of Development Services contact information for a Disturbance Coordinator who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this mitigation and shall respond to all complaints of noise. The Department of Development Services shall investigate all complaints of excess construction -related noise." 12. Mitigation Measure #12: Improve Line -of -Sight at Encroachment Point Plan Requirements: The following Mitigation Measure #12 note shall be included with the grading permit and placed on a separate sheet to be attached to the grading plans: "Under the direction of the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall remove brush and, if necessary, conduct minor grading on the hillside to the east of the encroachment point in order to provide a maximum line -of -sight for vehicles approaching the private road. Timing: The brush shall be removed and, if necessary, grading be conducted, prior to the start of construction activities. The applicant and future landowners shall keep all brush from growing around the encroachment point that could reduce the line -of -sight distance for vehicles approaching on Centerville Road from either direction. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall insure that Mitigation Measure #12 is placed on the grading plan and the grading permit. The Department of Public Works shall be present on site and confer with applicant regarding the brush to be removed. DECLARATION OF FEES DUE (California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4) Name and address of applicant: Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Pro iect Title/File Number: Little Chico Creek Quarry Reclamation Plan (Project No. RP10- 0002) APN: 063-290-056 & 063-290-57 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION / STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION ❑ A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ❑ B. De Minimis Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED ® A. Negative Declaration $2,044.00 State Filing Fee $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ❑ B. Environmental Impact Report $2,010.25 State Filing Fee $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. 0 OTHER (Specify) $50.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1. ❑ PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s): # «RECEIPT NUM» 2. ❑ NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid. Chief Planning Official By: Tim Snellings, Development Services Title: Director Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: February 2, 2012 TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. I. II. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 12, 2007 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENT: Commissioners Nelson, Wilson, Leland, and Chair Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner Marin ALSO PRESENT: County Counsel Roger Wilson, Deputy County Counsel. Development Services Tim Snellings, Director Pete Calarco, Assistant Director Charles Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager Stacey Jolliffe, Principal Planner, Current Planning Mark Michelena, Senior Planner Carl Durling, Associate Planner Tina Bonham, Commission Clerk Environmental Health Vance Severin Public Works Stuart Edell and Eric Schroth ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA - Commission members and staff may request additions, deletions, or changes in the Agenda order. It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and carried by the following vote Ayes: Commissioners Nelson, Leland, Wilson, and Chair Lambert Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Marin to accept the agenda. IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda). None. V. CONSENT AGENDA Consent items are set for approval in one motion. These items are considered non- controversial. No presentations will be made unless the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Any person may pull an item from the consent agenda. A. MEXT07-0006 — staff recommended approval Name: Michael Spehar Project: Map Extension Planner: Carl Durling APN: 030-110-076 Zoning: AR ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 1 ■ Location: The project parcel is located +/- 200' south of the intersection of Grand Avenue and 14th Street and 1.4 miles west of SR70 in the Thermalito area. Proposal: A request for a five-year Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map Chair Lambert asked to pull the item from the Consent Agenda. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staff comments. The hearing will be opened to the public for proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public and discussion confined to the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. It is requested that public initiated presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate. The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office A. - MEXT07-0006 —staff recommended approval Name: Michael Spehar Project: Map Extension Planner: Carl Durling APN: 030-110-076 Zoning: AR Location: The project parcel is located +/- 200' south of the intersection of Grand Avenue and 14th Street and 1.4 miles west of SR70 in the Thermalito area. Proposal: A request for a five-year Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map Chair Lambert said, after looking over the conditions, she is concerned with the changes to the conditions. She noted changes or additions to Conditions 8, 11, and 14. Commissioner Nelson said that he thought Public Works updated conditions when there is an opportunity. Mr. Eric Schroth said there weren't any major changes to Public Works conditions. Chair Lambert said that she is concerned about new conditions that the Commission has not addressed and adding conditions that were not part of the prior approval. Commissioner Leland suggested that staff provide more details when a condition has been changed so that the Commission can see the exact changes. Chair Lambert said she would like to see the exact changes also. Ms. Stacey Jolliffe said details on changed conditions would be provided on any future projects. Chair Lambert asked how the County can add, delete, or change conditions from a prior approval. Ms. Jolliffe said that conditions can be added if it is a matter of public safety. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 2 ■ Mr. Schroth said that, other than public safety, conditions can be deleted if they no longer apply. He said conditions are sometimes reworded so that the language is better. Chair Lambert opened the public hearing. There was no one present to speak on the item. Chair Lambert closed the public hearing and confined comments to Commission and staff. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and carried by the following vote Ayes: Commissioners Nelson, Leland, Wilson, and Chair Lambert Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Marin Abstain: None to approve the map extension MEXT07-0006 for Michael'Spehar and adopt Resolution 07-37. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. B. GRD 06-01 - continued from April 12, 2007 Name: Signalized Intersection Project: Grading Planner: Carl Durling APN: 017-090-138, 139 Zoning: FR -5 Location: The parcels are located in Butte Creek Canyon on the northwest side of Centerville Rd, approximately two miles northeast of the Honey -Run Rd and Centerville Rd intersection, and 1600 ft northeast of Cable Bridge Drive. Proposal: A request for a grading permit to provide road access to two dwellings. Mr. Carl Durling gave a summary of the project. He said that staff is recommending a continuance off calendar since the environmental review of the pond has not occurred and the new location of the building site has not been evaluated. Ms. Jolliffe said that a one page analysis done by Foothill Associates was provided, but staff does not believe that the analysis provided enough detail. Also, there wasn't sufficient biological information to update the Initial Study for the new home site area. Commissioner Nelson asked why the item was on the agenda. Ms. Jolliffe said the item was continued to a date certain. She said staff is asking for guidance from the Commission on whether the Foothill Associates analysis served the Commissions needs to make a decision on the grading permit. Chair Lambert opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Maan gave a history of the project. He quoted the action taken by the Commission in the minutes from April 12, 2007 that directed staff to have a study prepared evaluating how the -project affected the pond. He said his understanding was if the applicant hired the biologist then it wouldn't ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 3 ■ be an independent study. There was a meeting with staff and the applicant. The applicant said he had no problem with staff soliciting proposals to find a biologist as long as they could review that information. Ms. Jolliffe found someone from Sacramento that would charge $14,000.00. He said after doing research on the internet and in the area he has found that the red pond is a very common occurrence. He asked that the Commission deal with the grading permit and add a condition that says any future building is subject to an environmental review. Mr. By, from Foothill Associates said that what caused the pond to turn red is Mosquito Fern. It It is very common especially in developed areas such as golf courses. He said t ami t g courses will aerate the water to keep the Mosquito Fern from turning red, but in a natural setting, it is normal to have this growth. His firm did prepare biological information originally. The biological information did look at the entire site. Commissioner Nelson asked if the pond turned red due to runoff from the grading and driveway. Mr. Mayerle said that, in his experience, dirt run off would not cause the pond to turn red. He said Y I" the pond is green right now. Chair Lambert asked if the pond turning red is a seasonal occurrence. Mr. Mayerle said it is seasonal. Commissioner Leland asked if Mr. Mayerle's firm did a species review for the entire project site. Mr. Mayerle said at the start of the project his firm did a species review. Commissioner Leland asked if Mr. Mayerle's firm had looked at impacts with the new building site. Mr. Mayerle said his firm would need to do a new review. Mr. Patrick Bernido is the owner of the pond. He suppliedCD to the Co fission that has pictures of the pond. Mr. Durling loaded the pictures so that the Comm' Ion an the public could view them. Mr. Bernido then went through each one. He said his intent is not to stop people from building, but to protect his property and the wildlife. He believes the applicant picked the spot for the driveway so that he can use the dirt for the 200 acres above the project parcels. He talked about San Diego County's requirements on Grading Permits and the punishment if a developer does not follow the rules of the permit. He mentioned that the Commission could use Code Enforcement to abate this driveway. He went over the photos. He said that he has lived in the area since 1977 and has not seen the pond turn red before. He said the algae in the pond is a green stringy algae not the Mosquito Fern. He says that the Mosquito Fern is still there, but it is not in a bloom faze. Mr. Geoff Fricker has been a resident of the area for 4 years. He said he hasn't seen the pond turn red before. He noticed an area of water on the property that he felt was an area where Native American artifacts could be found. He did find artifacts and has documented them and will use the documentation if needed. He said that he found two large grinding stones on the project parcel that have been covered with dirt. He believes that the area, where the applicant is building, is over an old Native American village. He is concerned with the clarity of the water in the streams. He wondered if any archeological studies have been done on the project. