Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TSM 04N-13 040-490-018 (2)
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE NO.: TSM 04N-13 PROJECT TYPE: Tentative Subdivision Map APN: 040-490-018 APPLICANT: William Isaac ADDRESS: 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 PHONE: . OWNER: William Isaac ADDRESS: 2865 Coldwater Canyon Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210 REPRESENTATIVE: Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers ADDRESS: 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses LOCATED: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road and the north side of Falager Court, with SR -99 bordering to the west, south of Chico PROPERTY ZONED: M-1 (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: I (Industrial) TOWN/AREA: Chico 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Application accepted: 5/11/2004 Amount: $ 4,179.00 Receipt #: Assigned To: Stephen Betts Comments sent to: Development Services Director, Public Works Director, Environmental Health, Assessor, LAFCo, Agricultural Commissioner, CDF, Building Manager, County Counsel, Air Quality Management, PG&E, CalTrans, RWQCB, SBC, DFG, Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Sent to Inter -Departmental Review Committee (IDR): (a - �5- D Status Letter sent to applicant: Date scheduled for IDR: 6/30/2004 Comments received from: Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 10. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No. Subject to Fish & Game: 11. Staff Report: Project Video: 12. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No _ 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Categorical Exemption-CEQA#_ Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report Gen. Rule Ex. - CEQA # Other Date Sent to SCH: Publication Notice Written: Display Ad Prepared: Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: Newspaper Publication Date: Planning Commission Hearing(s): Action taken: Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): Action taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Type Tentative Subdivision Map/Send for signature: N.O.E. / N.O.D. / APPENDIX G: Adopted: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No Send validated Use Permit/Minor Use Permit to applicant, representative: ' Gepp of r se Dof:ffli cMinef rise Por.r:t t Manning4fech ician: 0 C P G B t Adopted: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No Send validated Use Permit/Minor Use Permit to applicant, representative: ' Gepp of r se Dof:ffli cMinef rise Por.r:t t Manning4fech ician: . DEPARTNSINT OF DE VELOPME T' SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION A PP1_JC.AYr: A,o cliitt infol-inaUion lobe provided is oil page APPLICANT'S NANIE: (if application Id R'11t f owncr an affidavit is ASSESSOR'S PARCFLNLMBIR: Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers LU it 040 - 490 - 018 o1AA ADDRESS: sTRbET, crr), STA-rc, & A) cE F 11, F N U M,13 I -__`R: (FOR USE) 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95996 ke- be- tw T5 0 oqfj 15 NAiME OF PROPOSED PROJE-VT (If ally) TELEP410NE: DIP Commerce Center 530 ) 894 3500 LOCATION OF PROJECT (Major cross streets and Address, if any) East of Durham Pentz and Hwy 99 GENERALINIFORMATION REQUIRED OWN13.R'S NAME..: TE I., P 13 1-10 N 17-: William Isaac I ( ) - ADDRESS: ury, STATE, & ZIP CODE: 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 ZONI GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE (ill Square 17ect or Acres) M-1 l 41W Industrial Undeveloped Lot 1 15.1 Acres EXISTING STRUCTURES (in SCILIUM Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES lin Square Feet) None (Check One) (Check One) 0 PROPE IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WA-ru'R PROPE.RTY IS OR PROPOSED -ro riE ON SEPTIC PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO B117 ON WEIJ. WATER APPIACAf IONREQUESITED El GIENERAL PLAN ANIFNDMELNIT TENT.ATI V ` S U B DIV [SION MAP 0 REZONE 0 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ❑ USE PER.MIT ❑ WAIVER Or PARCE-1 MAP D MINOR USE PE:RMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION 0 VARIANCE D L.13GAI., LOT DETERMINATION El MINOR VARIANCH 0 cEwnFICATE 01"I'VIERGEAt D ADMINI-STRATIVE. PERN11T 0 MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ DEVEW.PMENT AGRri:_;t\,iENT El OTHER PROJECT' 11YESCRIMON I:Lzl.t.[)!:.-'S("RIPI'10N01:'PROIIOS.EDPROJi."c-r(Aitachnecessary sheets. If this application is fora land division, describe the number and sire 0i 1\-.11CC1,.) THE PROJECT IS A SUBDIVISION OF A 15.1 ACRE SITE INTO 14 LOTS OF 0.97 ACRE AVERAGE SIZE — --------- . . . ... . . ......... ...... OWNER CERTIRCATION I CERTIFYTHATI AM PKESENTLYTI-JE [,A -.-GAL OWNER ORTKE AUTHORIZED AGENTOFTHE OWNER OF THI: ABOVE DF"SCRIBI'j) PR(H)FRTY Fi , TCO I FILING, 017T1 IIS APPLICKir.10N AND CERTIFY THATAI.I., OF *rI If..ABOV17 INI"ORMATD RTHEIZ. I AKNW1,1',I)GE, TW ION IS TRUI.: AN ACCURATE (If an agent is to be ail th0l-lZC(I. CXCC-1.1 IC an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit \vi th this application.) DATE-: i5_ — 01 SIGNATURE: _42= 11 %1 A P P I I CATJ 0 N Page I of From:ROBERTSON AND DOMI' 530 894 8955 05/0 4 09:27 #7.1.0.4P.002/002 AGENT AUTHORIZATION TO: Butte County, Department of Development Services: t Robertson &Dominick, Civil Engineers - M _ _ phone Number( 530 ) _. 89 -y,4 _ 3500 Print \:erne __.._. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A. Chico, CA 95926 �a •s; l � m� � dd resp _..____.__..._�_._ ig hemby authorized to process the application for William Isaac on my property. identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Number: A P N 4 040 - 490 018 This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all dactuMMIts noc scary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest. Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name) William Pre11 \:t;nP Ss_nalare A rc lA ftect Engineer: print dame ,....._�_.—..—.__ _Russ Erickson Phone Number L530) 894 • 35_00_ iannt \;trot• o Archi,"WEngmccr 888 Manzanite Court, Sutte A, Chico, CA 95926 1l.,ucr_• .Ad,�rr��... FOR OFFICE USE ONLY �I V erif ; . - ! r. le k«4iircl: � �'1Total Antoutvt Received: All Numbor(s) ❑ Legg Description 0%vners .Authorization ❑ Zoning Req)irentents Project Description ❑ Copies of plot plan Taken by: (i l 9,lC! Rec-cipt No. !'IA-VLD a Plan 0il E.H. CTDF 15`0 NODINI E' Fees .-- ti° �,. ll aymmil of the currently required Application Fee and/or Depot (Any unused portion of a deposit) will be rewi-ned upx-)n ;ilia! Current feu' for thi;; application is ._ _ as of — -- flake check payable to `=Butte County Treasurer". , .l 1'rtX:t�•'�tl't�Rat?Pt'Ltr':YrJq Page 2 oft —Wa• I lt:.wvr. �..�,n,.t 14 ITO qpv. - .13 0 it Rt': iso J.-. lif Le jv; Irk fj!,1. ;-oiii f -;j-i j, -;3! w. f neo, .7m 'An 1jN8u' 71 -J, ;Ly ;!6 (V,ainq wl!-0 to "Pi -4): A. COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by Project Applicant) Date Filed 5/'4/04 ' GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of owner, and/or developer, and/or project sponsor: WILLIAM ISAAC 2865 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 2. Address of project: EAST OF HWY99 AND DURHAM—PENTZ ROAD Assessor's Parcel -Number: 040-490-018 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ROBERTSON & DOMINICK, INC. 888 MANZANITA COURT, STE A, CHICO, CA 95926 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 plan designation: INDUSTRIAL 6. Existing zoning district M-1 7. How island currently used? UNDEVELOPED T,OT 8. Proposed use of site (Project for Which this form is filed): TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION INTO 14 LOTS Project Description: 9. Site size: 15. 1 Acres (Acres/Sq. Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: Compact: Total: 11. Plans attached: -Yes No X 12. Proposed development schedule UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME 13.. Associated projects 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development N/A 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. N/A ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 1 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood., city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. N/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N / A 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N / A 19. If the project involves a minor variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit N / A 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 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 2 or substantial alteration of ground contours. _ X 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. _ X 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. X 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ -X— '25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. _ X 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. _ X 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. _ X 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). X 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). _ X 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 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 y and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 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. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 3 32. The site is a vacant generally level area with no trees, bounded on the west by State Highway 99, on the north by Durham Pentz Road and on the south by Falager Court. The property easterly of the site is also vacant. 