Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPM 00-06_PLANNING (3) i SEPARATOR SHEET >PN OqZ-130 — 018 >ao,ERNUMeEw �i'M 00 —06 i SUMMARY SHEET FOR LAND DIVISIONS APPLICANT: Cathy Disano PLANNER: Dan Breedon FILE#TPM 00-06 ADDRESS:_2805 Oak Way,Chico, CA 95973 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Man dividing 17.5 acres into threean rcels,2�parcels at 5 acres a h,and one parcel at 7.5 acres LOCATION: at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue&Oak Way,west of Chico ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S): 042-130-018 ZONING: A-5(Agricultural, 5-acream ce11 GENERAL PLAN: Orchard&Field Crony PROJECT CONSISTENT?: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE REPORT: NOT REQUIRED LAND CONSERVATION ACT CONTRACTS?: DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: 10/14/99 AGENT/SURVEYOR/CIVIL ENGINEER: NorthStar Engineering ADDRESS: 20 Declaration Drive,Chico, CA 95973 DATE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-DATE FILED DETERMINATION AND DATE NEGATIVE DECLARATION-DATE ADOPTED MIT.NEG.DECLARATION-DATE ADOPTED ENV.IMPACT REPORT-DATE CERTIFIED? STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. RELEASE TO PUBLISH: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING DATE APPEALED APPEAL HEARING DATE BOARD ACTION COMMENTS FOR PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ASSIGNED TO DISK RECEIPT NUMBER LD 1005 (10/94) �_ I ' �, J t Cathy Disano, Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural—5 acre parcels). The property is located at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico. APN 042-130-018 (SB) (TPM 00-06) Mr. Betts gave a brief summary of the project. He noted the applicant did not agree with the mitigation measure regarding the 300 foot buffer. Felix Wannenmacher said that the Public Resources Code states that after an Initial Study is done and staff finds that there are significant impacts, the applicant either has to correct the impacts or agree to correct the impacts before staff can circulate the environmental document. He said that the environmental document prepared by Development Services was not circulated,therefore, there is no environmental document before this Committee and there is no way the Committee could approve the project. He noted that the Committee did not need an environmental document to deny the project. His concern was whether or not the applicant was clearly informed that there is no option aside from denial. Mr. Betts said that a letter was received stating that the applicant did not agree with the mitigation measures proposed and would not sign the Initial Study. Mr. Sanders asked staff if the applicants were informed that they could propose mitigation measures of their own. Mr.Betts said that he did not discuss alternative mitigation measures with NorthStar,the applicant's representative. He did not talk to the applicant. Mr. Betts said he had acquired this file. Mr.Leland said that the Initial Study assumes that there is an environmental impact that needs to be mitigated. He asked if the DRC could go against the determination by staff and determine that there is no environmental impact and change the findings. Mr. Wannenmacher explained that the environmental document has to be accepted/adopted by the decision making body. The Government Code is not clear on whether the decision making body can go back and change the environmental document itself. The DRC can substitute mitigation measures. Mr. Leland asked if DRC could substitute mitigation measures without having to re-circulate the Initial Study. Mr.Wannenmacher pointed out that in this case the Initial Study has not been circulated. There was a brief discussion. Chairman Edell said that at the last meeting,when the Bradley map was denied,the Committee was applying the 300 foot buffer to all the property lines and denied the project for three lots. This map has a 300 foot buffer applied only to the east and south lines. He said that there is a letter from Carl Leverenz stating that there is a house on the property to the south and the 300 foot buffer does not ■ BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES ■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002■PAGE 2 ■ t r apply. Chairman Edell drew an example on the board behind him. He said that having two houses in the corner of two parcels does not negate the 300 foot buffer requirement. He felt that the Committee needs to inform the applicant that if the environmental impacts and mitigations are in place, whether this body would consider approving the project. Mr. Leland said that there should be a.consistent approach for projects. He said that the County would want the building envelope next to the adjoining property and the existing home. Chairman Edell felt that a building zone next to an existing dwelling would impact the spraying next to that existing house. Mr. Leland said that the theory is that the County has a 100 foot no-spray area next to roads, and because of that the houses should be placed near the road which would not encroach as much into the agricultural area. He said there is a 100 foot setback for spraying next to a road which acts like a protective zone. He said the 100 foot area is where you would want to locate a home. He said there is the general issue of how to reconcile the zoning and the Land Use Element of the General Plan with the new Agricultural Element. He discussed 5 acre ranchettes as being a problem in agricultural areas and should be avoided as is addressed in the Agricultural Element. Mr. Sanders said that there is another avenue that the applicant might have and that is to do an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). If this is the finding of the Department,the applicant can then appeal the decision for an EIR directly to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Edell asked if the CEQA process allows the applicant or representative to propose their own mitigation measures. Mr. Wannenmacher said the applicant is responsible for performing or accepting the mitigation measures. He reminded the Committee that the Initial Study, in this case,has not been circulated. He said that staff would need to determine that the mitigation measures are acceptable if proposed by the applicant. The hearing was opened to the public. Carl Leverenz, representing the applicant, discussed the California.Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said that the applicant agreed with the mitigation measures for Parcel 1 and 2,but not for Parcel 3. He agreed with Mr. Leland that mitigation measures should be applied to projects consistently. He informed the Committee that he did not know the Initial Study had not been circulated. He said that for the purposes of mitigation measures, it would make sense to have some consistency for the three parcels by having the building area lines run parallel to the road. The applicant needs direction on changing the mitigation measures to extend the building zone line down Parcel 3 to be consistent with Parcels 1 and 2,and which would be sufficient to mitigate the potential impacts. He said that if the suggested measure is acceptable then this project needs to go back to staff to revise the Initial Study and then circulate the Initial Study. He said the fundamental issue is what is going to happen in this area as far as development. He discussed future annexation by the City of Chico. He felt that it was more consistent to allow development along Muir Avenue and allow the building to occur on Muir Avenue which is less intrusive to the Agricultural uses. �!!r '■ BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GOMNIITTEE MINUTES■SEPTEMBER+26,2002i■�PAGE 3 ■ :. ,._ - ' ►: �.A. Mr. Leland discussed the General Plan and Agricultural Element inconsistencies with the zoning. Mr. Sanders said that the issue of zoning was looked at during the Greenline hearings at the Board of Supervisors and again when the Agricultural Element was adopted. The Board chose not to change the zoning in the Agricultural Element areas. There was a brief discussion on what was being protected. He talked about the viability of agriculture in the area. There are small parcels already in the area with homes on them. Mr. Wannenmacher said that the General Plan made an attempt to look at the fact that there were already parcel sizes smaller than 20 acres or 40 acres in areas that were designated Orchard and Field Crops,and tries to discourage the parcels from being further divided unless some of the proper criteria existed and that is why A-5 and A-10 zones are considered conditionally consistent. He passed out a copy of an excerpt from the General Plan relating to Orchard and Field Crops to demonstrate how it deals with zoning that is lower than A-20. Mr. Sanders also passed out a copy of the policies from the Agricultural Element. He said that the conditional criteria in the Land Use Element are the.factors/criteria to be used by the decision makers as to when land is,to be zoned and designated A-5 or A-10 and are not necessarily to be used when looking at land divisions once the zoning designation has occurred. Mr. Leland asked what happens when the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, would the County need to rezone the property to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan? Mr. Sanders said that he agreed with that concept, but in this instance the Board explicitly said the A-5 and A-10 zonings were consistent with the General Plan in 1982 when the Board adopted the Greenline policies for preservation of agriculture. The Board found that the A-5 and A-10 zones were pre-existing, and the desire at the time was to come up with a 20 acre minimum on the agriculture side of the Greenline. He said the decision could have been changed with the adoption of the Agricultural Element. Mr. Leverenz said that with the current Agricultural Element, the,Board was asked if the Board should go back and rezone all the areas that are inconsistent and the Board said no, to wait for the implementation of the Agricultural Element. The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Leland said that first the Committee should look at the mitigation issue, and assuming that the subdivision is otherwise acceptable, ask themselves if such a mitigation that would carry the building zone down to the south boundary of Parcel 3, would be an acceptable mitigation. He felt that the mitigation would be acceptable. Mr. Leland moved to approve a mitigation measure allowing a buildable area to the south property line of Parcel 3 as an acceptable mitigation. Chairman Edell said that on the Erickson parcel map two weeks ago the Committee cut the footage ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002■PAGE 4 ` of the building area down to 150 feet from Oak Way provided that the building envelope could go near the existing house on the west side,but stay at least 250 feet from the non-developed area to the east side and Mr. Leland and Ms. Lambert voted no. Mr. Leland said that he voted no to the parcel split. Ms. Lambert said that this request is for three parcels, each 330 feet wide along Muir Avenue, and posed the question that if the lots are sold to three individuals how could the owners meet the setback in order to build a home. Mr. Hill said that if someone buys Parcel 2 and there are still orchards in the area, the 300 foot setback comes into play. Ms. Lambert said that most of the existing homes in the area that are being farmed around existed prior to the Agricultural Element that set forth the buffer. She did not see how the Committee could give the applicant any assurances that the agricultural impacts could be mitigated. Mr. Leland asked what is the environmental impact that is being mitigated. Is it an impact to agricultural land or something else? Mr. Betts said that the impact is under Section 4.7, Page 8 of the Initial Study entitled Hazardous Materials to protect people from agricultural spraying. Mr. Sanders said that the question becomes--are you impacting adjoining lands, agricultural uses, or the parcel being developed? Mr. Leland stated that agricultural uses are considered heavy industries with hazardous materials. Ms. Lambert said that the smaller the parcels the more impact to agriculture and the less viable the agricultural use becomes. She discussed the types of crops existing versus the type of soils. Mr. Sanders said that the Agricultural Element was written to address a present type of agricultural use. He noted that there are health guidelines regarding the hazardous materials. Ms. Lambert said that by dividing the property into three parcels which would allow for three dwellings, the County reduces the agricultural viability of the land. Mr. Hill said that by allowing 5 acre parcels, the area changes and impacts agriculture around it. Ms. Lambert said that she was concerned with setting a precedent if this is approved. Mr. Sanders said that the issues and conflicts should be addressed through the zoning. Mr. Hill said the criteria is not adequate to stop expanding development into the agricultural lands. Ms. Lambert asked if the Committee must base their decisions on the zoning alone or do they look at ■ BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002 ■ PAGE 5 ■ the other policies, i.e., Greenline policy, Agricultural Element, and General Plan? F Mr. Sanders said the General Plan takes first consideration, then the zoning and then the physical factors of the land should be considered. Chairman Edell discussed the fact that if the request is not consistent with the General Plan,it would have to be denied. Mr.Leland said that there is an inconsistency between the Agricultural Element and the zoning that would allow subdividing of this property. He said with the this project being inconsistent with the General Plan, he would not approve the project even with a mitigation measure. Mr. Crawford did not think the Committee could change the Board policy by finding that the A-5 is consistent in the Orchard and Field Crops designation. Mr. Sanders noted that the environmental documents are incomplete. There was a previous motion to deny the application,by Mr. Leland, finding there has not been an environmental document circulated and that there are unmitigated environmental impacts. The motion was withdrawn. Mr. Leverenz said that the problem is that the Initial Study was not circulated and asked where the applicant goes from here. Chairman Edell suggested sending the project back for further work on the Initial Study. Mr. Wannenmacher said a denial would mean the applicant would have to file a new application with new fees. He said that the applicant would prefer to go back and work on the Initial Study and finish the CEQA process. It was moved by Mr. Leland, seconded by Ms. Lambert, and unanimously carried to withdraw his previous motion and move to continue this item off the agenda to allow time for staff and the applicant to work on the Initial Study and mitigation measures. The hearing was continued open. Mr. Crawford asked that site plans and exhibit maps be dated. ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES ■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002 ■ PAGE 6 ■ Cathy Disano,Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels,2 parcels at 5 acres each and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural—5 acre parcels). The property is located at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico. APN 042-130-018 (SB) (TPM 00-06) Mr. Betts said that the applicant has asked that this hearing be continued. He gave a brief summary of the project. He informed the Committee that the applicant does not agree with the residential setbacks and will not sign the Initial Study,and,therefore,staff is recommending denial. He added that the setbacks are necessary to project adjacent agricultural land. Chairman Edell asked why the 300 foot buffer was not applied to all sides of the parcel. Mr. Betts said that staff enclosed a map,Attachment C,which shows the building setbacks with the recommended building area. He said that the reason for not requiring the 300 foot setback along Oak Avenue is because there is not enough room and because there is a 100 foot no-spray area from a public street. Chairman Edell was concerned with the buffers and setbacks being imposed on all property lines. Mr. Wannenmacher asked what kind of environmental documents were done for this project. Mr. Betts said the Initial Study has not been signed by the applicant. Mr. Wannenmacher said that he was not sure this project should be brought forward without an environmental document. Mr. Betts said that he does not have to do CEQA work to deny a project. There was a brief discussion. Chairman Edell said that if this hearing is continued he would like staff to come back with the information why the 300 foot setback was only appied to one boundary. It was moved by Mr.Hill,seconded by Mr.Leland,and unanimously carried to continue this hearing to September 26, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. ■ BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 12;2002 PAGE 12 ■ ` Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services UT Administration-AR 0� rF0 7 County Center Drive o 0 Oroville,CA 95965 0 _ o 0 0 (530)538.7601 Telephone 0 == o COU Nay Temporary Parcel Map File: TPM 00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: March 14, 2003 2805 Oak-Way Chico, CA 95973 Deposit Date: October 13, 1999 Total Deposit $2,110.00 Receipt: 17935 Deposit Disbursement: Environmental Health $ 671.00 Land Development $ 310.00 CDF/Fire Department $ 129.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 1,000.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $ 2,110.00 1 N V 0 1 C E TPM 00.06 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice,the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program,and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed,you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 2,537.00 Mapping $ 59:00 Clerical $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71 TOTAL $ 3,107.21 The costs thus far In processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 2,107.21 To continue processing your application,an additional depositwill be required of: $ 1,000.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees;deposits;billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25%of the original deposit,no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit,or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application,the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions,please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m.to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE BY $ 3,107.21 Biller:CS March 31, 2003 JABILLINGSMNVOICES ISSUEDUsano TPM 00-06 031203.xls 0 0 TO: Development Services FROM; Environmental Health p SUBJECT: Tentative Map ►' C AP# �/2 - I �, t� a9es� Date �' P DATE: /�1R rs71 post-+t®Fax Note from To L, Co. The Environmental Health processing fee for the above GodDept• Phone# m map will be $ fax# Fax Q - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # W x Land Division - 1 to 2 $ yY-7 a Additional Parcels ` ( ) $�cl_ Lot Line Adjustment E Recorded Map ( ) $106.00 0.Q Deeded Map ( ) $231.00 Waiver $260.00 N CD Questionable $344.00 M U7 CD�0 Certificate of Merger $ 80.00 �00 Agricultural Parcels $260.00 o Revised Map (single condition) $260.00 i M N Q Other $ Q ** Maximum of six additional parcels + $66/hr Planning Divi 0 'OCT 12 1999- 10/13/99 119 35 silo' 310 10m), 4, 121 : .P . Mr11t, Ge►} pest ni So• RECEIPT TOTAL PUBLIC PUBLIC ENV. NOE/NOD DATE NO. RECEIVED WORKS LAFCO PLANNING SALES HEALTH FIRE F/G FEE OTHER APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM RECEIPT 17935 OFFICIAL RECEIPT COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING ISS D BY t y;- MICHAEL J. DISANO �� ��",90 4202/1211'; a�`f CATHY A. DISANO . ,. ,< , I; 2256 2805 OAK WAY , Y F )n e. CHICO, CA 95973 3 ^PaY.tP-�t �A"3 ds - 11� oreras BUTTE_:COMMUNIfY"BANK ,12041 FOREST AVENUE . 4 1'yCIiICO.G1A-8592�- 1 .'530.8913494 "For - JG% a' 12114202S1:04001026S311' 22S6 0 Ifs- �����"�� .�`i;t1,!'.'+ DEPARTINIENOT OF DEVELOPMENOSERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: AuenE information to he provided is on other side: APPLICANT'S NAME( If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: al,ly pl�41'O 92-73 -4" 1 ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE: FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE) Ze,�25 ae5.0 4f//J/ NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT(If any) TELEPHONE LOCATION OF PROJECT Major cross streets and Address, if any 029 W19Y i9T 19a,1,40- GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED OWNER'S NAME TELEPHONE M)wy t4 ADDRESS: CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE 6wk-- Wef ev�clleol ew. ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE in Square Feet or Aces " e y 4 eo 17S eZt EXISTING STRUCTURES(in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES in Square Feet) (Check One) (Check One) r3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED C3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC >K PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER A P CATION REQUESTED P Ll E3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT E3 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP E3 REZONE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP Ej USE PERMIT [3 WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP [3 MINOR USE PERMIT [3 BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION E3 VARIANCE [3 LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION E3 MINOR VARIANCE [3 CERTIFICATE OF MERGER [3 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT E3 MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN [3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT C3 OTHER 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT(Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division describe the number and size of parcels.) j;a,3P1t11P,6 17.S ,ZZiS le9;r,0 3 MM6Z 5 Z 5-dV- t efa:9 7, 5-11e-t O.0 T 1 4 13=- OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF TILE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER.I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILD;G OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION ISTRUE AND ACCURATE (if an agent is to be authorized,execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit with this application.) IND —C)q —Cf CI SIGN 1 AGENT AUTHORIZATION To Butte County, Department of Development Services; Print Name of Agent and Phone Number Mailing Address is hereby authorized to process this application for on my property, identified as Butte County Assessors Parcel Number, . 'This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including document.(s) relating to record title interest. , Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name) Print Name Print Name Signature Signature Architect and/or Engineer: Print Name of Architecu'Engineer and Phone Number Mailing Address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date received: Total amount received: AP Number(s) Legal Description Owners Authorization Zoning requirements Project Description Copies of plot plan.., T i by Receipt No. E.H. Lb* ' ''Plan FD Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit(Any unused portion of a deposit) will be returned upon final action. Current fee for this application is $ as of Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". AGENT AUTHORIZATION To Whom It May Concern; I, CATHY A. DISANO,as owner of that certain real property known as A.P. 42-13-018,located at Muir Avenue at Oak Way, Chico, do hereby authorize NorthStar Engineering, 20 Declaration Drive, Chico, California to process this Parcel Map Application and to act as my agent for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest. X CATHY A. D18ANO PlanningDMOM 0 0 f 1 7 1999 9rovNI ca twornia h. Od=tfw7� 34jt� 1.' • COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be Completed By Project Applicant) Date Filed General Information: 1. Name and address of owner, and/or developer, and/or project sponsor: 619 WY 4. 013e*70 2. Address of project: aW Gd�Y G'' �G�/�2 AUe!IYJ� Assessor's Parcel Number: ` /3 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: l7oeT//STi9.2 ,1)Gl�,EE2/�C,- 893—/600 09. 1-PJ F7-3 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: n/A 5. Existing general pian designation: /9G�2�GU,CTU.e�G -,QES//JE/JT/�9G 6. Existing zoning district: !� _S- 7. How is land currently used? —AG 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Project Description: 9. Site size: 17.S-.e �G (Acres/Sq. Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: Compact: Total: 11. Plans attached Yes No 12. Proposed development schedule e.5 ;5W �S.S/8LF 13. Associated projects 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development lr�i9 din®MIMI 0 C T 1 2 1999- alowne,CB*Mk O Butte County Department of Development Services O Planning Division O 1 .. � , t w� `YT � ;. �. .` , , �: . , x� �' ' Attach description of project containing the following information: 15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household size expected. 1 !)�/�,L�/yG Cell- Aee /�"ez 16. If commercial, indicate the type,whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. 11eq 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities.11/� 18. If institutional, indicate the major function,estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project.�yf"1 19. If the project involves a variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits,state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. _ ✓ 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. _ +� 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. _ ✓� 24. Change in dust, ash,smoke,fumes or odors in vicinity. _ ✓� 25. Change in bay, lake, river,stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. _ 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police,fire,water, sewage, etc.including special districts). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services O Planning Division O 2 Environmental Setting: .(Attach brief description) 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography,soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. �X/ST/�C— r9G1�1017,� Off° fd2,/). 5_//Gfi'T �LO/��' TO ,vw/%lf/ES�' 33. Describe the surrounding properties,including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical,or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.),intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses,shops,department stores, etc.), and scale of development(height, frontage,set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. G{/,9.ClYUT OeehI %RO3 W1 P1014�1,11rjTS 41// ,S Certification T4 TyE �UTG/ 6f/RL�'UT 0.2c6�`9�� TO T .ev"Z, 9b"1T�fS. I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts,statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature for tl K:\FORMS\ENV-INFO O Butte county Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division O - 3 �.. � ��9. , • l ,+ '�•' 'i` . ._ .. ,; Order No: .401657 Fee: $100.00 Parcel Map Reference: Disano PARCELS MAP GUARANTEE SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY, AND OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS HERETO ANNEXED AND MADE A PART OF THIS GUARANTEE, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company a corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING herein called the Assured, against loss not exceeding $1,000.00, which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurance which the Company hereby gives that, according to the public records on the date stated below, 1. The title to the herein described estate or interest was vested in the vestee named, subject to the matters shown as Exceptions herein, which Exceptions are not necessarily shown in the order of their priority; and 2. Had said Parcel Map been recorded in the office of the County Recorder of said county, such map would be sufficient for use as a primary reference in legal descriptions of the parcels within its boundaries. Dated: September 28, 1999 Fidelity National Title Insurance Company BY: Authorized Signature [Guarantee No. 4016571 Parcel Map Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 23 Part 1 January 13, 1978 Order No. 401657 The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred,to covered by this Guarantee is a Fee. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: Cathy A. Disano, a married woman as her sole and separate property The land included within the boundaries of the Parcel Map hereinabove referred to in this Guarantee is described as follows: See Exhibit "One" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Parcel Map Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 23 Part 2 January 13, 1978 Order No. 401657 EXHIBIT "ONE" Lot 25 and the Northerly 7 1/2 acres of Lot 40, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "MAP OF THE SEVENTH SUBDIVISION OF THE JOHN BIDWELL RANCHO, NEAR CHICO, BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed in the'Office of the County Recorder of Butte County, California, on November 11, 1902, in Book 5, of Maps, at Page(s) 29. Assessor's Parcel No: 042-130-018 Parcel Map Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 23 Part 2 January 13, 1978 Order No. 401657 EXCEPTIONS: 1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments . collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 1999-2000. 2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (Commencing with Section 75). of the Revenue and Taxation code. of the State of California. 3. Rights of the public as to any portion of the land lying within the area commonly known as Oak Way and Muir Avenue. 4. Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rights incidental thereto as granted in a document; Granted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Purpose: public utility purposes Recorded: September 20, 1995, Instrument No..95-32018, of Official Records Affects: A portion of the land described herein. 5. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured-thereby Amount: $150,530.00 Dated: October 27, 1998 Trustor: Cathy A. Disano, a married woman, as her sole and separate property. Trustee: Northern California Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA Beneficiary: Northern California Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA Loan No.: 0540682000 Recorded: November 4, 1998, Instrument No. 98-47882, of Official Records 6. The land described herein was created before 1935, and the vestee herein acquired title by deeds recorded November 4, 1998 as instruments'No. 98-47880 and 98-47881, Butte County Official Records, Parcel Map Guarantee CLTA Guarantee Form No. 23 Part 2 January 13, 1978 0 .,.. •-•::z>; t >s k at- c -t, t r h J: •L ... ....-_.::...• .:3. _ .: - �4exe.a'�c4Y�ssa.:,.a:��•.,a'9,•xyaSi>�'3at..>�i_..�.;:r - -,%..,:�..: .. ..r:. - '�,' T. 22N. R./E , N. D5 aN. ,s 1 THIS IS NOT A SURVEY THIS ISA COPY OF THE COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PLAT MAP AND IS PROVIDED SOLELY TO AID IN 6.06 = LOCATING THE LAND IN RESPECT TO ROADS AND ce\ ! Oi e�. 7 OTHER PARCELS. FIDELITY NATIONAL TI1 LE CO: OB / S.00Ac. 2 ASSUMES NO LIAE3ILITY FOR ANY LOSS c/noo ° �-9 /"= 400 , 5.02 dc. s4 I OCCURRING BY REASON OF RELIANCESEE s PM f05-53s-s3 3 I THEREON. / -�`� Lin do PG. 46 /2 - 929.13 �O FOR 309.76 1 S./0 Ac REM PTN I - 20.06Ac. O O PC „ S.00Ac. /O.OAG v i p PCL 43 c, Ipu9h // 45, ^ 60 I 3 1 62 A C. '2.75AC ^ I IQ 2`�• C 5'.07Ac o I 6l 1 5.97AC 80 b /5.32Ac. J\11. O 660 261.35 Q6 I r, 130.86AC 430.00 N x 630 66 h 67 68 4 o In O O /6 i N 3 54 57 58 0o O 65 to b O 4.96AC °j L m 7.O2AC 5.00AC o 6.51 "I 10.00.4c. I 5 Ac N z n^ / 1 a 5.GYJAc. AC .^ %. O4 m ^ I o200.0a ^ 20 43 tbpN 1 97.0, b O ' m: PM 102-72' P/MI73.37 PM 90-I , N I ry 660 860.60 I szo es 280 230' 539.68 200' 330 330 3/O 40 A 660 378 282 660 660 759 539.88 660 661.45 566.47 h / 2nd O 2 /4 t 49 N 50 4.a6Ac o n 68 59 * 2/ 606.45 WE 2 J 7.06Ac -11 I BIO 63 67 6/ 1 60 22 / -101 Io N h ,a/E` N 23 14.59At q n 4.46Ar n -- - BIoY' 45 24 64 I 20.224C 4 O 376' 282 O I ® o SZ 00 a 2/ � 185106-59 /S.00AC. Ply 71-95 n 4.464C . n W /7 ro O l5./Ac. I _ _O_ ^ - _ _ 662.15 660 66r.b5 606.45 U n 543 40 124' ` Cdr 10.01AC a 660 _ y I /6 N • ! ...... 10 40 __ .. .. M 200 I - ^hi 1742 43 - I 44 w I I 00 C, 502AIn • I v v I i 6 .I 2 v 5,14 I 396.87 65 I 47 -A VE.. Assessor's Map No. 42-13 ' ^^ Bidwell 71h Sub. MO.R. 8k.5 Pg. 29 County of Butte, Calif. J PM 46-05 �0 Bidwell 2nd Sub. M.O.R. Sk.5 Pg.27 j ✓-_ y 090JECT REVIEW CHECKL# Project Planners fill out this in-house checklist upon receipt of a new project. Project Number: 'OM-6n e5Z, Project/Application Name: i�_:)1 S A)Je_D Project Site Zoning: -G General Plan Designation: APN: &42- [30-0 (g Project Planner: GR_8 Vi_)J Date completed: Is the project located within any of the following areas? ❑ North Chico Specific Plan ❑ Oroville Enterprise Zone No ❑ Williamson Act Land r CLCA: ACRES: ❑ 100 Year Flood Plain ❑ Within FEMA Floodway ❑ Within DWR Floodway ❑ Dam Inundation Area ❑ Watershed Protection Overlay Zone ot,- ❑ East Avenue Specific PlanI.s- Chico Area Greenline (Project in area where Greenline policies apply) ❑ Greater Chico Area Redevelopment Area ❑ Nitrate Action Plan Area ❑ Archaeological Sensitive Area ❑ Hazardous Site ❑ Other Critical of Sensitive Area ❑ Planning Areas ❑ Urban Reserve ❑ Durham-Dayton-Nelson Planning Area ❑ Paradise Urban Reserve ❑ Oroville Area Land Use Plan(Adopted 3/29/84) ❑ Oroville Urban Reserve ❑ Chico Area Land Use Plan(Adopted 3/18/90) ❑ Chico Urban Reserve ❑ Gridley-Biggs Land Use Plan(Adopted 8/586) ❑ Gridley Urban Reserve ❑ Honcut Area ❑ Cohasset Area ❑ Palermo Area ❑ Chapman/Mulberry Planning"Area(in process of adoption 9-14-99) ❑ Deer Herd Areas ❑ Designated Development Zone ❑ Winter Range ❑ Critical Winter Range ❑ Summer Range ❑ Critical Summer Range ❑ Major Migration Corridor ❑ Intermediate Deer Range ❑ If Constrained, The Minimum Parcel Size Is acres. ❑ CLUP Area ❑ AIRPORT AREA OF INFLUENCE ❑ Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan ❑ Chico ❑ Paradise Skypark ❑ Paradise Skypark ❑ Ranchero ❑ Ranchero ❑ Oroville ❑ Oroville ❑ Airport Land Use Commission Review(ALUC) Required ❑ Urban Area(As defintin Improvement Standards for Chapte00) NVQ ❑ City of Chico ❑ Durham ❑ City of Gridley ❑ City of Oroville ❑ Mountain Recreational Area ❑ �40 Sphere of Influence ❑ City of Chico ❑ City of Gridley ❑ City of Oroville ❑ City of Biggs ❑ City of Paradise ❑ Watershed Areas ❑ Butte Creek ❑ Cherokee ❑ Big Chico Creek ❑ Wyman Ravine Study Area ❑ Little Chico Creek ❑ Rock Creek Study Area ❑ Sacramento River Conservation(SB 1086) Essential Services ❑ Public Water District ® _ Well(s) ❑ Public Sewer District ® On-site Sewer If well and/or on-site sewage disposal,has Environmental Health determined the application filing requirements? ❑ Pre-application review complete JR Pre-application review not required ❑ Drainage District/CSA ❑ Fire District ❑ Butte County ❑ El Medio Fire District ❑ Federal Aid Road(s) ❑ Other Permits required from other agencies Agency Special Review ❑ Department of Water Resources (DWR) ❑ Office of Mine Reclamation ❑ Department of Fish and Game (DFG) ❑ Department of Fish and Game ❑ CALTRANS ❑ HCD(Mobile Home Parks) ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board ❑ Other ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Butte County Air Quality Control District ❑ Other Comments: Version:9/28/99 CAMy DoCUmentsTRO1ECT REVIEW CHECKLIST.doc APPLICATION ACTIVITY LOG 'i Action* Person Contacted** Phone Number** Time Spent/Date Z S �v M?� 147 ,eG i *Use more than one line if necessary. **If applicable. APPLICATION ACTIVITY LOG Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600 042130018000 NORTH STAR ENGINEERING K:\PROJECTS\TPM\DISANO.TPM\maillis DISANO CATHY A 20 DECLARATION DR tTPM00-06.doc 2805 OAK WAY CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95973 042120011000 042120012000 042120041000 MONTGOMERY SEAN ETAL JONES BARRY S&JULIE A HUDGINS DOROTHY S TRUSTEE 3007 OAK WAY 2929 OAK WAY 2294 N LIVERMORE AVE CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95926 LIVERMORE CA 94550 042120053000 042120054000 042130016000 ERICKSON WAYNE R&BONNIE HIGGINS GREGORY L GREGORY GARY G&KARINA L 3050 OAK WAY 1620 MUIR AVE 1579 MUIR AVENUE CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95926 042130020000 042130021000 042130042000 ISHAM IRA N TRUSTEE DROBNY DONALD F DAVIS DAVID W&DIANNA 2611 OAK WAY 2812 KENNEDY AVENUE 2662 OAK WAY CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95926 042130047000 042130048000 042130054000 CASEY WILLIAM J&JUDITH L BINSFELD THOMAS&CRYSTAL SIMPLER NANCY JANE TRUSTEE 2165 OAK WAY 1717 MUIR AVE 2626 OAK WAY CHICO CA 95973-9638 CHICO CA 95973-8612 CHICO CA 95926 042130057000 042130058000 042130060000 BRANDSTATT HUMPHREY W HOWARD V BRYAN&SUSAN I HUDGINS DOROTHY S TRUSTEE C 26 ROSE AVE 2532 OAK WAY 2294 N LIVERMORE AVE CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 LIVERMORE CA 94550 042170006000 042170067000 042170068000 THOMAS MICHAEL G&LAURA L PAVCIKJJOHN W D'EWART JONES BARRY S&JULIE A 3030 WEST SACRAMENTO AVE 55 INDEPENDENCE CIR STE 202 2929 OAK WAY CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95973 . 042130068000 042130069000 042130070000 ' MASSEY MICHAEL DEAN HOOD B SCOTT&DANI A MERRIMAN CHARLES S&LINDA J 2763 OAK WAY 2737 OAK WAY 2799 OAK WAY CHICO CA 95973 CHICO CA 95973-9606 CHICO CA 95973 �� AVERYC Address Labels Laser 5160® I C X12- 120 p �-,o.),3—&C; -en, -3 0 I 2 ops �P j0 Ai)DGr2SON- A, . 1 l9cl -7 AA ';Q L)2,_/ 70 _ i s �db9 .. �,; - � �� - � � ., . ;� s � ' - � � Y � { i� a .. 1. ;' I ! : !+ .. �. �i . ', � � r ti y . � t ._ .. I .., .: - __ - __ ___- i o��TrFo O 0 0 0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TPM 00-06 (Disano, Cathy) i ` V Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR DISANO TPM 00-06 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION THIS TO BE DONE BY PLANNER. To be consistent with description in agenda and notice. Include thorough description of applicant's request, applicant and agent names. A. AppGcant/Owner: Cathy Disano, 2805 Oak Way, Chico, CA 95973 B. Representative: Rick Rodriguez,NorthStar Engineering,20 Declaration Drive,Chico,CA 95973 C. Staff Contact: Carl Durling,7 County Center Drive,Oroville,CA 95965 (530)538-7601 D. Proiect Name: Disano E. Project Location: At southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico,CA F. Tyne of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 042-130-018 H. Proiect Site Size: 17.5 acres L Current Zoning: A-5(Agricultural,5 acre minimum)by Ordinance 1629,7 October 1975 J. General Plan Desianation: OFC(Orchard and Field Crop)and Chico Area Greenline K Environmental Setting: The property is frilly developed with a mature almond orchard. The surrounding property and the locale in general is developed with orchards of varying crops. The predominant crops are almond,and walnut. The 1926 U. S. Department of Agricultural Soils Map designates the area as Vina Loam (VI) and Viva Sandy Loam (Vo. The 1995 California Division of Mines and Geology identifies the area as having low expansive soils and as a low to none subsidence area. There are no identified fault lines in the vicinity. L. Surrounding Land Uses: Orchard north across Oak Way on a 10 acre parcel; Orchards adjacent on the east with Waal residential on 5.01, 5.02 and 6.76 acre parcels;Orchards adjacent on the south with rural residential on two 5.35 acre parcels; and Orchards west across Muir Avenue with Waal residential on 5.46, 10, and 15.45 acre parcels. Muir Avenue is the zoning boundary with A-10 zoning to the west and A-5 zoning to the east. M. Proiect Description: The project is a proposal to divide a 17.5 acre property into three parcels,one 7.5 acre and two 5 acre parcels: The 5-acre parcels will have an east/west orientation with frontage on Muir Avenue. The 7.5 acre parcel is a comer lot situated at the southeast comer of Muir Avenue and Oak Way with the longest frontage on Oak Way. N. Public Agencv Approvals: Butte County Public Works Department ■ Butte County Department of Development Services®Planning Division■Page 1 ■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 2.0 DETERMINATION ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Q I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Prepared by: Carl L. D r 'ng, Associate Planner Date 4/2102 Reviewed by: M.A. M , ka, Principal Planner Date 3.0 POTEN IALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [ ] 4.3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [ ] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes [X] 4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Material[X]4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] 4.9 Land Use [ ] 4.10 Mineral Resources [ ] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [X] 4.13 Public Service [ ] 4.14 Recreation [ ] 4.15 Transportation/ Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities and Service Systems [ ] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved(e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 2■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.) 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. ' b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 3 ■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETICNISUAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Discussion: a.-d. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically,page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property,and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. Mitigation: None required 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act Contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment X which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: a.-c. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 4 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of agricultural resource in Butte County. Mitigation: None required 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result m a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Impact Discussion: a.-e. The A-5 zoning for the.property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property,and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of air quality in Butte County. Mitigation: None required 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Lnpact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through X habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or-U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ){ or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 5■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources such as a tree preservation policy ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservationplan? g A reduction in the numbers,a restriction in the range,or an X impact to the critical habitat of any unique,rare,threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite X (including mammals,birds,reptiles,amphibians,fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat(for X foraging,breeding,roosting,nesting,etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or X migratory fish or wildlife species9 k. Introduction of any factors(light,fencing,noise,human X presence and/or domestic animals)which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Impact Discussion: a.