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 4 ■ Mr. John Lane is from the Chico Environmental Science and Planning. He has been retained by the Butte Creek Coalition. at he has done a preliminary review and site visit of the area. He gave the CommissionDVD, d ed June 24, 2007, showing the traffic issues and the siltation of the stream. He said that on e didn't address is the potential that hydro seeding, if the applicant did that, may have some connection to the red algae bloom in the pond. He said that since he isn't a biologist his study did not include that possibility. He said the speed limit is 40 miles per hour on somewhat of a blind curve that he doesn't believe the planning document addressed. He thinks a biological assessment should be conducted from the perspective of the deer migration. Mr. Durling loaded the video so that the Commission and public could view the DVD. Mr. Lane said that the storm water pollution prevention plan and the management practices are not functioning properly and are improperly installed. He went over the DVD. The video showed the visibility of oncoming traffic coming out of the driveway. The video also showed the stream on the project site that Mr. Lane says has silt in it. He said that since there had been no storms there must be erosion occurring on the property. He believes that there should be a geotechnical analysis done on the slope of the grade because it appears there is sloughing under the jute netting. Mr. Ben Allen submitted photos. Mr. Durling loaded the pictures so that the Commission and the public could view them. Mr. Allen went through the photos that show other ponds in the area that turned red. He also had before and after pictures of the driveway location. Commissioner Leland said there has been speculation that hydro seeding may have caused the problem. He asked if there was hydro seeding done. Mr. Allen said yes. They did hydro seed several years ago when they received the stop work order. He continued to go through the pictures that he submitted. He said that he is unaware of any sloughing. Commissioner Leland said that the member of the public said that sloughing was occurring behind the jute netting. Mr. Allen said he had not seen behind the jute netting. In regards to the water being dirty water in e1�T e k there has been no construction to cause that. He believes that the new building site and the access point has less impact on the environment than the previous building site and two driveways. He said the grinding stones are covered in dirt and they are not building near them. He doesn't plan on doing anything with the stones. He said that grinding stones and other artifacts are found throughout the canyon. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Allen if he thought the hydro seeding had anything to do with the pond turning red. Mr. Allen said there was no construction near the other ponds that turned red. Ms. Caroline Burkett would like the Commission to ask the applicant why he is suing a neighbor, who owns the parcel in between his two 40 acre parcels and his 200 acre parcel, for ingress and egress. Commissioner Leland said that he doesn't see how that affects this project. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 5 ■ Ms. Burkett said she doesn't understand why the applicant is suing neighbors when they already have access to the parcel. She speculated the applicants were seeking access for their 200 acre parcel. Commissioner Leland said he still does not see a connection to the grading permit. Ms. Linda Cimino lives on the property adjacent to the project. She said that the picture of another red pond, that Mr. Ben Allen showed, did have construction around it. She doesn't believe that the applicant is confused on what they could and could not do on the project. She said she doesn't want to keep the applicant from building, but wants them to follow the rules. Commissioner Nelson asked if there was another access point or easement. Ms. Cimino said that she thought another neighbor had provided an access easement. Mr. Walt Schaffer said he has lived in the canyon for 20 years. He wants the grading to be filled in and restored to its original condition. He said,the red growth in the pond is new. He also is concerned with traffic issues. He asked the Commission to review the document provided by the Butte Environmental Council. Ms. Kay Simenc said she moved into the area in 1996. She has not seen the pond turn this red before. She said that she has noticed the pond would occasionally have a tinge of pink, but not the vibrant red that it showed last year. She is concerned about traffic issues. Mr. Ben Allen addressed some of the questions brought up. He said the lawsuit that Ms. Burkett asked about has nothing to do with the grading project. He said that Public Works has approved the location of the driveway. There was a request made to Harry Baumer for an easement, but he was unwilling. He said that his property does touch the road and he should have the right to access his property. Commissioner Leland said there is a question about the scope of the project. The letter from the Butte Environmental Council proposes that the project includes the 200 acre parcel above the two 40 acre parcels. He asked Mr. Allen what his plans were for the 200 acres. Mr. Allen said that he has not submitted any preliminary documents to the County. He said that the 200 acre property has nothing to do with this project. Commissioner Nelson said that the Butte Environmental Council is saying that it could be part of the project. He asked if Mr. Allen plans on developing the 200 acre property, will he be accessing it from this driveway. He said that he knows there isn't a project at this time, but to a certain extent this project is a potential access point to the 200 acre parcel. Mr. Allen said there is an existing road on Rimview Drive that goes directly onto the 200 acre parcel without having to use the project property. Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Allen would use the easement if Mr. Baumer were to grant it. Mr. Allen said yes. It would be much cheaper. He said they have made offers, but Mr. Baumer has declined those offers. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 6 ■ Commissioner Wilson said that someone at the April 12, 2007 meeting offered access to the property. Mr. Allen said that was Mr. Cimino who offered the access, but it wasn't a good location. Commissioner Nelson said he is concerned with the environmental impacts and would like to find a solution where everyone wins. Mr. Allen said he believed that two driveways have more impact than the driveway that is there now. He intends to make the driveway as visually pleasing as possible for when he sells it. Mr. Wes Gilbert from Lumos and Associates said the encroachment permit was applied for through Public Works. There were two meetings with Public Works. One was in the office and the other was at the site. He said that there was full knowledge that the map was approved with two driveways and it was believed by Public Works staff, at that time, the one location was a better alternative. He said by issuing the encroachment permit that Public Works approved the site of the driveway. The encroachment permit was not a substitute for a grading permit. He said plans were submitted to the County that showed the extent of the grading going up the driveway. He said there was a couple of handwritten notes on the encroachment permit asking for the slope to be flattened out from the 17% and 20% slopes to 15% to 17% which increased the cut and increased the length of the driveway. Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Gilbert was saying that everything the Commission is looking at was approved by Public Works. Mr. Gilbert said the grading plan was not part of the information given to Public Works. Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Gilbert was saying that Public Works was comfortable with the cuts that were made. Mr. Gilbert said Public Works approved the driveway. Mr. Eric Schroth said there may have been some misunderstanding, and that Public Works staff didn't realize how severe the cut would be when the technicians gave their requirements. Also, the information provided to the technicians was not as extensive as what has been provided for the grading permit. Chair Lambert asked if any analysis is done on encroachment permit requests. Mr. Schroth said that Public Works would not do a full analysis of the project with an encroachment request. Commissioner Nelson asked if Public Works is comfortable with the site distance where the driveway is now. Mr. Schroth said he hasn't done enough research to determine if he is comfortable with site distance. He said, just looking at the video, it appears there is a enough site distance for a vehicle to slow or stop for someone leaving the driveway. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 7 ■ Commissioner Nelson asked if Public Works would let the applicant put the driveway in the same place now that they have more information. Mr. Schroth said that Public Works would probably approve it again. He said that by putting in a road cut that traverses the hillside would be aesthetically displeasing and remove many trees. He isn't sure that the other two driveways provided any better stopping site distance. Commissioner Leland asked about slope stability and if Mr. Schroth had an opinion on the slopes' stability. Mr. Schroth said that would take a geotechnical engineer to determine the stability. Ms. Linda Cruces said she is the realtor who sold the property to the Allens. She is now retired. She submitted pictures for the Commission to look at. She said that she has seen the pink algae before and on other ponds. Chair Lambert closed the public hearing and confined comments to Commission and staff. 20 minute break at 10:55. Chair Lambert asked what the Commission's options were. She said the Commission doesn't know all the environmental impacts because of the lack of information provided. Commissioner Nelson said he would like to hear Public Works' comments on what would happen to the project site if the Commission denied the project. Mr. Stuart Edell told the Commission that whether they approved the grading permit or denied the project the applicant will still need a grading permit. The applicant would need a grading permit to put the 8,000 yards back and restore the hillside or the applicant would need a grading permit to install the original two driveways that were on the tentative subdivision map. Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commission went with the two driveways would it look the same as the current driveway. Mr. Edell said if the applicant does a flatter driveway and contours up the hillside it would create a much larger scar on the hillside. If applicant does both driveways there will be two large scars on the hillside. Commissioner Nelson asked if the current driveway could be an access point to the 200 acre parcel. Mr. Edell said yes, but it would have to be upgraded. The current standard is for a driveway not a road. Commissioner Leland asked what the standard is that the Commission is supposed to apply to approve, deny, or condition this project. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said that staff is requesting that the project be reviewed under the CEQA process. What baseline to apply was brought up at the April 12, 2007 meeting. There was an ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 8 ■ opinion, from a representative of the applicant, that the baseline would be the time the applicant applied for the grading permit. He said that is the general rule; however there is an exception if the lead agency finds there is substantial evidence of a nexus between significant impacts that have resulted from the project prior to commencement of the CEQA process and the project under consideration. If the Commission finds that, with the information brought forward regarding the pond and the grading, there is substantial evidence of significant impacts from the project prior to the application for the grading permit, then the Commission can set the baseline at a time prior to the time of application for the permit. Commissioner Leland asked if the Commission could set the baseline back to a time prior to the grading. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said that yes the Commission could make that determination if they found there was substantial evidence that the grading caused significant impacts. Chair Lambert asked when the grading permit was applied for. Mr. Edell said that it was at the time of the stop work order. The stop work order occurred when Public Works determined that more than 1,000 cubic yards of dirt had been moved. Chair Lambert said that since the grading had already occurred the Commission could make the finding that there were impacts due to the grading and set a baseline prior to the grading. Commissioner Leland asked, CEQA aside, what is the standard of approving or denying this project. Ms. Jolliffe read sections 13.11, 13.13, and 13.14 of the Butte County Code to the Commission on the procedures and standards to approve or deny the project. She said there is discretion both in the Butte County Code and under CEQA to make a determination. Chair Lambert doesn't believe that the Commission has enough information showing that the applicant can mitigate the impacts. Commissioner Leland said he believes the information missing is the biological study for the new building site. He would like to see information on that. He is comfortable with the site distance regarding traffic issues. In regards to aesthetics he believes the exposure would be only to cars driving by who are looking directly at the hillside. He believes on both issues that one driveway is better than two driveways. He said that the slope would stabilize after vegetation was planted. He doesn't see any evidence linking the excavation of dirt, during the grading, to the pond turning red. Mr. Thistlethwaite brought up the potential occurrence of archeological resources that were not addressed in the Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. He said that Commission may want additional information and studies done by staff regarding the potential archeological resources. Ms. Jolliffe said that staff used the standard archeological mitigation, but an archeological survey was not done. She said that both a member of the public and the applicant indicated there are grinding stones at the project site. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 9 ■ Commissioner Nelson is trying to decide if, visually, one driveway is better than two. Commissioner Nelson said that, with the information from Mr. Edell, he is concerned that by denying the project the Commission may get rid of one eyesore only to have two when the applicant puts in the driveways originally approved on the map. Chair Lambert said the neighbors feel that the driveway is unsafe where it is located. She is unsure if the two approved driveway locations would be any safer. Commissioner Wilson said that it looks like a developer came in and created a deep mining pit. The ground appears rocky and may not grow anything. He said that the issue may not be one or two driveways, but whether there is feasible access point to the property. He believes that the grading did have some effect on the pond. He said the grading should be filled in and new plans submitted by the applicant. Chair Lambert said she agrees with Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Wilson said the site should be restored and the applicant needs to do the project correctly. Chair Lambert asked whether denying the project would accomplish what Commissioner Wilson is suggesting. Mr. Edell said that would depend on the Commission's action. If the Commission is telling the applicant to restore the site, the applicant will have to move over 1,000 cubic yards of dirt which will require a grading permit. He said that the encroachment permit standards states that Public Works must grant access to a parcel from a public road wherever possible. Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Edell was saying that the applicant did something without a grading permit, but to restore the site the County will have to grant them a grading permit. Mr. Edell said yes. It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, to deny grading permit for GRD 06-01 Signalized Intersection and to approve a grading permit that will restore the site. Commissioner Leland said that the Commission can deny the grading permit, but they can't approve a grading permit to restore the site when a request has not been made. Commissioner Nelson asked about denying the grading permit and how the Commission can get the site restored. Chair Lambert said that would involve another grading permit. Commissioner Wilson withdrew his previous motion. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 10 ■ It was moved by Commissioner Wilson to deny grading permit for GRD 06-01 Signalized Intersection and require the property to be restored by acquiring any and all permits that are required to restore the site. Commissioner Leland said he did not believe the Planning Commission has the authority to require the applicant to restore the site. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said the Commission has an opportunity to ask that the site be restored if the Commission applied it as a mitigation through the Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report, but if the Commission denies the project it does not have the authority to say what will be done next. Commissioner Leland said that work was done that required a permit. A permit was not obtained. Code Enforcement is going to be the enforcing agency. He said that there is the possibility of the County moving the dirt back in and then putting a lien on the land. He believes that is the mechanism the Commission should be looking at. Chair Lambert asked who would pay to have the dirt moved. Commissioner Leland said the County would initially pay to have the dirt moved and the site restored, but would recoup those costs through the lien on the property. Chair Lambert asked if the Commission's action is only to approve or deny the grading permit. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said the Planning Commission is not a punitive body. There are various options through Code Enforcement. The Commission is there to either approve or deny the grading permit. Commissioner Wilson withdrew his previous motion. It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Nelson, and carried by the following vote Ayes: Commissioners Nelson, Wilson, and Chair Lambert Noes: Commissioner Leland Absent: Commissioner Marin Abstain: None to deny grading permit GRD 06-01 for Signalized Intersection West, LLC. There is a 10 -day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board. Commissioner Nelson asked what would happen next with the project. Ms. Jolliffe said there is the appeal process to the Board of Supervisors. The appeal period is 10 days. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE I I ■ C. TSM 04-04 - staff recommended continuance to August 23, 2007 Name: Laurie and Lance Taggart Project: Tentative Subdivision Map Planner: Mark Michelena APN: 055-310-010 Zoning: AR -1 Location: The parcel is located on the northeast corner of Pentz Road and Lindenbaum Lane, across from Canyon Ranch Road, south of Paradise Proposal: A request for a Tentative Subdivision Map with a flexible lot design (pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-82) to divide a 9.07 -acre parcel into eight residential lots ranging in size from 0.49 to 0.63 acres and an open space lot of 4.5 acres. Mr. Mark Michelena gave a summary of the project. Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commission could make a condition that would not allow any second dwellings. Ms. Jolliffe said that the AR zone allows for second dwellings. Commission Nelson said that he thought if the Planning Commission approved a flex lot project they could add that as a condition. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said he would have to research that possibility. Chair Lambert asked if a second dwelling is allowed would the two dwellings share the same septic system. Mr. Vance Severin said the project was not evaluated for second dwellings. He isn't sure there is enough room to place a second septic system. Chair Lambert asked how open space dedication was going to be addressed. Mr. Michelena said that it would likely be addressed through a development agreement with the homeowners association. Commissioner Leland said he would like to see both a development agreement and a conservation easement. Commissioner Wilson said that a conservation easement would take the open space off the tax roll. Commissioner Leland said the open space would remain on the tax roll, but at a lower value. Ms. Jolliffe clarified whether Commissioner Leland wanted to eliminate the development agreement option for open space. Commissioner Leland said he would like to see the County have some control over what happens with the open space. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 12 ■ Ms. Lorrie Lundy of L & L Surveying went over the history of the project. She said the intent is to keep the general public out of the area. She asked that the owners be allowed to take charge of the open space. Commissioner Leland said he wants the County to have some involvement with the open space. Ms. Jolliffe said that could be addressed in the development agreement. Ms. Lundy expressed concern that, by involving the County, it would leave the area open to the general public. She asked that Condition 16 be reworded to terminate the cul-de-sac at end of the buildable lot instead of the applicant having to build a road past the conservation easement. She said the applicant is in negotiations with someone for seven water meters. She asked that conditions be changed such that "prior to recordation of final map the applicant will show availability of water". Ms. Jolliffe referenced the Conditional Zoning Agreement which states the applicant must demonstrate availability of water supply as part of the application. She said the applicant would have to provide a letter from Del Oro Water. Commissioner Nelson asked why the applicant would want to build if they don't have a guaranteed water resource. Ms. Lundy said the applicant would like to get started with other parts of the project. Chair Lambert asked if Lindenbaum Lane is on another parcel. If so, does the applicant have an easement? Ms. Lundy said it is on another parcel and the applicant does have an easement. Commissioner Leland said that the exception to Condition 16 may be valid. Chair Lambert asked Public Works to address the exception request on Condition 16. Mr. Schroth said that Public Works could make an exception due to the extenuating circumstances of the project. Mr. George Surey said he doesn't believe there is enough water in the area. He would like to see a moratorium on building until Del Oro Water can provide an adequate water supply to the area. Mr. Howard Tuggle owns land adjacent to the project site. He is concerned about the maximum number of lots on a cul-de-sac and asked that the Commission not consider the open space as an additional lot. He doesn't believe there will be any trouble with the water supply. Mr. Scott Wykoff of Eagle Meadows wants to make sure that traffic measures and right-of-way are adequately addressed. Chair Lambert asked Mr. Wykoff if he had requested water from Del Oro Water for his project. Mr. Wykoff said yes. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 13 ■ Commissioner Leland asked how many units are in the Eagle Meadows project. Mr. Wykoff said the old map was for 225 lots, but he is still in the conceptual phase. Ms. Lundy wanted to make sure the Commission understands that by acquiring water meters the applicant is ensuring his ability to obtain a water supply. It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Leland, and carried by the following vote Ayes: Commissioners Nelson, Leland, Wilson, and Chair Lambert Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Marin Abstain: None to continue open TSM 04-04 for Laurie and Lance Taggart until August 23, 2007. Lunch break from 1 p.m. to 1:45p.m. VII. GENERAL BUSINESS - This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been directed to do research and bring back to the Commission. Items A, B, & C may not always be addressed at every hearing, but will always be listed as part of the agenda. A. Directors' Report --Legal Lot Determinations (DET'S). A memo has been provided in response to Commissioners' questions at the May 24, 2007 meeting regarding how DET's are processed. Ms. Jolliffe gave a summary of the DET memo provided to the Commission. Deputy County Counsel Wilson said that counties handle environmental review DET's differently. Some counties use the General Rule Exemption, others handle the DET's ministerially, while others do Initial Studies and Mitigated Negative Declarations. Mr. Edell said that many owners have owned the property for years and are waiting to retire before building a home on the lot. Public Works has the applicant show the creation deed so that the standards that were applied at the time of creation are the standards that Public Works will use to determine the Legal Lot Determination. If standards can't be met the applicant is required to get a Certificate of Compliance. Chair Lambert said she is concerned with people who did create their parcels illegally. Mr. Edell said that those parcels will have to be put back to original size. He discussed the Coulet and Mann judgment areas where subdivisions were created illegally. Those lots are given a Certificate of Compliance. He explained that standards for building on these lots are current standards. Commissioner Wilson asked if owners have any recourse if there have been multiple owners. Mr. Edell said that each owner could go back to the previous owner and that owner would then have to go to the owner before them. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 14 ■ Commissioner Leland asked if title companies are given a list of illegally created parcels. Mr. Edell said yes if they are in a judgment area. He explained that there isn't enough staff to try and determine all the illegal parcels in Butte County. Chair Lambert asked if the Assessor's Office still collects taxes on lots that were created illegally. Mr. Edell said yes. Mr. Tim Snellings said that he would like to see one standard apply. Mr. Severin said there are two standards. One is lot creation standards and the other is building standards. B. Butte County General Plan 2030 Progress Report Mr. Snellings said that some issues brought up to the Board of Supervisors were a 5% allowance in minimum parcels sizes, what is the definition of fencing material, and lighting issues. He said these are items that will be addressed in the General Plan 2030 update. Commissioner Nelson asked if the second dwelling ordinance has been addressed. Mr. Snellings said that it is an item that can be added to the General Plan discussions. He talked about finding out how many second dwelling permits have been applied for. Commissioner Leland said that it is good to see all the working ideas that are coming out of this process. Mr. Snellings went over the General Plan 2030 handout and all the recent and upcoming meetings. C. Update of Board of Supervisors' Actions. A presentation will be made regarding the Board's recent actions concerning agricultural buffers. Mr. Snellings told the Commission about some possible Code changes that were given to the Board of Supervisors. One of the possible Code changes is the use of a Zoning Administrator to handle some of the backlog of projects. He talked about trying to find a use for abandoned Agricultural buildings. Another possibility would be an amnesty period for structures built without permits. Mr. Calarco gave an update on the Board of Supervisors direction for the Agricultural buffer and how it does apply on lands adjacent to Grazing and Open Land (GOL) and Orchard and Field Crop (OFC) designations. He said that the appeal for the Giordano/Akers Tentative Parcel Map was approved with the initial setbacks. D. Legislative Case Law update E. Planning Commission Concerns ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 15 ■ The meeting for the General Plan Study Session was changed from August 17, 2007 at 9 a.m. to August 17, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. VIII. CLOSED SESSION IX. MINUTES -June 28, 2007 It was moved by Commissioner Wilson, seconded by Commissioner Leland, and carried by the following vote Ayes: Commissioners Nelson, Leland, Wilson, and Chair Lambert Noes: None Absent: Commissioner Marin Abstain: None to approve the minutes with a change on page 10 line 1 l changing "Mr. Wilson" to "Deputy County Counsel Wilson". X. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Planning Division Office) None XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Chair Lambert ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ APPROVED MINUTES ■ JULY 12, 2007, ■v PAGE 16 ■ CDurling: GRD 06-01, Signalized Int. LLC, 017-090-138 on Centerville Rd. 06MAR06 Application received 08MAR06 Assigned to Carl l OMAR06 Left msg with Wes Gilbert asking question about why home sites not included and need for 22 copies of plans for distribution for IDR and Commission. Hold application until info submitted. 13MAR06 Met with Mr. Gilbert who dropped off the plans. Other aspects of the application are missing and I called him to inform him of these requirement. No sigiture on app., no Agent form signed, error on map, missing North East Info Center application and check. Hold until this info is submitted. 21 MAR06 Called to remind Wes that required info has not been submitted yet, and can not process the file. He said he will have it to me tomorrow. 28MAR06 Application information sent in. Processed for circulation and gave file to Qwyn. 24APR06 Site visit on or about this date. Raining. Major road cut already into the property extending 300'+/-. With a 10' to 25'+/- cut extending from Centerville Rd up to a "bench." Called Wes Gilbert while at site to remined him that he needs to submit fill material amount. 26APR06 IDR meeting. During meeting was informed for the first time that the grading permit had been issued. Also, the grading had been initiated illegally. And, there had been substantial erosion impacts with photos taken and an MPEG movie of the site. None of this was included in the file given to Planning as part of the CEQA review process request by PW. Several issues were raised at IDR, and even discussed possibility of an EIR, or at least substantial additonal studies, etc. See email to Chuck in file. 02MAY06 Completed draft IS and sent to Chuck. 05MAY06 Stu Edell dropped off a package of letters, memos, and emails regarding last years grading of the driveway. I emailed him my concern that spoil was placed in an area not shown on the grading permit plans, and this being a possible violation of the permit. He emailed me back saying a field inspector will take a look. 30JUN05 Gave file to Stacey since Chuck said he was going to transfer review to her. 31AUG06 Stacey returned project file tome to finish up the IS and process it. 15SEP06 Returned final draft of IS to Stacey for final review. 13OCT06 After several redrafts by Stacey and me, sent IS to Tina for 10 -day review. Gave hard copy to Felix for review. 18OCT06 Finished draft of agenda report and gave it and file to Stacey. 23OCT06 The 10 -day review ended today. Craig Sanders picked up the iS for the applicant. 31OCT06 Meeting with applicant reps and engineers to discuss Initial Study. Agreed to some language changes and corrections. Applicant to submit information on drainage language and information regarding paving of driveway. 03NOV06 Applicant submitted revised maps. Gave copy to PW. Eric said that a new final grading plan and mylar would have to be submitted in order for the grading plan to be issued. Letter included suggested language for Impact Discussion on page 15 of the Initial Study. 09NOV06 Sent email confirming receipt of maps, and acknowledged language modification to discussion on page 15 of the IS. Also reminded Mr. Mann that he was to submit information regarding inspection report and photos for various dates mentioned in the letter. 09NOV06 Mr. Mann emailed acknowledgment of receipt of my email of this day. 16NOV06 Recieved letter from Wes Gilbert (Lumos & Assoc.) that they are no longer involved in the project with respect to the SWPP activities. 17NOV06 Recived copy of letter notifying us that Hanover Inc. is taking over the SWPP activities including monitoring. I didn't get letter until 11 DEC06. 20NOV06 Mr. Mann confirmed by tele that they were to submit the information but have failed to do so at this point. He will follow up. Info came in late part of this date. 11DEC06 Found a copy of a letter from Hanover stating that they were taking over the SWPP plan process. Called to confirm and was told that a new SWPP plan was being prepared. I asked whether there would be significant changes to the plan and the response from a Mr. Luke Smith was that there may be changes. 12DEC06 Informed Stacey of the above and expressed my concern that this could affect the Initial Study analysis. 13DEC06 Emailed Mr. Mann to let him know of the above, and possible effects on the Initial Study. 14DEC06 Stacey asked me to set up a meeting with Mr. Mann, Tim Snellings, Chuck, her and myself. Set meeting for 18DEC06, and Mr. Mann confirmed. 18DEC06 Met with Mann, Chuck, Snellings, Hanover reps, Wes Gilbert, Josiassen. Cleared up the fact that Hanover consultants will not prepare a new SWPP plan, but will continue the monitoring process. 18DEC06 Finised final draft of IS and gave to Stacey for review. 03JAN07 Applicant returned signed IS. Prepared IS for SCH reivew. Public notice in Chico Enterprise Record set for 08JAN07. 08JAN07 Final draft of Agenda Report returned to Chuck for review. Tentative PC date of February 22, 2007. 12JAN07 On or about this date the applicant requested that the meeting be held 08MAR07. 09FEB07 Package sent up to Councel requesting review. 21FEB07 On or about this date visited site and took pictures of approximate locations of driveways approved by the parcel map. It appears that either location would require severe cuts. 13MAR07 Revised Agenda Report and Initial Study per comments. Sent to Stacey for final review. 23MAR07 Stacey finished review of Agenda Report and sent it out for final review. 26MAR07 Received comments on Agenda Report from Public Works. 02MAR07 Invoice sent out to applicant. Large bill, and he wants to review it. 05MAR07 Finished reports for publishing. Reviewed changes to IS with applicants. They gave their ok by phone today. 06APR07 Stacey scanned PC docs into TrakIt. 12APR07 Planning Commission continued project to July 12, 2007. Issues raised included: 1. Viewshed. Is this a CEQA issue and what is the Nexus? Additional conditions? 2. Need opinion as to baseline of project re CEQA (Section 15125). 3. Additional Bio studies re pond and viability of landscaping on slopes. 4. Confirm Allen's testimony that the most northern home location was to be moved. 5. Confirm Allen's testimony that significant amount of dirt was to be moved offsite. 6. Provide information on the relinquishment of abutter's rights. Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 11:09 AM To: 'Wes Gilbert' Subject: GRD 06-01 added info Wes Thanks for dropping off the plans. In reviewing the file I notice that the agent authorization form was not filled out and signed by the applicant. This needs to be done and either faxed or mailed to me. Next. The plan and profile cross section elevation at station 00 indicated an elevation of 450 feet. Shouldn't this be 405 feet? Next. The application itself was not signed. If you are the agent, you need to sign it. I'll continue to process the file, but the next time you are over this way, you need to sign it. Next. Although the "North East Info Center" form is in the packet, it is not filled out, nor is the $60 fee (check) made out to them included in the submitted documents. I'll need a check for this amount. Let's talk ASPA to resolve these issues. Carl Durling 11 12/14/2006 GRD 06-01 - Signalized Intersection West, LLC Durling, Carl From: Arnie Steel [A.Steel@GilbertEngineering.us] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:38 AM To: Durling, Carl Cc: 'Wes Gilbert'; Jimatrural@aol.com; 'Ben Allen'; 'Dan Allen' Subject: FW: GRD 06-01 - Signalized Intersection West, LLC Page 1 of 1 Thank you for the update. Please let me know if I can do anything to assist in expediting the process. Arnie From: Durling, Carl [mailto:CDurling@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:32 AM To: Arnie Steel Subject: RE: GRD 06-01 - Signalized Intersection West, LLC Arnie Wes submitted the remaining portion of the application (signed application form, Agent Automation form, etc.) and corrected maps on 28MAR06. It is being set up for circulation for comments. You are barely into the process. Carl From: Arnie Steel[ma ilto:A.Steel @GilbertEngineering.us] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 4:03 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: 'Wes Gilbert' Subject: GRD 06-01 - Signalized Intersection West, LLC Hi Carl, Could I get an update on this project? Thank you very much. Sincerely, Arnie Steel Associate Engineer Gilbert Engineering 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, California 95973 530.899.9503 phone 530.899.9649 fax Please note the new email address - a.steel@gilbertengineering.us 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Read, Darren [Darren. Read@fire.ca.gov] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:25 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Signalized GRD 06-01 IDR COA memo Attachments: Signalized GRD 06-01 IDR COA memo.doc At4te-cor dead Fire Captain, Fire Protection Planning Law Enforcement & Fire Prevention Bureau CDF Fire, Butte County Fire Rescue 176 Nelson Ave. Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-7888, Office (530) 538-2105, Fax From: Benedict, Gwyn [mailto:GBenedict@buttecounty.net] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:11 AM To: Read, Darren Subject: Signalized GRD 06-01 IDR COA memo Darren, There aren't any standard conditions for this one. I am not sure what happened with the original electronic email. And thank you for the reminder about Wednesday being Administrative Professional Day, so IDR will commence at 2:00. Have a great week! Thanks Gwyn Benedict Office Specialist, Senior Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Orovi Ile CA 95965 (530) 538-7604 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:54 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: GRD 06-01 Carl, We did not receive an a -file for GRD 06-01 Application is complete. The following conditions are required. Public Works 1. All construction shall be in conformance with County Standards and approved plans on file with the County of Butte. 2. Obtain an encroachment permit and improve all new and existing driveway approaches to publicly maintained roads as specified in the County Improvement Standards and the terms of the encroachment permit. 6FM. '1/s.� Butte County Public Works Land Development Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: (530) 538-7266 FAX: (530) 538-7171 12/14/2006 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:50 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Centerville Dwy Photos Attachments: Dwy ConstAugl02005d.JPG; Ducks.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005a.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005b.