33. The surrounding property easterly of Highway 99 is similar, with no trees, vacant and generally level. The area westerly of Highway 99 is vacant south of Durham Pentz Road and industrial to the north of Durham Pentz Road. Environ info #32, 33.doc Page 1/1 i TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MAP WAIVER APPLICATION APPLICATION PACKET CHECKLIST This checklist is designed to assist applicants in making sure all necessary information is, included in their, application packet. Please include this checklist along with you submittal. Applicant Planner 1. ❑ Complete a Pre -Application Review with the Environmental Health Division for on site sewage disposal requirements for the proposed use. The Environmental Health Division charges a fee for this review. Do v c, F o V C— L_ E H p Gaw rPt G� 2. ❑ A completed, signed, Uniform Application and Environmental Information form. If the application is signed by an agent for the owner, an agent authorization form must be submitted along with the Uniform Application. The application shall rot be accepted unless signed by the owner or authorized agent. 3. ® ❑ Payment of the currently required Application Fees and/or Deposits (Any unused portion of the deposit will be returned to the applicant upon final action). (Planner advises applicant) 4. ❑ A preliminary title report showing current ownership and dated within 6 months of the application submittal shall be filed with the application. 5. ❑ Twenty-two (22) copies of the map, including a detailed site plan drawn to scale, shall be . submitted. Additional copies of the map shall be made available by the applicant or engineer/surveyor to County Departments upon request. All maps shall be drawn on uniform size sheets no less than 18" X 26". The finished map shall be folded to 8 %Z' x 11". The detailed map must include: a. ❑ Name, business address of person who prepared the map. b. ❑ Proposed property lines and lot dimensions. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 1 Applicant Planner c. ❑ Assessor Parcel Number(s). The street address (if available). Tract name and date, if applicable. d. ❑ Vicinity Map indicating the location of the land in'relation to the nearest major roads; significant topographic features, surrounding area or region. e. ❑ Dimensioned locations of existing and proposed, public and private, improvements on the property (including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways, parking areas, wells, septic tanks, sewer lines, leach fields, utilities, and street lights.) f. ❑ Wells which are to be abandoned shall be shown and identified as "well to be abandoned". The wells shall be properly abandoned under permit issued by the Butte County Division of Environmental Health. g. 2 ❑ Buildings which are to be removed will be identified as "building to be removed". The buildings shall be properly removed or demolished under permit issued by the Butte County Building Division. h. ® ❑ The existing and proposed location, name, width, approximate grades and radii of curves of all roads, streets, highways for the subdivision and within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries thereof. All streets shall be labeled as to whether it is public or private. i. ❑ Topographic contours and water features, at a minimum, to be as shown on the current USGS 7.5 minute quad map. j. ❑ - ❑ For subdivisions that have a density of 4 dwellings/ac or greater in the Urban Area or 1 acre lots or smaller in the Rural Area and which also have an average slope of 20 % or greater, a conceptual or preliminary grading plan shall be submitted showing the approximate finished pad elevations for each lot and all cut and fill slopes proposed which are 5 feet or greater in height. This requirement may be waived by the Director of Development Services if it is found not to be needed. Waived ® YES ❑ NO k. 0. ❑ Approximate location of all FEMA identified 100 year floodplain areas, if any, and the location, width and direction of flow of all ephemeral water courses, if any. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WELL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 2 1 Applicant Planner 1. ❑ Sufficient information on the map to determine adequacy of the proposed drainage and flood control measures, including but not limited to, proposed easements, and facilities. rn ❑ The approximate widths, location and purpose of all known existing or proposed easements. n � El North arrow and scale of drawing. All maps shall be drawn to an engineering scale of a size sufficient to reasonably show all required features. A north arrow preferably oriented to the top of sheet. If not connecting to public sewer and water, the following applies: 6. ❑ The proposed source of domestic water and proposed method of sewage disposal. If the project is not served by community sewer and/or community water, include soils/percolation/ground water data and water availability data sufficient to allow the Division of Environmental Health to complete their review of the project. Your application will be incomplete unless this information is provided or waived, in writing, by the Division of Environmental Health. Environmental Health Waived ❑ YES ❑ NO 7. j,"Li ❑ A written request for any exceptions to the subdivision standards pursuant to Section 24.4of the Butte County Code, if applicable. Additional information may be required in order to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the above subinittal information or to complete any required environmental review documents, as deemed necessary by the Department of Development Services, Public Works, Environmental Health Division, Butte County Fire Department, or Agriculture Commissioner. Signature: �� YL'� Date Applicant/Representative Signature: Date: Planner Receiving Application K:\Planning\FORMS\Submittal\CHECKLIS\TT(2)B. WPD 5-- /6- 61 IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 3 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.net/dds www.bufegeneralplan.net ADMINISTRATION ' BUILDING " PLANNING June 17, 2014 Isaac Family Trust 2865 Coldwater Canyon Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Subject: Isaac Development Applications Use Permit UP05-04 (Distribution Warehouse and Office; 040-130-047) Use Permit UP05-05 (Gas Station and Market; 040-490-018), and. Tentative Subdivision Map TSM04N-13 (to divide a 15.1 acre parcel into 14 parcels for light industrial use; 040-490-018 ) Dear Members of the Isaac Family Trust: You are being sent this letter because you are the owners of record for the above -referenced development application with the Butte County Department of Development Services. We are noticing an uptick in development activity characteristic of the beginning of the next development cycle, and I want staff to be available to process additional permit and development activity when it comes our way. In order to be ready for the next wave of development, DDS is closing out older, inactive projects and projects inconsistent with the County's adopted General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. . A brief status of the projects is as follows: UP05-04 Project is incomplete (August 24, 2006) Additional information was requested from CA Department of fish and Game (July 13, 2004) Additional information and mitigation requested from CA Department of Transportation (September 1, 2004) This project remains inconsistent with the current and proposed General Plan designations for the site UP05-05 Project is incomplete (August 26, 2004) Project lacks adequate access (Butte County Public Works June 9, 2003) TSM04-13 An Environmental Impact Report was determined necessary (July 9, 2004) I understand a wetland mitigation bank is currently located on a portion of the project area.. It appears you may wish to withdraw the applications. By signing the attached form, you will authorize DDS to close the above -referenced applications. Fees are due on this project in the amount of $ ; therefore, no refund of fees should be anticipated with withdraw of the application. Signature of the claim form will also initiate DDS to inquire and coordinate with other departments for the refund of unused fees and deposits, if any. If you do not wish to withdraw the applications, they will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for denial, due to incompleteness of the EIR required in 2004. Please let us know at your earliest opportunity whether you wish to withdraw these applications or whether they should be taken to hearing. Please also let me know if you would like additional detail, have questions, or would like to discuss this matter further. You can contact Principal Planner Stacey Jolliffe at 530-538-6573 and sjolliffe@buttecount�net, Planning Manager . Chuck Thistlethwaite at 530-538-6572 and cthistlethwaitenbuttecounty.net or me at 530-538-6821 and tsnellinjzs@buttecounly.net Sincerely, Tim Snellings Director cc: Eric Robertson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 Bart Garland - Butte County Department of Development Services vTr� TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR °° °° r 7 County Center Drive o - - = o Oroville, CA 95965 0 -' — o (530) 538-7601 Telephone CDU N'�y (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecounty.bet • ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING June 21, 2006 William Isaac ` 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA, 90210 Re: Tentative Subdivision Map, TSM 04N-13,040-490-018 Dear Mr. Isaac: In an effort to keep our customers informed, we are notifying you that your project has been reassigned to Stacey Jolliffe and she can be reached at 538-7153, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Should you have any questions regarding your application, please call the planner listed