-k. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of biological resources in Butte County. The subject property has been in almond orchard production for many years. The proposed project will not change the habitat environment as it exists today. Mitigation: None required 0 Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 6 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an x archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: a.-d. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General. Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically,page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5,A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of cultural resources in Butte County. The subject property has been in almond orchard production for many years. No cultural or archaeological resources are located on the property. Mitigation: None required 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X ■ Butte.County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 7■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of X the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property9 e. Have Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? Impact Discussion: a.-e-The 1926 U. S.Department of Agricultural Soils Map designates the area as Vina Loam(VI)and Vina Sandy Loam (Vf). The 1995 California Division of Mines and Geology identifies the area as having low expansive soils and as a low to none subsidence area. There are no identified fault lines in the vicinity. Soil of this type is conducive to use of septic systems. Mitigation: None required 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Curate a significant hazard to the public or the X environmental through the routine transport use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 8 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact ✓litigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with willdlands? Impact Discussion: a. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General _ Plan,pages LUE-78 through LUE-85. Specifically,page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." Thezoning for the subject property and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7, 1978,by Ordinance No. 1629. Policy 1.6 of the Agricultural Element establishes the "minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning u designations from 5 to 160 acres.". Page AE-5, paragraph 2, of the Agricultural Element articulates the fact that there is really no"standard acreage that will automatically result in economic success." The proposed parcel sizes are therefore consistent with the General Plan. It is clear that the density of five-acre parcels is consistent with the General Plan, as noted in the above paragraph. Despite this fact, the establishment of actual home sites can only be consistent with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan by establishing reasonable setbacks between home sites and adjacent agricultural uses. The intent of the Agricultural Element is to protect agricultural uses from incompatible uses; an urban residential use is incompatible with agricultural uses. The Agricultural Element makes this intent clear in Policy 2.3 which states"Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict." This intent is further clarified by Agricultural Element Program 2.2, page AE-11. This program recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended. The program suggests that"The desired standard shall be 300 feet,but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Although the zoning ordinance has yet to be amended to reflect this program standard,the language clarifies the Agricultural Element's intent to use setbacks as a means of protecting agricultural uses. The real issue is to what extent should the setback technique be used in this case or other similar cases. The A-5 zone has, as a permitted use, "One (1) single family dwelling or modular home per parcel." The establishment of a dwelling on an A-5 parcel is,therefore,not an issue. Application of setbacks on an A-5 parcel that would preclude the establishment of a permitted use is not the intent of the Agricultural Element nor the General Plan. The issue is,then,to identify setbacks for the parcel that would establish a reasonable building envelope. The property line setbacks in the A-5 zone are 20 feet for the front yard and 5 feet for the side and rear yards. Each of the proposed parcels has a depth of 660 feet measured from Muir Avenue. Normally, the rear of these lots would have a 5-foot setback. Applying a 300-foot setback to the rear yard would leave 360 feet of depth from Muir Avenue in which to place a home. When applying the 300-foot setback to the side yard,there would be an additional affect on Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. On Parcel 1,the 300-foot side yard setback leaves an additional 100 feet of home site area along Oak Way. On Parcel 3, the 300-foot side yard setback reduces the home site area size from 360'x495' to 360'x195',with the 195 feet being measured along Muir Avenue. This is a building envelope area of 64,500 square feet that would still satisfy the 300-foot setback. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 9 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Applying the 300-foot setback to the proposed parcels, therefore, does not materially affect the property's ability to accommodate the permitted land use of a single family home. At the same time,the setback protects the viability of agricultural uses. b. Orchard cultivation is ongoing on the property with no expected changes in procedures. c. No schools exist within one-quarter mile of the property. d. No hazardous waste sites exist on or near the property. e-f.There is no public or private airport or airport plan within two miles of the property. g. No adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan would be affected by the property. h. The entire local is fully developed with orchards. No wildlands exist in the area. Mitigation: 300-foot setback Mitigation Measure#1 No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2,or Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. Plan Requirements: A crosshatch designation shall be shown on the final map which depicts the setback area described by the mitigation measure,and the map shall contain the text of this mitigation measure. Timing: To be implemented at final map phase Monitoring: The Planning Department shall ensure implementation of the established setbacks during final map review. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 10■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal' Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? C Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: a. The property is within a high nitrate area as established by Butte County Environmental Health. Mitigation measures #2 and #3 have been established for the project by Environmental Health which reduces impacts to less than significant b.-f.A typical family of four on a public water supply uses about 350 gallons per day at home. In contrast, a typical household that gets its water from a private well or cistern uses about 200 gallons for a family of four. (Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, "How Much Drinking Water Do We Use In Our Homes?"). An almond orchard in the project area uses about 37 inches of water per year, and 27 inches in a dry year. (Source: Irrigation Management For Almond Trees Under Drought Conditions,Terry L. Prichard, Water Management Specialist, UC Davis). On the average, almond orchards have approximately 109 trees per acre (Source: Butte County Agricultural Commission). It is assumed that the only trees to be removed are those where the residential dwelling is placed, and assume 3,000 square feet per home, then there will be a net decrease in total water use, and a reduction in water drainage and runoff. Water quality will, consequently, remain the same. g.-j.The property is not within a flood hazard zone. Mitigation: 100-foot leach field setback and eighty-foot sanitary seal for wells. Mitigation Measure:#2 Identify on the additional map sheet a 100-foot leach field free setback from each existing well within the project and within 100-feet of project boundary lines. Mitigation Measure:#3 Place a note on the additional map sheet that wells drilled on these lots will require an eighty-foot(80')sanitary seal. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division■Page 110 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Plan Requirements: A crosshatch designation shall be shown on the final map which depicts the setback area described by the mitigation measure. The map shall contain the text of this mitigation measure. Timing: To be implemented at final map phase. Monitoring: The Planning Department shall ensure implementation of the established setback at final map. 4.9 LAND USE: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan,policy,or X regulations of an agency withjurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to,the general'plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservationplan? Impact Discussion: The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan,pages LUE-78 through LUE-85. Specifically,page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5,A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7, 1978,by Ordinance No. 1629. Policy 1.6 of the Agricultural Element establishes the"minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions,in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map,to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres.". Page AE-5, paragraph 2, of the Agricultural Element articulates the fact that there is really no "standard acreage that will automatically result in economic success." The proposed parcel sizes are therefore consistent with the General Plan. Mitigation: None required 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land useplan? Impact Discussion: The project site is under intensive agricultural production. There are no known mineral resources. Mitigation: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 12■ r,;; . A Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 4.11 NOISE: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess X of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: Residential uses are within the noise generation parameters of the General Plan. There are no private or public airports within two miles of the property Mitigation: None required 4.12 HOUSING: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either X directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastruchire? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Discussion: The proposed project conforms to the zoning and density of the property. Mitigation: None required ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 13 0 ?; ",4 k` Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant , Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other rformance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The project site is located in an area designated as a low fire hazard area. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Butte County Fire Department, Battalion 3, and volunteer-stations . within the West Chico area. The project will be conditioned to comply with applicable standards and fees to reduce the project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposal would result..in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impacts of increased residential development in the County impacts the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Sheriffs facilities fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. The project would result in the potential development of three dwellings, which would not create significant impacts to area parks and facilities. The project site is located within the Chico Recreation and Parks District. A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services. Mitigation Measure#4: Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "A development impact fee for Sheriffs facilities shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article II of the Butte County Code, prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for a building permit." Plan Requirements: The required note shall be placed on the Final Map. The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the final map. Timing: The required Sheriff's impact fees and school fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 14 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Monitoring: The Building Division shall collect the fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 4.14 RECREATION: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks X or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: The project's contribution of three new parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant specific mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. No recreational facilities are proposed under this proposal. The project site is located within the Chico Recreation and Parks District. Mitigation: None required 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways9 c. Result in a change in air traffic patters,including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e. .,farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g Conflict with accepted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: The proposed map would create 3 individual parcels for a net increase of 2 parcels. The development of the two new parcels have the potential to generate approximately 20 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 15 ■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single family residential use. The increase in vehicle traffic generated by the project would be minor and would not cause any significant impacts to vehicle circulation in the area. The Public Works Department requires that the east half of Muir Avenue and the south half of Oak Way along the project site be deeded to the County (30 feet of right-of-way from the centerlines) to accommodate installation of improvements to County Standard RS-9 LD-II for access roads and S-5 for street intersections. Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b) requires two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have adequate room to provide two spaces each; therefore, the project results in no impact resulting from insufficient parking capacity. This Tentative Parcel Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation: None required 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant.. environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e, Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes,and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would include individual septic systems for sewer service and individual wells for water service. Thus, the project would not have a significant impact on any wastewater or water treatment facilities. Some off-site storm water drainage improvements may be required due to development of the project site. An unlined drainage ditch lies adjacent to the project site, which may have to be piped due to the road improvements required by the Public Works Department. No significant 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 16 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 environmental impacts are anticipated because any improvements do not appear to be extensive. The Butte County Public Works Department would determine the need for on and off-site storm water facilities and would ensure the necessary improvements are installed. The project would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal. No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: None required 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065): Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document impact a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict . the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 6. Have impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current ro'ects and the effects of probable future pro'ects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Impact Discussion: The project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.7 Hazards And Hazardous Materials,4.8 Hydrology And Water Quality, and 4.13 Public Resources. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measures# 1-4 as itemized under Section 5—Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. Mitigation Measure: See Section 5 Plan Requirements:Refer to Section 4.7,4.8 and 4.13 Timing:Refer to Section 4.7,4.8 and 4.13 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 17■ Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 Monitoring:Refer to Section 4.7,4.8 and 4.13 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure#1 No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2,or Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. Mitigation Measure:#2 Identify on the additional map sheet a 100-foot leach field free setback from each existing well within the project and within 100-feet of project boundary lines. Mitigation Measure:#3 Place a note on the additional map sheet that wells drilled on these lots will require an eighty-foot(80')sanitary seal. Mitigation Measure:#4: Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or ori an additional map sheet that states: "A development impact fee for Sheriffs facilities shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article II of the Butte County Code,prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permit." 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Chico, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential May 111-2, Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV-1, Scenic Highway Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity May, Chico, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Chico, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study May, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of.Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 18 0 Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico(1925)/Oroville(1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/Oroville(1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [ ] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC [ ] LAFCo [X] Air Quality Management [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [X] CA Department of Forestry [ ] CalTrans(Traffic) [ ] Central Reg.Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] National Marine Fisheries Service [ ] US Fish&Wldlife Service [X] Agricultural Commission [X] Butte County Farm Bureau [X] Dev. Services Dir. [X] Animal Control [X] Assessor ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 19■ r Project Name: Disano TPM 00-06 8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the(project name including;APN #) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date K:\Fo%\4sU.S.Byre CouNTY.Doc ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division■Page 20■ i t � Class00�7 I '� i i Class II j pool 9.279 19.844 21.922 - X4.686 00 34.901 6.703 .921 5.45 1 10.601 4.950 4.978 �O 6.365 4.917 89 ^ 5.599 4.996 - .87 10.503 ------ 4.629 5.372 19.60 5.2 20.220 29.213 2.31 4.418 27.017 48.386 .975 � 9.721 7.945 8.761 '11 5.746 11.532 0 5.111 7.644 5.170 11.235 9.855 6.974 5.422 16.414 - - 5.151 17.511 16.510 20.400 5.250 ~ 4.966 21.488 9.57 23.404 "- - -- - 5.536 5.045 14.232 6.8 7.88 .77 5.563 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT—SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Applicant: Cathy Disano Location: On the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way, File#: TPM 00-06 west of Chico Request: Tentative Parcel Map to Parcel Size: 17.5 acres divide a 17.5 acre parcel into three parcels: two 5-acre Planner: Stephen Betts, parcels and one 7.5-acre Senior Planner parcel Supervisor G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops District: 2 Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre Attachments: minimum parcel size) A: General Plan/Zoning Map B: Initial Study APN: 042-130-018 C: Building Area Map D: Site Plan STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends denial.of this project because the applicant has not agreed to a mitigation measure requiring 300-foot residential building setbacks to help prevent significant impacts to adjacent agricultural uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE CHARACTERISTICS: This project proposes to divide a 17.5 acre property into three parcels: two 57acre parcels and one 7.5-acre parcel. Parcel 1 is a corner lot situated at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way, with the longest frontage on Oak Way. Parcels 2 and 3 would have an east/west orientation with frontages on Muir Avenue. Sewage disposal for future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual on-site septic systems. Domestic water would be obtained from individual on-site wells. The property is fully developed with a mature almond orchard. The surrounding and nearby parcels are developed with orchards of varying crops. The predominant crops are almond and walnut. The soils on the site are Class I and Class 2 soils, which are considered to be prime agricultural soils. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Approximately two acres of the southeast corner of the site are within Airport Compatibility Zone D for the Ranchero Airport, which is located approximately 1.68 miles to the southeast of the project site. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 1 0 The project site is not subject to a California Land Conservation Act ("Williamson Act") agreement. Surrounding parcels are developed with orchards and dwellings at rural residential densities. Surrounding parcels range in size from 5.01 acres to 15.45 acres. Muir Avenue is the zoning boundary, with A-10 zoning to the west and A-5 zoning to the east. None of the surrounding parcels are subject to a California Land Conservation Act agreement. ANALYSIS: The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the A-5 zone and with the General Plan land use designation of Orchard and Field Crops. The project would result in a minor increase in vehicular traffic in the project area, but the increase would not be significant. The project is consistent with the Ranchero Airport Compatibility Zone D, which does not have any restrictions on land uses or residential densities. As identified in the Initial Study, this project would have a significant impact on the agricultural operations in the project area. Residential development on the proposed parcels could restrict certain agricultural practices, such as spraying operations. To prevent these significant impacts, Mitigation Measure# 1 requires a 300-foot residential building setback from most of the exterior property lines. Mitigation Measure# 1 states: No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. The Agricultural Element sets forth the 300-foot setback in Policy 2.3, which states "Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict." This intent is further clarified by Agricultural Element Program 2.2, page AE-11. This program recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended. The program suggests that "The desired standard [buffer] shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Although the zoning ordinance has yet to be amended to reflect this program standard, the language clarifies the Agricultural Element's intent to use setbacks as a means of protecting agricultural uses. The residential building areas on each proposed parcel, after applying the building setbacks, are shown on Attachment C of this report. In accordance with Policy 2.3, the 300-foot setback was adjusted to address special circumstances. A 300-foot setback was not applied to the common side yards of the proposed parcels because of insufficient parcel width to accommodate the setback. The setback on Parcel 1 was adjusted to reflect that aerial spraying cannot occur within 100 feet of a public road and that a dwelling in this area would not significantly impact agricultural operations. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0 With the setbacks required by Mitigation Measure # 1 and the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed parcels would have the following area available for residential development: Parcel Residential Development Area (acres) 1 1.46 2 2.38 3 2.9 Applying the 300-foot setback to the proposed parcels, therefore, does not materially affect the property's ability to accommodate the permitted land use of a single family home. At the same time, the setback protects the viability of agricultural uses. The Agricultural Commissioner stated that this project would convert viable agricultural lands to smaller parcels that would not be compatible with future agricultural production. Additionally, the Agricultural Commissioner stated that a 300-foot buffer would not be possible on the proposed parcels due to their small size. According to the applicant's engineer, the applicant does not agree with the 300-foot setback requirements, especially the setback on the south section of Parcel 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: An Initial Study has been prepared for this project by.County staff. Staff determined, based on a review of the Initial Study, that project impacts can be fully mitigated. However, the applicant has not agreed to the mitigation measure requiring the 300-foot residential building setbacks. Section 15064(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines is the guiding statutory regulation regarding the applicant's refusal to agree to Mitigation Measure# 1. This section states: If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. The applicant's refusal to agree to a revision in the project that mitigates a significant environmental impact requires that the project be denied. ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Given that the applicant does not agree to a mitigation measure, staff recommends that the Development Review Committee deny the project, with findings A though F as listed below. If the Development Review Committee determines that there are alternative mitigation measures 0 Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Agenda Report 0 Page 3 ■ i that would protect agricultural uses, staff recommends that the project be continued open to an undetermined date to allow the Initial Study to be revised and recirculated for comment and for conditions and findings of project approval to be prepared. Staff recommends the Development Review Committee take the following action: I. Deny Tentative Parcel Map 00-06 for Cathy Disano subject to the following findings: A. The Initial Study for the Disano Tentative Parcel Map project identified impacts to adjacent agricultural uses as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure # 1 requires a 300-foot residential building setback to prevent significant impacts to agricultural uses. The proposed mitigation measure is a revision to the project, which the applicant has not agreed to. B. CEQA Guideline Section 15064.(f)(2) requires the applicant to agree to any revision in the project if the lead agency determines the revision would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. C. As proposed by the applicant, the project is not consistent with Policy 2.3 of the Agricultural Element, which requires that development provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict. D. 300-foot residential building setbacks have been applied to other Tentative Parcel Maps in the Agricultural zones. E. There is adequate area on each proposed parcel for residential development outside of the 300-foot building setbacks. F. There are no unusual circumstances that exist, except on proposed Parcel 1, to alter the 300-foot residential building setback. k:\projects\tpm\disano.tpm\disano dre agenda report.doc ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Agenda Report ■ Page 4 0 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Meleka CC: Felix Wannemmcher FROM: Tom B SUBJECT: Initial Study for TPM 00-06 prepared by Carl Durling DATE: January 11, 2002 I have attached the Initial Study for TPM 00-06 (Disano)that was submitted to me and Felix for review. Felix has completed a review of only a portion of the document. He and I agree that the discussion in the Initial Study fails to satisfy what we believe are the minimum standards for such a document in Butte County. We believe that an Initial Study should include at least the following for each impact area: Setting: Discussion of the environmental setting Impact: Identification of the project impacts for the issue area Mitigation: Identification of the mitigation proposed, if any Conclusion: Statement of the residual impact, i.e., less than significant,potentially significant but less then significant with mitigation, or significant Felix and I agree that the Initial Study identifies far too many inquiries as "No Impact." I believe it would be helpful if you would provide Carl with examples of Initial Studies that you believe have been well prepared, and review the Initial Study in this file before it is re-submitted. Please feel free to discuss this with me or Felix. �1oTcs: ?��> Co�rh��✓!'s w�t2o` N�dee2 01 S cvsSc%O �c/z��T�-y c•�<rC� �<c; /"1c-Lczt.f L 1�o L`o6L)c-a 7-a65- 5�9 c% ?Tc e,�J 5 �� 7o/,44 Dul--wd 1 N G T t i4-L ST U<O) r,P t-aa Sr c.,-� ���tiZ c� rcMc= r&fT" Tr,/� WAS loo d t i,-t Intl 6) I-Ovd, �� t owTT�o 0 0 0 0 0 �._ J =_ 0 o DU a County C;ounl DEC 31 2001 eville, CalifoMl& DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TPM 00-06 (Disano, Cathy) 'F� IS I rv\ C- Disano TPM 00-06 COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR DISANO TPM 00-06 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION THIS TO BE DONE BY PLANNER. To be consistent with description in agenda and notice. Include thorough description of applicant's request, applicant and agent names. A. Applicant/Owner: Cathy Disano,2805 Oak Way, Chico, CA 95973 B. Representative: Rick Rodriguez,NorthStar Engineering,20 Declaration Drive,Chico,CA 95973 C. Staff Contact: Carl Durling,7 County Center Drive,Oroville,CA 95965 (530)538-7601 D. Proiect Name: None E. Proiect Location: At southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico,CA F. Type of Application(s): Tentative Parcel Map G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 042-130-018 H. Project Site Size: 17.5 acres L Current Zoning: A-5(Agricultural,5 acre minimum)by Ordinance 1629,7 October 1975 I General Plan Designation: OFC(Orchard and Field Crop)and Chico Area Greenline K Environmental S�t�bw4: The property is fully developed with a mature almond orchard. The surrounding property and th local in general is developed with orchards of varying crops. The predominant crops are almond,and walnut The 1926 U. S. Department of Agricultural Soils Map designates the area as Vina Loam (VI) and Vina Sandy Loam (Vo. The 1995 California Division of Mines and Geology identifies the area as having low expansive soils and as a low to nopf subsidence area. There are no identified fault lines in the vicinity. L- Surrounding Land Uses: Orchard north across Oak Way on a 10 acre parcel; Orchards adjacent on the east with nual residential on 5.01, 5.02 and 6.76 acre parcels;Orchards adjacent on the south with rural residential on two 5.35 acre parcels; and Orchards west across Muir Avenue with rural residential on 5.46, 10, and 15.45 acre parcels. Muir Avenue is the zoning boundary with A-10 zoning to the west and A-5 zoning to the east. M. Proiect Description: The project is a proposal to divide a 17.5 acre property into three parcels,one 7.5 acre and two 5 acre parcels. The 5-acre parcels will have an east/west orientation with frontage on Muir Avenue. The 7.5 acre parcel is a corner lot situated at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way with the longest frontage on Oak Way. N. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Public Works Department 2,0 DETERMINATION ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 1 ■ .�. . �� �! �1 Disano TPM 00-06 ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. E[ I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MTTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects. (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Prepared by: Carl L. Durling,Associate Planner Date Reviewed by: M.A. Meleka,Principal Planner Date 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ] Aesthetics [ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality [ J Biological Resources [ J Cultural Resources [ ] Geologic Processes [X] Hazards and Hazardous Material [X] Hydrology/Water Quality [ ] Land Use [ ] Mineral Resources [ ] 'Noise [ ] Housing [X] Public Service [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation/Traffic [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [K Mandatory Findings of Significance B. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening analysis.) 0 Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 2■ Disano TPM 00-06 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies_ are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significant. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 3 0 Disano TPM 00-06 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETICNISUAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Impact Discussion: a.-d. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LLJE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7� 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: None required Plan Requirements: None Timing: None Monitoring: None required 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or X Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act Contract? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 4 Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact c. Involve other changes in the existing environment X which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Impact Discussion: a.-c. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7� 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of agricultural resource in Butte County. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: None required Plan Requirements: None Timing: None Monitoring: None required 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Impact Discussion: 0 Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 5 i i I i I __. .. �,, ���� t i t i .. Disano TPM 00-06 a.-e. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County-General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LLJE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7. 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of air quality in Butte County. Mitigation: None required , I 4M Mitigation Measure: None required Plan Requirements: None Timing: None Monitoring: None 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through X habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or unpede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources such as a tree preservation policy ordinance? L Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservationplan? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 6 0 � - .. +. �. . .. :i. ..ti J. y R 4' Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact g A reduction in the numbers,a restriction in the range,or an X impact to the critical habitat of any unique,rare,threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite X (including mammals,birds,reptiles,amphibians,fish or invertebrates)? L A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat(for X foraging,breeding,roosting,nesting,etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or X migratory fish or wildlifespecies? k. Introduction of any factors(light,fencing,noise,human X presence and/or domestic animals)which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Impact Discussion: a.-k. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir �( Avenue was established on October 7', 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of biological resources in Butte County. The subject property has been in almond orchard production for many years. The proposed project will not change the habitat environment as it exists today. — ;44ta-I Mitigation: None required &. ` 9 3 Mitigation Measure: None required Plan Requirements: None Timing: None Monitoring: None 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 7■ ,. ,. � , yr.�• .;�'„ i. �'-• _ fit. �r+-+ j' S 1. Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitlgation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside X of formal cemeteries? Impact Discussion: a.-d. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 though LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 ori the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property, and the area east of Muir p<Avenue was established on October 7/ 1978 by Ordinance No. 1629. The density of one dwelling unit per 5 or 10 acre parcels, for the area rezoned in 1978, is found to be consistent with protection of cultural resources in Butte County. The subject property has been in almond orchard production for many years. No cultural or archaeological resources are located on the property. .— Mitigation: None required r� al�.•e� a. ��°" Mitigation Measure: None required Plan Requirements: None Timing: None Monitoring: None 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 8■ n; � 4 Disano TPM 00-06 Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of X the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have Soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste water? Impact Discussion: a.-e. The 1926 U. S. Department of Agricultural Soils Map designates the area as Vina Loam (VI) and Vina Sandy Loam (VO. The 1995 California Division of Mines and Geology identifies the area as having low expansive soils and as a low to noWsubsidence area. There are no identified fault lines in the vicinity. Soil of this type is conducive to use of septic systems. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: None required ,tt ��a U' Plan Requirements: None Timing: None GQ.� Monitoring: None 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 9■ _. ,a t.. `t - �� . ... ) �.;. i .Y+.. .� . .�_� 1 ai R • 1 'I Disano TPM 00-06 4. 7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environmental through the routine transport use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with willdlands? Impact Discussion: a. The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 through LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7, 1978, by Ordinance No. 1629. Policy 1.6 of the Agricultural Element establishes the "minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres.". Page AE-5, paragraph 2, of the Agricultural Element articulates the fact that there is really no"standard acreage that will automatically result in economic success." The proposed parcel sizes are therefore consistent with the General Plan. Itis clear that the density of five-acre parcels is consistent with the General Plan, as noted in the above paragraph. 'Despite this fact, the establishment of actual home sites can only be consistent with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan by establishing reasonable setbacks between 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 10 Disano TPM 00-06 home sites and adjacent agricultural uses. The intent of the Agricultural Element is to protect agricultural uses from incompatible uses; an urban residential use is incompatible with agricultural uses. The Agricultural Element makes this intent clear in Policy 2.3 which states "Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict." This intent is further clarified by Agricultural Element Program 2.2, page AE-11. This program recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended. The program suggests that"The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Although the zoning ordinance has yet to be amended to reflect this program standard, the language clarifies the Agricultural Element's intent to use setbacks as a means of protecting agricultural uses. The real issue is to what extent should the setback technique be used in this case or other similar cases. The A-5 zone has, as a permitted use, "One (1) single family dwelling or modular home er 0--*;* parcel." The establishment of a dwelling on an A-5 parcel is, therefore, not an issue. pplication /--°"Z w" of setbacks on an A-5 parcel that would preclude the establishment of a permitted use is not the intent of the Agricultural Element nor the General Plan. The issue is, then, to identify setbacks for the parcel that would establish a reasonable building envelope. The property line setbacks in the A-5 zone are 20 feet for the front yard and 5 feet for the side and rear yards. Each of the proposed parcels has a depth of 660 feet measured from Muir Avenue. Normally, the rear of these lots would have a 5-foot setback. Applying a 300-foot setback to the rear yard would leave 360 feet of depth from Muir Avenue in which to place a home. When applying the 300-foot setback to the side yard, there would-be an additional affect on Parcel 1 and C�Aok Parcel 3.[On Parcel 1, the 300-foot side yard setback leaves an additional 100 feet of home site _ I area along Oak Way. On Parcel 3, the 300-foot side yard setback reduces the home site area size 1 from 360'x495' to 360'x195', with the 195 feet being measured along Muir Avenue. This is a p building envelope area of 64,500 square feet that would still satisfy the 300-foot setback. Applying the 300-foot setback to the proposed parcels, therefore, does not materially affect the property's ability to accommodate the permitted land use of a single family home. At the same time, the setback protects the viability of agricultural uses. b. Orchard cultivation is ongoing on the property with no expected changes in procedures. c. No schools exist within one-quarter mile of the property. d. No hazardous waste sites exist on or near the property. e-f. There is no public or private airport or airport plan within two miles of the property. g. No adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan would be affected by the property. h. The entire loc4is fully developed with orchards. No wildlands exist in the area. Mitigation: 300-foot setback Mitigation Measure#1 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 11 a;a "�'tia� f+f �� ["i .. 1 i • 1. �.