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005c.JPG; Bernedo Photos 03-15-06.pdf; Dwy ConstAug102005e.JPG; Lookiing North at Dwy.JPG; Looking at field behind dwy.JPG; Looking East at Flowline.JPG; Looking East at sight distance.JPG; Looking NW up Dwy.JPG; Looking NW up Dwy2.JPG; Looking W at roadway and field.JPG; Stop Notice1.JPG; Stop Notice2.J PG Dwy Ducks.JPG (105 KB) Dwy Dwy Dwy Bernedo Photos %ugl02005d.]PG (1; kugl02005a.]PG (1; kugl02005b.]PG (1; Nug102005c.]PG (If 03-15-06.pdf (1... h t f Gd s o MMM Dwy kugl02005e.]PG (1; Lookiing North at Looking at field Looking East at Dwy.JPG (96 ... behind dwy.JP... Flowline.JPG (... M - 0 0 C°d % N Looking East at sight distance... Looking NW up Looking NW up Looking W at Stop Noticel.JPG Stop Notice2.JPG Dwy.JPG (93 KB) Dwy2.JPG (89 KB)..roadway and field... (742 KB) (516 KB) 1 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:52 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Centerville Dwy MPEG Attachments: Looking North up the Dwy.MPG Looking North up the Dwy.MPG (... peg from June, 2005 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:48 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Centerville Dwy Photos Attachments: Parcel 2 Dwy G from bldg site.JPG; HPIM0342.JPG; HPIM0343.JPG; HPIM0344.JPG; Intersection Parcel 2.JPG; Parcel 2 stockpile.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy A.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy B.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy C.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy D.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy E.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy F.JPG; Dwy to Parcel 3 .JPG Gd N Gd . Gd Gd Parcel 2 Dwy G from bldg site.... IPIM0342.JPG (179 KB) 1PIM0343.JPG (162 iPIM0344.JPG (195 Intersection Parcel KB) KB) 2.JPG (181... Gd h Gd t s f Gd Parcel 2 Dwy B.JPG Parcel 2 Dwy C.JPG Parcel 2 Dwy D.JPG (205 KB) (183 KB) (138 KB) 0 % 6 EL % 0 I% Parcel 2 Dwy E.JPG Parcel 2 Dwy F.JPG (174 KB) (179 KB) Dwy to Parcel 3 .JPG (176 KB) 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 2 Dwy A.JPG :ockpile.JPG (177 K. (185 KB) 0 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:49 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Centerville Dwy Photos Attachments: storm pictures 031606.pdf MRiN w storm pictures 031606.pdf (1 M... Photos from 3-16-06 Durling, Carl From: Schroth, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 3:58 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Centerville Dwy emails. Attachments: 10-06-05B.doc; 10-06-05.doc 'M IN 10-06-05B.doc (36 10-06-05.doc (45 KB) KB) Internal emails. All complaints to me were via phone. There is one written comment in the file from a public source. I will bring it by. 1 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:55 AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles Cc: Calarco, Pete Subject: Signalized Grading Pmt OR mtg April 27, 2006 Chuck Yesterday at the OR meeting was the first time I was informed that this project was known to have been very controversial because the grading work had been done without permits and had caused substantial erosion damage. The lengthy discussion of the project centered around whether an EIR was necessary, should we require one, can we require one, and what information needs to be generated in order to properly evaluate the current state of the project and subsequent mitigation measures. Issues mentioned were: 1. Esthetics 2. Project life -time protection of the environment vis a vis storm water run-off and erosion. 3. Whether historical sites have been endangered. 4. Possible impacts to sensitive flora that may have already occurred and may occur. 5. Impact to Fish (soil erosion into the pond across the Centerville road) and downstream impacts. 6. Impacts that may have occurred in the area where cut material was filled. 7. Lack of review by responsible agencies and departments (Fish and Game, others?). Public Works found the project complete on February 27, 2006. Is this the complete date for our IS review? We received the project on March 6, 2006, which sets the 30 -day complete date at April 6, 2006. However, it wasn't until March 28, 2006 that the applicant had signed the application and submitted it to us. So, tomorrow (Friday) is the complete date. The question is which of the following actions do we take: Find the project incomplete; require studies that will generate base line data for IS evaluation and mitigation measures; or, require and EIR. We need to discuss this and make a decision as soon as possible, especially if we are to send out an incomplete letter. Carl 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:48 AM To: Edell, Stuart Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: Package of letters Stu Thanks for giving me the package of letters and communiqu6s regarding the Signalized Intersection grading issue. Very informative. I note that the photo in the Chico News & Review article shows a dump truck that appears to have dumped spoil from the road cut. This is the area I spoke to you about yesterday, and dropped by a photo I had taken two weeks ago. Looking at the USGS Topo map, and our GIS topo map, it appears this fill area resulted in a significant grade change. You pointed out to that spoil was to be placed in an area opposite (southwesterly) of the driveway cut. My question is whether this is a "significant" change in location of spoil material and therefore a possible violation of the grading permit. I have prepared a draft Initial Study for review by Chuck Thistlethwaite. I will be discussing possible additional mitigation measures, and would like to include in the discussions with him your view of this possible violation. Thanks again, Carl Durling Associate Planner 12/14/2006 1--;7A, M- ; Page 1 of 2 Durling, Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:58 AM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete; Schroth, Eric; Warson, Jack; Odekirk, Tom Subject: RE: Package of letters Attachments: Stop Notice2.JPG; Bernedo Photos 03-15-06.pdf; Ducks.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005a.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005b.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl020O5c.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005d.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005e.JPG; INSPECT 60301a.doc; INSPECT 60301aa.doc; INSPECT 60301 b.doc; INSPECT 60306.doc; Lookiing North at Dwy.JPG; Looking at field behind dwy.JPG; Looking East at Flowline.JPG; Looking East at sight distance.JPG; Looking North up the Dwy. MPG; Looking NW up Dwy2.JPG; Looking NW up Dwy.JPG; Looking W at roadway and field.JPG; PhotoSet.doc; Stop Notice1.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy G from bldg site.JPG; Dwy to Parcel 3 .JPG; HPIM0342.JPG; HPIM0343.JPG; HPIM0344.JPG; Intersection Parcel 2.JPG; Parcel 2 stockpile.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy A.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy B.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy C.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy D.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy E.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy F.JPG; storm pictures 031606.pdf; Stop Notice3.JPG; 11142005 Hydroseeded.JPG; Ducks.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005a.JPG; Dwy ConstAug102005b.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl020O5c.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005d.JPG; Dwy ConstAugl02005e.JPG; INSPECT 60301aa.doc; Lookiing North at Dwy.JPG; Looking at field behind dwy.JPG; Looking East at Flowline.JPG; Looking East at sight distance.JPG; Looking North up the Dwy.MPG; Looking NW up Dwy2.JPG; Looking NW up Dwy.JPG; Looking W at roadway and field.JPG; pond.pdf; Stop Notice1.JPG; Stop Notice2.JPG; INSPECT 60306.doc; allen65.doc; Centerville Driveway follow up.htm; Centerville Driveway part a.htm; Centerville Driveway part aa.htm; Centerville Driveway part b.htm; Centerville Residential Driveway SWPPP Project.txt; Centerville Residential Project.txt; INSPECT 3 29 05.pdf; INSPECT 4 12 06.pdf; INSPECT 60301a.doc; INSPECT 60301aa.doc; INSPECT 60301b.doc; Parcel 2 Dwy G from bldg site.JPG; 10132005a.JPG; 10132005b.JPG; 10132005c.JPG; 10252005A.JPG; 10252005B.JPG; 10262005.JPG; Dwy to Parcel 3 .JPG; HPIM0342.JPG; HPIM0343.JPG; HPIM0344.JPG; HPIM0387.JPG; HPIM0388.JPG; IMG_0075.JPG; IMG_0076.JPG; IMG_0077.JPG; IMG_0078.JPG; Intersection Parcel 2.JPG; March 3 2006A.jpg; March 3 2006B .jpg; March 3 2006C .jpg; Parcel 2 stockpile.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy A.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy B.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy C.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy D.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy E.JPG; Parcel 2 Dwy F.JPG We do have some photos (attached) of the spoil pile in the correct location, none of a pile in your location. We will have our inspector check next week. From: Durling, Carl Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 9:48 AM To: Edell, Stuart Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Calarco, Pete Subject: Package of letters Stu Thanks for giving me the package of letters and communiques regarding the Signalized Intersection grading issue. Very informative. I note that the photo in the Chico News & Review article shows a dump truck that appears to have dumped spoil from the road cut. This is the area I spoke to you about yesterday, and dropped by a photo I had taken two weeks ago. Looking at the USGS Topo map, and our GIS topo map, it appears this fill area resulted in a significant grade change. You pointed out to me that spoil was to be placed in an area opposite (southwesterly) of the driveway cut. My question is whether this is a "significant" change in location of spoil material and therefore a possible violation of the grading permit. I have prepared a draft Initial Study for review by Chuck Thistlethwaite. I will be discussing 12/14/2006 -J Page .2 of 2 possible additional mitigation measures, and would like to include in the discussions with him your view of this possible violation. Thanks again, Carl Durling Associate Planner 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:33 PM To: Calarco, Pete; Durling, Carl; Schroth, Eric Subject: FW: Centerville Rd. meeting Attachments: HPIM0872.JPG; HPIM0844.JPG; HPIM0845.JPG; HPIM0846.JPG; HPIM0847.JPG; HPIM0848.JPG; HPIM0849.JPG; HPIM0850.JPG; HPIM0851.JPG; HPIM0852.JPG; HPIM0853.JPG; HPIM0854.JPG; HPIM0855.JPG; HPIM0856.JPG; HPIM0857.JPG; HPIM0858.JPG; HPIM0859.JPG; HPIM0860.JPG; HPIM0861.JPG; HPIM0862.JPG; HPIM0863.JPG; HPIM0864.JPG; HPIM0865.JPG; HPIM0866.JPG; HPIM0867.JPG; HPIM0868.JPG; HPIM0869.JPG; HPIM0870.JPG; HPIM0871.JPG From: Odekirk, Tom Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:04 PM To: Edell, Stuart Subject: Centerville Rd. meeting Photos are stored in X:\Photos\District 2 Misc\Centerville Driveway\May 18 2006 Tom Odekirk Butte County Public Works 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:55 PM To: jim@ruralconsulting.com Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl; Edell, Stuart Subject: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 Hello Jim: Would you kindly forward this email to Amy Steel (and other parties as appropriate.) Our site visit this am was very productive. Here is the recap of five issues of prime concern in the initial study and resolution.. Input is welcome. Drainage. Amy and I discussed the need to demonstrate how the grading will not have an adverse impacts on downstream property (ie the pond on the adjacent parcel.) I am looking to craft a mitigation measure for no net increase of drainage. Amy indicated she could probably provide 1) a standard to use from the subdivision map act since the grading code provides little guidance, 2) pre -development flows, 3) post development flows, and 4) a concept, or options for meeting the no net increase criteria. (The actual design could be a mitigation measure; as approved by DDS and PW.) whew! Aesthetics. I need to research County codes to ensure I am not missing something. However, prelim research suggests we do not have criteria adopted to call the grading a significant impact. We will address "compatibility" and visial issues in the agenda report. I can discuss "contour grading" or "landform grading" concepts. I don't think we will recommend additional grading as a solution, but htis will give the PC a chance to discuss.) Biology. Jim, can you forward the foothill contact info so I can contact Elain flock about her site visit, as you mentioned in our last conversation? I'm cautious that the drainage not cause bio impacts; am looking for appropriate mitigation to ensure this doens' occur. Erosion. We will rely on the SWPPP. Clarification of Information: My files shows grading acres of 1.75 and 2.75 acres. Can you confirm the approriate Thanks. I'm looking forward to completing this one! Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Butte Co. Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 530.538.6573 sjolliffe _buttecounty.net 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2 Durling, Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:11 PM To: Jolliffe, Stacey; 'jim@ruralconsulting.com'; Wes Gilbert Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl Subject: RE: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 When Pete and I toured the site with Wes Gilbert, he proposed use of the stockpiled material as fill for the building site on AP 017-090-139 (approximately 3,460 cy of fill). This should be addressed in the current grading permit so we do not have to go through another grading permit to move the dirt. From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:55 PM To: jim@ruralconsulting.com Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl; Edell, Stuart Subject: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 Hello Jim: Would you kindly forward this email to Amy Steel (and other parties as appropriate.) Our site visit this am was very productive. Here is the recap of five issues of prime concern in the initial study and resolution.. Input is welcome. Drainage. Amy and I discussed the need to demonstrate how the grading will not have an adverse impacts on downstream property (ie the pond on the adjacent parcel.) I am looking to craft a mitigation measure for no net increase of drainage. Amy indicated she could probably provide 1) a standard to use from the subdivision map act since the grading code provides little guidance, 2) pre -development flows, 3) post development flows, and 4) a concept, or options for meeting the no net increase criteria. (The actual design could be a mitigation measure; as approved by DDS and PW.) whew! Aesthetics. I need to research County codes to ensure I am not missing something. However, prelim research suggests we do not have criteria adopted to call the grading a significant impact. We will address "compatibility" and visial issues in the agenda report. I can discuss "contour grading" or "landform grading" concepts. I don't think we will recommend additional grading as a solution, but htis will give the PC a chance to discuss.) Biology. Jim, can you forward the foothill contact info so I can contact Elain flock about her site visit, as you mentioned in our last conversation? I'm cautious that the drainage not cause bio impacts; am looking for appropriate mitigation to ensure this doens' occur. Erosion. We will rely on the SWPPP. Clarification of Information: My files shows grading acres of 1.75 and 2.75 acres. Can you confirm the approriate Thanks. I'm looking forward to completing this one! Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Butte Co. Development Services Planning Division 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 2 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:16 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Allen Two 40 -acre site Attachments: wetland_delineation_013106.pdf; wetland_impacts_081606.pdf For the initial study. Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Planning Section Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Phone: 530-538-7541; FAX: 530-538-2140 Email: siolliffe(@buttecounty.net Website: www.buttecounty.net/dds 0 From: Elaine Flock [mailto:Elaine. Flock@foothill.com] Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:59 PM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Cc: Jimatrural@aol.com Subject: Allen Two 40 -acre site Stacey, Please find attached a wetland delineation figure and an impacts figure for the Allen Two 40 -acre Parcels project (APN 017-090-138 and 139) off of Centerville Road in Butte County. Per our discussion yesterday, the impacts figure has been revised as the northernmost slope seep will not be impacted. Total impacts now for future activities would be 0.01 acre of riverine seasonal wetland. Impacts from previous (2005) activities were 0.05 acre. Cumulatively, impacts are only 0.06 acre, still far below the 0.10 acre threshold required for post -notification under Nationwide Permit (NWP) 39 (residential development). As such, we will likely pursue another post - notification under NWP 39 with the Corps. Once state and local permits are in place, the permittee would be allowed to construct so long as wetland impacts remain at or under 0.10 acre. Under NWP 39, the post -notification does not require a full delineation report and map to be verified by the Corps; only the following are required in a letter report: 1) name, address, and phone # of permittee; 2) location of work; 3) description of work; 4) type and acreage of impacted wetlands; and 5) type and acreage of any compensatory mitigation used to offset impacts. A draft wetland delineation report was prepared earlier this year in anticipation of needing one for a pre -construction notification under NWP 39. Since we will be pursuing another post - notification, a final wetland delineation report will not likely be prepared. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Elaine 12/14/2006 s Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:19 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Planning Section Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Phone: 530-538-7541; FAX: 530-538-2140 Email: sjolliffe0buttecounty.net Website: www.buttecounty.netldds 0 From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 4:32 PM To: jimatrural@aol.com Cc: Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Snellings, Tim Subject: FW: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 Jim, Page 1 of 3 I wanted to remind you of several items we are anticipating to complete the initial study. I suspect you can be of assistance in getting them rounded up for us: 1) Drainage information detailed below and discussed with Arnie Steel. 2) Wetland delineation and photos of pre -construction site from Elaine Flock (Elaine and Ispoke today; I believe she will be contacting you for authorization). 3) New grading permit information to include moving the stockpile, per Stu Edell's e-mail below. 4) Clarification on the area of ground disturbed (My files shows grading acres of 1.75 and 2.75 acres). Thank you, Jim. Give me a call if we need to discuss this further. Stacey From: Amie Steel[ma ilto: A. Steel @Gil bertEng i neering. us] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:43 AM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Cc: 'Wes Gilbert' Subject: RE: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 12/14/2006 Page 2 of 3 Thank you for the information and a follow-up in regards to our meeting yesterday. I will be working on providing you with the storm drainage information as we discussed at the project site yesterday and as you outlined below. I anticipate submittal of the information to you by early next week. Like you, we would like to have the grading permit approved as soon as possible. Arnie Amie Steel Associate Engineer Gilbert Engineering 70 Declaration Drive, Suite 101 Chico, California 95973 530.899.9503 phone 530.899.9649 fax Please note the new email address - a.steel o,gilberten ing eering.us From: Jolliffe, Stacey [mailto:SJolliffe@buttecounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:12 PM To: a.steel@gilbertengineering.us Subject: FW: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 One more thing! From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 5:11 PM To: Jolliffe, Stacey; 'jim@ruralconsulting.com'; Wes Gilbert Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl Subject: RE: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 When Pete and I toured the site with Wes Gilbert, he proposed use of the stockpiled material as fill for the building site on AP 017-090-139 (approximately 3,460 cy of fill). This should be addressed in the current grading permit so we do not have to go through another grading permit to move the dirt. From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:55 PM To: jim@ruralconsulting.com Cc: Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl; Edell, Stuart Subject: signalized intersection GRD 06-01 Hello Jim: Would you kindly forward this email to Amy Steel (and other parties as appropriate.) Our site visit this am was very productive. Here is the recap of five issues of prime concern in the initial study and resolution.. Input is welcome. Drainage. Amy and I discussed the need to demonstrate how the grading will not have an adverse impacts on downstream property (ie the pond on the adjacent parcel.) I am looking to craft a mitigation measure for no net increase of drainage. Amy indicated she could probably provide 1) a standard to use from the subdivision map act since the grading code provides little guidance, 2) pre -development flows, 3) post development flows, and 4) a concept, or options for meeting the no net increase criteria. (The actual design could be a mitigation measure; as approved by DDS and PW.) 12/14/2006 whew! Page 3 of 3 Aesthetics. I need to research County codes to ensure I am not missing something. However, prelim research suggests we do not have criteria adopted to call the grading a significant impact. We will address "compatibility" and visial issues in the agenda report. I can discuss "contour grading" or "landform grading" concepts. I don't think we will recommend additional grading as a solution, but htis will give the PC a chance to discuss.) Biology. Jim, can you forward the foothill contact info so I can contact Elain flock about her site visit, as you mentioned in our last conversation? I'm cautious that the drainage not cause bio impacts; am looking for appropriate mitigation to ensure this doens' occur. Erosion. We will rely on the SWPPP. Clarification of Information: My files shows grading acres of 1.75 and 2.75 acres. Can you confirm the approriate Thanks. I'm looking forward to completing this one! Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Butte Co. Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965 530.538.6573 sjolliffe _buttecounty.net 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:21 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Signalized Intersection Attachments: Initial Study Signalized GRD 06-01.doc; Agenda Report Signalized GRD 06-01 draft.doc Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Planning Section Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Phone: 530-538-7541; FAX: 530-538-2140 Email: siolliffe@buttecounty.net Website: www.buttecounty.net/dds R From: Durling, Carl Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 8:32 AM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: Signalized Intersection Stacey I've attached the Initial Study. I've also attached a very draft draft of an agenda report. Carl 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:57 PM To: Jimatrural@aol.com Cc: Edell, Stuart; wgilbert@lumosengineering.com; Durling, Carl Subject: RE: Grading Permit (2-40 acre parcels) I confirmed with Stu myself. We're good. Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Planning Section Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Phone: 530-538-7541; FAX: 530-538-2140 Email: sioNiffe@buttecounty.net Website: www.buttecounty.net/dds Flc From: Jimatrural@aol.com [mailto:Jimatrural@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:32 AM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Cc: Edell, Stuart; wgilbert@lumosengineering.com Subject: Fwd: Grading Permit (2-40 acre parcels) HELLO STACEY, This was the email from Wes I received after he spoke with Stuart. Please let me know that you have received this clearance information. Thanks, JIM 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Read, Darren [Darren.Read@fire.ca.gov] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 11:48 AM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Read, Darren Subject: FW: 10 -day review of Initial Study Attachments: 10 day Letter for Initial Study GRD 06-01.doc; Initial Study Signalized SLJ GRD 06-01 10 -day review.doc Looks good i Fire Captain, Fire Protection Planning Butte Unit Fire Prevention Bureau CDF/Butte County Fire Rescue 176 Nelson Ave. Oroville CA 95965 (530) 538-7888, Office (530) 538-2105, Fax From: Bonham, Tina [mailto:tbonham@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 9:29 AM To: Aguila, Michelle; Betts, Steve; Breedon, Dan; Castanon, Yvette; Fogel, Doug; Gillis, Kathy; Hill, Rob; Jolliffe, Stacey; Klein, Paul; Lucas, Steve; MacKenzie, Robert; Read, Darren; Reimers, Ken; Rutherford, Scott; Schroth, Eric; Thistlethwaite, Charles; Wannenmacher, Felix Subject: FW: 10 -day review of Initial Study Please review the attached documents and provide any comments to Carl Durling by October 24, 2006. Thank you for attention in this matter. -%� ' sWL za�rrz Office Specialist, Senior Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-5260 FAX 538-7785 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 7:54 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: APN 017-090-138, 139 (2 X 40 ACRE PARCELS) From: Jimatrural@aol.com [mailto:Jimatrural@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:19 PM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: Re: APN 017-090-138, 139 (2 X 40 ACRE PARCELS) HI STACEY, You mentioned that the 10 -day internal review is complete and we could get the Initial Study for review and signature. PLEASE LET ME KNOW ON MONDAY 10/23 HOW WE CAN PICK UP FOR ALL OF US TO REVIEW AND REQUEST SIGNATURES FROM THE ALLEN'S. THANKS, JIM 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 4:18 PM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Durling, Carl Subject: signalized intersection agenda report Attachments: Agenda Report Signalized GRD 06-01 draft.SLJ.doc Chuck and Carl, Would you take a look at this agenda report for the illegal grading on Centerville Road?. It has the attention of nearby neighbors; I want to be sure to strike the right balance/tone. You can see, Carl tried not to wade into the controversy, while I tried to direct it. Hmmm. Not sure if either can avoid all the problems, but we can try...