above. Sincerely, i Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Cc: Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 --m-Complete C!, [s.1, 2, anlso complete A. item 4 if Re oted-Delive.y s desired: X ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. g ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. rWilliam,Isaac; h tet' 2865'C616water Canyon Drive,,. Beverly Hills, CA' 90210 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form.3811', ,August 2001 10 pQent 1060-0111 IS �t d (Printed Name) D to of D innllvery 1 v � � N delivery address different from item 11 ❑ Yes If YES,`enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type', Certified Mail,❑:i;press Mail ❑ Registered,,, 4) f'❑,Retur'n Receipt for Merchandise 11 Insured Mail - ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) {. ❑ Yes 7002 2410 0006 2836 6940 ." Domestic Re;:rn Receipt d �. a UMTED.. STATStqjl,t { 1 ! First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION s[rrE 7 County Center Drive COUNW Croville, CA 95965-3397 JUL 14 ZP � - rL•t7L•T ADT.TT j ' � • rte,., Butte County Departrnent ofDevelopment Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING July 9, 2004 William Isaac 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive. Beverly Hills,. CA 90210 Re: Notice of Determination for an Environmental Impact Report for the Tentative Subdivision Map for William Isaac, on APN 040-490-018, File # TSM 04-13 As you are aware, the Department of Development Services has been reviewing the above -referenced application for completeness and environmental impacts. Development Services has concluded this process. For reasons outlined below, the Department of Development Services has determined that the above -referenced project requires the preparation' of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Department of Development Services staff has determined that this project includes significant environmental impacts, which requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report: In addition, Development Services staff has determined that the EIR must address the impacts associated with all of the discretionary land use applications contemplated under this proposal. This would include the Use Permit proposed for the gas station. project, which has yet to be submitted. Such concurrent review is encouraged under CEQA, which requires that environmental review consider the entirety of a project and not be limited to segments of a project. Pursuant to County policy, you have fifteen days to notify the County in writing of your agreement to proceed with an EIR. If you do not respond in writing within this time frame staff will schedule the project for a Planning Commission hearing with a recommendation of project denial without prejudice. Should you wish to appeal the County's finding that an EIR is required, you may file an appeal within 10 calendar days of receipt of this letter. You must submit a letter specifying the reasons why an EIR should not be required. The appeal must be filed with the Planning Dij'ision of the Department of Development Services. An appeal would be referred to the Planning Commission for action. 1 r r 1 f 'DPowage + 0_4-1 n' Certleed Fee r C31: w w' t - �Po a ,y Oti (Erldonem RedeutiFee ent Req re� Y �+ >GT: r l _b Q 'r .i;- ReMctOd Deltve SI (Endorsement Requl) ..M' _ Here t t^..� t. r t ru ty, ni C3 'Mr. William, Isaac ?865 Coldwater•Canyon'Di �wBeverly Hills; CA' 90210 i e , ive'"'^------t M 1 Upon receiving your concurrence to prepare an EIR, the Department of Development Services shall begin the consultant selection procedure. The County will request proposals from a minimum of 5 consultants. The County will consider the applicant's recommendations; however, the final selection of the consultant shall be made by the County. The applicant shall be responsible for the expenses involved in preparation of the EIR. The contract for consultant services shall be a tri -party agreement which includes the County, the applicant, and the consultant. Requirement for Environmental Impact Report The proposal has been determined to have significant environmental impacts related to the following specific CEQA Initial Study Checklist Items: AestheticNisual Resources The project site currently consists of an undeveloped, open field. The project would introduce new visual elements, such as structures and night lighting, to the project site. These visual elements could cause significant visual impacts, especially night lighting which has.the potential to cause visual impairment to drivers on the adjacent SR -99 and Durham-Pentz Road. An EIR should include an analysis of this area and what specific treatments would be used to ensure preservation of the site's aesthetic/visual resources. Agricultural Resources There is a potential that the project could conflict with agricultural lands located to the south of the project site. This area is designated by the General Plan as Grazing and Open Land. The General Plan requires a 300 -foot buffer between urban and agricultural uses to ensure for compatibility of uses and preservation of agricultural lands (Agricultural Element Program 2.2). A 300 -foot buffer may be required from the parcel to the south to ensure that no impacts occur to existing or potential agricultural uses. Air Quality The project could have a significant impact to air quality in the project area due to the emissions from vehicles and from fugitive dust emissions during construction. An air quality analysis is required to determine impacts the project may have on air quality. In particular, an URBEMIS computer model, which performs estimates on indirect source emissions from land use developments including construction activity, will need to be performed. This would aid to. identify environmental impacts and to make recommendations for the appropriate level of mitigation. Biological Resources The project site is located in an area that is known to contain habitat for numerous rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species. Some of these species include vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Hoover's spurge, Butte County checkerbloom, hairy orcutt grass, 2 • Butte County fritillary, and Butte County Meadowfoam. Information from the California Department of Fish and Game indicates that Butte County Meadowfoam is found on the project site. The EIR needs to include a detailed survey and analysis of the biological and botanical resources found on the project site and mitigation measures to avoid impact to any rare, threatened, or endangered plant and animal species. The :botanical survey would need to be accomplished during the spring months to ensure proper identification of the plant species. The project site is located in an area that contains numerous wetlands and vernal pools. Information from the California Department of Fish and Game indicates that the project site contains vernal pools. Additionally, an ephemeral stream is located on the site. The EIR needs to include a wetlands/vernal pool/stream delineation. The EIR needs to include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands, vernal pools, and other waters of the United States. Every effort should be made to avoid project site features which require the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States and mitigation plans should be developed to' compensate for the unavoidable losses resulting from project implementation. Cultural Resources The project site is located in an area that contains many recorded historic or prehistoric cultural resources. Development on the site has the potential to disturb cultural resources. The Environmental Impact Report must include a comprehensive pedestrian - level archaeological survey, which would determine impacts and recommend mitigation measures. Geologic Processes Site constraints such as poor soil limit opportunities for on-site sewage disposal and/or community sewage disposal systems. Because the site is known to have poor drainage, the EIR should address how environmental impacts associate with drainage will be mitigated. Hydrology and Water Quality The proposal would ultimately change the topography of the site through the grading associated with subdivision construction. Drainage is known to be a problem in this area. No developed storm water drainage facilities or improvements are currently available at this site and no formal plans have been submitted demonstrating how drainage would be handled. A drainage study and plan is necessary to determine impacts and recommend mitigations. The EIR needs to analyze drainage impacts to the State right-of-way of SR -99. Storm water run-off and outfall from the development has the potential to significantly impact downstream waters. Drainage studies should also assess water quality impacts and make recommendations to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Game will be necessary to coordinate the streambed alteration permit process prior to any work performed in the creek found on the project site. 3 The project site is located in a groundwater recharge area. Development on the site could cause a significant impact to the groundwater recharge rate and quality, and the EIR would need to assess these impacts. Additionally, domestic water is proposed to be obtained from on-site wells. The EIR will need to determine if adequate groundwater supplies are available to provide an adequate water supply for the project andi to determine the impact on groundwater withdrawals to other groundwater users. The Tentative Subdivision Map shows that sewage disposal will occur off-site, on APN 040-130-038. According to the materials submitted with the application, APN 040-130- 