� ,, r "'' 1 � .f i"��� 'J�. _ � Disano TPM 00-06 No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcel 3. Earcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 0AJ 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Wa. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. �v Plan Requirements: A crosshatch designation shall be shown on the final map which depicts the setback area described by the mitigation measure. Timing: To be implemented at final map phase Monitoring: The Planning Department shall ensure implementation of the established setback at final map. 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal' Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted nmofl? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g Place housing within a 100 year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche,tsunanii,or mudflow? X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 12■ :-Jy ��� A��� ' ..I�J V �,11 �-i 1 '� .testi„ t �y 1�J ,Y Disano TPM 00-06 Impact Discussion: a. The property is within a high nitrate area as established by Butte County Environmental Health. Mitigation measures #2 and #3 have been established for the project by Environmental Health which reduces impacts to less than significant b.-f. A typical family of four on a public water supply uses about 350 gallons per day at home. In contrast, a typical household that gets its water from a private well or cistern*uses about 200 gallons for a family of four. (Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, "How Much Drinking Water Do We Use In Our Homes?'). An almond orchard in the project area uses about 37 inches of water per year, and 27 inches in a dry year. (Source: Irrigation Management For Almond Trees Under Drought Conditions, Terry L. Prichard, Water Management Specialist, UC Davis). On the average, almond c� orchards have approximately 109 trees per acre (Source: Butte County Agricultural Commission). If you assume that the only trees to be removed are those where the residential dwelling is placed, and assume 3,000 square feet per home, then there will be a net decrease in total.water use, and a reduction in water drainage and runoff. Water quality will, therefofl remain the same. g.j. The property is not within a flood hazard zone. Mitigation: 100-foot leach field setback and eighty-foot sanitary seal for wells. Mitigation Measure: #2 Identify on the additional map sheet a 100-foot leach field free setback from each existing well within the project and within 100-feet of project boundary lines. Mitigation Measure: #3 Place a note on the additional ma sheet that wells drilled on these lots will require an ei -foot 80' PP�tY ( ) sanitary seal. Plan Requirements: A crosshatch designation shall be shown on the final map which depicts the setback area described by the mitigation measure. Timing: To be implemented at final map phase Monitoring: The Planning Department shall ensure implementation of the established setback at final map. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 13 ■ � �. r t� � 4�� y � 1 �� ! �N `� � Disano TPM 00-06 $ lit "' 'x9`'( 4.9 LAND USE: Less Than Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than n er Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan,policy,or X regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to,the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservationplan? Impact Discussion: The A-5 zoning for the property is consistent with the Chico Area Greenline policies of the Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 through LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE- 83 "Zoning Regulations" states that"All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The zoning for the subject property and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on October 7, 1978, by Ordinance No. 1629. Policy 1.6 of the Agricultural Element establishes the"minimum parcel sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres.". Page AE-5, paragraph 2, of the Agricultural Element articulates the fact that there is really no "standard acreage that will automatically result in economic success." The proposed parcel sizes are therefore consistent with the General Plan. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact. No Document Incorporated Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general Ian,specific plan,or other land useplan? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 14 M • r a_^ Disano TPM 00-06 . Impact Discussion: The project site is under intensive agricultural production. There are no known mineral resources. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 4.11 NOISE: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess X of standards established in the local general plan or noise, ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient . X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? C For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, X would the project expose people residing or working in the vroiect area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: Residential uses are within the noise generation parameters of the General Plan. There are no private or public airports within two miles of the property Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 0 Butte County Department'of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 15 0 Disano TPM 00-06 r 4.12 HOUSING: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area,either X directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the constriction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Impact Discussion: The proposed project conforms to the zoning and density of the property. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: ,�^ A G- Monitoring: 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical X impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fire protection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X LL Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The project site is located in an area designated as a low fire hazard area. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Butte County Fire Department, Battalion 3, and volunteer stations 0 Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division■Page 16 0 i i . � . .. ., . ��s '��> , .,I ,a N � 'r..: E �� Y. •. Disano TPM 00-06 within the West Chico area. The project will be conditioned to comply with applicable standards and fees to reduce the project impacts to a less than significant level. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impacts of increased residential development in the County impacts the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Sheriffs facilities fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The proposal would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. The applicant is required to place a note on the map that states: "A development impact fee for school facilities shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permits." While school districts maintain that these fees do not fully mitigate the impacts of the project, the County is precluded from imposing additional fees or mitigation by state legislation. The project would result in the potential development of three dwellings, which would not create significant impacts to area parks and facilities. The project site is located within the Chico Recreation and Parks District. A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services. Mitigation Measure#4: Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "A development impact fee for Sheriffs facilities shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article II of the Butte County Code, prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permit." Plan Requirements: The required note shall be placed on the Final Map. The Planning Division and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on the final map. Timing: The required Sheriff's impact fees and school fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit Monitoring: The Building Division shall collect the fees prior to issuance of a building permit. 4.14 RECREATION: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or.require the constriction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: The project's contribution of three new parcels is considered less than significant and would not warrant specific mitigation for area parks and recreation facilities. No recreational facilities are proposed under this proposal. The project site is located within the Chico Recreation and Parks District. Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division 0 Page 17 i �. Disano TPM 00-06 Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patters,including either an X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., X sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses e. .,farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g Conflict with accepted policies,plans or programs X supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: The proposed map would create 3 individual parcels for a net increase of 2 parcels. Thus, the development of the two new parcels have the potential to generate approximately 20 additional traffic trips per day based upon 10 vehicle trips/day per dwelling unit as projected by the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Traffic Engineers for a single family residential use. The increase in vehicle traffic generated by the project would be minor and would not cause any significant impacts to vehicle circulation in the area. The Public Works Department requires that the east half of Muir Avenue and the south half of Oak Way along the project site be deeded to the County (30 feet of right-of-way from the centerlines) to accommodate installation of improvements to County Standard RS-9 LD-II for access roads and S-5 for street intersections. Butte County Code Section 24-240 (b) requires two off-street spaces per dwelling. The proposed parcels have adequate room to provide two spaces each; therefore, the project results in no impact resulting from insufficient parking capacity. This Tentative Parcel Map project would not conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 18 0 ,.,� d; Disano TPM 00-06 Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,.the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources,or are _. new or expanded entitlements needed? e, Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state,and local statutes,and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would include individual septic systems for sewer service and individual wells for water service. Thus, the project would not have a significant impact on any wastewater or water treatment facilities. Some off-site storm water drainage improvements may be required due to development of the project site. An unlined drainage ditch lies adjacent to the project site, which may have to be piped due to the road improvements required by the Public Works Department. No significant environmental impacts are anticipated because any improvements do not appear to be extensive. The Butte County Public Works Department would determine the need for on and off-site storm water facilities and would ensure the necessary improvements are installed. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 19 0 j� _s': Disano TPM 00-06 The project would increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal. No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation: None required Mitigation Measure: Plan Requirements: Timing: Monitoring: 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065): Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous impact Incorporated Impact No Document Impact a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of X the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten.to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Have impacts that are individually limited,but Ix cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectl ? a Impact Discussion: The project has the,potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.7 Hazards And Hazardous Materials, 4.8 Hydrology And Water Quality, and 4.13 Public Resources. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measures# 1 as itemized under Section 5—Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. Miti on: See Section 5 itig 'on Measure: See Section 5 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 20■ . . .,.,,• 1� Disano TPM 00-06 Pl Re irements: Refer to Section 4.7, 4.8 and 4.13 Ti mg: Re er to Section 4.7, 4.8 and 4.13 Mon• ring: Refer to Section 4.7, 4.8 and 4.13 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND' MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure#1 No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. Mitigation Measure: #2 Identify on the additional map sheet a 100-foot leach field free setback from each existing well within n the project and within 100-feet of project boundary lines. ` Mitigation Measure: #3 Place a note on the additional map sheet that wells drilled on these lots will require an eighty-foot (80') sanitary seal. _1Miti&At•oaaae#4: r Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: "A development impact fee for Sheriffs facilities shall be paid pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3,Article II of the Butte County Code,prior to issuance of building permits. The fee amount will be determined and calculated as of the date of application for the building permit." 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Chico, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. EKpansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV-1, Scenic Highway Element. Chico, CA: C142M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Man V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Chico, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Chico, CA: C142M Hill, 1977. 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 21 ■ 1 j Je a� �9i � • t Disano TPM 00-06 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Mau. Chico, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Mai). Chico, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map,established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maus. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico(1925)/Oroville(1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. ; 16. Soil Survey of Chico(1925)/OrovilIe(1926)Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989, 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [XJ Environmental Health [X] Public Works [ ] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [X] ALUC [ ] LAFCo [X] Air Quality Management [X] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ J City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [X] CA Department of Forestry [ ] CalTrans(Traffic) [ ] Central Reg.Water Quality [ ] Department of Conservation [ ] Dept. of Fish and Game [ ] Highway Patrol [ j Army Corps of Engineers [ ] National Marine Fisheries Service [ ] US Fish&Wldlife Service [X] Agricultural Commission [X] Butte County Farm Bureau [X] Dev. Services Dir. [X] Animal Control [X] Assessor ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 8 Planning Division■Page 22 0 s Disano TPM 00-06 8.0 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the (project name including APN # ) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date KAFoRMs\I.S.BUTTE CouNTY.Doc ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 23 0 - .. ll�e Olu'tt �. LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUT ` PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE.CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 FAx TRANSMISSION To: �qr� Levere►�-Z Date: g Fax #: q y- SOy-3 Pages: 2, Hard Copy will follow: From: yes.. no Subject: Additional Comments: Page 1 of 2 r Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 2:51 PM To: Wannenmacher, Felix Subject: Disano Tentative Parcel Map Felix, As you are aware, the following two sections of Sate code are applicable to the Disano TPM project: 21064.5. "Mitigated negative declaration"means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial st 15064(f)(2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. The agenda report for the 9/12 DRC meeting specifically referred to 15064(f)(2) and the consequences of the applicant's refusal to agree to the mitigation measures. The initial study for the project was never released for public review, but was attached to the DRC agenda report for the DEC's review and to make it a part of the record. CEQA appears to be silent as to what action to take if the applicant refuses to agree to the mitigation measures, so we have to wing it. Now, we could have told the applicant, in writing,that his application was incomplete because they did not agree to the mitigation measures. If the applicant continued to refuse to sign the initial study, we would have an incomplete project until they decided to withdrawal their application. If they never withdrew their application we would have an incomplete project until the end of time, which is not a good thing (County code is silent as to the deposition of an incomplete project, i.e, County code does not say that a project in incomplete status for more than one/two/three year(s) is automatically denied or taken to the DRC for denial action), So, what we did was take the Disano project to the DRC for action, in this case with a recommendation for denial. The findings for denial of the project referenced that the project would have significant impacts, but the mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts were not agreed to by the applicant. The DRC may decide that the proposed mitigation measures are not needed or should be modified, but they would have to come up with the findings to support that decision. They could do that.at tl-,e 9/26 hearing, but it would be best if the initial study was reaccomplished per the DRC's comments and recirculated for public review and then taken back to the DRC for final action. I believe that the DRC can deny the project, even without the initial study being completed. 9/17/2002 Page 2 of 2 d If the DRC denies the project, the applicant can appeal that decision to the Board. However, the Board cannot take any action on the project until the initial study is completed."I guess the Board could say that the proposed setbacks were needed and deny the appeal and hence the end of the project (unless we are taken to court). Or the Board could say that the proposed setbacks were not needed or.could be modified and do a motion of intent to approve the project, with appropriate findings, of course..Jf.that was the case, the initial study would have to be reaccomplished (with the Board's comments/recommendation incorporated into it) and recirculated and then taken back to the Board'for final action. We have never had this situation before so I guess it is up to you to see-if there is any case law out there. I hope the e-mail helps you out. If I can help you let me know. Steve Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Desk-(530) 538-7153, FAX-(530) 538-7785 9/17/2002 sutte county .;. LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 August 28, 2002 Cathy Disano 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 Re: Tentative Parcel Map, AP 042-130-018, TPM 00-06 Dear Ms. Disano:: Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue & Oak Way, west of Chico. A public hearing has been set for September 12,2002,at 8:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. The Development Review Committee recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Committee may have. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Carl Durling of this office at 538-7601, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn rdson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Enc. cc: Land Development Environmental Health NorthStar Engineering j:hvpdocs\pelts\schedu le.mrg LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 September 12, 2002 Cathy Disano 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 RE: Tentative Parcel Map, TPM 00-06, 042-130-018 Dear Ms. Disano: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Development Review Committee held on September 12, 2002, the committee continued its review of the above referenced subject to September 26, 2002. The next meeting will commence at 8:00 a.m. in the Board of Supervisors Room,25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Carl Durling at this office Monday through Thursday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at 538-7601. Sincerely, 401-11c— Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant cc Environmental Health Department Land Development NorthStar Engineering Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 9:17 AM " To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Disano TPM Steve, a letter regarding that is on its way to you as we "e". Myles from our office will be dropping that off to you in about 45 minutes. Sorry for the delay but I was in no hurry to go through this. Thanks for your patience. " RR@NSE -----Original Message----- From: Betts, Steve [mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:41 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Hey Rick! Attached is a letter from me regarding'the Disano TPM. The letter will be mailed to you today. Guess we will let the DRC and most likely the Board of Supervisors handle it. Steve 7/30/2002 NorthStar ENGINEERING Civil Engineers•Surveyors July 29, 2002 Planning Division COUNTY OF BUTTE ' 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 ; Attention: Steve Betts Re: Parcel Map TPM 00-06 for Cathy Disano ' Dear Steve, Regarding said TPM 00-06, we are returning the Initial Study to you unsigned by Cathy Disano. The Disano's do not accept proposed Mitigation Measure #1 and the requesting of a 300-foot residential building setback on all the parcels and more particularly the 300- foot setback from the south line of proposed Parcel 3. They feel that these setbacks are to restricting for placement of a future homesite. They are aware that said TPM 00-06 will go before the Development Review Committee with a recommendation for denial. Please proceed with scheduling for the Development Review Committee. If you have any questions please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING Rick Rodriguez JUL 3 0 2002 CC: Cathy Disano Carl Leverenz j BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 1 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX-893-2113 \ • ~ . ) � \ \' � \ \ � . . \« . \ j \ � ` \ ' § . / . J ( JUL ' U x z,2 t!US / % / y . . � . x RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA (per Mitigation Measure # 1) NW CORNER LOT 25 I — �- - - - OAK 660' I I o N (— o 0 5.0 I I 6 I300' AG. BUfFER ZONE I C L 2 I � M .0 +/– I ( I SOUTH LINE—"-Il INE Ln LOT 25 I I I Lo I �I .PARCEL. 3. J I I 7,5 AC. +/- I 25' l i I 1 I 66o, 40 . 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 � PG. 5• 8.86ac 10ac Oak Way A5Zone 10ac ae a -10 0 6.76a O d. 1629 zone -07-75 5 '5 >> _ area <. 5.21 c / Ord. 1575 A-29-75 5.46 ac 50 . 1 ac 5.35ac 5.02ac c � 15.45ac 5.35ac/ eale me0 09/24/2002 21:07 FAX 5308945043 LEVEREN&FERRIS 1001 Low Office of Sts WALL FMEET CARL B. LEVERENZ CHICO,CALIFORNIA 98928 A PRO►E131UNAl CORPORATION TELE?MONE M)999-1621 TIMOTIIY D: FERRIS FAX (530)894-SO43 A"ORN2r AT LAW + September 25, 2002 Sent via facsimile 538-7785 Steve Betts Planning Division COUNTY OF BUTTE 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Re: Parcel Map TPM 00-06 for Cathy Disano Dear Steve: Attached is a map done by Rick Rodriguez. As you can see the house next to parcel 3 really doesn't need agricultural set backs. Perhaps this is sufficient justification to allow the Development Review Committee to allow a dwelling location on Muir near the house. Kindly give me a call to discuss this matter. Very yours, CARL B. EVERENZ CBL:ajh enclosure 09/24/2002 21:07 FAX 5J08945043- LEVEREN&FERRIS 1002 N 660' Sovo. r ( LOT 2 1 I PARCEL 3 I 7.5 AC. 2S , I I ' 660' O �.ii Existing House w/ Goroge 46 PARCEL MAPS :05 TW 969'ON 9NI MNIONS WlSHlNDN LIP-197 Z0i0Zi60 ❑ LAND USE ELEMENT. 0 ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops. Secondary Uses: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and water-related recreation facilities, dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and quasi-public uses, home occupations. Site Designation Criteria: 1. Soil conditions well suited for plant crop operations. 2. Adequate water suDDly. 3. rredominate parcel sizes of 5 acres of more. 4. Used for crop production or secondary.uses. 5. Adjacent uses compatible with primary and secondary uses. Intensity of Use: Minimum parcel size of 5 acres. One single-family dwelling per parcel with additional housing for on-site-employees. Consistent Zones: A-20 through. A-160, RC & PQ. Conditionally Consistent Zones: A-5, A-10, subject to findings of conformance with Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed below. Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria: 1. Predominate existing parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 acres. 2. Adjacent to or in the general vicinity of urban boundaries. �r 3. Present status of agricultural production will not be significantly impaired. Zoning Factors: 1. Existing parcel sizes and dwelling densities. 2. Proximity to urban development. 3. Effects on adjacent uses. 4. Potential for pest insect breeding. 5. Economic viability. 6. Local desires. ❑BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN❑ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 79-222❑October 30, 1979❑ LUE - 48 �a..,....r�� r d a ■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■ 2.2' h Encourage urban infill development within city limits and within existing unincorporated communities where development can more easily and readily be served by public infrastructure facilities. 2.3 Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict. 2.4 Create development and performance standards designed to protect agricultural uses from urban encroachment conflicts. 2.5 Encourage urban development to the LAFCo adopted Spheres of Influence. 2.6 Provide a clear delineation, on the General Plan Land Use Map, between long-term agricultural production lands and*city/community areas. 2.7 Allow for the conversion of agricultural land within LAFCo Spheres of Influence where land has been determined to be irretrievably lost to urbanization. These would likely be areas where urban development has surrounded or substantially encroached upon agricultural land and has limited its continued productive use. 2.8 New residences within agricultural areas shall be required to pay its fair share of development impacts on public services and infrastructure. Programs _ 2.1 Rezone unincorporated land within, LAFCo-adopted Spheres of Influence to be consistent with urban densities and City-adopted General Plans. Cooperate with cities to make maximum efficient use of vacant lands within adopted Spheres of Influence. 2.2 �eZoning Ordinance shall re uire that a buffer be established on ro erty propose or rest en is evelopment in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desir standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circums nces. Guidelines, as pa—ft of the General Plan's implementation, shall be developed illustrating buffer requirements for various situations. 2.3 Where development approval,.other than residential, is proposed on lot(s) adjacent to an agricultural operation or Orchard and Field Crops land use category, the Zoning Ordinance shall require a natural or man-made buffer between the development and the agricultural land use. The buffer shall be totally on the lot(s) where development is proposed. A buffer could be a topographic feature, a ■ BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ EXHIBIT A-Adopted May 9, 1995 AE - 11 ■ AGRICULTURAL ELEMENT ■ substantial tree stand, a water course or similarly defined feature: Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer area. This program does not apply to additions and remodeling to legally existing development. 2.4 Amend all zones to provide development and performance standards- which include such items as setbacks, buffer areas, landscaping requirements, and fencing. 2.5 Support LAFCo policies which limit the expansion of urban.services and densities outside of�adopted Spheres of Influence. 2.6 Utilize the LAFCo.adopted Spheres of Influence for the cities and the.identified unincorporated community cores as areas for urban and/or more intensive development. Restrict urban and intensive development.to those areas outside agriculture and other,low-intensity uses. 2.7 Limited conversion of agricultural land to urban uses could be permitted when the following criteria are met and mitigated: ■ A general plan amendment and rezone application has been approved ■ The lot(s) for which conversion are requested is adjacent to uses identified as other than agriculture or agricultural support 4: uses, i.e. receiving plants, hulling plants ■ The conversion will not be detrimental to existing,agricultural. operations ■ The conversion land is adjacent to existing urban infrastructure and would constitute a logical contiguous extension of a designated urban area - ■ No feasible alternative 'exists which is less detrimental to agriculture ■ Infill within the adjacent designated urban area-has reached a 75%, level of-. development.. Development •is defined as improvements to property including, but not limited to noxi-" ,-,,agricultural building's:;or�structures. 2.8- New residences and/or.conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land shall only_occur when full mitigation of impacts to the extent under law are provided including, but not limited to, .roads, drainage, schools, fire protection, law enforcement, recreation; sewage, and lighting. . 2.9 Continue to support the Chico breenline policies. i. ■ BUTTE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ■ EMIBIT A-Adopted May 9, 1995 . AE - 12 RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL-BUILDINNG .AREA , (per Mitigation Measure# 1) NW CORNER LOT 25 I I � - -� � - - - OAK - 660' - - - - - - - I I / N LQI F 2 � I P R 1 Q I I 5.0 C. I 6 J00'AG. SUfFER ZONE I C L 2 0 IM M .0 I I L, 660' SOUTH L/NE LOT 25 r I " I to �I PARCEL. 3 a 5 I I 7,5 AC. +j- �- 25' I 660' 40 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 ��g i L rc�d i 0617/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 1 of 8 i A California Almond Objective Measurement Report, 2002 1E Released: June 27, 2002 2002 CALIFORNIA ALMOND FORECAST California's 2002 almond production is forecast at a record 980 million meat pounds, up 4 percent from May's subjective forecast and up 18 percent from last year's crop. The forecast is based on 530 thousand bearing acres. Production for the Nonpareil variety is forecast at 370 million meat pounds, up 18 percent from last season. The Nonpareil variety represents 38 percent of California's total almond production. The weather during the critical bloom and pollination period was nearly ideal this year. However, a freeze in the Sacramento Valley in early March caused major damage t6 the crop in Colusa;Glenn, and Yolo counties. The warm temperatures in May and June helped the crop develop near or slightly behind normal progress. The average nut set per tree is 8,100, up 21 percent from 2001. The Nonpareil average nut set of 8,043 represents a 25 percent increase from last year's set. The average kernel weight for all varieties sampled was 1.41 grams, down 12 percent from last year. A total 98.9 percent of all nuts sized were sound. SAMPLING PROCEDURES To determine tree set, nuts are counted along a path within a randomly selected tree. Work begins at the trunk and progresses to the end of the terminal branch. Using a random number table, one branch is selected at each forking to continue the path. A branch's probability of selection is directly proportional to its cross-sectional area. This methodology is used because of its statistical efficiency. The method also makes it possible to end up at any one of the tree's numerous terminal branches. Since the selected path has a probability of selection associated with it, this probability is used to expand nut counts arriving at an estimated set for the entire tree. Along intermediate stages (i.e., the bearing surface between forkings), every fifth nut is picked. All nuts on the terminal branch are picked. These nuts are used to determine size and weight measurements. FIELD SAMPLING ACTIVITIES The survey began May 27 and sampling was completed by June 21. There were 1,572 trees sampled for the 2002 survey in 786 orchards. An additional 136,orchards were not sampled for one'of the following reasons: 1) Orchard had been sprayed. 2) Orchard had been recently irrigated and was wet. 3) Orchard had been pulled. 4) Owner refused to cooperate or could not be contacted. The Objective Measurement Survey is funded by monies provided by the Almond Board of California, in cooperation with the California Department of Food and Agriculture. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206ahnom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 2 of 8 DATA RELIABILITY The 80 percent confidence interval is from 917 million meat pounds to 1,043 million meat pounds. This means that the results of our sampling procedures will encompass the true mean 80 percent of the time. TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF NUT ESTIMATES AND ORCHARDS SAMPLED BY DISTRICT AND VARIETY, JUNE OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT SURVEY COUNTS District 19 1 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 and Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Nuts Orchards Orchards Orchards Orchards Orchards Orchards Per Per Per Per Per Per Variety Tree Sampled Tree Sampled Tree Sampled Tree Sampled Tree Sampled Tree Sampled ALL DISTRICTS (All Varieties) 7,567 887 5,314 979 7,568 838 5,298 686 6,672 798 8,100 786 BY DISTRICTS District I Sacramento 8,544 190 6,257 200 8,158 188 6,167 126 7,189 165 7,849 141 Valley District II San Joaquin 7,347 691 5,116 772 7,440 645 5,111 559 6,537 633 8,128 645 Valley BY VARIETIES California 7,597 171 5,497 201 7,602 167 5,332 140 6,850 167 7,615 177 Types 1/ Carmel 2/ 7,862 107 5,645 118 6,716 99 5,275 84 6,832 99 7,146 99 Merced I6,020 20 4,664 24 6,818 16 2,540® 5,739 0 3/0 Mission I6,831 78 5,722 79 6,844 58 4,975 31 5,928 41 8,235 29 Ne Plus Ultra I7,215 30 2,116 27 4,992 24 5,709® 6,859 14 3,232 0 Nonpareil 7,714 485 5,129 491 8,054 403 4,959 359 6,449 386 8,043 373 1/ For survey purposes, the California classification includes the following varieties: Aldrich, Ballico, Carmel, Davey, Fritz, Harvey, Le Grand, Mono, Monterey,Norman, Price Cluster, Ruby, Tokoyo and Yosemite. 2/ Carmel breakdown was first provided in 1988. Carmel variety is also included in California Types. 3/ Insufficient data. TABLE 2: WEIGHT, SIZE AND GRADE OF AVERAGE ALMOND SAMPLE, 1997-02 Grade (Percent of Nuts) a/ http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 3 of 8 District Kernel Kernel Size Edible Nuts and Weight (Millimeters) Insect Shrivel Natural Blank Other �����Damage Gum Variety (Grams) Len th Width Thickness Sin les Doubles ALL DISTRICTS 1997 -� 1.59 20.34 11.95 9.22 92.3 5.6 b/ 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 1998 1.76 23.51 13.64 10.42 95.8 4.0 b/ b/ 0.1 b/ 2 1999 1.47 23.21 13.57 10.64 93.4 5.7 b/ 0.8 b/ b/ 0.1 2000 1.69 23.55 13.63 10.24 95.8 2.4 b/ 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 2001 1.60 23.90 12.87 9.89 95.0 3.1 b/ 1.4 0.1 b/ 0.2 2002 1.41 21.54 12.52 9.86 96.8 2.1 b/ 0.7 b/ b/ 0.2 BY DISTRICT SacrameE Valley 1997 11 1.59 22.54 13.17 9.92 91.5 6.2 b/ 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 1998 1.71 23.48 13.54 10.25 93.5 6.2 b/ b/ 0.3 b/ b/ 1999 1.42 22.82 12.55 9.33 93.6 5.5 b/ 0.7 b/ b/ 0.3 2000 1.65 24.11 13.48 10.02 93.5 3.5 b/ 1.8 0.6 0.2 0.5 2001 1.61 24.37 13.05 9.68 94.4 3.4 b/ 1.1 0.1 b/ 1.0 2002 1.47 22.65 12.77 9.90 96.0 2.2 b/ 0.9 b/ b/ 0.8 San Joaquin Valley d/ 1997 1.59 19.61 11.55 8.99 92.5 5.4 b/ 2.0 0.1 b/ b/ 1998 =1 1.78 23.52 13.67 10.47 96.6 3.3 b/ b/ b/ b/ b/ 1 1999 =1 1.49 23.34 13.90 11.06 93.3 5.8 b/ 0.8 b/ b/ b/ 2000 1.70 23.40 13.68 10.30 96.4 2.1 b/ 1.3 0.1 0.1 b/ 2001 1.60 23.75 12.82 9.96 95.2 3.0 b/ 1.5 0.1 b/ b/ 2002 1.39 21.22 12.45 9.84 97.0 2.1 b/ 0.7 b/ b/ 0.1 BY VARIETY California Types e/ 1997 1.53 19.90 11.23 9.23 89.3 8.6 b/ 1.8 0.1 b/ 0.1 1998 1.70 23.76 12.93 10.33 94.9 9.9 b/ b/ b/ b/ b/ 1999 1.41 22.68 12.75 10.58 89.3 9.8 b/ 0.6 b/ b/ b/ 2000 1 1.54 23.02 12.84 10.09 94.8 3.6 b/ 1.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 2001 1.57 24.45 12.24 9.97 92.6 5.3 b/ 1.6 b/ b/ 0.3 2002 1.41 21.88 12.08 9.82 94.8 3.7 b/ 0.9 0.1 b/ 0.4 Carmel f/ 1997 1.52 20.13 11.28 9.31 89.4 8.6 b/ 1.6 0.2 b/ b/ 1998 1.71 24.30 12.85 10.31 96.0 3.8 b/ b/ b/ b/F b/ http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 4 of 8 1999 11 1.53 24.70 13.95 11.59 90.6 9.0 b/ 0.2 b/ b/ 0.2 2000 1.69 24.69 13.12 10.16 96.3 2.3 b/ 1-61F 0.2 0.1 b/ 2001 1.53 24.74 12.0--]F--9.-]F--9 ]F--.7 84. 3 b/ 1.2 b/ b/ 0.2 2002 1.391D2.20EE96F 9.64 F 96.6 2.6I=F 6.51F 0.1 0.1 0.1 Merced 1997 1.54 20.82 12.66 10.01 93.0F- 2/1F--1-11F-6--11=9E95.8 1998 1.84 22.27 13.55 10.61 94.7 5.2 b/ b/ 0.1 b/ b/ 1999 1.50 24.40 15.61 12.84 -94-]1F--5-61F--h/1F-6.]7 F b/ b/F 0.3 2000 1.88 3.22 14.14 10.57 84.5 7.8 b/ 0.3 2 2 .0 b/ 5.4 2001 1.52 23.04 12.23 10.00 92.6 6 6.3 b/ 0. 0.4 b/ b/ 2002 1.41 20.04 12.50 10.03 100.0 b/ b/ b/ b/ b/ b/ Mission 1997 1.37 17.28 11.31 9.49 91.6 6.8 b/ 1.3]F--h/]=E 0.4 1998 1.5920.51 13.20 11.35 88.6 11.4 b/ b/ b/ b/ b/ 1999 1.34 20.04 12.82 10.71F-91-T-7-7 b/F 0.7 b/ b/ b/ 10.92 2000 1.45 .17 13.04 90.4 7.6 b/ 1.5 20 0.2 b/ 0.2 2001 1.43 21.84 12.42 10.27 92.6 5.3 b/ 1.4 0.3 b/ 0.3 2002 1.18 18.72 12.08F 9.95 98.1 0.5 b/F 0.5 F 0.11=9F 0.8 Ne Plus Ultra 1997 1.85 21.74 11.4-417-8--781F-82-3 15.0 b/ 2.7 b/ b/ b/ 1998 2.03 27.20 14.58 9.89 F 90.1 F 9.3 b/ b/ 0.6 b/ b/ 1999 11 1.76 26.27 13.85 10.64 83.5 15.7 b/ 0.7 b/ b/ 0.1 2000 1.731F23.67a28 10.35 95.0 4.2 b/F b/ b/ 0.8 b/ 2001 1.85 26.75 13.31 9.64 88.5 9.5 b/ 1.0 0.2 b/ 0.6 2002 1 1.65 23.83 12.79 9.95 100.0 b/F b/F b/ b/ b/ b/ Nonpareil 1997 1.67 21.05 12.29 9.09 94.3 3.4 b/ 1.9 b/ 0.1 0.2 1998 1.90 24.61 14.22 10.30 97.8 2.1 R/F h1/F b/ b/ b/ 1999 1.51 23.85 13.77 10.39 95.6 3.3IF-TIF-1-61=E2 0.1 2000 1.83 24.55 14.23 10.24 96.7 1.6 b/ 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 2001 1.73 24.97 13.52 9.82 96.9 1.3 b/ 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 2002 1.50 22.59 12.91 9.79 97.9 1.3 b/ 0.5 b/ b/ 0.1 a/ Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. b/ Not shown if less than 0.07 percent. c/ Sacramento Valley includes these counties: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo and Yuba. d/ San Joaquin Valley includes these counties: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare. e/ For survey purposes, the California classification includes the following varieties: Aldrich,Ballico, Carmel, Davey, Fritz, Harvey, Le Grand, Mono, Monterey,Norman, Price Cluster, Ruby, Tokoyo I http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/ahnonds/206ahnom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 5 of 8 and Yosemite. f/ Carmel breakdown was available for the first time in 1988. Carmel variety is also included in California Types. NUTS PER TREE Nuts Per Tree By District 9000 8000 CO N o. 7000 m' M'^ CO W 6000 M �. 10 Ln 5000a \ ° '°' \ ° 4000 \ L^ 3000 2000 \ Q \ 1000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999. 2000 2001 2002 ❑ Sacto Val ❑ S.J.Val. ® State California Types 9000 8000 7597 7602 7615 7000 6510 6850 60005497 5332 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 6 of 8 Carmel 9000 7862 8000 6716 6832 7146 7000 5993 6000 5645 5275 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 M ission 9000 8235 8000 7000 6831 6844 6320 6000 5722 5928 4975 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 [A V?I V71 V71 V71 V71 V71 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 7 of 8 NE Plus 9000 8000 7215 6859 7000 6000 5709 4992 5000 1 4000 3486 3232 : i 3000 2116 2000 I 1000 I 0 4 _J9 i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Nonpareil 9000 7714 8054 8043 8000 -- l 7000 i 6449 i 6000 4963 5129 4959 5000 4000 . t 3000 2000 1000 4 1996 1997 199 8 199 9 2000 2001 2002 TABLE 3: CALIFORNIA ALMOND ACREAGE, PRODUCTION AND TREES PER ACRE, 1980-02 Total Meat Production Average Year Bearing Acres Trees Per Metric Tons Million Lbs. Per 2/ Lbs. Acre Acre IF— 11 11 11 http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 06/27/02 California Almond O.M. Report, 2002 Page 8 of 8 1980 327,000 46,0001 3221 985 N/A 1981 326,000 185,000 40811 1,2501F- ,250 N/A 1982 339,000 157,000 1 34711 1,020 N/A 1983 360,000]1 110,0001 2421 673 N/A F1984]1 381,0001 268,0001 5901 1,550 N/A F19-8-5]1 409,0001 211,00011 46511 1,140 N/A 1986 416,0001 113,000 250]1- 601 IE 84.5 1987 417,0001 299,0001 6601 1,5861E 84.0 1988 419,0001 268,000 590 1,4161E 86.3 1989 411,000 222,000 4901 1,1­901F 87.3 1990 411,000 99,00011 6601 1,610]F- ,610 88.4 1991 405,000 222,00011 49011 1,2161E 89.6 1992 401,000 249,000 548 1,370 90.5 1993 413,000]1 222,0001 4901 1,190 E 92.0 1994 433,0001 333,0001 73511 1,7661E 92.6 1995 418,0001 168,00011 3701 8 85]F 93.7 1996 428,0001 231,0001 5101 1,190 94.4 FI997]1 442,0001 344,0001 75911 1,720 95.5 1998 11 236,0001 52011 1,130 96.3 1999 11 378,0001 8331 1,740 97.3 2000 500,0001 319,000 .70311 1,4101F- ,410 99.0 2001 525,0001 376,0001 8301 1,580 100.0 2002 530,000 1 445,00011 98011 1,850 -101.0 1/ Bearing acreage is defined as plantings four years and older. 