-- stacey p.s. be sure to save any changes back to the K: drive Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner, Current Planning Section Butte County Dept. of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Phone: 530.538.7541; FAX 530.538.2140 Email: sjolliffe@buttecountv.net Webite: www.buttecounty.net/dds 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:34 AM To: 'Jimatrural@aol.com' Cc: Jolliffe, Stacey; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Initial Study Jim The Initial Study is ready for you to pick up, review, and sign. To stay on track we need to have the document signed by the applicant or applicant representative, and back to us by the Thursday morning, 26 October 2006. Carl Durling 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 4:37 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Schroth, Eric Subject: Signalized Intersections Attachments: Undated photos.pdf; 12-20-06 photos.pdf; SWPPP report 03-03-06.pdf; SWPPP report 04-18- 06.pdf SWPPP reports and other photos as requested Stuart Edell, P.E. Butte County Public Works 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Tel 530.538.7266 Fax 530.538.7171 email sedell@buttecounty.net 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:50 AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: draft email to Jim Mann The following is my draft response to the October 31 meeting and subsequent letter from Wes Gilbert. Lets discuss as soon as possible. Carl Mr. Mann This email acknowledges that we received a letter on November 3, 2006, from Lumos and Associates dated November 1, 2006. This letter summarizes our meeting of October 31, 2006. The letter transmitted two revised grading plans and provided your point of view regarding language on page 15 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). I forwarded the letter and one of the plans to Public Works for review, and am awaiting their comments. Their initial response was that if the plans are different from that submitted for the grading application, you would have to submit final revised plans with mylar copies. You might check with Eric Schroth, 538-7266. The last sentence of the first paragraph states "The grading associated with each of the home sites should be addressed in the Initial Study." Your grading plans clearly differentiate between the area covered by the grading permit, and that area covered by a subsequent building permit. This represents a substantial change from the grading plan submitted, and thus a subsequent change in the IS/MND analysis. We need to discuss this further in as much as it may be a significant change to the IS/MND. We have reviewed the language you suggest that would modify a portion of the "Impact Discussion" found on Page 15 regarding soil erosion. We agreed that the language could be modified to some extent in order to make a more accurate presentation of the facts. Finally, the last paragraph of the letter spells out several dates when inspections of the site with photographs were made with subsequent reports. During our meeting you agreed to provide these inspection reports and photographs for our evaluation. This information was not included with the letter. The information and reports are important in our evaluation of the language on Page 15. Until we receive the information and evaluate it, we can not schedule a time when the IS/MND would again be ready for signature. This also means that we can not give a firm date for a Planning Commission hearing. We estimate the earliest date for a hearing would be a January 2007 meeting. If you have any questions, please call or email me. Carl Durling Associate Planner 530-538-7150 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:50 AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: draft email to Jim Mann The following is my draft response to the October 31 meeting and subsequent letter from Wes Gilbert. Lets discuss as soon as possible. Carl MRIA TT This email acknowledges that we received a letter on November 3, 2006, from Lumos and Associates dated November 1, 2006. This letter summarizes our meeting of October 31, 2006. The letter transmitted two revised grading plans and provided your point of view regarding language on page 15 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). I forwarded the letter and one of the plans to Public Works for review, and am awaiting their comments. Their initial response was that if the plans are different from that submitted for the grading application, you would have to submit final revised plans with mylar copies. You might check with Eric Schroth, 538-7266. The last sentence of the first paragraph states "The grading associated with each of the home sites should be addressed in the Initial Study." Your grading plans clearly differentiate between the area covered by the grading permit, and that area covered by a subsequent building permit. This represents a substantial change from the grading plan submitted, and thus a subsequent change in the IS/MND analysis. We need to discuss this further in as much as it may be a significant change to the IS/MND. We have reviewed the language you suggest that would modify a portion of the "Impact Discussion" found on Page 15 regarding soil erosion. We agreed that the language could be modified to some extent in order to make a more accurate presentation of the facts. Finally, the last paragraph of the letter spells out several dates when inspections of the site with photographs were made with subsequent reports. During our meeting you agreed to provide these inspection reports and photographs for our evaluation. This information was not included with the letter. The information and reports are important in our evaluation of the language on Page 15. Until we receive the information and evaluate it, we can not schedule a time when the IS/MND would again be ready for signature. This also means that we can not give a firm date for a Planning Commission hearing. We estimate the earliest date for a hearing would be a January 2007 meeting. If you have any questions, please call or email me. Carl Durling Associate Planner 530-538-7150 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:41 AM To: 'Jimatrural@aol.com' Cc: Jolliffe, Stacey; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Information Mr. Mann This email acknowledges that we received a letter on November 3, 2006, from Lumos and Associates dated November 1, 2006. This letter summarizes our meeting of October 31, 2006. The letter transmitted two revised grading plans and provided your point of view regarding language on page 15 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). I forwarded the letter and one of the plans to Public Works for review, and am awaiting their comments. Their initial response was that if the plans are different from that submitted for the grading application, you would have to submit final revised plans with Mylar copies. You might check with Eric Schroth, 538-7266. We have reviewed the language you suggest that would modify a portion of the "Impact Discussion" found on Page 15 regarding soil erosion. We agreed that the language could be modified to some extent in order to make a more accurate presentation of the facts. Finally, the last paragraph of the letter spells out several dates when inspections of the site with photographs were made with subsequent reports. During our meeting you agreed to provide these inspection reports and photographs for our evaluation. This information was not included with the letter. The information and reports are important in our evaluation of the language on Page 15. When we receive the information and evaluate it, we can schedule a time when the IS/MND would again be ready for signature and set a firm date for the Planning Commission hearing. We estimate the probable date for a hearing would be the January 14, 2007 meeting, since the PC has not scheduled a second hearing in December. If you have any questions, please call or email me. Carl Durling Associate Planner 530-538-7150 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jimatrural@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:21 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: Re: Information THANKS CARL - I WILL BE IN TOUCH. JIM 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 3 Durling, Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:16 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Centerville Rd. update/FYI FYI From: Odekirk, Tom Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:12 PM To: O'Brien, Shawn Cc: Warson, Jack; Edell, Stuart Subject: Centerville Rd. update/FYI Signalized Intersections, Centerville Road driveway; The contractor, Matt Burrus notified me that the BMP's were maintained/replaced on Thursday 11/ 9/2006. Photos are stored in: X:\Photos\District 2 Misc\Centerville Driveway\BMP Photos\Periodic inspections 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 3 Durling, Carl From: Jolliffe, Stacey Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 8:34 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: RE: Centerville Rd. update/FYI OK. Would you please include this in the power point? From: Durling, Carl Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:42 PM To: Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: FW: Centerville Rd. update/FYI For your information. Carl From: Edell, Stuart Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:16 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Centerville Rd. update/FYI ray From: Odekirk, Tom Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:12 PM To: O'Brien, Shawn Cc: Warson, Jack; Edell, Stuart Subject: Centerville Rd. update/FYI Signalized Intersections, Centerville Road driveway; The contractor, Matt Burrus notified me that the BMP's were maintained/replaced on Thursday 11/ 9/2006. Photos are stored in: X:\Photos\District 2 Misc\Centerville Driveway\BMP Photos\Periodic inspections 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jimatrural@aol.com Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:45 AM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey; dlothrop2000@yahoo.com; leaseback@gmail.com; wgilbert@lumosengineering.com; jfarms@cncnet.com Subject: Re: Information CARL, I understand the process, however it is hard to understand why it is taking so long to complete the IS when you just needed to revise the one you have already completed. You have sent me information that we would not make the December PC meeting but should make the January meeting. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME -- PLEASE PLEASE complete so we can get this approved for the Allen's. Thanks, JIM 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:31 AM To: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: Signalized Intersection All We received the report information we requested in our meeting with Mann regarding inspection reports. We were going to use this information to modify our language under Hydrology, page 15, of the Initial Study. Do either of you want to review the information they submitted, or discuss it with me, prior to my modification of the language? We should study the Photos together to come to a common response to the language. Carl 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:21 AM To: 'Jimatrural@aol.com' Cc: Thistlethwaite, Charles; Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: RE: Information Jim No, the Initial Study is not complete. I am revising it based on the information submitted on November 20tH Once done, and you sign it, it will go to the State Clearing House for a 30 day review. Then the draft agenda report is prepared and reviewed, and final is completed, then the project is scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. Carl From: Jimatrural@aol.com [mailto:Jimatrural@aol.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:16 AM To: Durling, Carl Cc:'Jolliffe, Stacey Subject: Re: Information HELLO CARL, GRADING PERMIT, SI - 747 Signalized Intersection West, LLC APN 017-090-138 & 139. 