038 is not a part of this project. Butte County Code Section 19-10 requires that sewage disposal occur on the same parcel that is proposed for development. Very little information regarding the method of sewage disposal was submitted with the application. The soils on the project site are inadequate for conventional septic systems. Butte County Board of Supervisors Resolution 87-108 does not permit the use of ponds for sewage disposal. Any community treatment system will require approval from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR will need to assess .the impact of the use of a community sewage treatment system and mitigation of sewage flows. Land Use This project has the potential for growth inducing impacts in the vicinity of agricultural land. The EIR should assess the growth -inducing impacts posed by this project on the adjacent agricultural lands, and other lands in the vicinity in accordance with CEQA. Public Services The proposal will result in cumulative impact to public services such as fire protection, police protection, recreation, and schools. An Environmental Impact Report would assess the project's impact to these public service areas. Transportation/Traffic The project will generate additional vehicle trips and turning movements_ on Durham- Pentz Road, which could result in significant traffic circulation impacts to this roadway. Additionally, the project could also have significant impacts to the SR-99/Durham-Pentz Road/Durham-Dayton Road interchange. A traffic study must be prepared to assess the traffic impacts of the project. A traffic study must be included in the EIR. . Primary access to the project site from Durham-Pentz Road is proposed to be via a new 60 -foot wide road easement. The 60 -foot wide road easement does not currently exist. and the property that it would be located on (APN 040-130-036) is not a part of the project and is under separate ownership (Horning). The Planning. Division will not recommend approval, even tentatively, of this proposed road without the road easement first being acquired. Additionally, the Butte County Public Works Department has 4 concerns about the alignment of this proposed access road with a proposed access road on the Horning property on the north side of Durham -Peutz Road. The Horning access road, which you propose to align you access road with, may not be allowed. Please refer to the attached memorandum from Mike Crump, Butte County Director of Public Works, regarding this issue. Utilities and Service Systems The project proposes to develop a community sewage disposal system and on-site drainage retention systems. These systems may impact wetland areas and areas considered sensitive due to the presence of special status plants and sensitive habitats. Additional study is necessary to assess the influence these systems will have on the environment. The proposed community sewage disposal system will require approval from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the Environmental Health Division must approve any on-site sewage systems. The area is subject to poor drainage. These issues must be addressed to determine significant impacts and provide appropriate mitigations. The Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission has also expressed concern regarding the use of County Service Areas to provide oversight and maintenance responsibilities for subdivision services such as water, sewer, and drainage. A plan must be developed .and provided with the applications for subdivision which sets forth how subdivision services would be managed and maintained. Other Considerations Submittal of this application, or any future Use Permit application, does not authorize work to be performed in conjunction with site development. You should be aware that the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have regulatory authority over impacts associated with wetlands and sensitive plant and animal species that are potentially located on any project site. Disturbance and/or grading on any property could result in violations of the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other State and Federal laws. These agencies, including the County of Butte, should be consulted prior to any type of land clearing or gradin completed in conjunction with site development. Your Tentative Subdivision Map is proposed as a "Vesting" map. However, Butte County Code Sections 20-254(a) and 20-254(a) state that a vesting map applies only to residential subdivisions, not an industrial subdivision as you have applied for. Please resubmit revised maps that do not indicate that the project is a vesting map. - Should you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 530-538-7153. I would also be available by appointment should you -wish to discuss this information in person. 5 Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner cc: Robertson & Dominick, Inc. Yvonne Christopher, Director Development Services ` Joe Baker, Planning Manager Butte County Environmental Health Butte County Public Works, Land Development California Department of Forestry California Department of Transportation Agriculture Commissioner LAFCo County Counsel Attach: Public Works Memorandum, dated July 7, 2004 Butte County Code Sections 3-43 and 3-44 INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: STEPHEN BETTS, PLANNER FROM: MIKE CRUMP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVED SUBJECT: WILLIAM ISAAC, TSM 04N-13 JUL „ 8 2004 DATE: JULY 7, 2004 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF This memo is to supplement our normal standard conditions and is provide to assist heSERVICES ` applicant, staff and the Planning Commission in understanding the issues surrounding public access to this area. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map DP Commerce Center for Mr. William Isaac (TSM) has a note that indicates "driveway location as approved by Butte County Director of Public Works." This statement is not accurate. On November 12, 1997 (E-2388), I approved a set of improvement plans for a driveway access at this location for a ranch office on the north side of Durham Pentz Road. The improvement plans approved for the ranch office access were submitted by Dr. Horning who owns the property on the north side of Durham Pentz Road, and is the point of contact for the Development Agreement (Ordinance 3107) between the County and the 52 acre parcel (APN 040-490-017) and the 13 acre parcel (APN 040-130-036) owned by Dr. Horning and the 15.1 acre parcel (APN 040-490-018) owned by William Isaac, and is now being proposed as a 14 parcel vesting TSM with public access onto both Falager Court and Durham Pentz Road. One of the primary intents of the Development Agreement was to promote orderly development of this area, including safe and efficient traffic circulation. The proposed TSM shows a proposed 60 -foot wide road and public utility easement passing through APN 040-130-036, which is presently owned by Dr. Horning, and is a part of the original Development Agreement. County staff has met numerous times with representatives of both Dr. Horning and Mr. Isaac to resolve issues involving the Development Agreement and traffic circulation. Specifically the Public Works Department will require that any public access from Mr. Isaac's property (APN 040-490-018) onto Durham Pentz Road must be aligned with the public access road serving Dr. Horning's property (APN 040-490-017). To date, Dr. Horning has not provided an easement across his property (APN 040-130-036) that would allow Mr. Isaac to access Durham Pentz Road at a point that would provide a common access point (intersection) at the location approved for a ranch office on the north side of Durham Pentz Road. Under normal circumstances, Public Works would concur with the alignment of the proposed Road A as shown on the Isaac TSM that shows public access from Falager Court, through the. Isaac property to the property owned by Dr. Horning (APN 040-130-036) and onto Durham Pentz Road at the location that would serve as a common access point or intersection for - properties on both sides of the road. However, two issues prevent us from agreeing to the proposed alignment of Road A as shown on the Isaac TSM. The first is that Dr. Horning has not agreed to provide Mr. Isaac or the County with a 60 -foot wide public road and utility easement as shown on the Isaac TSM. The second issue surrounding access onto Durham Pentz Road is a result of a letter dated_ May 14, 2004, from the State Department of Conservation to Mr. Don Holtgrieve who is a representative of Dr. Horning. The letter questions the acceptability of the use of the approved ranch office driveway proposed to serve Dr. Horning's parcel (APN 040-490-017) that is subject to the Development Agreement because the ranch office driveway is actually on a second parcel (APN 040-130-035) also owned by Dr. Horning but subject to the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. The State Department of Conservation concluded that it would appear that placing -,a commercial development access on enforceable restricted Williamson Act property would not be a compatible use. The State further suggests that Dr. Horning reorient the road to avoid the Williamson Act contracted parcel. I have attached a copy of this letter for reference. Therefore, until such time that all interested parties including Dr. Horning, Mr. Isaac, the State Department of Conservation, Caltrans, and the County can agree to a safe and efficient common access point or intersection that will serve parcels on both side of Durham Pentz Road, we cannot recommend approval of the Isaac TSM with the alignment of Road A as shown. It is our recommendation that the Isaac TSM be conditioned to have no public access onto Durham Pentz Road until such time as all parties can agree to a safe, common access point or intersection on Durham Pentz Road. Public access to the Isaac parcel and TSM can be provided and approved from Falager Court with a cul-de-sac at the north end of Road A. f DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCE PROTECTION 801 K STREET: •SAC,RAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95614 PHONE 916/324-0850 FAX 916/327-3430 . INTERNET consrv.ca.gov . . . GRAY DAVI5 GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATI(.