2/ Rounded to nearest thousand, metric ton= 2,204.62 pounds. Return to: [Table of Contents for Objective Measurement Reports] [CASS Publications] [CASS HomWAPe] (Questions? California Agricultural Statistics Service P.O. Box 1258 Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 498-5161 FAX: (916) 498-5186 E-mail: nass-ca@nass.usda.gov http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts/om/almonds/206almom.htm 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 1 of 27 Crop Profile for Almonds in California General Production Information • In North America, California is the only state that commercially produces almonds. Over the last 5 years California has produced, on average, 67.4% of the world=s almonds; ranging as high as 74.8% in 1996 (10). • The California almond industry has 6,000 growers farming about 470,000 acres. Average annual production between 1992 and 1997 in California was 528,220,000 pounds (10). • Average annual crop value during those years amounted to $895,326,000. In 1997 the value of the crop exceeded $1,008,500,000 (10). • Between 72% and 79% of the crop has been exported during the last 4 years (10). • The average total cost to produce an acre of almonds amounts to $2,767 (18, 19). Production Regions Over 99% of the almonds in California are produced in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys. Approximately 80% of the production is in the San Joaquin Valley. Kern and Fresno Counties in the south and Merced and Stanislaus in the north are the highest producing counties in the San Joaquin Valley (15). Glenn, Butte, and Colusa Counties in the Northern Sacramento Valley account for approximately 15% of the annual production in the state with the remainder being grown in the southern part of the Sacramento Valley(15). Other regions of the state account for<1% of the almond production. Cultural Practices Approximately 50 varieties of almonds are grown commercially in the state with Nonpareil accounting for about 40- 45% of the production. Other important varieties grown in California include Carmel, Mission, Price,Butte,Neplus, Fritz, and Monterey (14). The vast majority of major commercial cultivars of almond in California are self-unfruitful and cross-pollinated by insects, primarily honeybees (6). Honeybees in overwintered colonies are the only pollinators currently available in adequate numbers to service the almond industry in California. Planting patterns vary, but generally in newer plantings, the main variety is planted in alternate rows with a pollinizer that overlaps the main variety at time of bloom (6). Selected varieties are grafted onto rootstocks. Rootstock selection is based on cultivar compatibility, soil texture and drainage,pests (primarily nematodes) and weather conditions of the orchard site. Although several rootstocks are available, the 2 main rootstocks used are Nemaguard and Lovell peach(6). Other less common rootstocks include Nemared, Marianna 2624 plum, various peach and almond hybrids and almond itself(6). Both varieties and rootstocks vary in susceptibility to diseases, nematodes and insect pests. Almonds are most productive on loam-textured, deep uniform soils. However, many orchards are planted in less than ideal sites but produce economical crops with soil modification and proper care. Irrigation is essential for the economic production of almonds in all parts of the state. Flood, furrow, and sprinkler irrigation ate predominant with drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation being used more often, especially in marginal soils (6). Non-cultivation of orchard soils with herbicide-treated strips down tree rows is common. Orchard floor management is http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 s. Crop Profiles Page 2 of 27 of particular importance to an almond grower because the crop is picked up off the soil surface after being knocked from the trees and swept into windrows. Whether an orchard is tilled, non-tilled, herbicide-treated, or cover-cropped, a primary consideration when performing any cultural operation during the year must be to ensure that the.orchard floor is the best possible condition for harvesting (6). Almonds begin blooming in mid-February before the danger of frost has passed. Bare ground absorbs more heat and can reduce the threat of frost damage. Early season frost protection by close mowing or herbicide treatment is also an important consideration in orchard floor management (5). Insect Pests A variety of insect and mite pests attack almonds in California. These pests are present in all almond-growing areas of the state and occur at damaging levels most seasons. The distribution and damage potential of others are more restricted. Major Insect Pests Navel Orangeworm,Amyelois transitella: Navel Orangeworm(NOW) is the most important insect pest in almonds (2). NOW attacks most soft-shell cultivars, or nuts with poor seal, feeding inside the nuts on the kernels. Some hard shell cultivars are more or less resistant to attack by NOW. It not only destroys kernels but is associated with fungi responsible for aflatoxins, (2). Navel orangeworm larvae cannot enter sound nuts before hullsplit so damage occurs after hullsplit and before harvest. Navel orangeworm overwinters as larvae inside mummy nuts left on the tree and in trash nuts left on the ground and in tree crotches. Silver gray moths of the overwintered brood emerge in spring and lay eggs on mummy nuts or nuts damaged by peach twig borer,which act as a food bridge for this generation. After hatching, white neonate larvae of the first generation again enter nuts damaged by peach twig borer(2). This makes peach twig borer control extremely important. Larvae mature inside nuts producing large amounts of frass and webbing. Mature larvae are white or pinkish and may reach 5/8 inches in length. After hullsplit adults lay eggs directly on the hull of sound nuts and the tiny larvae enter nuts through the shell seal and do not emerge until they are adults (5). There are 3 to 4 generations per year. Thirty-% damage is not uncommon in late harvested orchards, (16). Monitoring: Egg traps are used to monitor NOW and provide proper timing for applying in-season insecticide applications. Controls No single control tactic, used alone, will control navel orangeworm. In order to manage navel orangeworm effectively, orchard sanitation, early harvest, on-farm fumigation, and chemical control are needed for reliable management (2). Biological Two introduced wasps, Goniozus legneri and Pentalitomastix plethoricus, are established in many areas but are not effective,by themselves, in controlling NOW (5). Bacillus thuringiensis B Multiple sprays can control NOW,but they are not cost effective. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 3 of 27 Cultural Peach twig borer and other lepidopterous pests must be controlled to eliminate sources for 1 st generation larvae and preclude an early buildup inside the orchard (2). Mummy nuts are shaken or knocked from trees and destroyed to reduce overwintering populations. In addition good sanitation is a must around hullers, bins, dryers, and buildings where nuts have been handled(2). Early and rapid harvest to remove the nuts from the orchard to prevent egg laying and infestation is important(2). Chemical Pre-harvest chemicals can be an important component of the 4-step program for managing navel orangeworm in almonds and will provide 50-70 %reduction if used correctly(2). Fumigation On-farm fumigation to kill eggs and neonate larvae before nuts can become infested is an important part of the navel orangeworm control package. • Aluminum Phosphide B Labeled at the rate of 100B200 pellets or 20-40 tablets per 1000 cubic feet. Applied to harvested nuts from 11.6% of the acres at an average rate of 0.02 lb. ad. (1) Applied under tarps prior to hulling and processing. • Azinphos-methyl- 28 days PHI. Applied mid-season to 18.8% of the acres by ground at an average rate of 2 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Azinphos-methyl is the most effective material against navel orangeworm,peach twig borer, and defoliating lepidoptera when applied post-bloom. It is somewhat selective for predaceous mites but highly toxic to parasitic wasps and generalist predators (5). This is the preferred material because of its longer residual. It is less disruptive to natural enemies and has some fuming action. • Esfenvalerate B (see peach twig borer). Will reduce navel orangeworm if used during growing season. Will cause mite outbreaks. • Permethrin B (see peach twig borer). Effective against navel orangeworm if used during growing season. Usefulness of this material is limited due to severe mite flare-ups following its use during the growing season (5)• • Carbaryl - 0 days PHI. Applied mid-season to 1% of the acreage by ground at an average rate of 3.2 lb. a.i. per acre (1). A useful material because it can be applied in an emergency situation up to 1 day prior to harvest. Effective on navel orangeworm, peach twig borer and other lepidopterous pests. It will also control San Jose scale crawlers and eriophyid mites. Extremely disruptive to natural enemies and will generally cause mite outbreaks. It is toxic to honeybees (5). • Phosmet- (see peach twig borer). Will also reduce navel orangeworm. • Chlorpyrifos B Most use is for ants and peach twig borer. Can control NOW and is a viable alternative to azinphos-methyl. • Methidathion B Not used for NOW. • Diazinon B Is not registered for in-season use in California, therefore not used to control NOW. • Malathion B Is not effective against NOW. http://pestdata.ntsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 4 of 27 Peach Twig Borer,Anarsia lineatella: Peach twig borer(PTB) is a major pest in almonds and other stone fruits. PTB damages almonds by feeding in rapidly growing shoots making it difficult to train young trees. However direct feeding on nutmeats causing them to be discarded creating the greatest economic damage. PTB damaged nuts also contribute to navel orangeworm problems. Prior to the movement of navel orangeworm into California the PTB was the most important worm pest of almond(6). In the absence of adequate control measures, the potential for extensive loss to PTB still exists. Adult PTB are 8-11 mm long with steel gray mottled forewings. Eggs are yellow-white to orange and bluntly oval with surface reticulations. They are laid on fruit surfaces, on twig terminals or on the undersides of leaves. Larvae are brown with distinctive alternating dark and light bands around the abdomen. In almonds the brown pupae may be found between the hull and shell of dried nuts and other places on the trees (5). PTB overwinters as first or second instar larvae in cells, primarily under the thin bark in limb crotches on first-to-third year wood. Overwintered larvae begin emerging at about bud break and feed on young leaves and buds. As terminals elongate, maturing larvae establish themselves in a single shoot or terminal and mine the interior of the shoot causing wilting and death of the shoot. Overwintered generation adults usually begin emerging in April. Moths of this generation generally oviposit on shoots but can infest developing fruit causing serious nut loss when populations are heavy. Adults from this generation emerge in Late June or early July with most attacking fruit directly. Larvae feed in hulls or directly on the meats, often causing serious crop loss. Peach twig borer larvae begin entering overwintering sites in August and continue throughout the fall. There are 4 or more generations each year(2). Soft-shell almonds are most susceptible to damage from PTB. Before insecticides were available, the California Almond Growers Exchange recorded damage as high as 71% (6). In soft shell varieties, it is not uncommon to experience >30%nut damage in untreated orchards. Monitoring: Pheromone traps are widely used to monitor PTB phenology and time in-season treatments. The most effective timing is 400 to 500 degree days after the beginning of the flight(5). Controls Biological Numerous natural enemies attack PTB throughout the egg and larval stage. Among the most common are Paralitomastix varicornis, Hyperteles lividus, and the grain or itch mite,Pyemotes ventricosus, which feed on larvae in the hibernacula. The California gray ant has been found to be a significant predator of PTB in San Joaquin valley peach orchards. Natural enemies can cause significant mortality and as less disruptive insecticides are utilized will probably play a more important role in regulating PTB numbers (2, 5) The primary biological control of peach twig borer relies on the use of Bacillus thuringiensis. The program calls for Bt treatments at the beginning and late bloom to take advantage of the fact that PTB does a considerable amount of feeding on leaves and stems before boring into new shoots (5). Bacillus thuringiensis- 0 days PHI. Applied at least twice per season by ground or air to approximately 25%of the acreage at the average rate of 0.1 lb. a.i. per acre (1). It has low mammalian toxicity, is selective for lepidoptera and is not harmful to wildlife or aquatic organisms. Timing of applications is critical and is often not effective during cold, wet springs. Applied at bloom or post-bloom. Mating disruption has been used for PTB in more high value labor intensive crops such as peaches. Results have been variable and the cost of this program is currently too high for it to be widely adopted in almonds. This may change as better and cheaper formulations are developed. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 5 of 27 Chemical Traditionally, PTB was controlled with a dormant or delayed dormant application of one of the materials listed below. Current practices may include Bt at bloom or post-bloom, and in-season application of spinosad, or organophosphates or pyrethroids at hullsplit. • Diazinon B Not labeled for in-season use. Applied to 18.5% of the acres,pre-bloom, at the average rate of 2 lb. a.i. per acre (1). It is extensively used for ground applications mixed with petroleum oil during dormant period for control of PTB, San Jose scale, European red and brown almond mite eggs, and fruittree l,eafroller eggs. Peach twig borer and San Jose scale resistance has been documented in San Joaquin Valley peach orchards. • Azinphos-methyl B Most effective as an in-season material. (see Navel orangeworm) • Esfenvalerate B 21 days PHI. This is a highly effective peach twig borer material when applied by ground during the dormant period. Used on 7% of the acreage by ground at 0.05 lb. a.i. per acre (1). It is also effective against other lepidopterous pests. This is the most economical material available and has low mammalian toxicity. The biggest drawback is it disrupts biological control of mites, often even when applied during dormancy (5). Esfenvalerate will also control navel orangeworm,(5), if used during the growing season but this material is very disruptive to the biological control of mites and should only be used during the growing season in an emergency situation. Resistance has developed in some growing areas to esfenvalerate. • Phosmet B 30 days PHI. Effective on navel orangeworm, peach twig borer and other lepidoptera when used during growing season. Also used dormant for peach twig borer. It will control San Jose scale crawlers if crawlers are present. It is applied to 6% of the acres at an average rate of 3.0 lb. a.i. per acre(1). Phosmet can cause mite outbreaks but is not as disruptive as some other materials. • Carbaryl (see navel orangeworm) B Used late in season when other alternatives cannot be used because of longer PHIS. • Naled - 4 days PHI. Applied during the dormant period by ground to 1.5 % of the acreage at the rate of 1.5 lb. a.i. per acre, (1). Provides fair control, however resistance develops quickly to naled (16). • Chlorpyrifos - 14 days PHI. Historically, this material is used as a dormant spray for control of PTB with over 50 %being used for ant control. For control of PTB it is applied by ground during the dormant period to approximately 10% of the total acreage at an average rate of 1.5 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Cannot be used during the dormant period in the Sacramento Valley because damage to trees can result (5). Will also control lepidopterous pests when used post-bloom. • Methidathion -Primary use is for San Jose scale. No in-season use. • Permethrin B 7 days PHI. Applied by ground during the dormant period to 10% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.2 lb. a.i. per acre (1). This is the most economical material available and has low mammalian toxicity. The biggest drawback is it tends to disrupt biological control of mites, even when applied during dormancy. Will also control navel orangeworm if used during the growing season but this material is very disruptive to the biological control of mites (5) and should only be used during the growing season in an emergency situation. • Spinosad B Newly registered. Very effective against PTB. Has been in short supply and is expensive (16).No use data are available. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 6 of 27 Ants Pavement Ant,Tetramerium caespitum Southern Fire Ant,Solenopsis xyloni: Ants are significant pests of almond, particularly in central and southern areas of the San Joaquin Valley. As the use of drip irrigation and mini-sprinklers increase, ants will probably increase in importance in other areas (16). The pavement ant is 0.13 inches long, brown and covered with coarse hairs. It prefers to nest it! sandy or loam soils. The southern fire ant is 0.1 to 0.25 inches long, has an amber head and thorax with a black abdomen. Ants are principally a problem after almonds are on the ground and damage increases in relation to the length of time they remain on the ground before being picked up. Ants can completely hollow out nutmeats leaving only the pellicle(2, 5). Damage is also lower on varieties with good shell seals but can exceed 20% in susceptible cultivars. Monitoring: Potential ant damage can be estimated by counting the number of colonies in 5000 sq. feet(5). Controls Cultural Removing nuts from the orchard floor as rapidly as possible after shaking can minimize ant damage. Chemical • Chlorpyrifos B 14 days PHI. This is currently the most effective registered material for control of ants. Applied to the orchard floor at the rate of 2 lb. a.i. per acre with approximately 10% of the acreage being treated in this manner(1). When ant colonies are concentrated on berms 6-10 ft. band treatments are effective. • Permethrin B (See peach twig borer). Not very effective. Quick knock down, but no residual activity. Mites Two-spotted Mite, Tetranychus urticae Pacific Mite, Tetranychus pacificus European Red Mite,Panonychus ulmi Brown Almond Mite,Bryobia rubioculus: Although European red mite can build up to high numbers, they seldom reach damaging populations. However, both two-spotted and Pacific mites can cause almost complete defoliation that exposes trees and fruit to sunburn, reduces fruit size and sugar, and can interfere with harvest (2). Pacific mite is the dominant species in the San Joaquin Valley and two-spotted mite predominates in the Sacramento Valley. However, over the years Pacific mite has become more common in the Sacramento Valley, possibly due to the use of propargite which is more effective on two-spotted mite. Pacific and two-spotted mites over-winter as adult females in the trees or on the orchard floor. Both species are favored by hot, dry conditions and as the weather becomes warmer, they increase in numbers and move throughout the tree (2). Severe defoliation early in the season can cause a 25% reduction in yield the following year(16). As the season progresses, the potential for direct damage decreases. Monitoring: Mites can be monitored by leaf brushing or presence/absence sampling (5). Controls Biological Control Predators are important in regulating mite populations. The most dependable predator is the Western Orchard predator http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 7 of 27 mite, Galandromus occidentalis, which, if not disturbed by some pesticides applied for other pests, can usually keep populations below damaging levels in well managed orchards. G. occidentalis is resistant to most organophosphates and insect growth regulators used for navel orangeworm and PTB control but extremely susceptible to synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates (5). It should be noted that the predatory mites bred and released by Dr. Marjory Hoy at UCB were resistant to organophosphates, carbaryl, and sulfur. It is not known if most of the predators found today still retain those characteristics. Other important predators include six-spotted thrips, minute pirate bug and a small beetle, the spider mite destroyer. Cultural Minimize dust on orchard roads and maintain a well managed ground cover. Well irrigated,vigorous trees are less susceptible to mite damage (2). Chemical • Propargite- 21 days PHI. Applied post-bloom by ground to 27% of the acres at the rate of 1.5 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Propargite fits well in an IPM program and is the most effective material available. Does not disrupt biological control of mites. • Fenbutatin-oxide - 14 days PHI. Applied post-bloom by ground to 10% of the acres at the rate of 0.5 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Does not disrupt biological control of mites and aphids. Fits well in an IPM program. Does not work well in cool weather. • Clofentezine- 30 days PHI. Applied post-bloom as a preventative treatment by ground to 6% of the acres at the rate of 0.1 lb. a.i. per acre as a preventative treatment(1). Does not control high mite populations. Does not disrupt biological control of mites is not a problem in almonds. Fits well in an IPM program. • Narrow Range Oils. - 0 days PHI. Use data not available. Can be applied post-bloom by ground at the rate of 4 gallons per acre (16). This is a selective material. Effective acaricides when mite populations are low and predators are present. Oils must be used with caution because of potential phytotoxicity if trees are stressed or dry (5). Oils fit well in the IPM program if predator mites are present. Oil,when used alone does not control peach twig borer. A drawback with oils is they contribute to air pollution because of hydrocarbon volatilization. • Abamectin B Must be used early season when trees are actively growing. No use data available. • Pyramite B New material. Too early to determine effectiveness. No use data available. San Jose Scale. Quadraspidiotus perniciosus: Armored scales suck plant juices from the inner bark by inserting their mouthparts into twigs and branches. Infested branches stop growing and heavily infested branches and fruit spurs will die. San Jose scale can kill scaffolds. A small, gray shell that makes control difficult covers San Jose scale. If the shell covering is removed the small yellow body can be seen(2). Newly hatched nymphs move from under the shell and settle on branches and twigs. The best time to control scale is during the dormant period or in early season after hatching until the covering is well developed. San Jose scale has 3-5 generations per year. Heavy populations may reduce production by as much as 10% if left uncontrolled. Monitoring: Look for the presence of scales on twigs and branches (2) and check fruiting spurs. Scale pheromone traps and sticky traps are useful monitoring tools for timing decisions only. Controls http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 8 of 27 Biological Several natural enemies tend to hold armored scale populations in check. Two predaceous beetles, the twice-stabbed ladybird beetle, Chilocorus orbus and Cybocephalus californicus often occur in large numbers and can keep low to moderate populations in check. Two parasitic wasps, an Aphytus sp. and Prospaltella sp., also help as a barrier to population increase. However once populations are high, these natural enemies may not respond fast enough to prevent damage and sprays are needed (2). Cultural Prevent dust, which interferes with parasites. Chemical Because armored scales spend most of their life protected beneath the scale covering correct timing and spray coverage is important. • Methidathion - 80 days PHI. The most effective material for armored scales. Applied primarily dormant to 10.5%of the acres at the rate of 2.0 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Will help control peach twig borer(5). Disruptive to biological control of mites if used during the growing season. • Dormant Oils B 0 days PHI. Applied during dormant to 40% of the acreage at the average rate of 3.5 gallons per acre (1). Will also control overwintering mite eggs. Minor or Occasional Insect Pests Controlled With Current Materials Eriophyid Mites Peach Silver Mite,Aculus cornutus: Although large numbers of eriophyids may be present, they are seldom considered pests. In low and moderate numbers they are considered beneficial because they act as early season prey for mite predators. Extremely high peach silver mite populations on almond leaves can cause leaves to turn yellow, scorch and drop. Silver mite problems can be aggravated by the use of synthetic pyrethroids (4). Controls Biological Predaceous mites are important in managing eriophyid mite populations and are capable of regulating populations at a low level in undisturbed situations. The key to biological control of these species is to avoid disruptive chemicals, especially synthetic pyrethroids, which enhance population explosions (16). Chemical No treatment thresholds have been established but several hundred per leaf can be tolerated. If treatments are needed, sulfur sprays are a viable option for control of these species and is the material of choice in an IPM program. All of the acaricides will control these species. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 9 of 27 • Sulfur - Applied to 9% of the acreage at the average rate of 4.5 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Preferred material for eriophyid mites. Will also control almond rust and scab. Lepidopterous Wood Boring Insects Peachtree Borer, Synanthedon exitosa American Plum Borer.Euzophera semifuneralis: Both species attack the trunk of healthy trees, boring into the trunk and mining in the cambium layer. Feeding by both species can weaken trees. Feeding by the American plum borer has been observed to cause scaffold limbs on two year old trees to break (5). Treatment for American plum borers is rarely made. Peachtree borers are not a significant enough problem to warrant treatment. Monitoring: Pheromone traps are available for monitoring peachtree borer(8). Controls Cultural Cut out infested areas with knife. This is not practical on a commercial scale since infestations are often hard to see and damage caused by removing infected areas can girdle the tree if too extensive. Mating disruption is available for high value crops but it is not economically feasible in almonds. Chemical Spot spraying with hand sprayers is effective for both species. Treating infested areas with a mixture of latex paint and carbaryl can control American plum borer. Leaffooted Bug,Leptoglosssus clypealis: The leaffooted bug is an infrequent pest in almonds but can cause severe damage in certain areas and to certain varieties. Adults are about 20 mm long, yellowish brown, and have a yellow band across the middle of its back. The back is flat, and the hind legs have characteristic leaf-like enlargements. The leaffooted bug overwinters near orchards often in conifers such as juniper, and arborvitae, and around prop piles or other protected areas. It feeds on young nuts before the shell hardens, causing the embryo to wither and abort, or it may cause the nut to gum internally, resulting in a bump or gumming on the shell. After shell hardening, leaffooted bug feeding can cause black spot or wrinkled, misshapen kernels. Leaffooted bug feeding can also cause nuts to drop (2). Controls Chemical • Carbaryl - (see navel orangeworm). The only material recommended for control of this pest although other materials, such as synthetic pyrethroids are effective. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 10 of 27 Leafrollers Oblique-banded Leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana: Larvae feed on leaves, buds and fruit, but rarely cause enough damage to warrant treating. Oblique-banded leafroller (OBLR) has two or possibly three generations each year. It overwinters mostly as third instar larvae within closely spun cocoons on host trees. As foliage emerges, larvae often tie terminal leaves together for shelter. Adults are tan with alternating light and dark brown bands across their forewings. Eggs are greenish yellow, flattened and laid in overlapping masses. Larvae are green in color often exceeding 30 mm in length at maturity(5). Damage from the summer generation is most serious as almost mature larvae consume nut hulls prior to hull split causing nuts to shrivel and mold and allow NOW to enter at points where hulls have been chewed(16). Monitoring: Pheromone traps are available for monitoring OBLR but are of little practical value except to detect presence in the orchard and when to expect second generation OBLR larvae (16). Controls Biological Several parasitic wasps are important in regulating OBLR populations including Macracentrus iridescens and Pteromalus spp. In addition, hemipterian predators,Brochymena sulcatus and several Phytocoris spp. have been observed feeding on eggs and larvae (5). Mating disruption is under development in pome fruits but has not been perfected for leafrollers. Chemical Dormant organophosphate treatments applied for PTB, San Jose Scale and other pests generally control leafrollers in almonds. Oriental Fruit Moth,Grapholita molesta: Before the late 1980s, Oriental Fruit Moth (OFM) was not considered a significant pest of almond, although large numbers of moths were routinely trapped in almond orchards. Since the mid-1980s, OFM has been reported as an occasional pest especially in the central San Joaquin Valley(7). Adults are small gray moths 6 to 10 mm long. Eggs are creamy white, slightly convex discs and are usually laid on the underside of leaves near the end of terminals. Larvae are white when small but turn pinkish during the last instar. Mature larvae are 10-15 mm long. OFM over- winter as pre-pupae and emerge as adults in late February or early March. There are 5 generations per year. Early in the year larvae feed in shoots causing them to wilt and die. Later, after hullsplit larvae generally feed between the hull and shell but for some unknown reason occasionally bore through the shell and feed on meats, causing damage similar to PTB. Much of the time, unless a larva is found, the damage would be classified as PTB damage (16). Certain varieties seem to be more prone to damage by OFM. Damage as high as 10% of the nutmeats has been documented in Merced County (7). Monitoring: OFM is monitored with pheromone traps. When treatment is necessary, applications are made utilizing day degrees. Woodboring Beetles Shothole Borer, Scolytus rugulosus Branch and Twig Borer,Polycaon confertus http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 11 of 27 Pacific Flatheaded Borer, Chrysobothris mah: Woodboring beetles generally limit their attacks in almonds to sunburned, unhealthy trees and can be managed by encouraging healthy trees through proper nutrition and irrigation practices. Infested trees and scaffolds can be removed and destroyed to kill beetles inside (2). Controls Cultural Flatheaded borer in newly planted trees can be prevented by properly painting the trunk with white latex paint or using trunk wraps to prevent sunburn (5). Shothole beetles are managed by keeping trees healthy and removing and destroying infested trees. Diseases Almonds are subject to numerous diseases that reduce yield and quality of the crop and sometimes weaken and kill trees. For many of the more serious diseases, the only management tools available are preventative treatments that protect flowers, leaves and fruit prior to infection(9). Brown Rot,Monilinia laxa or Mondinia fructicola: Brown rot can be a serious problem on almond and other stone fruits such as cherry,peach and apricot. Butte,NePlus Ultra, Carmel, Thompson, and Mission cultivars are often severely blighted, whereas Nonpareil, Price, and Fritz usually sustain less damage (6). The disease occurs in most almond producing areas in California and is worse when rains or fog occur during bloom. The fungus overwinters in twig cankers or in dead blossom parts. In early spring the fungus produces sporodochia where spores are produced. Spores are wind-disseminated to blossoms. Infected flowers wither, collapse, and remain attached to the fruit spurs. The fungus grows from the blossom into fruiting spurs or twigs to form cankers. The nearby leaves, and often, the entire twig beyond the site of infection die. Almost complete crop loss can be experienced on susceptible cultivars when rain persists during bloom(16). Damage is often experienced several years after a severe infection because of the loss of fruiting spurs. Controls Chemicals Control of brown rot depends on protecting blossoms from infection from popcorn stage through bloom (5). • Benomyl - 50 day PHI. Excellent brown rot material. Labeled for 0.5-0.75 lb. a.i. per acre. Applied during bloom by ground or air to 20% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.5 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Strains of brown rot fungi have been found to be resistant in some California orchards (5). Material is good to excellent on leaf blight (when combined with Captan)jacket rot, and scab (17). Resistant strains of Botrytis cinera, have been reported in California on crops other than almond and stone fruits. Resistant strains Cladosporium carpophilum, have been reported on other crops but not in California. Not effective for shot hole management and Anthracnose pathogen is mostly insensitive to benomyl (12). • Iprodione - (5 weeks after petal fall). Good brown rot material, excellent when combined with oil (1-2% summer oil), however, water quality can seriously effect performance (17). Labeled for 0.5 lb. a.i. per acre. http://pestdata.ncsu,edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 12 of 27 Applied during bloom by ground or air to 55% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.5 lb. a.i. per acre. Also controls jacket rot and is moderately effective on shot hole. • Thiophanate-Methyl - (cannot be applied after petal fall). Excellent for brown rot,jacket rot and leaf blight when combined with Captan(17). Labeled for 0.75-1.5 lb. a.i. per acre. Applied during bloom by ground or air to 8.8% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.7 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Organisms resistant to benomyl are also probably resistant to this material. Not effective for shot hole management. Anthracnose pathogen is mostly insensitive to thiophanate-methyl (17). • Myclobutanil - 90 days PHI. Good control of brown rot and leaf blight. Some activity on anthracnose when combined with Captan (17). Labeled for 0.15-0.2 lb. a.i. per acre.No record of use in 1995. Green Fruit Rot or Jacket Rot,Monilinia spp. orBotrytis cinereaorSclerotinia sclerotiorum: Green fruit or j acket rot can be caused by any of the above organisms. Spores of M. laxa or M.fructicola are produced on blighted blossoms or twig cankers, whereas spores of B. cinerea are produced on dead or dying tissues of a number of plants including almond and weed species common in almond orchards. Fruiting bodies are produced by S. sclerotiorum from soil borne, resistant overwintering structures known as sclerotia. The fruiting bodies then produce spores called ascospores that are forcibly discharged and wind disseminated to senescing blossom tissues. Once a flower is fertilized and the ovary enlarges, the floral tube (jacket) splits and separates from the peduncle. If wet weather persists, the jacket may remain attached to the fruitlet and become colonized by these fungi. The fungi then grow into the immature fruit causing green fruit rot(11). Green fruit rot varies greatly from year to year but can cause up to 10% damage when wet weather persists (16). Controls This disease is usually controlled by applications for other bloom time fungal diseases. • Captan - 30 days PHI. Often combined with other materials for resistance management. Provides good control of leaf blight, shothole and scab. Moderately effective on brown rot,jacket rot, and anthracnose (17). • Benomyl- (see brown rot). • Iprodione - (see brown rot). • Thiophanate-Methyl - (see brown rot). Anthracnose.Colletotrichum acutatum: This disease was not considered a problem in California until the early 1990s. The fungus is now found in all major almond growing regions from Butte County to Kern County and is considered a major threat to the industry in the state. Spores of the fungus are produced on all infected tissues during wet conditions and are disseminated by splashing water. Development of anthracnose is favored by extended,warm, rainy weather. All cultivars appear to be susceptible to anthracnose but there are differences in susceptibility(12). The fungus overwinters in dead wood or in mummified fruit that remain attached to the tree. Blossoms, leaves, and I http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 13 of 27 fruit can be infected. Infected blossoms become blighted, similar to brown rot blossom blight but with orangish spore droplets on the floral cup. Leaf infections are yellow irregular lesions that begin at the leaf margin or tip and advance toward the middle of the leaf. In fruit, infections, symptoms include orangish, circular, sunken lesions in the hull of young fruit. Symptoms are generally observed 2-3 weeks after petal fall as shriveled fruit that become light rusty orange and appear like almond Ablanks.@ In older fruit, symptoms are similar, but profuse gumming often occurs around the infection that continues to develop, destroying the endosperm and killing the embryo. Diseased fruit eventually die, become mummified, and remain attached to the tree where the fungus continues to grow into the almond spur or fruiting branch tissue. The result of this advanced state of host colonization is branch dieback. Nuts remain susceptible throughout the season and when conditions are favorable (rain) can become infected at any time during the season(12). This is an extremely serious disease that requires multiple applications of suitable materials for control. Up to 7 applications in research plots have failed to provide complete control of this disease (13). An increase in the fungicide treatments for management of this disease could lead to serious resistance problems in almonds. Controls Chemical Fungicide treatment is currently the most effective control strategy for managing this disease. In orchards that have a history of anthracnose University of California Guidelines suggest applying fungicide sprays beginning at pink bud and repeat every 10 to 14 days if rains persist(5). Treatment is recommended as long as rains persist. Dormant mummy removal and pruning out dead wood reduces inoculum and severity of disease. Low-angle irrigation that reduces canopy wetness also reduces severity of disease (12). • Tebuconazole - 45 days PHI. Not registered. Proposed labeled rate is 4-8 fl. oz. per acre. In experimental trials, very effective against anthracnose. Excellent on brown rot. Moderately effective on leaf blight. Also shown to be very effective on peach rust. Not effective for shot hole or scab (17). • Propiconazole- 90 days PHI. No use data available. Labeled rate 2-4 fl. oz. per acre.. Most effective material currently registered on anthracnose. Excellent on brown rot. Moderately effective on leaf blight. Also shown to be good against peach rust. Not effective for shot hole or scab (17). • Chlorothalonil-Not registered. (Restricted to bloom and petal fall). Labeled rate 3.0 lb. a.i. per acre. In experimental trials, effective as a protective treatment against anthracnose. Also effective as a protective treatment in experimental trials against brown rot and shot hole (17). • Captan - Control of anthracnose is moderate and variable. Important resistance management tool when used in combination with other materials (11). • Myclobutanil- (Restricted to bloom). Moderately effective on anthracnose. (see brown rot). Other materials having activity against anthracnose: • Azoxystrobin -Proposed label rate is 12-16 fl oz per acre. Very effective against anthracnose, scab, and Alternaria leaf spot, moderately effective against shothole and brown rot blossom blight. Also shown to be effective against peach rust(17). • Trifloxystrobin -Proposed label rate is 1.5-3 fl. oz. per acre. Very effective against anthracnose. Other diseases not evaluated, (17). http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 14 of 27 Shot Hole, Wilsonomyces carpophilus: Shot hole attacks both leaves and young fruit and can result in defoliation or premature nut drop. Infection of young fruit can cause fruit drop but infections on older fruit do not develop deep into the hull. Shot hole survives on infected twigs and as spores in healthy buds. Spores are moved by water to new sites; prolonged periods of wetness, either due to rain or sprinkler irrigation are required for the disease to develop. Shot hole can cause losses in yield, defoliation, and weakened trees (11). Almost complete defoliation can occur when rain persists throughout the spring, resulting in a reduction in photosynthesis and weakening of the trees. Control Chemical Contact fungicides serve as protectants, not eradicants, and provide control only if they are applied so foliage and fruit are completely covered before a wet period (6). • Captan-(see brown rot). Provides good control of shot hole. • Iprodione - (see brown rot). Control of shot hole is good but variable (water quality can seriously effect performance). • Ziram - Cannot apply later than 5 weeks after petal fall. An excellent shot-hole material. Provides good control of scab and leaf blight but is weakly effective on brown rot(11). Applied by ground or air to 46% of the acreage at an average rate of 5.6 lb. a.i. per acre (1). • Maneb - 145 days PHI. Labeled for 1.5 qt. per acre. An effective shot-hole material and provides good control of scab. Weakly effective against brown rot(17). • Azoxystrobin - (see anthracnose). Scab, Cladosporium carpophilum: This disease severely affects cultivars Carmel,NePlus Ultra, Butte, and Peerless, whereas Nonpareil is less susceptible. This organism overwinters as mycelium in twig lesions on almonds and sporulates on these lesions beginning in late March. Spores are wind disseminated and infect leaves, fruit and new shoots during the spring and summer. Hull symptoms develop in late spring and summer and do not result in crop loss during the current year. However, infected leaves drop and can reduce photosynthesis which may eventually weaken the tree, impact fruit bud production and ultimately reduce yield (11). Control Treatments must be applied before scab symptoms appear,which can be anytime from late spring through fall. Effective timing of fungicides include petal fall and early spring applications (17). Later applications when used alone are less effective. • Sulfur(several labels as Wettable Sulfur, Micronized Sulfur, Liquid Lime Sulfur, etc.). Applied during dormant (liquid lime sulfur) and growing season(liquid lime and wettable sulfur). Labeled rates vary but typical rates call for 20 lb. per acre for we sulfur and 8-16 gal. per acre of liquid lime sulfur. Moderately effective 'against scab and rust (17). http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 15 of 27 • Captan - (See shot hole). • Ziram - (See shot hole). • Maneb - (See shot hole). • Azoxystrobin - (See anthracnose). Leaf Blight,Seimatosporium lichenicola: Leaf blight results in sudden death of leaves in almonds. In spring and throughout the summer, infected leaves wither, turn brown and die. Buds in axils of infected leaves die in the fall following current season infections and the petioles remain on the tree until the following spring. Dark, fruiting bodies of the fungus develop on petioles in the winter(11). Spores are spread by rain and leaf blight is favored by wet spring weather. Leaf blight is usually not severe or widespread; it