1 have emailed and phoned for an update -- PLEASE -- is the IS completed so we can get this to the Butte County Planning Commission?? THANKS, JIM MANN/CHICO 12/14/2006 Durling, Carl From: Luke Smith [Ismith@hanoverinc.com] Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 3:02 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Ben Allen (E-mail) Subject: Centerville road photos taken 12.11.06 Attachments: IMG_3145.JPG; IMG_3146.JPG IMG_3145.JPG IMG_3146.]PG <<IMG_3145.JFG>> <<IMG_3146.JPG>> Mr. Durling, I realize that these photographs are a couple of days after the main storm event but do provide some visual flows in the both the adjacent creek and entry point. I would like to go up to the site one of these days with you during an event to address additional areas of interest. Please contact me if there is anything more that you may need. Thank you, Luke Smith Hanover Environmental Services 1072 Marauder Street, Suite 220 P: 530.342.1333 F: 530.342.1490 lsmith@hanoverinc.com 1 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:38 AM To: 'Jimatrural@aol.com' Cc: Jolliffe, Stacey; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Initial Study Mr. Mann I have been informed by letter that you have changed engineers handling the SWPP plan process including inspections. I spoke with the consultant yesterday, Mr. Luke Smith of Hanover, Inc. Mr. Smith informed me that they were going to prepare a new SWPP plan that may include revisions of an unknown nature. The initial study I am preparing is based in large part on the current SWPP plan. It would be very helpful to know as soon as possible any modifications proposed to the existing SWPP plan. I would like to set up a meeting with you and your consultant as your earliest convenience to clarify the matter. My time is open except for the holidays and December 26th the day after Christmas. Carl Durling Associate Planner 12/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Jimatrural@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:57 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Jolliffe, Stacey; Thistlethwaite, Charles Subject: Re: Initial Study THANKS CARL - I WILL BE IN TOUCH. JIM 12/14/2006 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EVENT HISTORY Parcel Map History 12 July 2001 Original Parcel Map (PM) approved by Development Review Committee (DRC). 24 July 2002 Sierra West Surveying (SW) submitted PM for map check. 05 Sep 2002 Public Works (PW) requires information and changes re map submittal. 10 Oct 2002 PW requires new map regarding reconfigured parcel lines. 15 Oct 2002 SW resubmits map with deeds. 17 Oct 2002 PW notes that the map has been revised. Requires SW to submit 4 copies of revised map showing new layout. 17 Oct 2002 PW sends out memo to departments requesting comments on revised map. 22 Oct 2002 PW notes map is not consistent and therefore needs DRC approval. 22 Oct 2002 Fire Dept. approves revised map. 23 Oct 2002 Planning Dept. approves revised map. 04 Nov 2002 Environmental Health approves revised map. 12 Nov 2002 PW evaluates new driveway locations. Notes locations are feasible. 13 Nov 2002 PW informs SW that a new condition is added re establishing driveways with adequate site distances. 19 Nov 2002 SW submits final revised map with an additional map sheet showing driveway locations and notes. Gradin Hg istory 26 May 2005 An Encroachment Permit application is submitted applying for a single driveway. 30 Jun 2005 Encroachment Permit is issued with the following conditions: 1. Grade not to exceed 15%. 2. Line roadside ditch of driveway with rock to slow down drainage. 3. Mitigate drainage to prevent water from flowing across Centerville Rd. 4. Clean drainage and bank 100' min both directions from D/W. 5. Bring 2% road grade from edge of road back to flow line of ditch. 26 Aug 2005 Stop Work order issued. 13 Sep 2005 Developer and Engineer sign SWPP Plan. 15 Sep 2005 Began receiving written complaints regarding "grading" and "illegal" road constriction. 20 Sep 2005 State Water Resources processed SWPP Plan. 21 Sep 2005 Grading Permit application submitted. 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION EVENT HISTORY Grading History (Continued) 23 Sep 2005 PW notifies applicant by letter that the grading activities have exceeded what was permitted by the Encroachment Permit. 27 Feb 2006 Grading Permit application deemed complete by PW. Application is forwarded to the Planning Division of Development Services. 06 Mar 2006 A CEQA review application was submitted to Development Services (see Lead -In sheet). 08 Mar 2006 Project is assigned to Carl Durling. 08 Mar 2006 Applicant is informed of missing application information (application not signed, agent authorization form not filled out or signed, North East Information Center form missing and check not provided, error on map plan and profile datum). 26 Apr 2006 Inter -Departmental Review Committee reviews project. See personal activity log 4 CDurling: GRD 06-01, Signalized Int. LLC, 017-090-138 on Centerville Rd. 06MAR06 Application received 08MAR06 Assigned to Carl 1 OMAR06 Left msg with Wes Gilbert asking question about why home sites not included and need for 22 copies of plans for distribution for IDR and Commission. Hold application until info submitted. 13MAR06 Met with Mr. Gilbert who dropped off the plans. Other aspects of the application are missing and I called him to inform him of these requirements. No signature on app., no Agent form signed, error on map, missing North East Info Center application and check. Hold until this info is submitted. 21 MAR06 Called to remind Wes that required info has not been submitted yet, and can not process the file. He said he will have it to me tomorrow. 28MAR06 Application information sent in. Processed for circulation and gave file to Gwyn. 24APR06 Site visit on or about this date. Raining. Major road cut already into the property extending 300'+/-. With a 10' to 25'+/- cut extending from Centerville Rd up to a "bench." Called Wes Gilbert while at site to remind him that he needs to submit fill material amount. 26APR06 IDR meeting. During meeting was informed for the first time that the grading permit had been issued. Also, the grading had been initiated illegally. And, there had been substantial erosion impacts with photos taken and an MPEG movie of the site. None of this was included in the file given to Planning as part of the CEQA review process request by PW. Several issues were raised at IDR, and even discussed possibility of an EIR, or at least substantial additional studies, etc. See email to Chuck in file. 02MAY06 Completed draft IS and sent to Chuck. 05MAY06 Stu Edell dropped off a package of letters, memos, and emails regarding last years grading of the driveway. I emailed him my concern that spoil was placed in an area not shown on the grading permit plans, and this being a possible violation of the permit. He emailed me back saying a field inspector will take a look. 30JLN05 Gave file to Stacey since Chuck said he was going to transfer review to her. 31AUG06 Stacey returned project file tome to finish up the IS and process it. 15SEP06 Returned final draft of IS to Stacey for final review. 13OCT06 After several redrafts by Stacey and me, sent IS to Tina for 10 -day review. Gave hard copy to Felix for review. 18OCT06 Finished draft of agenda report and gave it and file to Stacey. 23OCT06 The 10 -day review ended today. Craig Sanders picked up the IS for the applicant. 31 OCT06 Meeting with applicant reps and engineers to discuss Initial Study. Agreed to some language changes and corrections. Applicant to submit information on drainage language and information regarding paving of driveway. 03NOV06 Applicant submitted revised maps. Gave copy to PW. Eric said that a new final grading plan and Mylar would have to be submitted in order for the grading plan to be issued. Letter included suggested language for Impact Discussion on page 15 of the Initial Study. 09NOV06 Sent email confirming receipt of maps, and acknowledged language modification to discussion on page 15 of the IS. Also reminded Mr. Mann that he was to submit information regarding inspection report and photos for various dates mentioned in the letter. 09NOV06 Mr. Mann emailed acknowledgment of receipt of my email of this day. 16NOV06 Received letter from Wes Gilbert (Lumos & Assoc.) that they are no longer involved in the project with respect to the SWPP activities. 17NOV06 Received copy of letter notifying us that Hanover Inc. is taking over the SWPP activities including monitoring. I didn't get letter until 11 DEC06. 20NOV06 Mr. Mann confirmed by tele that they were to submit the information but have failed to do so at this point. He will follow up. Info came in late part of this date. 11 DEC06 Found a copy of a letter from Hanover stating that they were taking over the SWPP plan process. Called to confirm and was told that a new SWPP plan was being prepared. I asked whether there would be significant changes to the plan and the response from a Mr. Luke Smith was that there may be changes. 12DEC06 Informed Stacey of the above and expressed my concern that this could affect the Initial Study analysis. 13DEC06 Emailed Mr. Mann to let him know of the above, and possible effects on the Initial Study. 14DEC06 Stacey asked me to set up a meeting with Mr. Mann, Tim Snellings, Chuck, her and myself. Set meeting for 18DEC06, and Mr. Mann confirmed. 18DEC06 Met with Mann, Chuck, Snellings, Hanover reps, Wes Gilbert, Josiassen. Cleared up the fact that Hanover consultants will not prepare a new SWPP plan, but will continue the monitoring process. 18DEC06 Finished final draft of IS and gave to Stacey for review. 03JAN07 Applicant returned signed IS. Prepared IS for SCH review. Public notice in Chico Enterprise Record set for 08JAN07. 08JAN07 Final draft of Agenda Report returned to Chuck for review. Tentative PC date of February 22, 2007. 12JAN07 On or about this date the applicant requested that the meeting be held 08MAR07. 09FEB07 Package sent up to. Council requesting review. 21FEB07 On or about this date visited site and took pictures of approximate locations of driveways approved by the parcel map. It appears that either location would require severe cuts. 13MAR07 Revised Agenda Report and Initial Study per comments. Sent to Stacey for final review. 23MAR07 Stacey finished review of Agenda Report and sent it out for final review. 26MAR07 Received comments on Agenda Report from Public Works. 02MAR07 Invoice sent out to applicant. Large bill, and he wants to review it. 05MAR07 Finished reports for publishing. Reviewed changes to IS with applicants. They gave their ok by phone today. 06APR07 Stacey scanned PC docs into TrakIt. 12APR07 Planning Commission continued project to July 12, 2007. Issues raised included: 1. Viewshed. Is this a CEQA issue and what is the Nexus? Additional conditions? 2. Need opinion as to baseline of project re CEQA (Section 15125). 3. Additional Bio studies re pond and viability of landscaping on slopes. 4. Confirm Allen's testimony that the most northern home location was to be moved. 5. Confirm Allen's testimony that significant amount of dirt was to be moved offsite. 6. Provide information on the relinquishment of abutter's rights. 18APR07 Past three days have reorganized the files and documents from a disorganized stack into two files one for maps and one for documents. 27APR07 Stacey made contact with Philip Williams & Associates to provide consulting services per the Planning Commission environmental issues raised at the hearing. 04MAY07 Stacey and I had telephone conference call with Philip Willimas to discuss procedures and scope of study. 08MAY07 Received one set of revised grading plan sheets 1 thru 4, and accompanying letter from Lumos & Associates. Scanned the four pages into TrakIt and into project file. Emailed copies to Philip Willams and Associates. 17MAY07 Series of emails between Eric at PWA, Stacey, me, etal, re the completeness or accuracy of the new grading plan (site plan). Location of new home site, new driveways, disposition of stockpiled dirt, pond, etc. Put this email series into TrakIt. 11JUN06 Received a copy of a June 6th Public Works memo to the applicant giving clearance to the drainage plan. However, a condition was applied that requires conformance to the agricultural setbacks. 28JUN07 Finished final draft, approved by Stacey and Chuck, sent it up to CC for review. 12JUL07 Planning Commission denied the grading permit. 17JUL07 Jim Mann filed an appeal with the Clerk of the Board. 20JUL07 Stacey and the Kathleen (Clerk of the Board) set 11 SEP07 as the appeal hearing date. 23JUL07 Returned Jim Mann's call of 20JUL07 re appeal hearing date. 31 JUL07 Prepared the public notice document for the appeal and emailed it to Kathleen, Clerk of the Board. 11 SEP07 Board of Supervisors upheld the PC denial of the grading permit. Sent By: -RMITCS; 5308921066 ; Apr -18-08 15:15; Page 1/3 CIAIX-k VL"- -S.+5 ,5 G"- , TO: FROM' BC Dept of Development Service T.Anda Cimino COMPANY: UA.I.L,: 4-17-08 FAX NUMBER! TOTAI, NO. OF PAUAN, UNCLUDINU 11UVER: -T3 a/4 c) 3 PHONE NUMVER: NI:: Code Enforcement Complaint. 13 URGENT ❑ rOR REVIEW 0 NLLIASF. RF,PLY NVII- COMMENTS: Please notify me upon receipt of my code enforcement complaint form. You may fax or email me that you have received this notice of complaint. Fax 530-892-1066 --I � `�� – 9 L Email – lcimino@mitcs.coi — — Thank you, Linda Cimino TO (530) 891-9146 • Fax (530) 892-1066 • 44 l3. .7�� .06 -01 T-0 05 CD, v ...