#*N S T A T E O F C A L I F O R N I A May 14, 2004 Don Holtgrieve Ph:D:, AICP Northern. California Planning and Research P. O.,Box 396 Forest Ranch, CA 95942 RE:. Proposed development at Durham Pentz & -Hwy 99 Dear Dr. Holtgdeve: ATE co phi . �I���t�I�'F S �IIig Thank you for contacting the Department.of Conservation (Department) about the Williamson Act requirements for contracted land. On December 13, 1993, -the County of Butte and MC *Horning entered into a Development Agreement (Ordinance No.. 3107). 'in' accordance.with this development agreement, Northern California Planning and Research and the M.C. Horning family propose the development of a Gas Station Mini Mart with three lightindustrial buildings at the'northeast quadrant of Highway 99 at Durham Pentz Road in Butte County on a 4.5 -acre portion of a 52 -acre parcel (APN. 040-490-017).. 'A second parcel .(APN 040-130- 035) will support an already approved entry road into the Mini Martproject area.. The entry road, which crosses. land enforceably restricted by a Williamson Act contract, will cover 68,000 square feet including landscaped median, parkway . stripes and sidewalk. The -entry road will be built with private funding. After reviewing the information provided, the Department provides the following comments. Williamson Act Comaatible Issues Agricultural land enrolled in a California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act _ contract, or Farmland Security Zone contract, is restricted to agricultural; and open space uses. Counties and cities are given latitude to determine other uses that can be deemed °compatible" with the intent of the Williamson Act. Counties and cities administer the Williamson Act program by implementing uniform rules and procedures that identify permitted, and compatible uses. Typically, these uses are divided between .activities that are clearly related to agricultural , . operations (such as planting or seeding for the production of food and fiber), and those uses that require a special use permit such as community auctions for sale of farm animals, crop dusting strips, and permanent roadside stands. 0 Dc Holtgrieve Ph.D. g 14, 2004 .ge2of2 As an aid to local government determination of what can be allowed as'a- compatible use, Government Code section. 51238.1 was enacted to ensure that such uses must be consistent. with the principles of compatibility: (a) the use will not significantly compromise long term productive agricultural capability_of the subject contracted parcels or other contracted land in preserves; 2) obstruct or displace potential agricultural operations; or 3) induce noxi -agricultural development of surrounding enrolled lands.. . In addition, Government Code section. 51220.5 directs cities and counties to determine compatible uses in a manner that recognizes that a permanent or temporary population increase often hinders or impairs agricultural operations. Government Code sections 51290 et seq. provide for possible public acquisition of Williamson Act contracted lands for public improvements and the requirements to be met by public entities Since the entry road would be built with private funding, the public acquisition provisions may not apply. However, if the road were to be dedicated to the County, the public acquisition requirements of the Williamson Act (Government Code sections 51290 to 51295) would apply. The issues related to the Williamson Act restrictions should be clarified with the County before proceeding further. Department Conclusions Based on the information you have provided, it does not appear that. placing a private road on enforceably restricted Williamson Act property would be a compatible use.. The road would increase traffic in the area and affect remaining agricultural operations as well as aiding the development of adjacent parcels, which will increase development pressures in the vicinity. We suggest that you reorient the road to avoid the Williamson Act contracted parcel. Since notice of nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract was filed November 21, 2001, completion of the nonrenewal process will terminate the contract, at which'time a road could be built. on the land. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Williamson Act related issues. If you have further questions, or need additional information, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Planner, at 916-324-0869. Sincerely,. J Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director cc: Mr. Daniel C. Breedon, AICP,. Principal Planner Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RECEIVED MM 25,2000., COUWN of 90rrE PUBM WORKS DEPT. 3.43 Planning division fee schedule. • Page 1 of 2 Chapter 3 FEES 3-43 Planning division fee schedule. Planning division fees shall be as follows: (1) Appeals from administrative actions, actions of the planning commission or advisory agency: $50.00. (Paid to the Clerk of the Board with the appeal.) (2) Lot line adjustment: $555.00. (3) Legal lot determinations/certificate of compliance: $1,213.00. (4) Development agreement: Actual time hourly billing/$4,411.00 deposit. (5) General plan amendment: Hourly billing/ $8,018.00 deposit. (6) Mining and reclamation: Hourly billing/ $13,340.00 deposit. (7) Mining inspection fee: Hourly billing/$1,577.00 deposit. (8) Parcel map: $3,198.00. (9) Certificate of merger: $780.00. (10) Rezone: Hourly billing/$5,499.00 deposit. (11) Zoning ordinance amendment: Hourly billing/$4,379.00 deposit. (12) Planned unit development: Hourly billing/$8,194.00 deposit. (13) Specific plan: Hourly billing/$11,035.00 deposit. (14) Subdivision map: $3,478.00 up to 15 lots. (15) Final map checking fee: $591.00 fixed fee for four (4) or less parcels. Hourly billing/$350.00 1,491.00 deposit for five (5) or more parcels. (16) Use permit: $2,970.00. (17) Administrative permit/temporary mobile home ("Aunt Minnie"): $300.00. (18) Administrative permit/temporary mobile home ("Aunt Minnie") renewal: $50.00. (19) Administrative permit/home occupation/ $566.00. (20) Administrative permit/temporary uses: $100.00. (21) Minor use permit: $1,997.00. (22) Variances: $1,774.00. (23) Minor variance: $1,297.00. (24) Waiver of Parcel Map: Hourly billing/$2,468.00 deposit. (25) Right-of-way abandonment: $1,469.00. (26) Predevelopment conference: $1,008.00 per meeting, excluding those required for planned unit developments. (27) Land conservation agreement/inclusion: $1,000.00. (28) Land conservation agreement/withdrawal: $4,814.00. (29) Mitigation monitoring fee: Hourly billing/ $1,340.00 deposit. (30) Counter/telephone research fee and written response: $137.00/hourly with $68.00 minimum fee. (31) Staffing of the Airport Land Use Commission: $1,531.00. (32) Extension of time for filing final map: $678.00. (33) Preparation of environmental impact report: Pass-through/no deposit. (34) Certificate of Correction: $1,265.00. (35) Publishing/legal notices: $137.00. http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.comlcodeslbuttecol DATA/CHAPTER0313_43_Planning_division... 7/9/2004 3-43 Planning division fee scule. • Page 2 of 2 (36) Mining Financial Assurance Review: $839.00. (37) Subdivision Map: Each additional lot $69.00. (38) Airport Land Use Commission CLUP Review Hourly bilhng/$3,829 00 deposit. (Ord. No. 3070, § 1, 5-11-93; Ord. No. 3120, § 3, 2-22-94; Ord. No. 3269, § 3, 6-11-96; Ord. No. 3391, § 1, 1-13-98; Ord. No. 3865 § 2, 12-2-2003) http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.comlcodeslbuttecol DATAICHAPTER03/3_43 Planning_division... 7/9/2004 3=44 Hourly fees; deposits; big procedures. • Chapter 3 FEES 3744 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. Page 1 of 1 (a) Hourly fees for all personnel within the planning division of the department of development services are set at one hundred thirty-seven dollars ($137.00) per hour. : (b) For applications that are charged hourly fees, the applicant shall deposit with Butte County the sum set forth for each application. Concurrent applications require the applicant to deposit the sum of all matters being concurrently processed. (c) When the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to twenty-five (25) percent of the original deposit, .no additional processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits with Butte County sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, unless a lesser amount is approved by the director of development services or his designee. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. (d) Funds shall be maintained in a separate budget control account. (e) After final action of the appropriate legislative body, any funds remaining in the account shall be returned to the applicant. (f) Applications requiring legal notification will be required to deposit an additional fee for estimated publishing costs as prescribed. If the actual costs for county employees' time and publishing are less than the amount deposited, the remaining amount of the money shall be returned. If the costs are greater than the estimate, the applicant shall pay the additional amount. In the event that payment is not received for the additional amounts, the department of development services will send notice by registered mail. If payment is not received within thirty (30) days, the department of development services will notify central collections. (Ord. No. 3070, § 1, 5-11-93; Ord. No. 3120, § 4, 2-22-94; Ord. No. 3269, § 4, 6-11-96; Ord. 3865 § 3, 12-2-2003) http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.comlcodeslbutteco/_DATAICHAPTER03/3_44 Hourly_fees_dep... 7/9/2004 HP Fax K 1220xi Log for : Dev Svcs & Env Health 530 538-7785 Jul 09 2004 2:30pm Last Transaction Date Time T_.—e Identification Drain Pae Result Jul 9 2:23pm Fax Sent 98948955 2:56 -14 OK . ... ... . . i ._� �•�._� Eu ne ount 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 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 Date 7 i o q pages "PJ55 67 O From Cv ��CMrs D pt. Co. ' Phone # Phone # G38—S13 513 {6 i Fax# 62 — 131557 Fax# Y-. Butte County Department of Development Services PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile June 25, 2004 f TO: Inter -Departmental Review Committee FROM: Stephen Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: William Isaac, Tentative Subdivision Map - TSM 04N-13 APN: 040-490-018 DATE OF IDR*: 6/30/2004 *Inter -Departmental Review Committee IDR RESPONSE REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION DUE BY: N/A AGENCY/DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES DUE BY: July 15, 2004 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding this application, to be presented at the Inter -Departmental Review (IDR) Committee meeting on 6/30/2004, and/or to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses PROJECT LOCATION: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road and the north side of Falager Court, with SR -99 bordering to the west, south of Chico COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO.: 4 ZONING: M-1 (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN: I (Industrial) If a response cannot be submitted prior to the due dates listed above, please call Stephen Betts at (530) 538-7153 or send him an e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2004, before the Planning Commission. Comments: Signature Date LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: TSM 04N -f3 ' APN: 040-490-018 APPLICANT: William Isaac 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly HilIs,,CA 90210 OWNER: William Isaac REPRESENTATIVE: Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers REQUEST: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses LOCATION: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road and the north side of Falager Court, with SR -99 bordering to the west, south of Chico SIZE: 15.1 acres SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # 4 EXISTING ZONING: M-1, (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: I (Industrial) ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: ASSIGNED PLANNER: Stephen Betts Date Application Received: 5/11/2004 Date Project Assigned: 6/25/2004 IDR Date: 6/30/2004 30 Day Complete: 6/11/2004 Preset Hearing Date: 9/09/2004 "DRAFT" LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: 15 Y��i C�`(- 3 AP# ()qO r AP CANT: ZR: �l (. M (S ("K REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSED REQUEST: (to* be filled out by person taking in application) FINAL QUEST: (to be filled out by project pl er) 5 3 e.S Uut -Q',c- U01 Jnna�.��'aai-urines t�SLs SIZE: A -C, SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT #x LA EXISTING ZONING:. p� �— GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: :L8&s-�rc ck� ASSIGNED PLANNER: UPi PLANNER'S INMALs Date Application Received Date Project Assigned (Q - 2-� n' f IDR Date 7, 30 Day Complete Preset Hearing Date 9 -meq D5 KAPlanningTormsTead In Sheet.doc COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST, County Offices and Cities: Chief Administrative Officer X Develop. Services Director X Public Works Director f ' X Environmental Health X Assesor X Building Manager Sheriff CAG _ ALUC X LAFCo Air Quality Mgmt. _ Butte Co. Farm Bureau _ Biggs Gridley _ Chico Oroville _ Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission Information Systems Dept. _ Animal Control _2L Agricultural Commission. X County Counsel Irrigation District: Butte Water _Biggs1W. Gridley Water —Durham Irrigation _ _ OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito IrrigationDistrict _ Other Sewer „ _ Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21) _ L.O.A. PUD Fire Protection X California Department of Forestry _ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts _ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec. & Park Paradise Recreation & Park Richvale Recreation & Parks Utilities . ✓ PG&E North - Chico _ Chambers Cable TV Pacific Bell PG&E South - Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies –ZCalTrans (Traffic) _ Dept. of Water Resources Dept. of Fish and Game J w _ Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol Central Reg. Water Quality Cont. _ Caltrans, Aeronautics Program _ Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations . _ Department of Conservation _ Off. of Mining Reclamation Dept.Social Services, Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies _ US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management „JUS Fish & Wildlife Service Army Corps of Engineers _ National Marine Fisheries Sservice Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc. Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association School Districts Drainage _ Butte Env.l Council r _ Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Butte Co. Mining Committee _ Forest Ranch Community Assoc. _Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. _ Butte Ck. Watershed Conservancy _Mosq. Abatement. Oroville/Butte Co • . } ' K:\Planning\Forms\DISTR.wpd y ... � ` �, • t f i t, �...� r � _ • , t - , a � 1 '- } .. � - . 7 J � S• � ,c�m�t�p• we"wu q{,Mwa"'�am�ew.r�-�+�� .�r�''� as...H.� j�{'�Q t`_") it j� � �- �� � i � ,�� �1 qy($f.'^ _�}�1 , 1�"�`J0� =TiUr7 .. �� ._ � '�� y � s �4• • a ' � ., - e _ /« ` t ' Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company ; SUBDIVISION MAP FILING REPORT Post Office Box 3039 601 Main Street Chico, California 95928 Telephone (530) 893-5644 All Policies of Title Insurance issued by First American Title Insurance Company ; (3) 2nd Update: (05/06/2004) Order No.: 211566 LW Escrow Officer: Linda Woodcock Re: ISAAC In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, First American Title Insurance Company, hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested. Dated as of APRIL 9, 2004, at 7:30 a.m. , Roger Button, Chief Title Officer Subdivision Map Filing Report Order No. BU -211566 LW � Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: WILLIAM G. ISAAC, A MARRIED MAN AS HIS SOLE AND SEPARATE PROPERTY The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is: A FEE At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. GENERAL AND SPECIAL BUTTE COUNTY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005, A LIEN, BUT NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. 2. ANY TAXES, CURRENT OR DELINQUENT, TAX SALES, STREET ASSESSMENTS, BONDS, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS, TAX DEEDS, TREASURER'S DEEDS, AND CERTIFICATES OF SALE, WHICH MAY EXIST AS LIENS, CHARGES OR ENCUMBRANCES AGAINST SAID LAND, NO EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO SAID MATTERS HAS BEEN MADE. TAX INFORMATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. AP# 040-490-018-000 3. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES ASSESSED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3.5 COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE. A REPORT HAS BEEN ORDERED TO DETERMINE IF A SUPPLEMENTAL TAX BILL HAS BEEN SENT OUT. IF A BILL HAS BEEN SENT, A REPORT WILL FOLLOW PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. RE -CHECK SUPPLEMENTAL TAXES PRIOR TO THE CLOSE OF ESCROW. 4. RELEASE AND RELINQUISHMENT TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OF ANY AND ALL ABUTTER'S RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BY: THORE M. ELFVING, ET UX RECORDED: JULY 1, 1974, IN BOOK 1920, PAGE 411, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 5. WAIVER OF DAMAGES AS CONTAINED IN THE GRANT DEED, RECORDED JULY 1, 1974, IN BOOK '1920, PAGE 411, OFFICIAL RECORDS. CONTINUED Page 2 Subdivision Map Filing Report Order No. BU -211566 LW 6. EASEMENTS, SET BACK LINES AND NOTES) AS SHOWN OR DEDICATED BY PARCEL MAP RECORDED; APRIL 25, 1983, IN BOOK 92 OF MAPS, AT PAGE(S) 63 AND 643, BUTTE COUNTY RECORDS. SEE PARCEL MAP ENCLOSED WITHIN THIS REPORT. 7. A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AFFECTING THE PORTION OF SAID LAND AND FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN, AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES AS RESERVED FOR: PUBLIC UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE RECORDED: AUGUST 5, 1983, IN BOOK 2853, PAGE 156, OFFICIAL RECORDS. AFFECTS: THE NORTHERLY, WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY 30 FEET. 8. AN AGREEMENT, -BY AND BETWEEN: DAN HAYS, ET UX AND CATTLEMENS, A . CALIFORNIA CORPORATION RECORDED: MARCH 8, 1984, IN BOOK 2917, PAGE 5, OFFICIAL RECORDS. REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE RECORDED INSTRUMENT FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING. 9. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, BY AND BETWEEN: DAN HAYS AND THE COUNTY OF BUTTE ` RECORDED: JUNE 25, 1984, IN BOOK 2959, PAGE 161, OFFICIAL RECORDS. REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO THE RECORDED INSTRUMENT FOR A FULL UNDERSTANDING. 