rarely destroys more than 20% of the leaves in one season. However repeated early death of leaves will weaken trees, and loss of spur development due to death of buds in the leaf axils will contribute to yield loss (5). Control Chemical • Captan - (see brown rot). One of the better materials for leaf blight (17). • Ziram - (see shot hole). Control is moderate and variable (17). Alternaria Leaf Spot,Alternaria alternata: Alternaria develops in late spring and through summer. In orchards with poor ventilation, high humidity,and prolonged periods of leaf wetness, trees commonly defoliate from severe Alternaria leaf spot infections (11). Control Cultural Pruning to open the canopy, planting design and spacing to improve air-circulation and to reduce humidity will help manage this disease (11). Chemical • Azoxystrobin - (see anthracnose). . Section 18 registration in all counties in the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley. Labeled rate is 12-16 fl. oz. per acre. Leaf Rust .Tranzschelia discolor: Rust typically develops in summer and fall in almonds. Angular yellow leaf spots on the upper leaf surface and rusty http://pestdata.ncsu.ddu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 16 of 27 brown masses of spores on the lower leaf surface help distinguish this disease. Leaf rust can cause severe defoliation in a short period of time if conditions are favorable. Almond fruit are not infected. This fungus has a complex life cycle and has been reported from alternate hosts. Twig cankers have also been found on almond similar to peach and these are probably the main mechanism of survival during almond dormancy(11). Controls • Maneb -145 days PHI. The most effective material for this disease. Also provides good control of scab and is somewhat effective on shothole,brown rot and leaf blight(12). • Iprodione - (see brown rot). Moderately effective for control of rust(17). • Sulfur - (see eriophyid mites and scab). Moderately effective for rust control (17). • Azoxystrobin - (see anthracnose). • Propiconazole - (see anthracnose). • Tebuconazole- (see anthracnose). Bacterial Canker and Blast,Pseudomonas syringae: Pseudomonas syringae is expressed in almonds as either a canker or on buds and leaves. Bacterial canker afflicts all commercial Prunus species. The causal bacterium is a pathogen of at least 80 different plant species and a common inhabitant of plant surfaces. The disease invades the scaffolds and trunks of trees and can devastate young trees, whereas trees 6 to 8 years old are somewhat resistant. This disease is more severe on trees grown in sandy rather than heavy soils. Bacterial canker causes isolated cankers on or death of most or all the above ground parts of almond trees. Diseased trees have a strong vinegar odor, hence the terms sour sap and souring out. The disease is active in winter and a young tree infected by bacterial canker usually dies before budbreak in the spring. Blast, caused by the same organism, may affect dormant or opening buds, flowers, and leaves. Infected buds fail to open and later dry and shrivel. A small canker is often found at the base of the dead bud. Blossoms turn dark brown then black and remain attached to the tree. Blast causes brownish-black spots of varying size and shape on leaves. Entire spurs and young green shoots may be killed, but the bacteria do not usually move very far into older twigs (6). Control Pre-plant fumigation plus frequent irrigation and post-plant nematicides each fall for the first eight years of orchard life are the only control measures. This is expensive and there is only one post-plant nematicide available. Cultural Measures that encourage healthy plant growth also protect against bacterial canker. Avoid factors that may pre-dispose trees to disease such as poor nutrition, cold temperatures, and other stresses. Large populations of ring nematode are associated with bacterial canker sites. Soil fumigation that depresses ring nematode populations before trees are planted reduces the incidence and severity of bacterial canker(6). (see Nematodes). Research has not discovered a reliable control for bacterial blast. Some experiments with copper sprays applied before and during early bloom have shown promise, but positive results are not easily confirmed(5). Copper resistant http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 17 of 27 bacteria have been confirmed in orchards where growers routinely used copper sprays to try to reduce the severity of bacterial blast. Armillaria Root Rot,Armillaria mellea: The severity of this fungus disease depends on the rootstock and the strain of A. mellea. The pathogen invades the roots, crown, and basal trunk, eventually girdling the crown region and destroying the entire root system causing death of the tree. Symptoms of the disease are creamy white, fan-shaped plaques of fungal mycelia beneath the bark and black strands called rhizomorphs on the surface of infected roots. After rains in the fall or spring, a cluster of mushrooms often appears at the base of infected trees. The fungus develops most rapidly in moist cool soil. It can survive for many years in dead roots of many different species of trees (6). Generally, clusters of trees may be infected at one or several sites in the orchard (2). A localized problem but can cause 25% yield loss in infected orchards. Controls Cultural Control Oak root fungus survives on infected roots. It is not practical to remove old roots in replant situations. Marianna 2624 rootstock is somewhat resistant but many cultivars are not compatible with the rootstock (6). Chemical • Methyl Bromide has shown some promise for control of A. mellea at the rate of 300-600 lb. per acre applied by injection with tarping. This works well in settings where there is only six feet or less of root system depth and soil has been dried properly. It is recommended that a deep rooted cover crop be grown on the soil to dry it out completely before treating. Even under these conditions, eradication is hardly ever achieved and this material is very seldom applied solely for this purpose (6) (see nematodes). • Sodium tetrathiocarbamate B 14 days PHI. Labeled rate is 2400 ppm a.i. as a pre-plant treatment and 1450 ppm a.i. as a post-plant treatment. Recently registered as a soil fumigant on almonds and peaches. Initial research indicates that pre- and post-plant applications are required to be equivalent to methyl bromide for reducing inoculum(e.g., infested roots) (17). Others feel that it is not effective as a pre-plant treatment. (McKenry, personal communication) Crown Gall,Agrobacterium tumefaciens: Although crown gall can affect established orchards, the disease is most damaging to young trees. If left unchecked, crown gall may progress around the crown weakening and eventually girdling the tree. Young galls are smooth; as they age, they become rough and increase in size. Old galls are dark,brittle and cracked. The pathogen can only infect through wounds and young trees in nurseries are particularly prone to infection because of the many potential injuries during rearing and digging (2). If left uncontrolled, losses of 10% can occur. Dead gall tissue can predispose trees to infection by wood decay fungi. Controls Crown gall bacteria enter the tree through wounds only. The best prevention for the disease is prevention of injury to trees during planting and cultural practices. Purchase young trees from a reputable nursery, plant them with a http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 18 of 27 minimum of handling, and avoid root injuries (6). Biological Agrobacterium radiobacter-84 is a biological control agent used as a root spray or dip before planting in the field on 85% of nursery trees (6). Chemical • GallexJ is used to selectively kill tumors on individual trees in existing orchards. The treatment is most effective when use on trees 4 years old or less. This procedure is expensive and difficult to carry out.(5). Root and Crown Rot,Phytophthora spp.: About 14 different Phytophthora species attack almond trees. All Phytophthora species are soil-inhabiting fungi, although not all are present in all orchards afflicted by crown and root rot. Canal and river water is frequently contaminated with Phytophthora and the pathogens are brought into orchards and fields in irrigation water drawn from these sources. The pathogen enters the tree either at the crown near the soil line, at the major roots or at the feeder roots, depending on the species. Trees affected with Phytophthora first show small leaves, sparse foliage, and lack of terminal growth. Infected trees may decline for several years or die within the same growing season in which the foliage symptoms first appear. Phytophthora can survive in the soil for many years and spreads and infects the trees during moist cool weather in spring and fall (2). A localized problem affecting 20% of the orchards. Yield losses of 50% can occur in infected orchards. Controls Cultural Rootstocks vary in susceptibility to the different Phytophthora species; none are resistant to all species. The success of a rootstock may depend in part upon the species of Phytophthora present in the orchard. In general,plum rootstocks are more resistant than are peach or apricot. Of the plum rootstocks, Marianna 2624 is the most tolerant and is the only plum rootstock available for almonds. Careful soil moisture management is the key to managing Phytophthora. Plant on soil with good surface and internal drainage. Plant on ridges to keep standing water from around the base of the trees (2). Chemical • Mefenoxam -Labeled rate is 2 qt. per acre. Do not apply more than 3 applications per year(17). Applied to the soil as a drench on 1% of the acreage (1). • Metalaxyl - Labeled rate is 2 gal. per acre. Do not apply more than 3 applications per year(17). Applied to soil as drench to 1.2% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.19 lb. a.i. per acre. (<10% of soil surface is usually treated). • Fosetyl-al -Non-bearing trees only. Labeled rate 3-5 lb. Per 100 gal. applied up to four times per season(17). Applied foliar to 0.08% of the acreage at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i. per acre. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 19 of 27 Ceratocystis Canker, Ceratocystis fimbriata: The causal fungus also attacks other stone fruits but is frequently associated with almonds because infection sites are commonly injuries to the bark caused by mallets used to knock branches, or improperly adjusted mechanical shakers. This fungus is transmitted by insects attracted to wounds. Once deposited in open wounds, spores germinate and initiate new infections. The resulting cankers expand slowly and may continue to grow for several years. Eventually, large cankers weaken diseased limbs and trunks and may lead to collapse of scaffolds or trees. Rain may also wash spores into pruning wounds (6). Controls The best control is prevention of bark injuries. Properly adjusted shakers and careful operators are essential to prevent bark injury. Bark of recently watered trees is more susceptible to shaker damage so it is best to wait as long as possible after irrigating before shaking trees (6). Verticillium wilt, Verticillium dahliae: Verticillium dahliae is a soil-inhabiting fungus found in nearly all soils in the temperate regions of the world. It is capable of parasitizing hundreds of plant species and often becomes a serious problem where suitable host plants are grown. The fungus enters through young roots and becomes established in the xylem tissue causing it to become nonfunctional. Verticillium wilt only attacks young almond trees less than 5 years old. Leaves on infected branches die quickly,becoming a light tan color and often remain attached to the plant. The vascular tissue darkens and extends down the infected scaffold into the trunk and root system. Typically, one scaffold or one side of the tree dies but the disease usually does not kill entire trees. Affected scaffolds will often resprout and releaf later in the growing season (6)• Controls The only control for Verticillium wilt is prevention. Selection of an orchard site where cotton, tomato, melons, potato or other highly susceptible crops have never grown is important to prevent this disease (6). Wood Decay,Numerous species of fungi in the Basidiomycota, Aphyllophorales: Fungi that cause this disease produce air-borne spores that infect exposed wood that result from injuries that commonly result from improper pruning, farming equipment (cultivators, mowers, improperly adjusted mechanical shakers, etc.), or wounds that result from other biological agents (e.g., crown gall). These fungi enter the xylem tissue where they cause white or brown rots that substantially weaken the support strength of the wood. Symptoms of decayed wood are bleached white, soft to punky wood(white rot) or brown, cracked, and friable wood(brown rot). Scaffold branch breakage and tree fallings that have been attributed to environmental damage (e.g., wind or storm damage) or to crop weight are commonly the result of predisposition from wood decay fungi (17). Controls The best control is prevention of tree injuries. Careful mowing and cultivation near trunks and exposed roots and properly adjusted mechanical harvesting equipment and careful operators are essential to prevent tree injury. Proper pruning to prevent flush and stub cuts is also essential. Irrigation guards that prevent trunk wetting from irrigation sprinklers may also be beneficial. Pruning wound paints (e.g., tar tree paints, copper-based mixes, etc.) have been used http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caahnonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 20 of 27 but their long-term benefits have been questioned(17). Nematodes Lesion Nematode.Pratylenchus vulnus Ring Nematode, Criconemella xenoplax Root Knot Nematode.Meloidogyne spp. Plant parasitic nematodes are microscopic roundworms that feed on plant roots of most plants including almonds. They live in soil or within the cortical tissues of the roots. The extent of the damage caused by nematodes in almonds depends largely on the density of the nematode population, soil conditions and rootstock selection. In situations where tree growth has been visibly impaired by the second year, the affected trees may never overcome the nematode problem. Symptoms of a nematode infestation include lack of vigor, small leaves, dieback of twigs and a sparse root system, particularly the lack of small feeder roots. Root galls are an indication of root knot nematode. Ring nematodes spend their lives in soil feeding on roots. Feeding by ring nematodes stresses trees and makes them more susceptible to bacterial canker(Pseudomonas syringae). Ring nematode is common in sandier soils of the northern San Joaquin Valley, but also along fans of old river tributaries further south. Dagger nematodes are most common in northern California soils. They also occur frequently in other production areas but scientists do not expect this species to cause tree damage unless a damaging ringspot virus is also present or the population is large, more than 400 per pint of soil (6). Root lesion nematodes damage roots by moving through cortical tissues and feeding in these areas. Among first-leaf trees, damage due to the replant problems and the lesion nematode can be severe. Stunted trees occur within irregular, circular-shaped areas across the orchard. Among older plantings damage is barely discernible. Fruit size and quantity are reduced with only slight apparent stunting in overall tree growth. Yield and size data of plum on both peach and plum rootstocks indicate up to a 16%reduction in marketable fruit,with peach rootstocks being more adversely affected than plum. Similar rootstocks are used in almonds and similar reductions in yield would be expected. Root knot nematodes take up a single feeding site within a root where they remain for their entire life. Some legumes grown for cover crop on the orchard floor provide an excellent habitat and food source for root knot nematode. Unfortunately many cover crops, including clovers do not show obvious symptoms of root galling. Nemaguard rootstock is resistant to root knot nematode and widely planted particularly in the San Joaquin valley(6). Viruses are not a problem with certified virus-free Prunus rootstocks. If nurseries ever begin producing stock from nematode infested sites because a suitable fumigant is unavailable, viruses will become a significant problem. Controls Cultural Management of nematodes starts before planting an almond orchard. Soil samples should be taken to identify the nematode species present to determine a course of action (6). Continued fallowing for at least 4 years or use of non-host crop rotation can significantly reduce nematode populations before planting. However, this is not an economically feasible option(3). http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 21 of 27 To prevent the introduction of nematodes in an orchard, certified nematode free planting stock is used. Rootstock selection is also important because rootstocks for almonds differ in response to various parasitic nematodes. None of the more commonly used rootstocks are resistant to all the plant-parasitic nematodes. However Nemaguard peach, the most common almond rootstock, is resistant to all the common root knot nematode species found in California. The plum rootstock Marianna 2624 is also resistant to root knot nematodes but has limited utility because of soil and incompatibility problems (3). Biological There are no known biological agents that are deliverable to soil or the surfaces of roots that will provide relief from nematodes (3). Chemical . Post-plant Treatments There is one California-registered post-plant nematicide for bearing almonds. Enzone has effectiveness against the ectoparasitic ring nematode (3). . Pre-plant Treatments Pre-plant fumigation is common in replant situations. Nematode numbers are greatly reduced for as long as 6 years by fallowing 1 or 2 years and then fumigating prior to replanting. The fumigation serves the important function of killing all the remaining roots within the surface 5 feet of soil profile. Without fumigation these roots remain alive two years after the old trees have been removed and the soil deep-ripped. Few growers could afford to idle their land for the 4 to 5 years necessary to achieve adequate relief from the replant problem plus root lesion nematode (3). o Methyl Bromide is used as a pre-plant treatment when replanting into soils previously in orchard crops. It is applied one to two feet deep, usually with a plastic tarpaulin stretched over the field surface. In order to save on costs, growers in some regions may treat only the planting strips or the individual planting sites at approximately 100 lb. per acre,with or without use of a tarp. There are no effective post-plant nematicides and no rootstocks are known to be resistant to root lesion nematode so growers make a critical decision whenever they decide on a partial fumigation or to not fumigate at all. The damage by nematodes is severe enough on almond that without methyl bromide or an effective alternative, the resulting orchards will be weaker with fewer roots and any damage with above ground pests will be increased. Fumigation is common in replant situations in the San Joaquin Valley. Additionally, availability of an effective pre-plant material has greatly reduced the need for annual post-plant treatments. 0 1,3 Dichloropropene is the closest replacement for methyl bromide,but its use for this purpose in California was suspended from 1990 to,1996 and today there are serious acreage restrictions and a limitation of 350 lb. per acre associated with its use. Use data are not available at this time. Excessive volatilization has been the key shortcoming to its recent use and the tree fruit industry has been searching for improved methods of application to limit in-field volatilization without jeopardizing efficacy. Prior to 1990, the normal treatment rates for 1,3 Dichloropropene were up to 800 lb. per acre. Newer methods of killing roots plus the lowered rates of 1,3 Dichloropropene and the use of a water seal containing metam- sodium biocide will soon receive field evaluation as a methyl bromide alternative. It is premature to predict the results in commercial settings (3). o Metam-Sodium B Applied at individual tree sites pre-plant to <0.01% of the acreage at an average rate of 60 lb. a.i. per acre. This material is difficult to move deep enough into the soil to be of much use (3). http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 22 of 27 o Fenamiphos B For non-bearing trees only. Applied to soil to 0.02% of the acreage at an average rate of 7.26 lb. a.i. per acre. Efficacy is variable. No California registration is expected for bearing trees. o Sodium Tetrathiocarbonate B This material releases carbon disulfide when in contact with soil. Several small-scale field trials have shown that flood applications of this material can reduce ring nematode populations on almonds, thereby reducing the incidence of bacterial canker(3). Weeds In addition to problems at harvest, weeds can cause a multitude of other problems in almond orchards by reducing the growth of young trees because they compete for water, nutrients, and space. Weeds also increase water use, cause vertebrate and invertebrate and other pest problems, and may enhance the potential for disease such as crown rot. Most orchards are no-till requiring the use of herbicides and/or mowing to control weeds. The increasing use of more efficient low-volume irrigation systems has increased the need for selective pre-emergence herbicide use in drip, microsprinkler, and sprinkler-irrigated orchards. Pre-emergent herbicides are generally used only in the tree row. This reduces the total amount of herbicides and prevents the surface roots in the tree row from being damaged by cultivation equipment. By treating the tree row only, 25% to 33%of the total acreage is treated. Pre-emergence and post-emergence, or combinations of pre- and post-emergent herbicides are often used between tree rows. Soil characteristics have an effect on the weed spectrum (often 15-30 species per orchard), the number of cultivations and irrigations required, and the residual activity of herbicides. Irrigation methods and the amount of irrigation or rainfall affects herbicide selection and the residual control achieved. Almond orchards may benefit from plants on the orchard floor if they are carefully managed. These plants in a well- maintained ground cover, can help increase water infiltration, reduce soil compaction, maintain soil organic matter content, cool the orchard, and provide habitat for beneficial insects (5). Monitoring: Treatment decisions and herbicide selections are based on dormant and early summer weed surveys. Controls Chemical • Glyphosate - 3 days PHI. Most often used herbicide (16). Applied during the dormant, pre- and/or post-bloom by ground. Often applied at low rates several times during the season. This accounts for the fact that use data indicate this material is applied to >100% of the acreage. Annual use rate averages 0.75 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Nonselective systemic used for a broad range of weed species. Effective anytime on emerged, irrigated, rapidly growing, non-stressed weeds, but activity is slower in lower temperatures. Best material available for most perennial weeds. Cannot eradicate field bindweed or nutsedge. Not effective on some broadleaf weeds at older stages of growth (malva and filaree). Continued use of this material leads to a shift of species and selection of tolerant species (16). Light activated spray technology has reduced the amount of material applied when weed cover is low by 50 to 80%. • Oxyfluorfen -Apply following harvest up to February 15. Applied by ground one time per season on 41% of acreage at an average rate of 0.2 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Selective broadleaf herbicide effective as a pre- and post- emergent material. Particularly useful when combined with glyphosate to increase efficacy on various broadleaf weed species and to prevent broadleaf species shifts with glyphosate. Oxyfluorfen is the only effective material for malva(16). http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 23 of 27 • Simazine- 21 days PHI. Applied anytime to bare soil or in combination with glyphosate by ground one time per season on 14.2% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.61 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Pre-emergence herbicide of most annual grasses and many broadleaf weeds. Effective when combined with translocated herbicide such as glyphosate or the contact herbicide paraquat, and a broadleaf pre-emergence herbicide as in oxyfluorfen. Typically used for down the row treatment to maintain clean row for irrigation emitters and season long weed suppression(5). Simazine is the only material effective on fleabane and horseweed. Weak in controlling grasses (16). • Paraquat- 0 days PHI. Applied by ground one or more times per season to 30% of the acreage at an average rate of 0.73 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Nonselective post-emergence material used for quick burn-down of most weed species. Less effective against perennials that will regrow with vigor, e.g., bermudagrass, dallisgrass, johnsongrass, and bindweed(16). Most effective when used on early spring or winter growth of annual grass species in combination with pre-emergence herbicides. • 2-4-D - 60 days PHI. Applied as a directed spray post-bloom by ground one or two times to 17.5% of the acreage at the average rate of 1.78 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Post-emergence systemic herbicide selective for most broadleaf annual weeds. Provides partial control of field bindweed. Useful for controlling troublesome perennials (16). • Oryzalin - 0 days PHI. Applied at 2-4 lb. as pre-emergence in the tree strip by ground one time per season on 17.5% of the acreage at the average per acre rate of 1.8 lb. a.i. per season(1). Pre-emergence selective herbicide most effective on annual grass species and numerous broadleaf annuals. Very safe for young or newly planted trees and on sandy or sandy loam soils (16). It is used to maintain control in strips down the row. Often used in combination with other pre-emergence herbicides. • Nortlurazon - 60 days PHI. Applied pre-bloom by ground one time per season on 9% of the acreage at the rate of 1.06 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Pre-emergence selective herbicide similar to oryzalin,but is effective on more annual broadleaf and grass species. Can suppress yellow nutsedge or bermudagrass when used year after year(16). Can cause minor damage to younger trees or those planted on sandy or sandy loam soils. Usually used on new plantings. Primarily a grass control material (16). • Tritluralin - 0 days PHI. Applied pre-bloom by ground one time per season on 1.25% of the acreage at the rate of 1.27 lb. a.i. per acre (1). Pre-emergence selective herbicide for annual grasses. It must be combined with broadleaf herbicides and incorporated promptly for best results. Used on new plantings or established orchards as a strip treatment. Suppresses bermuda,johnson and dallis grass rhizomes (16). • Napropamide - 0 days PHI. Applied pre-bloom one time per season on 2% of the acreage at the rate of 4 lb. a.i. per season in the tree row (1). Pre-emergence herbicide effective on annual grasses and several annual broadleaves (16). Must be applied and incorporated with irrigation or rain within seven days. Very effective in maintaining weed free strips down the row. May be applied in late winter with glyphosate for late burn down. Used on bearing and non-bearing trees. • Pendimethalin -Non-bearing trees only. Applied pre-emergence by ground one time per season to 1.8% of the acreage at the rate of 2.0 lb. a.i. per acre. Effective on annual grasses and some broadleaf weeds (16). Vertebrate Pests http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 24 of 27 Ground Squirrels,Spermophilus beecheyi: California ground squirrels are medium-sized rodents up to 20 inches long measured from the head to the tip of the tail. Ground squirrels are responsible for significant damage in almond orchards throughout the state. California ground squirrels live in underground burrows where they form colonies of 2 to 20 or more animals. They adapt well to human activities and are found along road or ditch banks, fence rows and within or bordering many agricultural crops. They are primarily herbivorous. During early spring they consume a variety of green grasses and other herbaceous plants. When these begin to dry and form seeds, the squirrels switch to seeds, grains, and nuts. Ground squirrels often infest almond orchards. They easily climb trees and feed on nuts from set to maturity and through harvest. Adult squirrels often cache seeds and nuts in their burrows, especially in the late summer and early fall. During this period almond losses greatly exceed the number the squirrels have actually consumed. Squirrels dig extensive burrow systems, bringing soil and rocks to the surface creating mounds,which may cause damage to orchard equipment. The burrows and mounds create problems for harvesting operations, as nuts are shaken off the tree and swept off the ground. Control Habitat modification by removing piles of orchard prunings and other harborage offers little relief, although, this does make monitoring of squirrel activity easier. Trapping is impractical and time-consuming, except with small populations. Chemical Fumigation with gas cartridges can be effective in spring and early summer when soil moisture is high enough to retain the concentrations of toxic gases. It is ineffective in summer,particularly when the adult squirrels are estivating (summer hibernation)because the adult squirrels create a soil plug to seal themselves in the nest chamber. • Strychnine B 0.5%baits. Must be used in bait boxes. Strychnine is highly toxic to non-target mammals and birds. • Brodifacoum B 0.01%baits. No use data available as this is a fairly new use. A single feeding of this anticoagulant will kill squirrels. • Chlorophacinone B 0.005% and 0.01%baits used. Requires multiple feedings for 6 days or more. Used in bait boxes, or rarely broadcast (if label allows). • Diphacinone B 0.005% and 0.01%baits used. Requires multiple feedings for 6 days or more. Used in bait boxes, or rarely broadcast(if label allows). Pocket Gophers, Thomomys spp: Pocket gophers are stout-bodied, short-legged rodents 6 to 8 inches long. Pocket gophers are common in areas of abundant plant growth. They feed primarily on succulent underground parts of herbaceous plants. They live almost entirely underground. They create extensive burrows for living and feeding. Pocket gophers frequently live in orchards. They are active throughout the year. In ideal situations, their numbers may reach 30 to 40 gophers per acre. They cause tree damage or death by girdling roots or crowns at or below the soil level. h :// estdata.ncsu.edu/cro rofiles/docs/caalmonds.html ttp p pp 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 25 of 27 Control Habitat modification to remove vegetation will discourage gophers: No chemical or mechanical repellents are effective in controlling pocket gophers. Trapping B Traps placed in the burrows are effective for small populations. Trapping is time consuming and expensive. Chemical • Strychnine B 0.5%bait. Placed in the burrow by use of mechanical burrow builder or with hand probes. Usually very effective with virtually no secondary wildlife hazards. • Chlorphacinone and Diphacinone B 0.005% and 0.01%baits. Applied to burrows in the same manner as strychnine. • :Aluminum phosphide B The only fumigant that has shown some degree of effectiveness. Time consuming to hand treat burrows with pellets and seal hole. Requires repeat treatments for effective control. Post Harvest Dried almonds are fumigated after harvest with phosphine gas primarily for control of navel orangeworm,peach twig borer, ants and storage pests. Navel orangeworm damage is directly linked to the presence of aflatoxins in almonds. Control of these insects is critical to maintain markets that demand insect-free almonds. Many countries require fumigation prior to export to control pests that could be present and to prevent infestations in route. The only alternative to phosphine is methyl bromide. All incoming almonds are fumigated with phosphine at label rates by the processor when they are received and usually again prior to shipping. U.S.D.A.-ARS scientists at Fresno are currently investigating controlled atmosphere technology and the use of several possible candidate compounds (carbonyl sulfide, sulfuryl fluoride, and methyl iodide) as replacements for at least some of the current methyl bromide uses. These tests have just begun so it is too early to judge their potential usefulness for almonds. None of the chemicals under test are registered for use. The use of controlled atmosphere is very slow (e.g., 5 to 7 days or more) and would be extremely difficult to accomplish with large volumes of almonds and existing storage facilities. Current Research The anticipated loss of methyl bromide has prompted the tree fruit industry in California to search for other methods that result in death of the remnant roots. By cutting off trees at their trunks and painting the cambium region with glyphosate systemic herbicide, it has been possible to completely kill the roots so that 18 months after such a treatment trees can be replanted without experiencing the replant problem (3). At this point in time, none of this work has been conducted on trees older than 15 years and it only provides 1 year of nematode relief, but in concert with other nematode controlling strategies, this methodology may replace some of the need for soil fumigation. http://pestdata.ncsu,edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 Crop Profiles Page 26 of 27 Work with ozone as a soil fumigant is also ongoing on prunes. Preliminary data indicate the product moves at nematicidal concentrations for 6-12 inches from the point of injection. Cost projections based on trials indicate ozone could be applied at a cost comparable to other nematicides. For nematode control, metabolites produced by myrothecium fungus were recently registered as a nematicide under the brand name DiTeraJ. Performance of this product is highly variable in small plots and there is much about this biologically derived product that is not understood. DiTeraJ is now receiving commercial evaluation in plots in prunes in the Sacramento Valley. First year treatments of oxamyl via drip or microsprinklers can give protection against root lesion nematode. No registrations are expected even though there are no residues from this use. This material would be very beneficial for the first year of starting almonds. Contacts Joseph H. Connell Farm Advisor University of California Cooperative Extension 2279 Del Oro Avenue, Suite B Oroville, California 95965 Telephone (530)538-7201 FAX: (530) 538-7140 email:jhconnell@ucdavis.edu References 1. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1995 Annual Pesticide Use Report. 2. Integrated Pest Management for Almonds (Second Ed.); University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1987. Publication 3270. 3. McKenry, Mike. Nematology Specialist, University of California, Kearney Agr. Center, Personal Communication. Feb. 18, 1998. 4. Connell, Joseph. U.C. Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor, Butte County, Personal Communication. Nov. 18, 1998 5. U. C. Pest Management Guidelines. Almond. University of California, Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project 1998. 6. Almond Production Manual. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 1996. Publication 3364. 7. Van Steenwyck, Robert. Extension Specialist, University of California Unpublished Data. 8. The IPM Partner Book, TRECE Inc. (Second Edition) January 1977. 9. Integrated Pest Management for Stone Fruits. (In Press)University of California Statewide Integrated Pest http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA- (per Mitigation Measure # 1) NW CORNER I LOT 25 I I � OAK 660' I I o I N LQ zl M R �L 1 i I 5.0 C. +/- 6 I ,300" AG. BUFFER ZONE _ I C L 2 IKn) .0 +/- I L0 660' Ln iU-) SOUTH LINE—,111 I I LOT 25 I I Ln - in PARCEL. 3 �., 7,5 AC. 25' f -21 660' 40 I I I I 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 �5 7 S RECOMMENDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA (per Mitigation Measure # 1) NW CORNER I LOT 25 I - - �- - - - OAK - - - - - - - - _ 660' Z LAJI � I 0M R Q I I 5.0 C. I I300' AC. BUfFER ZONE' I I C L 2 0 .0 I I to 660' LO Ln I SOUTH L/NE U-) LOT 25 I ( I i 101 LO I �I PAR-CEL. 3 J 7,5 AC. +/- I ( - :.. 25' I I I I I 660 '' 0 1 I I 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 � PG• t I p 4 E I'a I� IIS i P ❑ LAND USE ELEMENT ❑ ORCHARD AND FIELD CROPS Primary Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale and distribution of all plant crops, especially annual food crops. Secondary Uses: Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource extraction and processing, hunting and water-related recreation facilities, -dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental preservation activities, public and quasi-public uses,'home occupations. Site Designation Criteria: 1. Soil conditions well suited for plant crop operations. 2. Adequate water supply. 3. Predominate parcel sizes of 5 acres of more. 4. Used for crop production or secondary uses. 5. Adjacent uses compatible with primary and secondary uses. Intensity of Use: Minimum parcel size of 5 acres. One single-family dwelling per parcel with additional housing for on-site-employees. Consistent Zones: A-20 through A-160, RC & PQ. Conditionally Consistent Zones: A-5, A-10, subject to findings of conformance with Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria listed below. Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria: 1. Predominate existing parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 acres. 2. Adjacent to or in the general vicinity of urban boundaries. 3. Present status of agricultural production will not be significantly impaired. Zoning Factors: 1. Existing parcel sizes and dwelling densities. 2. Proximity to urban development. 3. Effects on adjacent uses. 4: Potential for pest insect breeding. 5. Economic viability. 6. Local desires. t ❑BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN❑ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION 79-222❑October 30, 1979❑ LUE - 48 001 ('KAoVIcJ A-IVNAgAQC_ 0,.r- CX Almond Acreage Planted by Variety Non-Hearing Years m mgr I BUTTE 12,352 1,769 2,653 4,929 6,865 6,272 6,268 7,417 3,278 2,081 41,108 12,775 53,883 CARMEL 65,781 2,424 3,249 4,429 4,439 4,036 3,639 4,391 1;996 1,742 87,999 8,129 96,128 Lu FRITZ 5,698 302 884 1,369 1,371 1,769 1,698 1,534 1,687 569 13,093 3,791 16,884 MERCED 3,662 8 73 13 29 14 12 74 2 9 3,811 85 3,896 MONTEREY 6,780 473 853 1,780 1,659 2,100 2,889 3,485 3,429 1,044 16,533 7,958 24,491 NEPLUS 7,219 40 48 93 109 96 29 153 42 103 7,631 298 7,929Lu NONPAREIL 133,425 4,722 7,246 11,533 12,005 11,902 10,437 12,867 9,913 4,536 191,268 27,315 218,583 PADRE 3,519 678 1,105 2,454 3,829 3,409 3,557 4,853 2,258 1,250 18,549 8:362 26,911 PEERLESS 7,958 156 170 279 350 434 103 109 375 100 9,448 584 10,032 PRICE 19,451 671 570 490 549 465 584 844 365 255 22,777 1,464 24,241 RUBY 3,731 92 102 126 78 52 151 156 32 222 4,332 410 4,742 Lu MISSION 17,933 489 783 978 1,221 922 1,166 865 249 206 23,491 1,320 24,811 SONORA 2,324 649 1,022 1,737 2,003 1,351 712 1,510 1,534 281 9,797 3,325 13,122 THOMPSON 3,294 1 1 29 6 29 - 5 - - 3,357 5 3,362 z WOOD COLONY 810 358 277 508 463 516 614 623 363 307 3,545 1,292 4,837 OTHERS 9,829 293 460 942 1,741 1,262 1,505 1,532 846 773 15,723 3,424 19,148 TOTAL 303,766 13,125 19,496 31,689 36,717 34,629 33,364 40,418 26,369 13,478 472,462 80,537 553,000 BEARING ACRE YIELD(Ibs.) 1,370 1,190 1,700 885 1,190 1,720 1,130 1,740 1,410 FARM PRICE($) $1.30 $1.94 $1.34 $2.48 $2.08 $1.56 $1.41 $0.86 $1.01 SOURCE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERACE(CASS). 27 it I California Almond Acreage and Farm Value Q IWO QMm 11 1 I 1� MIAMIit 1 1980-81 326,800 62,200 389,000 27,341 985 321.8 1.47 473,340 1,448 1981-82 326,200 86,200 412,400 34,745 1,249 407.4 0.78 299,520 918 1982-83 339,000 89,400 428,400 23,853 1,023 346.7 0.94 311,140 918 1983-84 360,000 76,900 436,900 8,445 672 241.9 1.04 231,920 644 1984-85 381,000 58,200 439,200 9,101 1,540 586.9 0.77 446,134 1,171 1985-86 409,000 29.900 438,900 9,709 1,136 464.7 0.80 360,640 882 1986-87 416,000 27,300 443,300 6,607 605 251.6 1.92 461,568 1,110 1987-88 417,000 28,400 445,400 10,289 1,582 659.7 1.00 648,000 1,554 1988-89 419,000 35,000 454,000 16,074 1,408 590.0 1.05 600,075 1,432 1989-90 411,000 44,000 455,000 17,704 1,189 488.5 1.02 480,930 1,170 1990-91 411,000 53,000 464,000 22,440 1,597 656.2 0.93 597,990 1,455 1991-92 405,000 50,000 455,000 13,083 1,200 485.9 1.19 564,179 1,393 1992-93 401,000 45,000 446,000 13,124 1,361 545.9 1.30 691,340 1,724 1993-94 413,000 33,400 446,400 19,497 1,182 488.2 1.94 930,618 2,253 1994-95 433,000 46,500 479,500 31,684 1,693 732.9 1.34 965,202 2,229 1995-96 418,000 65,700 483,700 36,714 876 366.1 2.48 880,896 2,107 • 1996-97 428,000 72,400 500,400 34,628 1,186 507.5 2.08 1,018,368 2,379 1997-98 442,000 63,000 505,000 33,365 1,712 756.5 1.56 1,160,640 2,626 1998-99 460,000 113,000 573,000 40,691 1,124 517.0 1.41 703,590 1,530 1999-00 480,000 105,000 585,000 26,369 1,729 829.9 0.86 687,742 1,433 2000-01 500,000 95,000 595,000 13,478 1,397 698.4 1.01 681,649 1,363 "UPDATED BY CASS. PRODUCTION NUMBERS PROVIDED BY THE ALMOND BOARD OF CALIFORNIA. SOURCE CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE(CASS). NOTE:THE ALMOND BOARD DOES NOT TRACK PRICES. • AND VALUE,1991-2000 Crop Crop Bearing Non- Yield r- Production Value Total Year Bearing Per Acre Marketable Shelling Total Per Unit Value Inshell Stock Acres Acres Pounds 1,000 Pounds 1,000Pounds 1.O0OPounds $/Pound $1,000 Almonds'•' (Shelled Basis) 1991 405,000 33.000 1,210 - - 490,000 1.19 564,179 1992 401,000 33,600 1.370 - - 548,000 1.30 691,340 1993 413,000 33,400 1,190 - - 490.000 1.94 930,618 1994 433,000 46,500 1.700 - - 735,000 1.34 965.202 a 1995 418,000 65.700 885 - - 370.000 2.48 880.896 0 1996 428,000 72,400 1,190 - - 510,000 2.08 1,018,368 (y 1997 442,000 63,000 1,720 - - 759,000 1.56 1,160,640 () 1998 460,000 113.000 1,130 - - 520,000 1.41 703.590 F 1999 480,000 105,000 1,740 - - 833,000 0.86 687,742 ,7 2000 500,000 95,000 1,410 - - 703,000 1.01 681,649 z A Pecans z (Inshell Basis) 1991 2,500 600 920 - - 2,300 1.32 3.036 Q 1992 2,600 600 1,000 - - 2,600 1.60 4.160 1-, 1993 2,500 500 1,200 - - 3,000 0.96 2,880 1994 2,600 N/A 577 - - 1,500 1.16 1,740 (Y, 1995 2,600 N/A 1.120 - - 2,900 1.28 3,712 w 1996 2,500 N/A 520 - - 1,300 0.83 1.079 1997 2,600 N/A 962 - - 3,000 1.32 3,960 1998 2,600 N/A 654 - - 1.700 1.66 2,822 1999 2,600 N/A 731 - - 1,900 1.27 2,413 2000 2,600 N/A 1,310 - - 3,400 1.52 5,168 Pistachios (Inshell Basis) 1991 55,700 13,300 1,380 59,000 18,000 77,000 1.25 96,250 1992 56,500 13.900 2,600 114,500 32,500 147,000 1.03 151.410 1993 51,000 15,700 2,670 113,000 39,000 152,000 1.07 162,640 1994 57,500 16,600 2,240 94,600 34,400 129,000 0.92 118,809 1995 60,300 13,400 2,450 107,500 40,500 148.000 1.09 161.320 1996 64,300 15,000 1,630 85,000 20,000 105,000 1.16 121,800 1997 65,400 17,100 2,750 137,000 43,000 180.000 1.13 203,400 1998 68,000 19,300 2,760 138,000 50,000 188.000 1.03 193,640 1999 71,000 21,000 1.730 105,000 18,000 123.000 1.33 163,590 2000 74,600 21,700 3,260 190,000 53,000 243.000 0.98 238.140 Walnuts z Acres Acres Tons Tons Tons Tons Won $1,000 (Inshell Basis) 1991 181,000 16,600 1.43 - - 259.000 1,060.00 274,540 1992 178,000 17,200 1.14 - - 203,000 1,410.00 286,230 1993 185,000 20,000 1.41 - - 260,000 1,390.00 361,400 1994 189,000 25,600 1.23 - - 232,000 1,030.00 238,960 1995 193,000 23,300 1.21 - - 234,000 1,400.00 327,600 1996 192,000 23,200 1.08 - - 208,000 1,580.00 328.640 1997 193,000 20,900 1.39 - - 269.000 1,430.00 384,670 1998 193.000 28,000 1.18 - - 227,000 1,050.00 238,350 1999 191,000 29,000 1.48 - - 283,000 886.00 250.738 2000 193,000 30,000 1.24 - - 239,000 1,210.00 289,190 ' Values are based on edible ponion of the crop only.Included in production are inedible quantities of no value as follows:1991-15.9 million pounds;1992-16.2 million pounds:1993-10.3 million pounds;1994- 14.7 million pounds:1995-14.8 million pounds;1996-20.4 million pounds:1997-15.0 million pounds:1998-21.0 million pounds:1999-33.3 million pounds:and 2000-28.1 million pounds. 7 Data for 2000 acreage by county.variety and year o1 planting is available upon request. PAGE '® CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE RESOURCE DIRECTORY 2001 Crop Profiles Page 27 of 27 Management Project, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 10. Almond Almanac. Almond Board of California. 1997. 11. Adaskaveg, J.E., J.H. Connell, B.L. Teviotdale. 1998. Fungal Diseases of Almond Blossoms, Leaves, and Fruit. Divi. of Agric. and Nat. Res., University of California. 12. Adaskaveg, J.,'H. Forester, B. Teviotdale, L. Hendricks, R. Duncan, M. Freeman, and P. Verdegaal. 1998. Anthracnose of Almond. Dept. of Plant Path. University of Calif., Riverside. 13. Unpublished Data. J.H. Adaskaveg and J.H. Connell. 14. Almond Board of California Quality Control Report, Industry Summary. August 1, 1997-June 30, 1998. . 15. Almond Board of California. Receipts by County/by Variety 97/98 Crop Year. Aug. 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. 16. Almond Profile Review Committee. Dec. 16, 1998. 17. Adaskaveg, J.H. Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Pathology,University of California Riverside. ,*18. Klonsky, Karen, Mark Freeman, G. S. Sibbett, Brent Holtz, Pete Livingston. 1997. University of California Cooperative Extension.,Sample Costs to Establish an Almond Orchard and Produce Almonds, Southern San Joaquin Valley. *19. Hendricks, Lonnie, Roger Duncan, Paul Verdegaal, Karen Klonsky, Pete Livingston. 1998. University of California Cooperative Extension. Sample Costs to Establish an Almond Orchard and Produce Almonds, Northern San Joaquin Valley. Prepared January 26, 1999 Database and web development by the NSF Center for Integrated Pest Managment located at North Carolina State University.All materials may be used freely with credit to the USDA. http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/caalmonds.html 10/3/2002 BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 The meeting was convened at 8:00 a.m. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL: Craig Sanders, Mike Huerta, Rob Hill, Richard Leland, Ted Crawford, Nina Lambert, and Chairman Edell. III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Committee members or staff may request additions,deletions,or changes in the. Agenda order. IV. MINUTES - September 12, 2002. The Committee had the following corrections: Page 3, Line 28 after"sight" add "of'; Page 4, Line 1 change "bases"to "basis", Line 3 change "asked if there was"to "stated there is"; Line 29 change"the map" to "a document" and on Condition 5 also; Page 10, Line 8 after "is" add "not"; Line 32 change "though" to "through", Line 34 change"factor"to "factors"; Page 11, Line 15 add to the end "to". It was moved by Ms. Lambert, seconded by Mr. Crawford, and carried to approve the minutes as corrected. AYES: Mr. Crawford, Mr. Huerta, Mr. Hill, Ms. Lambert, Mr. Leland, and Chairman Edell NOES: No one ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: Mr. Sanders V. CONSENT -- Consent items are considered to be non-controversial and not subject to comment. They will be approved iyn one motion. Any consent items which are removed will be heard at the end of the regular meeting. None. VI. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Development Review Committee is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda.) None. VII. 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 Committee. The Committee 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 Committee. 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 Development Review Committee. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office ■ BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES ■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002 PAGE 1 ■ r Cathy Disano,Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels,2 parcels at 5 acres each and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural—5 acre parcels). The property is located at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico. APN 042-130-018 (SB) (TPM 00-06) Mr. Betts gave a brief summary of the project. He noted the applicant did not agree with the mitigation measure regarding the 300 foot buffer. Felix Wannenmacher said that the Public Resources Code states that after an Initial Study is done and staff finds that there are significant impacts, the applicant either has to correct the impacts or agree to correct the impacts before staff can circulate the environmental document. He said that the environmental document prepared by Development Services was not circulated,therefore,there is no environmental document before this Committee and there is no way the Committee could approve the project. He noted that the Committee did not need an environmental document to deny the project. His concern was whether or not the applicant was,clearly informed that there is no option aside from denial. Mr. Betts said that a letter was received stating that the applicant did not agree with the mitigation measures proposed and would not sign the Initial Study. Mr. Sanders asked staff if the applicants were informed that they could propose mitigation measures of their own. Mr.Betts said that he did not discuss alternative mitigation measures with NorihStar,the applicant's representative. He did not talk to the applicant. Mr. Betts said he had acquired this file. Mr.Leland said that the Initial Study assumes that there is an environmental impact that needs to be mitigated. He asked if the DRC could go against the determination by staff and determine that there is no environmental impact and change the findings. Mr. Wannenmacher explained that the environmental document has to be accepted/adopted by the decision making body. The Government Code is not clear on whether the decision making body can go back and change the environmental document itself. The DRC can substitute mitigation measures. Mr. Leland asked if DRC could substitute mitigation measures without having to re-circulate the Initial Study. Mr.Wannenmacher pointed out that in this case the Initial Study has not been circulated. There was a brief discussion. Chairman Edell said that at the last meeting,when the Bradley map was denied,the Committee was applying the 300 foot buffer to all the property lines and denied the project for three lots. This map has a 300 foot buffer applied only to the east and south lines. He said that there is a letter from Carl Leverenz stating that there is a house on the property to the south and the 300 foot buffer does not ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES■SEPTEMBER 26,2002 ■PAGE 2 ■ A apply. Chairman Edell drew an example on the board behind him. He said that having two houses in the corner of two parcels does not negate the 300 foot buffer requirement. He felt that the Committee needs to inform the applicant that if the environmental impacts and mitigations are in place, whether this body would consider approving the project. Mr. Leland said that there should be a consistent approach for projects. He said that the County would want the building envelope next to the adjoining property and the existing home. Chairman Edell felt that a building zone next to an existing dwelling would impact the spraying next to that existing house. Mr. Leland said that the theory is that the County has a 100 foot no-spray area next to roads, and because of that the houses should be placed near the road which would not encroach as much into the agricultural area. He said there is a 100 foot setback for spraying next to a road which acts like a protective zone. He said the 100 foot area is where you would want to locate a home. He said there is the general issue of how to reconcile the zoning and the Land Use Element of the General Plan with the new Agricultural Element. He discussed 5 acre ranchettes as being a problem in agricultural areas and should be avoided as is addressed in the Agricultural Element. Mr. Sanders said that there is another avenue that the applicant might have and that is to do an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). If this is the finding of the Department,the applicant can then appeal the decision for an EIR directly to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Edell asked if the CEQA process allows the applicant or representative to propose their own mitigation measures. Mr. Wannenmacher said the applicant is responsible for performing or accepting the mitigation measures. He reminded the Committee that the Initial Study, in this case, has not been circulated. He said that staff would need to determine that the mitigation measures are acceptable if proposed by the applicant. The hearing was opened to the public. Carl Leverenz, representing the applicant, discussed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). He said that the applicant agreed with the mitigation measures for Parcel 1 and 2,but not for Parcel 3. He agreed with Mr. Leland that mitigation measures should be applied to projects consistently. He informed the Committee that he did not know the Initial Study had not been circulated. He said that for the purposes of mitigation measures,it would make sense to have some consistency for the three parcels by having the building area lines run parallel to the road. The applicant needs direction on changing the mitigation measures to extend the building zone line down Parcel 3 to be consistent with Parcels 1 and 2,and which would be sufficient to mitigate the potential impacts. He said that if the suggested measure is acceptable then this project needs to go back to . staff to revise the Initial Study and then circulate the Initial Study. He said the fundamental issue is what is going to happen in this area as far as development. He discussed future annexation by the City of Chico. He felt that it was more consistent to allow development along Muir Avenue and allow the building to occur on Muir Avenue which is less intrusive to the Agricultural uses. ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002■PAGE 3 ■ I Mr. Leland discussed the General Plan and Agricultural Element inconsistencies with the zoning. Mr. Sanders said that the issue of zoning was looked at during the Greenline hearings at the Board of Supervisors and again when the Agricultural Element was adopted. The Board chose not to change the zoning in the Agricultural Element areas. There was a brief discussion on what was being protected. He talked about the viability of agriculture in the area. There are small parcels already in the area with homes on them. Mr. Wannenmacher said that the General Plan made an attempt to look at the fact that there were already parcel sizes smaller than 20 acres or 40 acres in areas that were designated Orchard and Field Crops, and tries to discourage the parcels from being further divided unless some of the proper criteria existed and that is why A-5 and A-10 zones are considered conditionally consistent. He passed out a copy of an excerpt from the General Plan relating to Orchard and Field Crops to demonstrate how it deals with zoning that is lower than A-20. Mr. Sanders also passed out a copy of the policies from the Agricultural Element. He said that the conditional criteria in the Land Use Element are the factors/criteria to be used by the decision makers as to when land is to be zoned and designated A-5 or A-10 and are not necessarily to be used when looking at land divisions once the zoning designation has occurred. Mr. Leland asked what happens when the zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan, would the County need to rezone the property to a zone that is consistent with the General Plan? Mr. Sanders said that he agreed with that concept,but in this instance the Board explicitly said the A- i 5 and A-10 zonings were consistent with the General Plan in 1982 when the Board adopted the Greenline policies for preservation of agriculture. The Board found that the A-5 and A-10 zones were pre-existing, and the desire at the time was to come up with a 20 acre minimum on the agriculture side of the Greenline. He said the decision could have been changed with the adoption of the Agricultural Element. Mr. Leverenz said that with the current Agricultural Element, the Board was asked if the Board should go back and rezone all the areas that are inconsistent and the Board said no, to wait for the implementation of the Agricultural Element. I The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Leland said that first the Committee should look at the mitigation issue, and assuming that the subdivision is otherwise acceptable,ask themselves if such a mitigation that would carry the building zone down to the south boundary of Parcel 3, would be an acceptable mitigation. He felt that the mitigation would be acceptable. Mr. Leland moved to approve a mitigation measure allowing a buildable area to the south property line of Parcel 3 as an acceptable mitigation. Chairman Edell said that on the Erickson parcel map two weeks ago the Committee cut the footage ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES ■SEPTEMBER 26,2002 ■PAGE 4 ■ of the building area down to 150 feet from Oak Way provided that the building envelope could go near the existing house on the west side,but stay at least 250 feet from the non-developed area to the east side and Mr. Leland and Ms. Lambert voted no. Mr. Leland said that he voted no to the parcel split. Ms. Lambert said that this request is for three parcels, each 330 feet wide along Muir Avenue, and posed the question that if the lots are sold to three individuals how could the owners meet the setback in order to build a home. Mr. Hill said that if someone buys Parcel 2 and there are still orchards in the area, the 300 foot setback comes into play. . Ms. Lambert said that most of the existing homes in the area that are being farmed around existed prior to the Agricultural Element that set forth the buffer. She did not see how the Committee could give the applicant any assurances that the agricultural impacts could be mitigated. Mr. Leland asked what is the environmental impact that is being mitigated. Is it an impact to agricultural land or something else? Mr. Betts said that the impact is under Section 4.7, Page 8 of the Initial Study entitled Hazardous Materials to protect people from agricultural spraying. Mr. Sanders said that the question becomes-- are you impacting adjoining lands, agricultural uses, or the parcel being developed? Mr. Leland stated that agricultural uses are considered heavy industries with hazardous materials. Ms. Lambert said that the smaller the parcels the more impact to agriculture and the less viable the agricultural use becomes. She discussed the types of crops existing versus the type of soils. Mr. Sanders said that the Agricultural Element was written to address a present type of agricultural use. He noted that there are health guidelines regarding the.hazardous materials. Ms. Lambert said that by dividing the property into three parcels which would allow for three dwellings, the County reduces the agricultural viability of the land. Mr. Hill said that by allowing 5 acre parcels, the area changes and impacts agriculture around it. Ms. Lambert said that she was concerned with setting a precedent if this is approved. Mr. Sanders said that the issues and conflicts should be addressed through the zoning. Mr. Hill said the criteria is not adequate to stop expanding development into the agricultural lands. Ms.Lambert asked if the Committee must base their decisions on the zoning alone or do they look at ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26,2002 ■PAGE 5 ■ i z �z ., the other policies, i.e., Greenline policy, Agricultural Element, and General Plan? Mr. Sanders said the General Plan takes first consideration, then the zoning and then the physical factors of the land should be considered. Chairman Edell discussed the fact that if the request is not consistent with the General Plan,it would have to be denied. Mr. Leland said that there is an inconsistency between the Agricultural Element and the zoning that would allow subdividing of this property. He said with the this project being inconsistent with the General Plan, he would not approve the project even with a mitigation measure. Mr. Crawford did not think the Committee could change the Board policy by finding that the A-5 is consistent in the Orchard and Field Crops designation. Mr. Sanders noted that the environmental documents are incomplete. There was a previous motion to deny the application,by Mr. Leland, finding there has not been an environmental document circulated and that there are unmitigated environmental impacts. The motion was withdrawn. Mr. Leverenz said that the problem is that the Initial Study was not circulated and asked where the applicant goes from here. Chairman Edell suggested sending the project back for further work on the Initial Study. Mr. Wannenmacher said a denial would mean the applicant would have to file a new application with new fees. He said that the applicant would prefer to go back and work on the Initial Study and finish the CEQA process. It was moved by Mr. Leland, seconded by Ms. Lambert, and unanimously carried to withdraw his previous motion and move to continue this item off the agenda to allow time for staff and the applicant to work on the Initial Study and mitigation measures. The hearing was continued open. Mr. Crawford asked that site plans and exhibit maps be dated. VIII. GENERAL BUSINESS IX. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ITEMS: X. COMMUNICATIONS Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Planning Division Office.) . XI. ADJOURNMENT ■BC DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES ■ SEPTEMBER 26,2002 PAGE 6 ■ l BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT—SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 Applicant: Cathy Disano Location: . On the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way, File#: TPM 00-06 west of Chico Request: Tentative Parcel Map to Parcel Size: 17.5 acres divide a 17.5 acre parcel into three parcels: two 5-acre Planner: Stephen Betts, parcels and one 7.5-acre Senior Planner parcel Supervisor G.P.: Orchard and Field Crops District: 2 Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre Attachments: minimum parcel size) A: General Plan/Zoning Map B: Initial Study APN: 042-130-018 C: Building Area Map D: Site Plan STAFF COMMENT: Staff recommends denial of this project because the applicant has not agreed to a mitigation measure requiring 300-foot residential building setbacks to help prevent significant impacts to adjacent agricultural uses. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE CHARACTERISTICS: This project proposes to divide a 17.5 acre property into three parcels: two 5-acre parcels and one 7.5-acre parcel. Parcel 1 is a corner lot situated at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way, with the longest frontage on Oak Way. Parcels 2 and 3 would have an east/west orientation with frontages on Muir Avenue. Sewage disposal for future dwellings on the site would be handled by individual on-site septic systems. Domestic water would be obtained from individual on-site wells'. The property is fully developed with a mature almond orchard. The surrounding and nearby parcels are developed with orchards of varying crops. The predominant crops are almond and walnut. The soils on the site are Class I and Class 2 soils, which are considered to be prime agricultural soils. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Approximately two acres of the southeast corner of the site are within Airport Compatibility Zone D for the Ranchero Airport, which is located approximately 1.68 miles to the southeast of the project site. Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Agenda Report ■ Page 1-■ The project site is not subject to a California Land Conservation Act ("Williamson Act") agreement. Surrounding parcels are developed with orchards and dwellings at rural residential densities. Surrounding parcels range in size from 5.01 acres to 15.45 acres. Muir Avenue is the zoning boundary, with A-10 zoning to the west and A-5 zoning to the east. None of the surrounding parcels are subject to a California Land Conservation Act agreement. ANALYSIS: The sizes of the proposed parcels are consistent with the A-5 zone and with the General Plan land use designation of Orchard and Field Crops. The project would result in a minor increase in vehicular traffic in the project area, but the increase would not be significant. The project is consistent with the Ranchero Airport Compatibility Zone D, which does not have any restrictions on land uses or residential densities. As identified in the Initial Study, this project would have a significant impact on the agricultural operations in the project area. Residential development on the proposed parcels could restrict certain agricultural practices, such as spraying operations. To prevent these significant impacts, Mitigation Measure # 1 requires a 300-foot residential building setback from most of the exterior property lines. Mitigation Measure# 1 states: No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel 1, Parcel 2, or Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured from the north property line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Standard street setback requirements are required. The Agricultural Element sets forth the 300-foot setback in Policy 2.3, which states "Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict." This intent is further clarified by Agricultural Element Program 2.2, page AE-11. This program recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended. The program suggests that "The desired standard [buffer] shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Although the zoning ordinance has yet to be amended to reflect this program standard, the language clarifies the Agricultural Element's intent to use setbacks as a means of protecting agricultural uses. The residential building areas on each proposed parcel, after applying the building setbacks, are shown on Attachment C of this report. In accordance with Policy 2.3, the 300-foot setback was adjusted to address special circumstances. A 300-foot setback was not applied to the common side yards of the proposed parcels because of insufficient parcel width to accommodate the setback. The setback on Parcel 1 was adjusted to reflect that aerial spraying cannot occur within 100 feet of a public road and that a dwelling in this area would not significantly impact agricultural operations. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 2 0 With the setbacks required by Mitigation Measure # 1 and the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed parcels would have the following area available for residential development: Parcel Residential Development Area (acres) 1 1.46 2 2.38 3 2.9 Applying the 300-foot setback to the proposed parcels, therefore, does not materially affect the property's ability to accommodate the permitted land use of a single family home. At the same time, the setback protects the viability of agricultural uses. The Agricultural Commissioner stated that this project would convert viable agricultural lands to smaller parcels that would not be compatible with future agricultural production. Additionally, the Agricultural Commissioner stated that a 300-foot buffer would not be possible on the proposed parcels due to their small size. According to the applicant's engineer, the applicant does not agree with the 300-foot setback requirements, especially the setback on the south section of Parcel 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: An Initial Study has been prepared for this project by County staff. Staff determined, based on a review of the Initial Study, that project impacts can be fully mitigated. However, the applicant has not agreed to the mitigation measure requiring the 300-foot residential building setbacks. Section 15064(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines is the guiding statutory regulation regarding the applicant's refusal to agree to Mitigation Measure# 1. This section states: If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the envl onment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record bef&,•e the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. The applicant's refusal to agree to a revision in the project that mitigates a significant environmental impact requires that the project be denied. ACTION FOR CONSIDERATION: Given that the applicant does not agree to a mitigation measure, staff recommends that the Development Review Committee deny the project, with findings A though F as listed below. If the Development Review Committee determines that there are alternative mitigation measures E Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Agenda Report 0 Page 3 0 I that would protect agricultural uses, staff recommends that the project be continued open to an undetermined date to allow the Initial Study to be revised and recirculated for comment and for conditions and findings of project approval to be prepared. Staff recommends the Development Review Committee take the following action: I I. Deny Tentative Parcel Map 00-06 for Cathy Disano subject to the following findings: A. The Initial Study for the Disano Tentative Parcel Map project identified impacts to adjacent agricultural uses as a significant impact. Mitigation Measure # 1 requires a 300-foot residential building setback to prevent significant impacts to agricultural uses. The proposed mitigation measure is a revision to the project, which the applicant has not agreed to. B. CEQA Guideline Section 15064.(0(2) requires the applicant to agree to any revision in the project if the lead agency determines the revision would avoid the effe^ts or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. C. As proposed by the applicant, the project is not consistent with Policy 2.3 of.the Agricultural Element, which requires that development provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict. D. 300-foot residential building setbacks have been applied to other Tentative Parcel Maps in the Agricultural zones. E. There is adequate area on each proposed parcel for residential development outside of the 300-foot building setbacks. F. There are no unusual circumstances that exist, except on proposed Parcel 1, to alter the 300-foot residential building setback. k:\projects\tpm\disano.tpm\disano dre agenda report.doc 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Agenda Report 0 Page 4 ■ ' 4 °�V T T�° OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 00 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE ° ° OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 PHONE(530)538-7621 ° ° FAX(530)'538-6891 countycounsel@bun=unty.net ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M.MCCLAIN BRUCE S. ALPERT CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY COLNSEL ROBERT W. MACKENZIE DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL FELIX WAN*Nt1kBER ELIZABETH,McGIE ROGER S.WI SON August 19, 2002. VIA US MAIL AND FACSIMILE David R. Nelson Clark and Nelson, Attorneys at Law X21 Market Street Colusa, CA 95932 Re: North Gridley Annexation No. 1 (Boeger) Dear Mr. Nelson: We are in receipt of your letter dated August 12, 2002 and a letter from LAFCO to you dated August 13, 2002 regarding the above referenced matter. Your request that the Butte County Board of Supervisors set an agenda item to review and "adjust" the 300 foot agricultural buffer presently imposed on Mr. Boeger' s project by both the City of Gridley (through approval of the final EIR on the project) and LAFCO through its annexation proceedings is somewhat surprising. There is no pending application of any sort regarding the project presently before the Butte County Board of Supervisors . Therefore, there is no project specific issue within the Board of Supervisor' s jurisdiction. 1 1- r On the other hand, if your letter is suggesting that the Board of Supervisors should, set an agenda item to discuss a general plan amendment with respect to Program 2 . 2 of the Agricultural Element, it raises a whole set of other considerations . As you are aware, the Board .of Supervisors spent a considerable amount of time and had numerous hearings ..on the implementation aspects of the Agricultural Element over the past several years . One of the most contentious issues was the '300.' foot set back set forth in Program 2 . 2 . Program 2 . 2 sets forth a county-wide policy. There is no way for_ the Board of Supervisors, even within such a discussion, to specificai;ly consider whether Mr. Boeger' s project should have a 64 foot set back; a 10- 90 foot set back, a 150 foot set back, or a 300 foot set back. The _. Board would be considering a county-wide policy and any change would have a county-wide effect . Moreover, as you are aware, there are thousands and thousands of acres of agricultural land within the County of Butte which is governed.by the Agricultural Element of the General Plan. Any change in the policy embodied in Program 2 .2 would most likely have a significant impact and would require an extensive EIR process . It is our understanding that Mr. Boeger had an opportunity during the process of his application and annexation to demonstrate under Program 2 . 2 of the Agricultural Element that the 300 foot agricultural buffer should be adjusted to address "unusual circumstances . " Apparently, there are no "unusual circumstances" or Mr. Boeger failed to convince, the City of Gridley or LAFCO that there were any "unusual circumstances . " It has been suggested that Mr. Price, the Agricultural Commissioner, can modify and change county policy set forth in Program 2 .2 . Mr. Price has no power or authority take any action that does not comply with Program 2 .2 . When the Board of Supervisors has a question as to the application of Program 2 . 2 in the course of it' s review of a discretionary permit, Mr. Price provides evidence of whether or not, in his opinion, "unusual circumstances" exist to alter the 300 foot buffer requirement . Mr. Price' s opinion then becomes a basis for a finding to support any modification in the buffer distance. Again, he provides evidence to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. 2 a- Our office has conferred with Yvonne Christopher (Director Development Services) and Richard Price (Agricultural Commissioner) on these issues . They agree with our assessment. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any further comments or information to bring to our attention. tru y s - BRUCE S. ALPER Butte County C unsel BSA: S 1 t G:\BRUCE\ne1smvpd cc: Board of Supervisors Paul McIntosh, Chief Administrative Officer Yvonne Christopher, Director of Development Services Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Paula Leasure, Executive Director of LAFCO 3 a Oak A-5 A-5 � _Y -10 10 -10 P`-5 A- FC -5 042- 160- 2 • WN to Name tro ONS INMM � nn�:G a ��� /`• /� �� �a' .,>/ NO MW �:�:�, ��\ AMA 1 ,,�' /�, ���\.'j �� ��'�'1•�.. .r •.\\�•�♦\�X11 , � \ ■a��ii/IAll■_ Illi m / �.�C(:°si �: \A �O ♦ o, ,rd --�.i_. 1�� .. . II���� ■ ' 1111,�P�e�:Nil IaI�!illl'i:.'s4 Ih� till..MEMO � . 4-- ��._... , t 1 `- :.■. ■_a Gn :a I s'; i�111 'I�■■ ■-�� . 1�I�C�:i i:.:..:ii`r iiia. .u1 1 f;'e:. ii-l: -- �� �. .. .r� ♦ Leri /.• 1/IOtflf�'- J � /N - NN Texas Water -Water Facts - Acre-foot Page 1 of 1 #... WILDLIFEsearch Acre-foot° 16i`� TP M 00-,:96 . An acre-foot of water is enough to cover one acre of land with one foot of water. This is equal to 325,851 gallons of water. Please send comments, suggestions, or ouestions to: TEXAS -PARKS M +$a` i�i Y H S ASO: :R 1, A �Plij: TX 7.$744; or click on the address to send an E-mail message. Home I Fishing I Boating I Parks & Historic Sites I Nature I Education I Kids' Page I Adventure I Newsstand I Gift Shop I Jobs I All About TPW I Related Sites I Search Last Revision:April 06,2000 Awe © � 3 a T, s s-r 7A./ X a, 7,373// S9A I y � t4m,1,c(,6V 3,rO'7I/P'It'fes. �rOx 365d_�7S y /,Z 7/7s 1•^��5 fa, .4� = 1D-7 (�W�l�'✓+-s �u/� 14G'C ��YLcer.C�p = 7� 3j llvy inti Y"' S'. L `P-VLe http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/texaswater/sb l/primer/primerI/wf-acrefoot.htm 12/10/01 Disano TPM 00-06 4. 7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal• Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Significant Previous Impact Mitigation Impact No Document Incorporated Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environmental through the routine transport use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with willdlands? Impact Discussion: a. The A-5 zoning for the property is cons' ent th the Chico Area Greenline policies of the-Butte County General Plan, pages LUE-78 tllou LUE-85. Specifically, page LUE-83 "Zoning Regulations" states that "All areas whic zoned A-5, A-10 on the effecti to of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy.".T nine o the subject property and the area east of Muir Avenue was established on Octob 7 1 8�by rdinance No. 1629. Policy 1.6 of the Agricultural Element establishes the " parc sizes for new land divisions, in areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops on the General Plan Land Use Map, to not less than the existing zoning designations from 5 to 160 acres." Page AE-5, paragraph 2, of the Agricultural Element articulates the fact that there is really no "stand da eage that will automatically"result in economic success." The proposed parcel sizes are the r fot�co sistent with the General Plan. It is clear that the density fiveacr parcels is consistent with the General Plan, as noted in the above paragraph. Despite t ' fact he establishment of actual home sites can only be consistent with the Agricultural Element o the General Plan by establishing reasonable setbacks between ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division■Page 10 0 Disano TPM 00-06 home sites and adjacent agricultural uses. The intent of the Agricultural Element is to protect agricultural uses from L used g� cultur use. af, The Agricultural Element makes this intent clear in Policy 2.3 which states "Require development to provide land use transitions, setbacks and buffers between urban development and agricultural interface to reduce interference and conflict." This intent is further clarified by Agricultural Element Program 2.2, page AE-11. This program recommends that the zoning ordinance be amended. The program suggests that"The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." Although the zoning ordinance'has yet to be amended to reflect this program standard, the language clarifies the Agricultural Element's intent to use setbacks as a means of protecting agricultural uses. The real issue is to what extent should the setback technique be used in this case or other similar cases. The A-5 zone has, as a permitted use, "One (1) single Lanuily elli or modular home per parcel." The establishment of a dwelling on an A-5 parcel ihe for`Ofio an issue. Application of setbacks on an A-5 parcel that would preclude the establisen ermitted use is not the intent of the Agricultural Element nor 11w,General Plan. VERMrIT, then, i ` rel setbacks for the parcel onabl he property line setbacks in the A-5 zone are 20 ee d and 5 feet fo the side d rear yards. Each of the proposed parcels:h epth of 660 feet measured from Muir Avenue. Normally, the rear of these lots would have 5.fo t setback. Applying a 300 foot setback to the rear yard w jJeave60 feet of depth fro which to place a home. When applyingthe Oback to the side yard, there r additional affect on Parcel 1 and Parcel 3. On Parcel, 1, t side yard setback leaves an additional 100 feet of home site area along Oak Way. On , the 3 fo t side yard setback reduces the home site area size from 360'x495' to 360'x195', with the feet being measured along Muir Avenue. This is a Dente-si#e area of 64,500 square fee , ' � o� s ' satis the O fo setback. plyin 3 0� of setback to the proposed parcels oes not materially affect the property's ab iht to acco to the permitted land use of a single family home. At the same time, the setback protects the ' agricultural . "L4b. Orchard cultivation i� 6 g on the p rty with no expected changes in proceedures. C. � schools r n one-quarter mile of the property. GI d. TJie;@.a;e ; hazardous waste site on or near the property. e-E There is no public or private airport or airport plan within two miles of the property. g. adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plany the property. h. The entire local is fully developed with orchards. No wildland Xf the area. Mitigation: 300 Letback ■ Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 Page 11 ■ .. :4... `F" �: . � t 'V ... t� h r ; � y �'Y I .. � +� • + � . i � � � � " ' � , L , Disano TPM 00-06 , Mitigation Measure#1 No part of a building used dential purposes shall be located closer than 300 feet of the rear property line of Parcel , arc 2'o Parcel 3. Parcel 1 is exempted from this setback for a depth of 100 feet measured om the orth roperty line along Oak Way. No part of a building used for residential purposes shall be loca closer than 300 feet of the south property line of Parcel 3. Plan Requirements: A crosshatch designation shall be shown on the final map which depicts the area described by the mitigation measure. Timing: To be implemented at final ma g P P Monitoring: Planning Depart t a map rev' 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Less Than Reviewed Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Under Significant with Mitigation Significant Previous Impact Incorporated Impact No Docwnent Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including.through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would insult in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off=site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? L Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury,or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services■Planning Division■Page 12 0 i N, i I 8.86ac 10ac I f Oak Way 04 / A 5 Zone — c a ea 0 / 1 a r � C A- 10 zo e 6.76a O d. 1629 1 -07-75 area 75 ea 5.21 c 4-29-75 9 2 75 5.46a c 5.0 lac i 5.02ac c 5.35ac 15.45ac -�� est Sacram nto Ave CD 5.35ac, f J 6 ° FILE DOCUMENTATION RE: Cathy Disano, TPM 00-06, APN#042-130-018 10/5/04 approximately 3:00 p.m. I received a call from Central Collections, Lisa. She said that since the Disanos had legal counsel.the issue would now be a legal one. Central Collections is not a legal department and would no longer be handling collections on this account. Lisa faxed over a copy of a letter from the Disanos attorney today. The letter is addressed to the Collection Officer at 25 County Center Drive, Oroville and dated 10/20/03. The Disanos application/payment issues were referred backto the Development Services Department for further resolution. Lisa stated that the Disano's told her that they and their attorneys had received no response from our department regarding requested meetings and letters. Cheryl Spoor, Administrative Services Assistant Development Services • . Page 1 of 1 Spoor, Cheryl From: Lam, Lisa Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:29 AM To: Spoor, Cheryl Subject: RE: COLLECTION-Disano TPM 00-06.doc iT;hank yickTFesponseWe-TW-7 illzputsueieollectio_n:s=uw,, c From: Spoor, Cheryl Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 11:14 AM To: Lam, Lisa Cc: Baker, Joseph Subject: COLLECTION-Disa no TPM 00-06.doc Hi Lisa, I received a phone call yesterday from Central Collections regarding the above applicant,whose account had previously been turned over to your department. I understand an attorney's letter was received stating that there was a dispute and the applicant would not pay the bill. This information has been discussed with Joseph Baker, Planning Manager of Development Services, and he concurs that the amount due on this application is due for work performed on behalf of the Disanos for their application, TPM 00-06. The Disanos have refused to pay since they were unhappy with the outcome of their application. Regardless of the outcome, the charges stand. Please continue to pursue payment. Thank you. 7(i�t�ii� Development Services 538-6571 10/5/2004 10/05/2004 14:50 530538 BUTTE CO TAX PAGE 01 • ,taw 011ice o/ 515 WALL STREET CARL B. LEV$RENZ CHICO.CALIFORNIA 95928 TELEPHONE(530)995.162: A PROPF331ONAL CORrOKAi1Ob FAX(330)994.5043 TIMOTHY D. FERRIS grr0¢NCV AT LAW October 20, 2003 d� 2003. L. Rawlings Collection Officer Butte County Central Collections 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Ms. Rawlings: Re: Planning Department Use Permit - $3,107.21 Mike and Cathy Disano This letter is in response to your letter of October 9,2003,which was just received by my client, Cathy Disano. You should be aware that there is a dispute concerning these charges with the County of Butte. The engineer for my client has been communicating with Mr. Steve Betts and Joe Baker of the Butte County Planning Office. If you or your legal representative would like to discuss this further,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very..�i.,' 3 CBL:pp cc: Mike and Cathy Disano II Butte CountyDeparlment ofDevelopment Services QT TF YVONNE CHRISTOPHER,DIRECTOR o 0 0 0 o o 7 County Center Drive 0 - - Oroville,CA 95965 0 `_=-®G Jo (530)538-7601 Telephone CDUN�y (530)538.7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION*BUILDING*GIS*PLANNING January 20, 2004 Cathy Disano 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 Re: Tentative Parcel Map, TPM 00-06, 042-130-018 Dear Ms. Disano: In an effort to keep our customers informed, we are notifying all applicants of their current status and assigned planner. This is to inform you that Your project has been assigned to Stephen Betts and he can be reached at 538-7153, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Your project has been continued tentatively to December 9, 2004. Should you have any questions regarding your application,please call the planner listed above. Sincerely, LymRichardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Cc: NorthStar BUTTE COUNTY August 18, 2003 ENGINEERING AUG 19 2003 Civil Engineers•Surveyors DEVELOPMENT Planning•Division SERVICES County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Attn: Steve Betts Re: Parcel Map TPM 00-06 for Cathy Disano Dear Steve Thank you for your email response to this matter. Please find enclosed copies of correspondence to you and to Joe Baker. We have no record of answers to these letters. Mr. Disano's concern is the $2000.00 in additional charges as is indicated in Rick's letter to Joe Baker. It appears that this project was handedaround to various planners, yourself included, and that because of this there was some duplication of effort that contributed greatly to these additional charges. Per Mr. Disano, there also were some false starts on this project with meetings scheduled but things not being ready which contributed to the cost. We are asking for a response to Rick's April 9, 2003 letter to Joe Baker regarding the reduction of the fees. If the additional fees are not eliminated we would like a detailed breakdown of the charges including specifically what each charge is for and who did the work. This will enable Mr. Disano to review the additional charges himself to see why the fees were three times the normal amount. I will forward your email to Mr. Disano for his review and comment. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, NorthStar Engineering aures M.0flerrick PLS CC: Mike and Cathy Disano 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX-893-2113 Betts, Steve From: Jim Herrick Dherrick@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7:51 AM To: Steve Betts Subject: FW: Disano TPM-APN 042-130-018, TPM 00-06 Steve, I had your email address wrong. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Jim Herrick [mailto:jherrick@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 7 :43 AM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano TPM-APN 042-130-018, TPM 00-06 Steve, I am looking for some information on this project. At the end of May Rick Rodriguez sent you a fax requesting direction from you on how to withdraw/put on hold the application for this project. He also requested an up date on the additional fees that were being charged. I can find nothing in the file that indicates a response regarding these. It may have come by way of a phone call but in any case could you please look into this and let me know what the final out come is. Thank you, Jim Herrick NorthStar Engineering I 1 i o .o o 0 Lteroffice Memorandum -o DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COu N� Phone: 538-6571 FAX: 538-7785 TO: CENTRAL COLLECTIONS FOLE FROM: Cheryl Spoor,Administrative Services Assistant ppPY Department of Development Services SUBJECT: COLLECTION REQUEST—Cathy Disano,Application TPM 00-06 AP#042-130-018 DATE: July 3,2003 Please process Cathy Disano for collection for the above application. Unpaid charges total $2107.21 plus an additional $1000 re-deposit required by code for all projects continued, totaling $3107.21 due. y Here is a summary of events: 10/13/99 Initial application& $1000 deposit received. -Cathy Disano's signed form appointing NorthStar Engineering as her agent. 11/16/99 Letter from Development Services to Cathy Disano notifying her that the project would not be approved subject to criteria delineated in the letter. -Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines & CEQA Guidelines enclosed. 7/30/02 Letter documenting that the Initial Study was sent to NorthStar Engineering on 4/3/02. The letter stated that the applicant had refused to sign the Initial Study and the Development Review Committee hearing date had been set for September 12, 2002. 9/12/02 DRC Agenda Report for Cathy Disano, TPM 00-06, AP #042-130-018 — denial recommended. Project continued to 9/26/02 DRC meeting at the request of Rick Rodriguez, NorthStar Engineering (agent to Cathy Disano). Notification of meeting published. 9/26/03 A motion was made and carried at the DRC meeting to continue the project to allow the applicant to work on the Initial Study and mitigation measures. 3/14/03 Invoice sent (Is) 3/21/03 Breakdown of invoice sent to Cathy Disano as requested 3/27/03 Copy of Breakdown faxed to NorthStar by Steve Betts, Planner v��" `�l I } Disano—COLLECTION REQUEST TPM 00-06/AP#042-130-018 5/7/03 Invoice sent(2nd) 6/12/03 Invoice sent(3`d) No further payments made to date for the Planning charges against the above application. i ti. NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: STEVE BETTS Rick Rodriguez COMPANY: DATE: Planning �5/e27./03>' FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: (530) 538-7785 2 .5 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: (530) 6772 RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: Disano TPM ❑ URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW XPLEASE COMMENT XPLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: Steve, It looks like the Disano's are going to withdraw / put.on hold their project until a later date. They will wait until they feel they have a better opportunity to develop the way they want to develop. Therefore 2 things; 1. What do you need from the applicant to withdraw 1 put on hold --this application?If you could send an e-mail or a fax back to me so as to have something in the file and something I can send to the Disano's about this would be great. 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 TELEPHONE (530) 893-1600 FAX (530) 893-2113 2. They have still not heard from Joe Baker about those additional fees. (See attached letter) The Disano's feel they should not have to pay anymore since they are holding 1 withdrawing the project. Could you please check with Joe on this?I will also follow up with him. Give me a call if you have any questions. e nrthr ENGINEERING Civil Engineers-Planners*Surveyors FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: [S Z71 JOB # SEND TO: Name ✓U� �F� Company /�L�9!?�!'/l1'G•-- Phone# FAX# 71ef MESSAGE: G-009 e1*7 YOy UI UE a_$ 15F ,51i9jy5 Grr . YOye 2G'C//Eu/ Dom" TlIE.S� Cd/i9�2C-�="S. r,0rm 504 C/4 1w4y7, 5 FROM: Name Company NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING Phone# (530) 893-1600 FAX# (530) 893-2113 E-mail @riorthstareng.com NUMBER OF PAGES: Cover sheet plus r sheets 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX-893-2113 NorthStar ENGINEERING Civil Engineers•Surveyors April 9, 2003 " _P Planning Division COUNTY OF BUTTE 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95969 Attention: Joe Baker Re: Parcel Map TPM 00-06 for Cathy Disano Dear Joe, In regard to the tentative map charges for Cathy Disano,per the invoice dated March 14, 2003, we ask that those charges be reviewed. We realize this is a sensitive project due to its location and the Ag. Policies but to accrue over$2,000 in additional charges is excessive. Since the tentative map was applied for there have been 3 different planners assigned to this project, Carl Durling, Dan Breedon and Steve Betts. Certainly there was duplication of time and work by the subsequently assigned planners for file review, project orientation, etc,to get up to speed from the previous planner. In light of this can some of those charges be reduced? Please review the charges and talk with the planners and then consider deleting some of those time charges. If you have any questions please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING Rick Rodriguez CC: Cathy Disano Carl Leverenz 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX-893-2113 M, ar_ 27 03 03: 3.5p- Deeves & Env Health 5538-7785 p, 3 Bijue C,xuunty Dc:��atYrvent nl'l�e►c1��Prr�c:,�t. .S•cr�ic.c.ti OvtTF Administration-AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965 (530)538-7601 Telephone Tempora!y Parcel Map file: TPM 00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Jatc: March 21,2003 2805 Oak Way Chico,CA 95973 BREAKDOWN OF BILLED AMOUNT - UP 01-17 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner Af plication nq 11!1110109 5 10325 11!15/1999 14.75 3/19/2001 44.25 4/20001 59.00 6/23!2001 59.00 ✓120.'2001 59.00 9/29/2001 206.50 10/1512001 324.50 10/27/2001 442.5U 11/1012001 2.06.56 11/2412001 118.00 12!22/2001 206.50 3i 16/2002 265.50 7/20/2002 59.00 8117/2002 368.75 Prof. Planner Subtotal $ 2,537.00 (Napping $ 59,00 Mapping Subtotal 5 59.00 cicnical Clerical ProceSsin, 10/1/1999 $ 70.50 712012002 45.00 8/17/2002 5 45.00 8/31/2007 56.25 9/14120,02 202.50 3/11/2603 11.25 Billing Clerical Subtotal $ 436.50 Nuulishing $ 74.71 Publishing Expense $ 74.71 $3,107.21 De osit Rocelved:10/15/1999,Recoipt 617935 LESS: Deposit Received: 1 0{ 00.00) 'ro continue processing your application,an additional deposit will be required of: $ 1,000.00 AMOUNT DUE $3,107.21 csllnr 1- .r•.Ilit l INGswv;:,lr.TS IrrUCU1U;.aru11! :(:i gr�:ehun:er.x Mar 27 03 03: 35p De,vcs & Env Health 538-7785 p, 2 Butte C ourity Dcpartment of �V T Administration-AR o t,, o 7 County Center Drive o ;; o Oroville,CA 95965 (530)538.7601 Telephone UN 3/21103 BREAKDOWN ATTACHED AS REQUESTED. Temporary Parcel M_ ap File: TPM 00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: March 14, 2003 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 Deposit Dato: QgWn1`s. 1999 Total Dopostt 12.110.00 Receipt: 17935 Deposit Disbursomcnt: Environmontal Healih W 671.00 Land Development . $ 310.00 GDF/Fife Department $ 129.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 1,000.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $ 2,110.00 -I N V 0 C E TPM 0006 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the-,date of this invoice,tho following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been enterod into the billing program.and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsegttont billings. At the time all changes are entr_rod and billed,you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner S 2.537.00 Mapping $ 59.00 Clerical $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71 TOTAL $ 3,107.21 The costs thus for In processing your application have excoeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 2,107.21 To continue processing your application,an additional dreposlfwill bo required of: $ 11000.00 Butt*County Code 3-44 Hourly fees;deposits;blllirig procedures. County code reyuiroe when the initial duposited funds arc depleted to an amouril oquul 10 25% of the original deposit,no processing of the application will Occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit,or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant dues not provide sufficient funds to continuo processing an;application.the application will be denied Make checks payable to: Uutte County Treasurer a11d send it to us al the above:address. ,rih0utd'you have any questions.pieaso call Accounts Receivable from 8.00 3.m.to 4 p.m.Monday through I i.day. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE BY $ V07 21 Lt,Mr C.f3 March 31, 2003 ..V,fi I INL,':UNVk"(:F I+h:oo-1:;' 1'7`1;7 -.Ii 4� Page 1 of 2 y Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:31 PM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano map Rick, my good man: Disano? I hoped it had gone away but no such luck! I apologize for not working on this issue sooner. I discussed this issue with County Counsel (via e-mail) several months ago and he replied asking me to look at the minutes of the DRC hearing to determine what the DRC really wanted. I just read the minutes, which state that the DRC continued the project "off the agenda to allow time for staff and the applicant to work on the initial study and mitigation measures." I believe the DRC determined that the original initial study was inadequate and wanted staff to revise it. Of course, I haven't done that. With that request for staff to revise the original initial study, the initial study would no longer be valid and a new initial study would have to be prepared. Since the Disano hearing we are now under new leadership, which has us looking very closely at the goals, policies, and conditional development criteria found in the General Plan. Lately we have recommended denial for four or five parcel maps in the agricultural zones, projects which are similar to the Disano tentative map. Tom Wrinkle of Sierra West Surveying, the engineer on those projects,just today put three of those projects on hold. I think he wants to meet with Yvonne Christopher(Director of Development Services) and Supervisor Curt Josiassen to discuss the issues. If the Disano's want us to go ahead, I am sure we would take it to the DRC for denial. We wouldn't prepare an initial study since we would be recommending denial. None of the current projects that we are recommending denial have had an initial study completed. If the DRC denies the project, the Disano's can appeal that decision to the Board. On appeal, the Board couldn't approve of the project because the initial study would not have been prepared. They would have to determine that the project is consistent with the General Plan and then send it back to us to prepare the initial study. You may want to wait a little while to see what the outcome is of the projects that are currently going forward. You may also want to talk to Tom Wrinkle and get in on the meeting (if there is one) with Yvonne Christopher and Supervisor Josiassen, or maybe even set up your own meeting with Yvonne and/or Supervisor Josiassen. Don't let me discourage you or the Disano's for wanting this project to go forward, though. 1 Well, let me know what you would like us to do. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [ma ilto:rrod rig uez@ northsta reng.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:40 PM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano map Steveboy, 3/19/2003 Page 2 of 2 I Hey I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope military retirement is agreeing with you. Growing your hair down you back, etc.. i Is anything going on with this project? My last recollection was that Disano wanted to sign the original initial study and then appeal to the Board. You were going to check to see if that was possible since he refused to sign it at the start. If you could bring up to date the best you can it would be appreciated. Thanks, Rick @ NS E I i I 3/19/2003 t - Sa Ito coun t L A N D O F NATU RAL WEALTH A N D 8 E A ' Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE.CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 FAx TRANSMISSION . ' To: N*Ak4p ,%r En Date:. 312�1'p3 S ATTN: �;Ck Pages:'3 (including cover sheet) Fax #: From: Subject: Additional Comments: i4 Alm 5r'ed. 9i.. a�. x:} ,r ��� �` •Y` ! .. i •=4 — � Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services V T Administration-AR o� TF0 7 County Center Drive 0 0 Oroville,CA 95965 0 _ o (530)538-7601 Telephone o ®`-o COU N'�y 3/21/03 BREAKDOWN ATTACHED AS REQUESTED. Temporary Parcel Map File: TPM.00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: March.14,2003 2805 Oak Way. Chico, CA 95973 Deposit Date: October 13. 1999 - Total Deposit $2.110.00 Receipt: 17935 Deposit Disbursement:, Environmental Health $. 671:00 Land Development $ 310.00 CDF/Fire Department $ 129.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 11000.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $ 2,110.00 INVOICE TPM 00.06 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice,the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program,and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed,you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 2,537.00 Mapping $ 59.00 Clerical $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71 TOTAL $ 3,107.21 The costs thus.far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 2,107.21 To continue processing your application,an additional depositwill be required of: $ 1,000.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees;deposits;billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit,no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit,or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application,the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions,please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m.to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE.AND PAYABLE BY 3,107.21 Biller:CS March 31, 2003 J\BILLINGS\INVOICES ISSLIED\Disano TPM 00-06 032103.xls Butte County Department of Development Services Administration-AR 0�V T TF0 7 County Center Drive 0 0 Oroville,CA 95965 0 0 (530)538.7601 Telephone 0 0 c ,l UN Temporary Parcel Map File: TPM 00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: March 21,2003 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 BREAKDOWN OF BILLED AMOUNT - UP 01-17 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner Application Processing 11/1/1999 .$ 103.25 11/15/1999 14.75 3/19/2001 44.25 4/2/2001 59.00 6/23/2001 59.00 8/20/2001 59.00 9/29/2001 206.50 10/15/2001 324.50 10/27/2001 442.50 11/10/2001 206.50 11/24/2001 118.00 12/22/2001 206.50 3/16/2002 265.50 7/20/2002 59.00 8/17/2002 368.75 Prof. Planner Subtotal $ 2,537.00 Mapping $ 59.00 Mapping Subtotal $ 59.00 Clerical Clerical Processing 10/1/1999 $ 76.50 7/20/2002 45.00 8/17/2002 $ 45.00 8/31/2002 56.25 9/14/2002 202.50 3/11/2063 11.25 Billing Clerical Subtotal $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71 Publishing Expense $ 74.71 $3,107.21 Deposit Received:10/13/1999,Receipt#17935 LESS: Deposit Received: $ (1,000.00) To continue processing your application,an additional deposit will be required of: $ 1,000.00. AMOUNT DUE $3,107.21 Biller:CS JABILLINGS\INVOICES ISSUEDUsano 032103 Breakdown.As Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration-AR o SVT TF0 7 County Center Drive o 0 Oroville,CA 95965 0 _ o .'";= o (530)538-7601 Telephone o �'__' o 3/21/03 BREAKDOWN ATTACHED AS REQUESTED.) Temporary Parcel Map File: TPM 00=06 APN: 042-130=018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: March.14,2003 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 Deposit Date: October 13. 1999 Total Deposit $2,110.00 Receipt: 17935 Deposit Disbursement: Environmental Health $ 671:00 Land Development $ .310.00 CDF/Fire Department $ 129.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES-PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 1,000.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $ 2,110.00 INVOICE TPM 00.06 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice,the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program,and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed,you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 2,537.00 Mapping '$ 59.00 Clerical $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71. TOTAL $ 3,1.07.21. The costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 2,107.21 To continue processing your application,an additional deposifwill be required of: $ 1,000.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees;deposits;billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25%of the original deposit,no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit,or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application,the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions,please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m.to 4 p.m.,Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE BY $ 3,107.21 BIIIer:CS March 31, 2003 J:IBILLINGS\INVOICES ISSUEDOisano TPM 00-06 032103.xis tY~ Butte County Deparanent ofDevelopment Services Administration-AR o�UTTF0 7 County Center Drive o 0 Oroville,CA 95965 0 0 o -- (530) (530)538.7601 Telephone o o Temporary Parcel Map File: TPM 00-06 APN: 042-130-018 Applicant: Cathy Disano Date: Marc h.21,2603 2805 Oak Way Chico; CA'95973 BREAKDOWN OF BILLED AMOUNT - UP 01.17 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner Application Processing 11/1/1999 $ 103.25 11/15/1999 14.75 3/19/2001 44.25 4/2/2001 59.00 6/23/2001 59.00 8/20/2001 59.00 9/29/2001 206.50 10/15/2001 324.50 10/27/2001 442.50 11/10/2001 206.50 11/24/2001 118.00 12/22/2001 206.50 3/16/2002 265.50 7/20/2002 59.00 8/17/2002 368.75 Prof. Planner Subtotal $ 2,537.00 Mapping $ 59.00 Mapping Subtotal $ 59.00 Clerical Clerical Processing 10/1/1999 $ 76.50 7/20/2002 45.00 8/17/2002 $ 45.00 8/31/2002 56.25 9/14/2002 202.50 3/11/2003 11.25 Billing Clerical Subtotal $ 436.50 Publishing $ 74.71 Publishing Expense $ 74.71 $3,107.21 Deposit Received:10/13/1999,Receipt#17935 LESS: Deposit Received: $ (1,600.00) To continue processing your application,an additional deposit will be required of: $ 1,000:00 AMOUNT DUE $3,107.21 Biller.CS J:IBILLINGMINVOICES ISSUEDUsano 032103 Breakdown.As Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:40 PM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano map Steveboy, Hey I haven't heard from you in a while. I hope military retirement is agreeing with you. Growing your hair down you back, etc.. Is anything going on with this project? My last recollection was that Disano wanted to sign the original initial study and then appeal to the Board. You were going to check to see if that was possible since he refused to sign it at the start. If you could bring up to date the best you can it would be appreciated. Thanks, Rick @ NS E 3/19/2003 • Page 1 of 1 • Betts, Steve I From: Betts, Steve Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:56 AM To: Wannenmacher, Felix Cc: Christopher, Yvonne Subject: Disano TPM Felix, Yesterday I met with George Disano, Carl Leverenz, and Rick Rodriguez(NorthStar Engineering) regarding the Disano tentative parcel map project. To jog your memory, this is the project that the applicant refused to sign the initial study and we took it to the DRC for denial. The DRC continued it open to allow staff to rewrite the initial study and meet with the applicant. At the meeting, George Disano asked what would happen if he now signed the initial study that he initially refused to sign. I said I didn't know and would check with you. I did tell him that if the initial study was still valid and he signed it we would take it back to the DRC for a hearing. Any decision the DRC made could be appealed to the Board. So, I need you to determine if the applicants can still sign the initial study that was sent to them last April. If you have any questions please let me know, Thanks. -S- Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Desk-(530) 538-7153, FAX-(530) 538-7785 I I i 10/16/2002 • • Page 1 of 2 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:15 AM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Disano TPM Steveboy, 11:00 at Leverenz office there at 515 Wall Street. See you there -----Original Message----- From: Betts, Steve [mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent:Thursday, October 10, 2002 2:00 PM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Either time is okay with me, but I will make a decision and say that Tuesday at 11:00 would work the best for me. -5- -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [mailto:rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:09 AM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Disano TPM Mr.. Steve, Hey lets get this Disano meeting confirmed.. Lets do Monday afternoon 1:30 or Tuesday late morning 11:00 at Carl Leverenz office at 515 Wall Street: So you will be able to get out of the office. Anyway let me know. RR@NSE -----Original Message----- From: Betts, Steve [mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:15 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM I don't know who else should attend. Since the issues at hand are agricultural related issues, it would be good if Richard Price or Rob Hill could attend,although I doubt if they would want to, even if they had the time. The meeting can be in Oroville or in Chico. Having the meeting in Chico will give me a chance to get out of the office for a while. If you want to have it here check with me first so I can make sure our conference room is available. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [ma iIto:rrodrig uez@northstareng.com] 10/15/2002 I _ NorthStar , ENGINEERING Civil Engineers•Surveyors September 5, 2002 County of Butte PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA Attention: Steve Betts Re: TPM for Cathy Disano Dear Steve, On behalf of our client we request that the project be continued from the September 12 Development Review Committee meeting to the September 26 Development Review Committee meeting. The reason for the continuation request is so that all of the owner's representatives can be present. We appreciate your cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, NORTHSTAR ENGIINTEERING Rrick Rodriguez CC: Cathy Disano Carl Lev erenz SEP . . . . 6 . 2002 BUTTE COUNTY _ PLANNING DIVISION 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530-893-1600 FAX-893-2113 � � Vit_ °_�# NW Qv1t�� ENGINEERING__ Civil Engineers•Surveyors D ECE-OVE . September 5,2002 SEP 5 2002 County of Butte BUTT( COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING n►vISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA Attention- Steve Betts Re: TPM for Cathy Disano Dear Steve, On behalf of our client we request Oat the project be continued from the September 12 Development Review Committee meeting to the September 26 Development Review Committee meeting. The reason.for the continuation request is so that all.of the owner's representatives can be present. We appreciate your cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions please feel free to call this office. Sincerely. NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING Rrick Rodriguez CC: Cathy Disano Carl Leverenz I 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO,CALIFORNIA 95973 530.893.1600 FAX-893-2113 TOO 089'ON SBLL 829 0£S E 9N1833NI9N3 SUISHINON Le:VT Z0/S0/60 i - � � . t,�i��rQflt'31'�"� 1 �. � , 1,i��i ,�..._,.....n ...—.--- � y ,�.. BUTTE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Development Review Committee that a public hearing will be held on- Thursday,September 12,2002,in the Butte County Board of Supervisors'Room County Administration Center,25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: 8:00 a.m. - Cathy Disano, Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural—5 acre parcels). The property is located at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue and Oak Way,west of Chico. APN 042-130-018 (SB) (TPM 00-06) The above-mentioned application and map are on file and available for public viewing at the Office of the Butte County Development Services Department,Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. For information call: (530)538-7601 (Monday through Friday,8:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.) Comments may be submitted in ` writing any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as may be continued to a later date. Upon action taken by the Development Review Committee on the project an appeal may be filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. The appeal period is 10 days. If you challenge the above application in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Development Services Department, Planning Division, at or prior to, the public hearing. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, August 8, 2002. L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 July 30, 2002 NorthStar Engineering Attn: Rick Rodriguez 20 Declaration Drive Chico, CA 95973 Re: Tentative Parcel Map for Cathy Disano on APN 042-130-018, File#TPM 00-06 Dear Rick: As you are aware, we sent the Initial Study for the above referenced project to you on April 3, 1002, for signature either by the applicant or by the applicant's representative. We have had several phone conversations and sent numerous e-mails to each other regarding the applicant's refusal to sign the Initial Study since that time. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines requires that the project applicant, or his or her agent, provide a written consent to the proposed mitigation measures prior to release of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for public review. Because it appears that the Initial Study will not be signed by the applicant, we will be scheduling the project for a hearing by the Development Review Committee on September 12, 2002. The project will be recommended for denial based upon the applicant's refusal to sign the Initial Study. You and the applicant will receive additional notice on the date and time of the Development Review Committee meeting. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7153, or via E-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner 042-130-018 Cathy Disano TPM 00-06 Kennedy Ave A5 At A-10 - - - 4l 6 A5 Oak.Way. ProjectLocation �a A10 z m nto S amen o Ave ` A5 A10 may GiaQs � Wit. m S Eta .,..8 chi A-40 Mailing List- Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 8:41 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Hey Rick! Attached is a letter from me regarding the Disano TPM. The letter will be mailed to you today. Guess we will let the DRC and most likely the Board of Supervisors handle it. Steve 7/30/2002 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve, From: Rick Rodriguez[rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 4:53 PM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano TPM Hey there Steve, Disano will not accept MM#1. do 1 forward a letter to you about this? If so any preferred wording? Give me a call to discuss. Rick @ NS E 7/29/2002 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 1:12 PM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Disano TPM Hey Steve, I wrote the Disano's asking them what they wanted to do and still no reply so what I will do is forward a letter to you asking to hold the project until the owners decide how they wish to proceed. Thanks for your patience. RR@NSE -----Original Message----- From: Betts, Steve [mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:49 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Just wondering what is going on with Disano. Last we discussed (via e-mail) was that you were going to send us a letter asking to put the project on hold for a while, but I haven't received it. Let me know so I can adjust accordingly. Thanks. SB 7/29/2002 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Betts,Steve Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 9:49 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Just wondering what is going on with Disano. Last we discussed,(via e-mail) was that you were going . to send us a letter asking to put the project on hold for a while, but I haven't received it. Let me know so I can adjust accordingly. Thanks. SB 7/29/2002 • � . Page 1 of 1 Betts,Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:05 AM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano TPM Good morning Steve, Hey still no word from the Disano's on what they want to do. So I'm asking you, what do you need to do? Do you schedule for DRC by default? Or do you need a letter from us asking that this be put on hold? Let me know what the procedure is. Thanks, Rick @ NS E 7/29/200.2 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Monday, June 03,.2002 10:57 AM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Rick @ NorthStar, We will gladly accept a letter from you asking that the project be put on hold pending a r.::view of the initial study by the applicant. Since we don't want to put the project on hold indefinitely, you should ask for a specific time period for the project to be put on hold (1 month, 2 months, 3 months, etc). Planner Boy Steve B. -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [mailto:rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 9:05 AM To: Steve Betts ' Subject: Disano TPM Good morning Steve, Hey still no word from the Disano's on what they want to do. So I'm asking you, what do you need to do? Do you schedule for DRC by default? Or do you need a letter from us asking that this be put on hold? Let me know what the procedure is. Thanks, Rick @ NS-E 7/29/2002 • � Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:58 AM To: Steve Betts Subject: Disano TPM Steveboy, Hey still no word from the Disano's in regard to the I.S. I sent them a note to call you or me if they need to discuss further. I will keep you posted. RR@NSE 7/29/2002 • � Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve To: Rick Rodriguez Subject: RE: Disano TPM Rick, Okay, here is the scoop on the Disano TPM project. We are going to schedule a DRC hearing for the project on June 27, and it.will be,for denial of the project. The applicant has had plenty of time to respond to the initial study, but since we have heard nothing from them we can only assume that they do not agree with the mitigation measures. We cannot keep the project in limbo and need to move it along, one way or another. We will send you and the applicant official notice of the DRC hearing date in the next week or so. Steve, Super Planner. 1/29/2002 Page 1 of 2 Betts, Steve From: Betts, Steve Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:57 PM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Rick, I checked the County Environmental Guidelines and the CEQA Guidelines, and while they don't say much, here is what I found: Butte County Environmental Review Guidelines VI. F. THRESHOLDS: Determining the significance of environmental impacts is a critical and often controversial aspect of the environmental review process. It is critical because a determination of significance requires that the project be substantially altered, or that mitigation measures be readily employed to avoid the impactor reduce it below the level of significance. If the impact cannot be reduced or avoided, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. CEQA Guidelines 15063(c) Purposes. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or a Negative Declaration. (2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration. 15064.(f)(2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. So, here's the scoop. If the applicant does not agree to the mitigation measure then we would take the project to the DRC with a recommendation of denial, who I am sure will go along with that recommendation(they really don't have any other choice). Their decision can be appealed to the Board. The Board could agree with the DRC and deny the project, or they may direct staff to look into it some more and bring it back to them at a later date. Dan just told me that for one of his recent projects the applicant did not agree with one of the mitigation measures. Dan had him identify which mitigation measure he did not agree to and write his objections to it below the signature line on the initial study. The project then went.to the DRC, which was fully aware of the applicant's refusal to accept the one mitigation. The DRC said the mitigation was not needed and it was dropped. I am not sure if Meleka will go along with this, and he didn't mention Dan's project to me when we discussed the Disano TPM project. 4/19/2002 • • Page 2 of 2 b Keep me informed on what they want to do. Steve Super Duper Planner (and ex National Guard airport security guard) ' 4/19/2002 Page 1 of 1 Betts, Steve From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 8:41 AM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Disano TPM Good Morning Steve, I imagine you have got your groove back, so when you can give me a call about the Disano map: They are not agreeable with the I.S. more particularly the 300' setback from the south line of proposed parcel 3. So lets discuss procedure from here. Thanks, RR @ NS E -----Original Message----- From: Betts, Steve (mailto:SBetts@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 10:46 AM To: 'rrodriguez@northstareng.com' Subject: Disano TPM Hey Rick boy! Yep, that's right, I'm back in the saddle again and roaring to go. Hard to believe that I am really happy to be back working for the Planning Division, but I am! I was given the Disano TPM to finish up, and I believe the initial study was sent to you for review and signature. Please return it to me as soon as possible so I can get this project scheduled for a DRC hearing. Thanks. Steve Stephen Betts Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division (530) 538-7153 Fax(530) 538-7785 7/29/2002 Durling, Carl Page 1 of 1 From: Rick Rodriguez [rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:33 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: RE: Disano TPM Good Morning Carl, Hey as it turns out I cannot make it over to Oroville today. Has that Disano I.S. been signed? If so'could you please fax it to me and then we can discuss it over the phone. Our fax#is 893-2113. Thanks, Rick @ NS E -----Original Message----- From: Durling, Carl [mailto:CDurling@ButteCounty.net] .Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 2:30 PM To: 'Rick Rodriguez' Subject: RE: Disano TPM Just got an ok on my language for the"300"foot setback issue. Have to make some corrections in the text. Worked on my own time last saturday and the saturday before to get it done. No time during the day. When I'm finished (hopefully by Monday) I would like you to come in and go over it with me. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [mailto:rrodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 10:01 AM To: cdurling@buttecounty.net Subject: Disano TPM Good Morning Carl, Hey I just got a call from Mike Disano about his TPM.That initial study was supposed to be completed quite some time ago. Can you give me a status on that. Its getting embarrassing for me to say that I'm waiting on the County to complete especially when I told him months ago that it was almost done and will be to us the next week. Give me an "E" or a call at 893-1600. Thanks, Rick @ NorthStar 4/2/02 Durling, Carl Page 1 of 1 To: Rick Rodriguez Subject: RE: Disano TPM Good morning to you. Hope you had a great weekend. Meleka has not signed the IS as of Friday, and I have not seen him yet this morning. There are to many pages to fax, so I'll be happy to mail it to you and to Disano. I was hoping to go over it with you personally, but that is up to you. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [mailto:r.rodriguez@northstareng.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:33 AM To: Durling, Carl Subject: RE: Disano TPM Good Morning Carl, Hey as it turns out I cannot make it over to Oroville today. Has that Disano I.S. been signed? If so could you please fax it to me and then we can discuss it over the phone. Our fax#is 893-2113. Thanks, Rick @ NS E 4/2/02 Durling, Carl Subject: Disano Map: Greenline and Ag Element Issues Location: Planning Conference Room Start: Tue 9/18/01 7:00 GGa��Qj!/l-ZL q# -,/0 `�90/¢Ilk End: Tue 9/18/01 . PM r�P,✓ Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Required Attendees: Wannenmacher, Felix; Durling, Carl; Meleka, M.A. Carl has asked for input regarding the above issues. 1 , Page 1 of 1 Durling, Carl From: Breedon, Dan Sent: Thursday,August 16, 2001 10:02 PM To: Durling, Carl Subject: FW: Disano TPIVI Carl, could you please give Rick an update?Thank you. -Dan -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rodriguez [mailto:rrodrigu@dcs-chico.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:25 AM To: dbreedon@buttecounty.net Subject: Disano TPM Greetings Dan, Hey can.you give me the latest on this TPM. Last time we talked you thought it might make the DRC of August 16 but of course that did not happen.Any update? Thanks, Rick @ IVorthStar 8/16/01 AbrthSt;ar ENGINEERING Civil Engineers-Planners Surveyors FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET DATE: JOB it 6 774 SEND TO: Name Con.,pany _ Phonc# FAX# SM - a 45� MESSAGE: - vaoi-, 03, FROM: Name Company NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING Phone It (530) 893-1600 r r FAX# (530) 893-2113 r E-mail NUMBER OF PAGES:' Cover sheet plus I sheets 20 OECLARATION DRIVE_ CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 530.893.1600 FAX•893.2113 •ZOO bTZ'ON 984L 8£S 0£9; F SNI833NIEN3 8dlSH180N -- 99:80 tAi?Acca 1 .� .. t NorthStar. E-NGENEERING Civil.Engineers•Planners•Surveyors TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: DAN BREEDON RICK RODRIGUEZ COMPANY: DATE: PLANNING DIVISION 4/13/01 ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 6772 TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING: OROVILLE, CA. REVISED T.P.M. PROJECT: DISANO P.M. ❑FOR APPROVAL❑FOR INFORMATIO/ <OR CHECKING ❑ FOR PROCESSING FOR YOUR FILES EASE REVIEW& COMMENT ❑PLEASE REPLY ❑AS REQUESTED /1119� NOTES/COMMENTS: DAN, MIKE & CATHY DISANO REVIEWED THE LATEST PROPOSED "BUILDING ZONES"LAYOUT AND THEY FEEL IT IS STILL TO RESTICTIVE.THEY ASKED THAT I REVISE THE MAP TO SHOW THE "BUILDING ZONES" EXTENDING TO THE AG. BUFFER SETBACK LINE. THEY FEEL THIS IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST AND WILL NOT ADVERSLY EFFECT THE AG OPERATION.A COPY OF SAID REVISED MAP IS ATTACHED. AFTER YOUR REVIEW GIVE ME A CALL WITH YOUR COMMENTS RECEIVED RECEIVED BUTTE COUNTY mux SION APR � s zoos BUTTE COUNTY BUILDING DIVISION NORTHSTAR ENGINEERING ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS f FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: FROM: VgMiQ /SOON DAN BREEDON RICK RODRIGUEZ COMPANY: DATE: PLANNING 3/14/01 FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO.OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: (530) 538-7785 Q 3 PHONE NUMBER: SENDER'S REFERENCE NUMBER: (530) 6772 RE: YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER: DISANO TPM ❑ URGENT ❑FOR REVIEW •❑ PLEASE COMMENT 'PLEASE REPLY ❑ PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMENTS: DAN, HEY DAN,WHEN YOU CAN COULD YOU PLEASE GRAB THIS FILE,BLOW THE DUST OFF OF IT, AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS. LAST I REMEMBER ABOUT THIS IS THAT YOU SENT ME A MARKED UP MAP SHOWING BUILDING ZONES 125'FROM THE ROAD AND A 300'SETBACK FROM ADJACENT AG. MY CLIENT DID NOT CARE FOR THIS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESTRICTING OF THE BUILDING SITES ON PARCEL 1 AND MORE PARTICULARLY PARCEL 3. I CALLED YOU AND WE TALKED AND I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER, MAYBE INTO SOME SIMILAR APPLICATION BUT I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER AT THIS POINT.DOES THAT INFO RING ANY BELLS WITH YOU? REGARDLESS PLEASE TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE MAP YOU SENT ff UNE 2000) AND GIVE ME A CALL AND LETS DISCUSS WHAT YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE AND WHAT CAN BE NEGOTIABLE FOR BUILDING SITES,DEVELOPMENT SO WE CAN GET THIS GOING. THANKS DAN. 20 DECLARATION DRIVE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 TELEPHONE (530) 893-1600 FAX (530) 893-2113 An PARCEL 2 r 5.0 AC. + - - 660' , /4111, SOU7I-1 UNE OF LOT 5 PARCEL 3 �I 7.5 AC. -d C2 i I J 660' -4A 0,' I I 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 h ' I. I I NW CORNER I LOT 25 I OAK PARCE 1 L4j I ` I {� 5.0 AC. + - Y /-d '1 ! P A R C ESL 2 P r ,j 5.0 AC. +1, - ii) ' ✓�� ! 660'�E T / 1 '� SOU 77-1 UNE OF L 0T 25 TPM 00-06 AP 042-130-018 Cathy Disano Kennedy A'" -- -mu A5 i . OFC A40 � A-5 Project Location io nfn A-5 �1 m i �� Y r S_ e �� Nort "yft ENGINEERING �� JUN 15 2000 Ciyil:Etigineers•Planners•Surveyors TRANSMITTAL SHEET INGDI N TO: FROM: DAN BREEDON RICK RODRIGUEZ COMPANY: DATE: PLANNING DIVISION 06/14/2000 ADDRESS: JOB NUMBER: 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 6772 TRANSMITTING THE FOLLOWING: OROVILLE, CA. TPM APPLICATION . PROJECT: .TPM 00-06 for CATHY DISANO ❑FOR APPROVAL❑FOR INFORMATION❑ FOR CHECKING ❑ FOR PROCESSING><FOR YOUR FILES ❑ PLEASE REVIEW&COMMENT ❑ PLEASE REPLY S REQUESTED NOTES/COMMENTS: DAN, AS PER OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, THIS IS TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL ACTIVELY PURSUING THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR CATHY DISANO. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE SUGGESTED SETBACK CRITERIA AND BUILDING ZONES AS YOU NOTED AND WILL INCORPORATE THOSE INTO THE MAP.I JUST NEED TO GET A FREE BLOCK OF TIME TO MAKE THOSE ADDITIONS. I WILL FORWARD REVISED COPIES FOR YOUR REVIEW AS SOON AS SAID ADDITIONS ARE DONE. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND COOPERATION. �A q y j' �� ` Ai • • G0 Y r .BUTTE COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT �K A* 2525 Dominic Drive,Suite 1 LAWRENCE D.ODLE T" V Chico,California 95928 Air Pollution Control Offirer y d9e ,GS Tel: (530)891-2882 W.JAMES WAGONER �eII t 1$ Fax:(530)891-2878 Asst.Air Pollution Control Officer " October 26, 1999 Dan Breedon, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville,CA 95965 Re: TPM-00-06 Dear Mr. Breedon: The District has reviewed the request for comments for a tentative parcel map to divide a 17.5 acre parcel into three parcels on property located on Muir Avenue and Oak Way west of Chico. Based on the information submitted the District recommends incorporating measures to control fugitive dust emission from all road and other construction activities during project improvements. Measures may include site and driveway watering and/or use of other acceptable soil palliatives. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the District at 891-2882. Sincerely, Gail Williams Air Quality Planner RECEIVED OCT Z 8 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION File No 3451.1 \\bcapcd\sys\apps\wpdocs\eir\bctpm0006.doc l� � INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM BUTTE COUNTY 5 TO: Development Services, Planning Division FROM: Michael Huerta Supervisor, Environmental Health SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map Conditions DATE: October 20, 1999 ----------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT: Cathy Disano DATE: October 13, 1999 AGENT: NorthStar Engineering APN: 042-130-018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map TPM 00-06 Items below are conditions of approval . PLEASE CONTACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION . FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS D. LEACHFIELDS Identify on the additional map sheet a 100 ' leachfield free setback from each existing well within the project and within 100 ' of project boundary line. F. INDIVIDUAL WATER SUPPLY The property is within a known high nitrate area . Wells drilled on these lots will require an eighty foot (801 ) sanitary seal . MH/dd/land/commentf. don/disa-no. con RECEIVED OCT 2 5 IC-99 PLANNING DIVISION BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: California Department of Forestry FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Cathy Disano,TPM 00-06 DATE: October 14, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Dan Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any;and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Man dividing 17.5 acres into threean rcels,2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5(Agricultural,5-acrean rcel)located on at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue&Oak Way_ west of Chico,identified as APN 042-130-018. Supervisorial District No.-2. THIS ITEM HAS 13EEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) PLANNING COMMISSION - X DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON February 24, 2000. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN October 28,1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): zzee OCT 91iSU19 PLANNIN— Co��.014 By: Date: D r 2- 7 7 County Center Drive,Oroville,CA 95965 - (530)538-7601 -Fax(530)538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICANT: Cathy Disano DATE: October 13, 1999 AGENT: NorthStar Engineering APN: 042-130-018 FILE#: TPM 00-06 PLANNER: .PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three parcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres. PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS R. FIRE CLEARANCE 1. Construction,installation or development of structures or facilities on the parcels/lots shall comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations, (Public Resources Code 4290), and all other applicable State and County codes,ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of application for ^improvementpermi s. ` 2. ui mg identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. —3. Fire hydrant identification,reflector or post reflectors shall be installed acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 4. In lieu of a pressurized water system or water storage tank,payment of$200.00 per created parcel into the Battalion 2. water tend fund,is requir5d prior to the issuance of a building permit. Place a note on the map or additiona sheets that states `Development of these parcels may require payment into the Water Tender Fund." —5. A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant spacing_feet, hydrant size inches, and residual fire flow_gpm. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. 6. Place a note on the owner's statement,the deed, or any other instrument to be recorded that states: "Fire suppression sprinkler systems shall be installed in all new residential structures in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings and mobile homes,NFPA Standard 13D,unless a pressurized community water system,with hydrants that meet Fire Department specifications,serves the parcels." 7. In lieu of hydrant installation,payment may be made into the hydrant fund at a cost of$1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is$ i 8. Prior to recordation of the Map or application for a building permit,the applicant shall pay the then current established fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund. 9. P rovide an alAther access of at least 10 foot wide and with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus to all structures •�. r /' a � ' ,'. x' s,�- = r Nov-12-99 10: 14A Butte Co Ag Dept 530 538 7594 P_01 Butte County AgrWultucm 316 Nelson Avenue. Otoville,CA 95965-3318 FAX Date: Nov. 10. 1994/Nov. 12, 1999 j -' Number of pages including cover sheet: One To: Jill Broderson, Devclp. Svcs. From: Richard B.Price Dan Brecdon, Devpin. Svcs- Agricultural Commissioner _ h From: phone: 530/538-7601 Fax phone: 538-7785 I CC.� Phone: 530/538-7381 Fax one: 530/538-7594 REMARK$: © Urgent ❑ For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ❑ Please comment Ms. Broderson, Richard Priya would like for you to have Dan Breedon tax a copy of the letter that he wants him to review, Mr. Price will look it over on Friday morning. Any questions, please page Richard at 530/540-9525 or leave z voice mail on his direct line.: 7137. Thank you. C:KOWIATIB.►R•s t r' BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Butte County Public Works FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Cathy Disano,TPM 00-06 DATE: October 13, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions,if any;and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for Tentative Parcel Ma dip •viding 17.5 acres into threean rcels,2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5(APhcv ultural,5-acrean rce11 located on the southeast corner of Muir Avenue &Oak Way,west of Chico,identified as APN 042-130-018. Supervisorial District No.2. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) PLANNING COMMISSION - _X_DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON February 24,2000. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN October 27, 1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): ifff�A111L1ID& alun lot 9'1440 a RISS B Date: OG G�4/1 G U� `< Y� 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 -530-web 530-538-7785 0 C T 1 3 1999 COUNTY OF BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV, i BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICANT: Cathy Disano DATE: October 13, 1999 AGENT: NorthStar Engineering ATN: 042-130-018 FILE#: TPM 00-06 PLANNER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into three.parcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres. Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS A. STREETS 1. Prior to, or concurrently with the recordation of the Parcel Map, provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement on the County approved form. —2. Provide street name signs per requirements of the Department of Public Works prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. Street names shall be approved by the County Address Coordinator prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map. 3. Obtain encroachment permit for all new or existing driveway approaches and construct them to County standards,as specified in County Improvement Standards. 4. Provide a cul-de-sac, designed and constructed to county standards as specified in the County Improvement Standards. The Parcel Map shall show the cul-de-sac. 5. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map,prove,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that there is approved access conforming to County standards to each parcel from a publicly maintained road. —6. All access rights shall be reserved by deed,per County Ordinance, and offered for dedication and depicted on the Parcel Map. —7. The developer shall provide all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs. A note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the Parcel Map stating"The property owners are responsible for the maintenance of all private road safety signs,including stop signs." _X_8. Pay the recording fees then in effect for recording the Parcel Maps and related documents. �Q 9. Deed to Butte County, in fee simple, .70 feet of right-of-way from the centerlines of /�I✓eh /}✓ ,,,� O" (et6 , . The right of way shall be sufficient for the installation of standard No. S-5 at all street intersections. — 10. Provide two-way traversable access to each parcel from a County maintained road or from a state highway. Improve parcel frontage to RS-— LD-—and access road to parcel being divided to RS- _LD-_. (If the parcels being created are 5 acres or less in gross area: Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for plan checking and approval prior to construction.) 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 530-53-76601 -FSA 30-538-7785 3 KEC OCT 1 3 1999 COUNTY OF BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV. 11. Submit road and drainage improvement plans for the installation and construction of the street frontage improvements on to standard,including but not limited to P.C.C. curb, gutter and sidewalk and the required street section for parcels with gross acreage of one acre or less. Construct or install the required improvements. 12. Dedicate a one foot "no access strip" or relinquish abutters rights to Butte County, along the frontage of parcels ,except at approved access points. 13. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map,obtain an encroachment permit and construct a standard road approach,in accordance with County Improvement Standards. Adequate sight distance at the intersection of access road and shall be provided. — 14. Show on the additional map sheet of the Parcel Map a ! � ft.building setback from the centerlines Of /y(/! O/W !iWY B. DRAINAGE 1'. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or conveyed to.the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. 2. Establish 100 year floodplain elevations and the lowest floor elevations for any structures. Show on the additional map sheet the elevations (by contours) and the location of an accepted NVGD benchmark and a temporary benchmark on-site. 3. Pay the applicable drainage fees in effect at the time of recordation of the Parcel Map for the drainage area. (The current fee is now $ /acre.) C. PARCEL MAP 1. New lot lines shall comply with the applicable setback requirements of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance and the County adopted Uniform Building Code. _X_2. Show all easements of record on the Parcel Map. _X_3. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Parcel Map,pay in full any and all delinquent, current and estimated taxes and assessments as specified in Article 8,of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of Title 7, of the California Government Code commencing with Section 66492. 4. Prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map,prove,to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, that the parcel to be divided is a legal parcel. 5. Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the Parcel Map, pay all applicable assessments established by affected assessment districts,in full. 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the Parcel Map regarding 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 53Ii#EX 530-538-7785 LY 0 C T 1 3 1999 COUNTY OF BUTTE LAND DEVELOPMENT DIV. � 1 LAN D OF NATURAL W E A L T H AN D BEAUTY k5i W. PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530)538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 www.buttecounty.net November 16, 1999 Ms. Cathy Disano 2805 Oak Way Chico, CA 95973 Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 00-06 Dear Ms. Disano: The Planning Division is concluding the process of reviewing the above-referenced application for a land division. This application proposes to create two parcels of 5-acres and one parcel of 7.5- acres from an existing 17.5-acre parcel. As a result of Planning Division review of this project, staff will not be recommending approval of your project to the Development Review Committee. This decision is based upon careful consideration of the proposal during the review period. The following factors have contributed to this determination: 1. Proposed Tentative Parcel Ma is inconsistent with the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan p p -� designation's Conditional Zoning Criteria. 5� A.o_l� a;�, ,oro Ac-=i�--a.y c, /�c 4 5-a6.*�5 i w eO-et °`c f TP.e ,a" 0� i,✓ 112- vr,r'f e orae,ri The applicable A-5 zoning is considered only conditionally consistent with the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. This means that in order for staff to recommend approval of a land division, certain zoning and development criteria must be met. Among these criteria is a determination that the present status of agricultural production will not be significantly impaired. The creation of additional parcels within agricultural units, such as this orchard, can limit proper maintenance and development of agricultural uses since the orchard would become subject to numerous owners. The development of additional dwellings within existing orchards also presents a compatibility problem as many of the agricultural uses that take place --- - within orchards, such as spraying, harvesting, tractor operation, and cutting, can be considered a nuisance to residential uses. The development of residences within agricultural areas can result in agricultural lands becoming less desirable for agricultural uses or to be completely converted to residential use. This situation arises from market pressures, complaints from adjacent property owners, and decreases in production caused by dividing Ms. Cathy Disano, page 2 viable agricultural units into smaller and smaller parcels. Because the project has been determined through staff's analysis to present an impairment to the present status of the site's use as an orchard, the project is not considered conditionally consistent with the Orchard and Field Crops General Plan designation. 2. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Butte County Agricultural Element. The Agricultural Element is a component of the Butte County General Plan. Approval of discretionary projects by the Development Review Committee must be made in consistency with the General Plan. The following policies are not met by your proposed land division: Agricultural Element Goal 1 states that parcel sizes should be maintained that ensure long- term preservation, conservation and continuity of those General Plan areas identified as Orchard and Field Crops. The division of the existing 17.5-acre parcel, which is occupied by an orchard, into the three smaller parcel sizes is inconsistent with this goal since the smaller parcels do not promote long-term preservation, conservation or continuity of the existing orchard. gle -{ltiaze Q.v 7 5± acs pael,� 44,, -1- GtA,,e 4-ee-h0y _ i0-/J_7&'*2s7 Agricultural Element Policy 1.7 states that parcel consolidation should be encouraged in Orchard and Field Crops areas and that site sensitive planning should be encouraged through Transfer of Development Credits (TDC) and other land use concepts. The proposed land division would accomplish the opposite of parcel consolidation by creating two additional parcels. The County Planning Division is investigating options for TDC within the County. However, no TDC program is implemented in the County at this time. This program may be an option for the property in the future. 4 0 « lv-er a=x i sr Agricultural Element Goal 2 states that agricultural land at city and community boundaries should be conserved and stabilized in order to protect agricultural lands from encroachment and conversion to urban uses. This area is near the city and community boundary of Chico. The proposed land division will encroach into a viable orchard with additional residential development on smaller parcels. The proposal will not contribute to the stabilization of the agricultural use and will convert larger agricultural parcels into smaller parcels with the potential for residential development which is less suited for agricultural uses go,,t.7 e>x,fra'21 pace, 4-o Al Agricultural Element Program 2.2 requires that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing and proposed residential uses from incompatible agricultural uses. The desired standard, a 300-foot buffer, would eliminate suitable building sites on the proposed parcels if implemented from adjacent agricultural land. Agricultural Element Policy 3.5 states that the primary purpose of the Orchard and Field Crops land use categories shall be for agricultural production, related processing, and services in support of agriculture. Residential uses, such as a farmer's home, is considered a Ms.Cathy Disano, page 3 secondary use and is permitted on a limited basis to assist and support agriculture. The proposed land division is not necessary for agriculture production, related processing and would not serve or support agriculture. The property already provides an opportunity for a farmers home.. �Y -µLty�Ne,0 ? Agricultural Element Policy 3.6 states that residential lands should be carefully located where limited agricultural uses and farm animals are allowed, to avoid conflicts with agricultural operations. The proposed land division is located in an area that is designated for commercial agricultural activities by the General Plan and zoning. The site is developed with a orchard. This is not an area where limited agricultural uses exist. There is no opportunity to locate residential uses in an area where limited agricultural uses exist, in accordance with this Policy. The Office of the Agricultural Commissioner also indicates that the proposed Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Agricultural Element (see attached memo). 3. Proposed Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Chico Area Greenline This project is located on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline. The Greenline is recognized by the Butte County General Plan as the demarcation of where urban land uses in the Chico area stop and agricultural land uses begin. Although policies limit residential development and subdivisions on the agricultural side of the Greenline, one policy also indicates that areas zoned A-5, such as this area ardonsidered consistent with Greeny policy. However, the General Plan also indicates that lands on the agricultural side of the Greenline be conserved and protected for agricultural use. w�-c �� �o "� cdu!" This land division will reduce the size of the property which will effect the economic benefit of the agricultural use, allow for the construction of two additional dwellings which will result in the removal of agricultural land from production, and will result in multiple owners which may, have a negative effect on the management of the land for agricultural purposes. For these reasons the proposed land division will not enhance the conservation and protection of the agricultural use of this property is interpreted by staff as inconsistent with the Greenline policies. This application will be scheduled for a denial recommendation before the Development Review Committee. Inconsistencies with the General Plan and County code regarding the conservation of agricultural land precludes the completion of a Negative Declaration determination of the project's impact to the environment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental review pursuant to CEQA is not necessary to deny a project. If the Development Review Committee determines that the project can be approved through changes in the design of the project which will reconcile the inconsistencies with the General Plan and County Code, it can be referred back to staff for continued processing and completion of the environmental Ms.Cathy Disano, page 4 review. It would be beneficial for you or your representative to attend the Development Review Committee hearing to discuss any proposed changes in the project's design. If the Development Review Committee decides to deny the application, this decision can be appealed to the Butte County Board of Supervisors. It is also your option to withdraw the application. In such an instance that portion of the filing fee not used will be refunded to you. If you choose to continue processing, charges will continue to accrue as the project is processed. A denial of the application will not result in a refund of your filing fees. I would also like to inform you that in February of this year the Board of Supervisors denied an appeal of the Development Review Committee's decision to deny a subdivision map for Sawgrass Investors (TSM 98-04) based upon inconsistencies with Agricultural Element policies. If this proposed land division is denied, or you choose to withdraw your application, this property may be eligible for a Transfer of Development Credits. This is a program that is provided for in the Agricultural Element. However, this program is not implemented at this time and is not currently scheduled for implementation. Please discuss this matter over with your project representative. I am available at 530-538-7629 to answer any questions you may have regarding this matter or to arrange a meeting at your convenience. Sincerely, Daniel C. Breedon Senior Planner Enclosure cc: NorthStar Engineering Land Development Division Environmental Health Department Agricultural Commissioner Farm Bureau .moi/ •Wy� n _ _-. ut County to LAND OF NATURAL W EA LTH AND BEAUTY OFFICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES •WATER DIVISION 316 NELSON AVENUE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3318 AGRICULTURAL DEPT.: (530)5384381 -WATER: (530)538-6265 FAX: (530)538-7594 RICHARD S.PRICE LOUIE 8:MENDOZA,JR. , Agricultural Commissioner Assistant Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights and Measures/ Weights and Measur'es/Water Division Water Division Date: November.12, 1999 To: Tom Parilo, Director of Development Services — From: Richard Price, Agricultural Commissioner Subject: Tentative Parcel Map 00-06 ; I am submitting the following comments regarding the proposed parcel map. 1. This proposed parcel map would create parcels that would not be in conformance with the Butte County Agricultural Element. The Agricultural Element states that parcel sizes should be maintained to ensure the long-term preservation of those areas defined as Orchard and Field Crops in the General Plan. The existing 17.5 acre orchard'parcel would. be split into three parcels under this proposed plan. These new parcels would be inconsistent with Agricultural Element Goal 1. This goal provides for the continuation of the agricultural character of the county in areas designated as Orchard and Field Crop. 2. The Agricultural Element Goal 2 provides the stabilization of agricultural land to protect the use of such lands from potential urban use. The location of these potential parcels would provide for the conversion to smaller parcels that would not be compatible with future agricultural production. 3. The Agricultural Element Program 2.2 also requires that a 300 foot buffer be established to prevent encroachment onto agricultural sites from proposed building sites. This is to prevent any potential incompatible uses, such as harvest practices, crop protection materials, noise, dust, from taking place next to agricultural uses. The proposed parcels would not be large enough to provide for these required buffers. This is also an area where Agricultural Commissioner staff have worked closely with residents and growers to reduce complaints from crop protection material applications. RECEIVED NOV 1. 5 1999 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Cathy Disano,TPM 00-06 DATE: October 14, 1999 CONTACT PERSON: Dan Breedon The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any; and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project,as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given,or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for a Tentative Parcel Map dividing 17.5 acres into threean rcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each,and oneap rcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acrean rcel)located on at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue&Oak Way, west of Chico, identified as APN 042-130-018. Supervisorial District No.-2. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) -PLANNING COMMISSION - -X_DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON February 2424,2000. COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN October 28,1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: 7 County Center Drive,Oroville, CA 95965 - (530)538-7601 -Fax(530)538-7785 LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: TPM 00-06 AP# 042-130-018 APPLICANT: Cathy Disano, 2805 Oak Way, Chico, CA 95973 OWNER: Same REPRESENTATIVE: NorthStar Engineering, 20 Declaration Drive, Chico, CA 95973 REQUEST: Tentative Parcel Man dividing 17.5 acres into threean rcels, 2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one parcel at 7.5 acres. SIZE: 17.5 acres LOCATION: at the southeast corner of Muir Avenue & Oak Way, west of Chico SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # 2 EXISTING ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural, 5-acre parcel) ZONINGHISTORY: 10/7/75 Ord. 1629 SURROUNDING ZONING: A-5, A-10 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Orchard, rural residential SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Orchard & Field Crops APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Rec'd 10-13-99 COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: Cathy Disano DATE: October 13, 1999 County Offices and Cities: _X/ Chief Administrative OfLfc�perX Develop.Services DirectoP X_✓ Public Works Director . Environmental Health CBiW X_ Assessor✓ ✓ _ Building Manager _ Sheriff Air Quality Mgmt. _ ALUC LAFCo✓ _ APCD Butte Co.Farm Bureau Biggs _ Gridley _ Chico _ Oroville _ Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission _X_ Animal Control/ _X_ Agricultural Commission✓ Irrigation District: Butte Water _ Biggs/W.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito Irrigation District _ Other Sewer Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ L.O.A.PUD Fire Protection _X_ California Department of Forestry's _ El Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts _ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec.&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks Utilities _ PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies CalTrans (Traffic) _ Dept.of Water Resources _ Dept.of Fish and Game Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol Central Reg.Water Quality Cont._ Caltrans,Aeronautics Program Department of Conservation _ Off.of Mining Reclamation _ Off.of Governmental&Env.Relations Dept.Social Services,Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management _ US Fish&Wildlife Service Army Corps of Engineers Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc. Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association _ Mosq.Abatement.Oroville/Butte Co Drainage _ Butte Env.I Council _ Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society Butte Co.Mining Committee _ Forest Ranch Community Assoc. Butte Ck.Watershed Conservancy_ School Districts PLEASE CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS M. SITE DEVELOPMENT _ 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits,the plans,incorporating all applicable conditions of approval shall be submitted to the Planning Division to verify compliance with said conditions of approval. N. LANDSCAPING 1. A Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District, Community Service District, Homeowners Association, or other alternative entity acceptable to the Planning Manger, shall be established to maintain landscaping. 2. A plan of the existing on-site mature trees,located in any area proposed for buildings and vehicular access,shall be provided to and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits and/or prior to grading or vegetation removal. The applicant shall minimize the removal of mature trees,where possible. A mature tree shall be defined as a tree with a trunk measuring 4 inches in diameter, 4 feet from ground level. Mature trees removed shall be replaced by planting replacement trees of equal number and not less than_gallon size. 3. For division of land,where lots of 1 acre or less are created,street trees of not less than 15 gallon size shall be installed in accordance with Butte County standards as specified in . The street trees shall be planted at an average of one every 30 feet on streets inside the land division and at an average of one every 20 feet on Circulation Element roads. —4. All graded slopes, over 5 feet in height, or on slopes greater than_%, shall be seeded,planted, mulched or hydroseeded or otherwise protected to prevent erosion. A permanent irrigation system shall be installed for non-native vegetation. A one year Faithful Performance bond shall be posted to guarantee installation and established growth. 5. Prior to the commencement of grading and/or construction activity, all individual or groups of oak trees which are to be retained as part of the project, shall be fully protected through the use of root protection zones (RPZ). During construction, RPZs shall be established using protective fencing enclosing an area with a radius 1.5 times the distance from the trunk to the dripline. Within this protective buffer,no grading, trenching, fill, or vegetation alteration of any kind shall be allowed. The RPZs shall be maintained after the completion of construction in order to continue to protect the oak trees,but the fencing shall be removed. O. PARCEL MAPS 1. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet which states, "Structures, dumping, fill material, vegetation removal and/or excavation shall not be allowed within the 50 foot No Disturbance Setback as depicted." The 50 foot "No Disturbance Setback" shall be measured from the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian vegetation along Creek, whichever is greater. Limited vegetation removal necessary for flood control and normal orchard operations is permissible within the"No Disturbance Setback;"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 removal. 2. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet which states,"Residences constructed on lots_and_shall be constructed in a manner to bring the sound levels from—dBA exterior source to 45 dBA interior." 3. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet which states,"At the time of building permit application,if a Deer Herd Impact fee(s)is currently in effect,it shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit." 4. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet which states, "Fencing for areas other than residential areas shall be limited to a maximum of 5 wire strands. The lower strand shall be at least 16"above the ground and the upper strand shall be no higher than 48"above the ground." 5. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map the applicant shall pay all overdue or outstanding County fees. P. GRADING 1. Place a note on the additional map sheet stating 'During construction, should any archaeological artifacts be discovered,the Planning Division shall be notified immediately,and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division. "Archaeological artifacts" are defined as follows: —2. Prior to any clearing,grading and/or construction in a Federal or State identified 100 year floodplain and/or streambed the following entitilements must be obtained: a California Fish and Game 1604 Streambed Alteration permit and an Army Corps 404 permit or exemption certificate. Q. ADDITIONAL APPROVALS 1. This application is approved subject to the conditions contained herein. The tentative subdivision map on file in the Planning Division identified as Exhibit`B"and dated 19_ is incorporated by reference. 2. All lots are subject to the payment of the North Oroville/Thermalito Traffic Impact Fees. 3. The applicant/owner shall sign the CSA 87 Traffic and Drainage Mitigation Agreement and/or pay the required fee prior to the issuance of building permits. If the agreement is used it shall be recorded by the applicant prior to recording the Parcel Map. —4. The applicant shall execute the Oroville Area Traffic Mitigation Fee Agreement prior to the recordation of the Parcel Map and place a note on the Parcel Map or separate document which is to be recorded concurrently stating, "A traffic mitigation fee of$750 shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for each new or additional living unit." 5. To insure the maintenance and continuance of the orchard or other agricultural use of the property, all lot owners shall enter into the County approved Orchard Management Agreement. The agreement shall terminate in 10 years or upon a rezoning of the parcel/lot to a zone other than A-5 through A- 160. The agreement shall be recorded and recording fees paid by the applicant. 6. The developer shall display a current County Zoning and County Land Use Map in the sales office at all times,and/or suitable alternatives. 7. All sales maps that are distributed or made available to the public shall include but not be limited to future and existing schools,parks,and streets. 8. The Sheriff Facilities Impact Fee shall be paid,pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3,Article II of the Butte County Code,prior to the issuance of a building permit or prior to the issuance of a Use Permit for a Mobile Home Park. The fee amount shall be determined and calculated as of the date of application for building permit. -9. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or application for a building permit the applicant shall pay the then-current established fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund. 10. Approval of this request shall not waive the requirement to comply with all applicable Federal, State, and County laws, ordinances,and regulations in effect at the time of building permit application. i f BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: Butte County Planning Division RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Cathy Disano,TPM 00-06 DATE: October 13,1999 CONTACT PERSON: The Planning Division has received a project application for the property described below. The purpose of this comment sheet is to: 1. Determine if the information contained in the application is adequate to allow your jurisdiction to review the project and submit conditions, if any;and to 2. Determine the appropriate environmental documents to prepare for this project, as well as to identify particular environmental concerns to be addressed or mitigation measures your agency/department may want incorporated. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. If a response cannot be submitted within the time frame given, or if additional information is needed,please call 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for Tentative Parcel Man dividing 17.5 acres into threean rcels,,2 parcels at 5 acres each, and one j parcel at 7.5 acres on property zoned A-5(Agricultural, 5-acrean rcell located on the southeast corner of Muir Avenue &Oak Way,west of Chico, identified as APN 042-130-018. Supervisorial District No.2. THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) PLANNING COMMISSION - _X_DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON February 24,2000. COMMENTS, IF ANY, ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN October 27, 1999. If no comments or communications are received by the above date, the assumption will be made that your agency has no comment. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: 7 County Center Drive -Oroville, California 95965 -530-538-7601 -FAX 530-538-7785 Y T. 22N R. 1E , M. D. d. 41M. C Op P o T # in 6.0a 5.00Ac, f. ;F 2 L/NDO / •2,pr / �= 400 64 SA2 dc. I L 'ni do 13 46 PM 105-53 S 929. � 309.76 I 20.06 AC. �./ O w 5JO Ac � PTN 5.00Ac. Pg43 $�od9h / // 45 0' i . 3 a I 62 19 /3.I I Ac. `r2.75AC I 5.97AC 2 © 'c 6.07AC 'F 0 ! 61 I _ 2 �/5.32Ac. J�o 0 660 1 9261.35 630 30.86AC I 12 1J 430.00 a 66 67 O 8 O O z e 4 N M 21 O _ � � f� . &N N 3 54 57 0 56' s5 O 496Ac w �+ 7.02AC 5.00AC f 6.510 5.A�Ac. /0.00Ac. I 5 Ac a 2 * C l ? t r. 00 t 20 9T 9 //3• 43 v, a - 1 m N I 92.01 to O t 6 - 3 I PM 94-1 tca I B �O S�p•- w 44 PM 102-72 P/1M 73-32 1891 v 1 S n 660 860.60 ( 280 _ 30' S39ee 1200, 1 330 1 330 1 3/0 40 . 660 378 282 6160 660 759 - 539.68 (Id. 56 661.;5 2 6.47 ^ '4 th Z 490 0 f O so 4.46 Ac o I % 21 I n O s9 a I 16.45 25, o► n I �E /B 6RSAe 52/Ac ,p 7.06Ac 1 I B ' O 63 62 6/ A 60 b ! ? 22 � 101_ t O (Q N ��L e Z3 b t A 14.,59Ac _�CY 4.46Ac i .4 ' - ------- - - V�� O ! r 67 Al" 20.22 AC 4 p 378 ffi 282 1 a 4.46 AC f o /590AO - I /5.00Ac. WAf 71-95/5./Ac. RS106-59 ^ Z W 662./5 660 66!.45 606.45 � w 600S.O/Ac 'Z4 0��� 10.0/AC: 1 •.` 40 200 42 {} - � �' AML • 48' T/ � I � 43 I 44 aD I I &352 AC • 5.02AC 396.87 AVE. Assessor's Map No. 42-03 5.352 AC Bidwell 7n� Sub. M.O.R. Bk. 5 Py. 29 - County of Butte, Calif. t - r49.05 i Bidwell 2 Sub. M.D.R. 8k. 5 Pg. 27 . REVISED: 8-93 I I �. Ass I I w NW CORNER LOT 25 I a — — — -- OAK — — — .... --WA / — — KENNEDY AVENUE 660' P I I OAK WAY I Ln PROJECT SI TE PARCEL 1 5.0 AC. f /— W SACRAMCNTO AVENUE _ I I L OCA TION MAP ' 25 � 660 NO SCALE �G LEGEND �6 — XISTING LOT LINE ( I �C Nt�TES rr�j 4 LOT I,;l1MBER PER 5 MAPS '�9 I I 1. ZONING: A-5 o PARCEL 2 MSI 2. GENERAL PLAN: AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL 5.0 AC. +/— NO I 3. LAND USE: EXISTING — ORCHARD PROPOSED — AG—RESIDENTIAL i I 4. PROJECT SURVEYOR: JAMES M HERRICK LS 5616 \ 5. SEWAGE: INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS 660 L �j / � .-- � 6. WATER: INDIVIDUAL WELLS LO SOUTH LINE OF LOT 25 LO 7. POWER: P G & E �? 8. TELEPHONE: PACIFIC BELL I ( I 9. CABLE TV: CHAMBERS CABLE 10. APIA 42-13-018 I I 11. THS== P.G. & E. EASEMENT PER SERIAL NO. 95-32018 I I MAY OR MAY NO-I EFFECT THIS PROPERTY. THE EXACT f_O:;ATION CAN NOT BE DETERMINED BY SAID DEED. LI PARCEL 3 Ln �" Tentative I PARCEL MAP 25' I SCALE: 1" = 100' BEING LOT 25 AND A PORTION OF LOT 40 iOF THE BIDWELL 7th SUBDIVISION PER BOOK I 5 OF MAP':3, AT PAGE 29. 2 1060' BUTTE COUNTY CALIFORNIA " 4 0 for �G. CATHY A. DISANO I I � o�, 45 PARCEL MAPS 05 150 orS�,�lar CIVIL ENGINEERS • PLANNERS x SURVEYORS I r I / 20 DECLARATION DRIVE • CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 ENGINEE(lING (530) 893-1600 Fax (530) 893-2113 h 0 AP 42-13-018 OCTOBER 1999 JOB NO. 6772 Owning I Cr I i s NW CORNER W Q, Z LOT 25 -- — — — 0W6" WA / -- — KENNEDY AVENUE 660' 1 OAK war Lo lr1p�'i„s.3 I I CV l � � ( PROJECT SIIF� Z5I _ C L L 1 pr) 00 ENZO AVENUE C� W SACRAM I I 5.0 C. l � _ L DCA TION MAP �J 66 g3' ��� LEGEND NO SCALE 5� 6 P PS I .BOO' AG 6'UTTER ZONE EXISTING LOT LINE I NOTES 24 LOT NUMBER PER 5 MAPS 29 oI ADA ­ CIL 2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ZONE AND 1. ZONING: A-5 1p / Zzz NO AG. SPRAY ZONE 2. GENERAL PLAN: AGRICULTURE RESIDENTIAL .0 +/— v 3. LAND USE: EXISTING — ORCHARD PROPOSED — AG—RESIDENTIAL I 4. PROJECT SURVEYOR: JAMES M HERRICK LS 5616 p„) •� �,,.,,� 5. ,SEWAGE. INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS ..n 660" 6. tvATER: INDIV DUAL... WE1_I_S SOU7H LINE 7. POWER: P G & E N LOT 25 8. `.ELEPHONE: PACIFIC BELL 9. CABLE TV: CHAMBERS CABLE 10. APN 42-13-018 11. ]HE P.G. & E. EASEMENT PER SERIAL NO. 95-32018 HAY OR MAY NOT EFFECT THIS PROPERTY. THE EXACT " ' a LOCATION CAN NOT BE DETERMINED BY SAID DEED. Ab CEL 3 I / AC. +/ 5F °� SPP Tentative PARCEL MAP 25 SCALE: 1" = 100' BEING LO"'F 25 AND A PORTION OF LOT 40 OF THE B DWELL 7th SUBDIVISION PER BOOK 5 OF MARS, AT PAGE 29. BUTTE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 660 0 �� f©r I I ' °1 � I g3 Pc.PS 1 CATHY A. DISANO I s 06 �P ( I ` 46 PARCEL MAPS 05 150 Nor-tht,3�tar '�CIVIL ENGINEERS PLANNERS ' SURVEYORS fir" 20 DECLARATION DRIVE • CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 ENGINES:RING (530) 893-1600 Fox (530) 893-2113 /Z 0 Xlz` I REVISED 4/13/011 _y = AP 42-13-,018 OCTOBER 1999 JOB N0. 6772 BiJTTL COUNIFY