10. A DEED OF TRUST TO SECURE AN INDEBTEDNESS IN THE ORIGINAL PRINCIPAL SUM OF $650,000.00, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNTS AND/OR OBLIGATIONS SECURED THEREBY DATED: MARCH 24, 2004 TRUSTOR: WILLIAM G. ISAAC TRUSTEE: MID VALLEY TITLE AND ESCROW BENEFICIARY: TRI COUNTIES BANK RECORDED: MARCH 26, 2004, UNDER BUTTE COUNTY RECORDER'S SERIAL NO. 2004-16993. INFORMATION NOTE: NO KNOWN MATTERS OTHERWISE APPROPRIATE TO BE SHOWN HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THIS REPORT, WHICH IS NOT A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, BUT A REPORT TO FACILITATE THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE. CONTINUED Page 3 Subdivision Map Filing Report Order No. BU-211566 LW t INFORMATION NOTE: CONTINUED FOR PURPOSES OF POLICY ISSUANCE, -0- ITEMS MAY BE ELIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF AN INDEMNITY AGREEMENT OR OTHER AGREEMENT SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY AS INSURER. DA:KK MAY 6, 2004 Subdivision Map Filing Report Order No. BU -211566 LW . Description . The land referred to herein is situated in the State of California, County of Butte, and is described as . follows: PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON APRIL 25, 1983, IN BOOK 92 OF MAPS, AT PAGE(S) 63 AND 64. APN 040-490-018-000 0 0 36.424c This map may or may not be a survey of the land. depicted hereon. You should not rely upon it for any purpose other than orientation to the general location of the parcel or par - cels depicted. Mid Valley .Title and Escrow Company ex* r-essly disclaims any liability for alleged loss o.r damage Wch may result from reliance upon this map. `., SEC.. 26 & PTN. SEC. 27 T.21N. R.2E. M.D.B.&M. ��h\\ 12 I 14 51.66Ac . 9 \) 163.03Ac ?a4c ' i , Cak CF Loa Pow" Butte County Assessor's Map Book 40, Page 49 AM G* � "oms�b � vtorm avrArEa sr sol a 2-7-7012 aaffAhn PotY6'FD ev AEE on 2�7-2002 1nf 2002-M AOLL AV/Am OWN DOOM of Pbw BL 7Ae_&Am Cw* Ae rise We& DUIi" STATE LAND SETTLEMEM a t8 13 _l._LLJJ. ��no���° c� �� '��'�ci��`8i S1? o �� � a � id➢ LO j D< -L+o ��zi � 'f��o�{ti�g�� �o➢ � �A � �,, �Onmp�I������i�� �am� offN 9J �i�j n z� NS �Ftua�i� C1 �5mic��1 blOtt,, ;oil _ P 1 N D i o �A� �. -{ No to o mD 0 o pC l D; n �DCoi g 1 0A g£ m-p�A➢ �p�l Ury P 0aa�gmgmsu _ Minnow N i D F �Ir➢:�U��nO g UtD�jp�Mph7y- R'�mn�L DS �• r� � D 0; p m ms m :c N m � �j�L q `""� �� � L '� ➢m �. � � �L�mril� papi' �i'Fip�yC�opZi of ➢��$vp°U �mpT xr'1°0 i y pPLDZ �z� cYl pa �EEpnZ1� L ➢C r: G- C� 0 f 0 D° ��N�$ 6 N� ¶ �i �- _�., £� m � III ��• Z� p Z � �J UULL�I D fL ,Ifnj, SI��L Gc � hum I P 4 1 �D w J�1I�I CI �1 D 3m S lug pp 3 / Bt P � U o / ' 041 �tlg➢�1�m° i?{,�y$P Al� 0n -t L � �A� �.� Wil• �,�` t�"ed� ♦ �iu' 1y OB m('' ip �y�y • p �cQ lil f �j p U � p ` Dp �1 7 5�°%rte/A�y;Or� gp m IT LP (A— / N 4 \ N � � • / � �1 � r A. 1 z.,6, I rpD ���� HN �3 //I- 00 �� F�•at ��'� � rAD « � �L��; � dm B 11,....4 •.-_- �` _z ;0 —Z i I y •{{r�d�7, �1 D 3m S lug pp 3 / Bt P � U o / ' 041 �tlg➢�1�m° i?{,�y$P Al� 0n -t L � �A� �.� Wil• �,�` t�"ed� ♦ �iu' 1y OB m('' ip �y�y • p �cQ lil f �j p U � p ` Dp �1 7 5�°%rte/A�y;Or� gp m IT LP (A— / N 4 \ N � � • / � �1 � r A. 1 z.,6, I rpD ���� HN �3 //I- 00 �� F�•at ��'� � rAD « � �L��; � dm B 11,....4 •.-_- �` _z ;0 —Z i I Betts, Steve From: Breedon, Dan Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:53 AM To: 'jmarr@dfg.ca.gov' Cc: Betts, Steve . Subject: Isaak Jenny, In doing some checking it appears that Isaak has submitted a subdivision map application on this property and has plans to submit a Use Permit for a truck stop. We would be reviewing these applications under CEQA. Steve Betts is the planner handling these applications. His number is 538-7153. 1 already told him about your concerns and the streambed alteration agreement. There are a lot of factors to consider here as this site develops. We are assessing whether an EIR will be required at this time. Steve Betts can provide you with follow thru as this project progresses. Dan Breedon, A/CP, Principal Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7629, FAX. 530-538-7785 Department website: www.buttecounty.net/dds For Zoning information:uti��+;l�utt�coinJ_net/itsis/G!S%71�iingDis_Irict.Htna. 7/9/2004 Betts, Steve' From:' Fogel, Doug Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 9:29 AM To: Betts, Steve Subject: FW:. Isaacs project Let me further clarify 1) below. Even though the applicant is proposing a community sewage treatment system in this case, technically not an individual system, that system's treatment facility and disposal facility must be contained within the land area that is being considered as part of the map. It can not be proposed to be placed on a parcel not under consideration. 3) A system of this size would also require approval from RWQCB . It would already have gotten that approval at this stage if the application had proceeded through the system in the proper manner. -----Original Message ---- From: Fogel, Doug Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:12 PM _ To: Betts, Steve Subject: Isaacs project 1) the proposed sewage disposal system is shown going off site. This is contrary to county code section 19-10 pertaining to the placement of individual septics. If this is not an individual septic this would not pertain. 2) the septic, I have been told, proposes to use ponds for disposal. Board Resolution 87-108 does not permit the use of ponds for sewage disposal as part of a proposal of this nature. RECEIVED.. JUL 12004 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1 Page 1 of I Betts, Steve From: Christopher, Yvonne Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:56 PM To: Breedon, Dan Cc: Baker, Joseph; Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Isaak This is the site where Mark took the subdivision map in without our knowledge and it is now in a complete status. Steve is the planner and I believe needs the IS determination done by Friday to meet the CEQA timelines. Please discuss this with him. Thanks, Yvonne -----Original Message ----- From: Breedon, Dan Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 3:27 PM To: Christopher, Yvonne Cc: Baker, Joseph Subject: Isaak Yvonne, ` Jenny Marr (895-4267) w/CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Chico, called me today to say that the Isaak has applied for a streambed alteration agreement on the property south of Pentz at 99 (Isaak). She called to inquire about whether any project was underway with the County and associated CEQA review. I said that we did have a building permit that was in suspense until the property owner dealt with an existing development agreement, but that no CEQA was underway on this project. She related that there are vernal pools on the site as well as meadow foam according to the NDDB. She said the biological study submitted by the applicant to fish and game was totally inadequate. She would like to know what the County intends to do about the development and whether there will be a CEQA document produced. Fish and Game is required to complete CEQA on streambed alteration agreements but also checks with Counties to find out if the County is designated as the Lead Agency and thus can complete the CEQA review (thus avoiding duplicative paperwork). I thought you should know about this contact Dan Breedon, AICP, Principal Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Phone: 530-538-7629, FAX 530-538-7785 Department website: www.buttecounty.net/dds For Zoning information:rr+aw.Guttecount�>.net/rlrls/G!S%Za+ir Disn-iahtrn 7/9/2004 Betts, Steve From: Fogel, Doug Sent:.. Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:12 PM To: Betts, Steve Subject: Isaacs project 1) the proposed sewage disposal system is shown going off site. This is contrary to county code section 19-10 pertaining to the placement of individual septics. If this is not an individual septic this would not pertain. 2) the septic, I have been told, proposes to use ponds for disposal. Board Resolution 87-108 does not permit the use of ponds for sewage disposal as part of a proposal of this nature. 4 r r } Betts, Steve From: Wannenmacher, Felix Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 3:03 PM To: Betts, Steve; Christopher, Yvonne; Baker, Joseph Cc: Miller, Gloria Subject: Issac Application (TSM 04N-13) A#04-257 Hi Steve, Yvonne, and Joe, The applicant is proposing to subdivide a parcel. He does not mention the DA. Perhaps he assumes he is out of it. It is certainly much easier for him if he is. He can simply subdivide without needing to meet any overall objectives of the DA. " He proposes a road that serves only this subdivision. The road must pass through property of another that is within a DA. This would become an off-site improvement that the applicant would have to satisfy. I suggest we require it to be satisfied prior to approval of the tentative map (as in Parsley). Felix CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and -any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this email and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by email that you mistakenly received this message. Thank you. 1 r 4 , INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM PUBLIC R DEPARTMENT TO: STEPHEN BETTS, PLANNER FROM: MIKE CRUMP, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS eRECEIVED SUBJECT: WILLIAM ISAAC, TSM 04N-13 JUL - 12004 DATE: JULY 7, 2004 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PM This memo is to supplement our normal standard conditions and is provideREtoEasS sE heSERv10E5 applicant, staff and the Planning Commission in understanding the issues surrounding public access to this area. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map DP Commerce Center for Mr. William Isaac ` (TSM) has a note that indicates "driveway location as approved by Butte County Director of Public Works." This statement is not accurate. On November 12, 1997 (E-2388), I approved a set of improvement plans for a driveway access at this location for a ranch office on the north side of Durham Pentz Road. The improvement plans approved for the ranch office access were submitted by Dr. Horning who owns the property on the north side of Durham Pentz Road, and is the point of contact for the Development Agreement (Ordinance 3107) between the County and the 52 acre parcel (APN 040-490-017) and the 13 acre parcel (APN 040-130-036) owned by Dr. Horning and the 15.1 acre parcel (APN 040-490-018) owned by William Isaac, and is now being proposed as a 14 parcel vesting TSM with public access onto both Falager Court and Durham Pentz Road. One of the primary intents of the Development Agreement was to promote orderly development of this area, including safe and efficient traffic circulation. The proposed TSM shows a proposed 60 -foot wide road and public utility easement passing through APN 040-130-036, which is presently owned by Dr. Horning, and is a part of the original Development Agreement. County staff has met numerous times with representatives of both Dr. Horning and Mr. Isaac to . resolve issues involving the Development Agreement and traffic circulation. Specifically the Public Works Department will require that any public access from Mr. Isaac's property (APN 040-490-018) onto Durham Pentz Road must be aligned with the public access road serving Dr. Horning's property (APN 040-490-017). To date, Dr. Horning has not provided an easement across his property (APN 040-130-036) that would allow Mr. Isaac to access Durham Pentz Road at a point that would provide a common access point (intersection) at the location approved for a ranch office on the north side of Durham Pentz Road. Under normal circumstances, Public Works would concur with the alignment of the proposed Road A as shown on the Isaac TSM that shows public access from Falager Court, through the Isaac property to the property owned by Dr. Horning (APN 040-130-036) and onto Durham Pentz Road at the location that would serve as a common access point or. intersection for properties on both sides of the road. However, two issues prevent us from agreeing to the proposed alignment of Road A as- shown on the Isaac TSM. The first is that Dr. Horning has not agreed to provide Mr. Isaac or the County with a 60 -foot wide public road and utility easement as shown on the Isaac TSM. ` The second issue surrounding access onto Durham Pentz Road is a result of a letter dated May 14, 2004, from the State Department of Conservation to Mr. Don Holtgrieve who is a representative of Dr. Horning. The letter questions the acceptability of the use of the approved ranch office driveway proposed to serve Dr. Horning's parcel (APN 040-490-017) that is subject to the Development Agreement because the ranch office driveway is actually on a second parcel (APN 040-130-035) also owned by Dr. Horning but subject to the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act. The State Department of Conservation concluded that it would appear that placing ;a commercial development access on enforceable restricted Williamson Act property would not be , a compatible use. The State further suggests that Dr. Horning reorient the road to avoid the Williamson Act contracted parcel. I have attached a copy of this letter for reference. .Therefore, until such time that all interested parties including Dr. Horning, Mr. Isaac, the State Department of Conservation, Caltrans, and the County can agree to a safe and efficient common access point or intersection that will serve parcels on both side of Durham Pentz Road, we cannot recommend approval of the Isaac TSM with the alignment of Road A as shown. It is our recommendation that the Isaac TSM be conditioned to have no public access onto Durham Pentz Road until such time as all parties can agree to a safe, common access point or intersection on Durham Pentz Road. Public access to the Isaac parcel and TSM can be provided and approved from Falager Court with a cul-de-sac at the north end of Road A. 0 DEPARTMENT S T A T E OF CONSERVATI6-., O F C A L I F O R N I A eF,7T.,,,�,� L. CuMIT Y. ` May 14, 2004.. DIL DIVISION OF Don Holtgrieve Ph,D:, AICP LAND RESOURCE Northern- California Planning PROTECTION and Research P'. 0., Box 396 8 0 1 K STREET : Forest Ranch, CA 95942 SACRAMENTO. ' CALIFORNIA RE:. Proposed development at Durham Pentz & Hwy 99 95814 .. _ ...:....' .. ...:.,._. :... ._. _ .'.:.....::_..'., ..:.... ..._ ....... P H O N E Dear Dr. Holtgrieve: 916/324-.0850 FAX ". Thank you for contacting the Department. of Conservation (Department) . 91,6 / 3 2 7 - 3 4 3 0 . about the Williamson Act requirements for contracted land. On December 13, 1993,.the County of Butte and MC'Horning entered into a INTERNET Development Agreement (Ordinance No.. 3107). in accordance with this `onsrv.ca.g°v development agreement, Northern California Planning and Research' and ■ the M.C. Horning family propose the development of a Gas Station Mini GRAY D AV I S Mart with three light. industrial buildings at the northeast quadrant of GOVERNOR Highway 99 at Durham Pentz Road in Butte County on a 4.5 -acre portion of a.52 -acre parcel (APN. 040-490-017).:. A_ second parcel .(APN 040-130- 035) will support an already approved entry road into the Mini Mart project area., The entry road, which crosses. land enforceably restricted by a Williamson Act contract, will cover 68,000 square feet including landscaped median, parkway . stripes and sidewalk. The entry road will be built with private funding. After reviewing the information provided, the Department provides the following comments. Williamson Act Compatible issues Agricultural land enrolled in a California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act contract, or Farmland Security Zone contract, is restricted to agricultural; and open space uses. Counties and cities are given latitude to determine other uses that can be deemed "compatible" with the intent of the Williamson Act. Counties and cities administer the Williamson Act program by implementing uniform rules and procedures that identify permitted, and compatible uses. Typically, these uses are divided between .activities that are clearly related to agricultural operations (such as planting or seeding for the production of food and fiber), and those uses that require a special use permit such as community auctions for sale of farm animals, crop dusting strips, and permanent roadside stands. De Holtgrieve Ph.D. Ni14, 2004 .ge2of2 w As an aid to local government determination of what can be allowed as a -compatible use, Government Code section. 51238.1 was enacted to ensure that such uses must be consistent. with the principles of compatibility: (a) the use will not significantly compromise long term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcels or other contracted land in preserves; 2) obstruct or displace potential agricultural operations; or 3) induce non-agricultural development of surrounding enrolled lands.. . in addition, Government Code section. 51220.5 directs cities and counties to determine compatible uses in a manner that recognizes that a permanent or tempora'.population. increase often hinders or -impairs agricultural operations. Government Code sections 51290 et seq. provide for possible public acquisition of Williamson Act contracted lands for public improvements and the requirements to be met by.public entities Since the entry road would be built with.private funding, the-publicacquisition provisions may not apply. However, if the road were to be dedicated to the County, the public acquisition requirements of the Williamson Act (Government Code sections 51290 to 51295) would apply. The issues related to the Williamson Act restrictions should be clarified with the County before proceeding further. Department Conclusions Based on the information you have provided, it does not appear that. placing a private road on enforceably restricted Williamson Act property would be a compatible use. The road would increase traffic in the area and affect remaining agricultural operations as well as aiding the development of adjacent parcels; which will increase development pressures in the vicinity. We suggest that you reorient the road to avoid the Williamson Act contracted parcel. Since notice of nonrenewal of the Williamson Act contract was filed November 21, 2001, completion of the nonrenewal process will terminate the contract, at which time a road could be built. on the land. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Williamson Act related issues. If you have further questions, or need additional information, please contact Patricia Gatz, Associate Planner, at 916-324-0869. Sincerely,. n Dennis J. O'Bryant Acting Assistant Director cc: Mr. Daniel C. Breedon, AICP,. Principal Planner RECEIVED Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive tiNi 2 5 20010 4 Oroville, CA 95965 COUN31P of SUirE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. NA T.21 N. R. k. M.D.B.&M. 2 12 40-713 24 ❑ 24 19 2 25 25 30 o , V-1200• 491, . • �------------ — --- 623.85Ac V 29 2 i 22.62Ac 36 DURHAM-PENTZ (BENNUM) ROAD 1 - FA[AGER,,CT. M07 , i 1 � - 57 \ - 178.00Ac - ROTE, ALL W"O"" S""DI wisEsaq FOR ASSESSOM ONE PNM WPS IAC 167: ' ,�� rr� ` AND 0o Rot t¢�waLr oo6vnnc urx M1m IDR NO LLOM 6 AS FOR NE ACDR ACY 6 TIE D/J� SH M O r1i ' 35 36 ---------------------- 2 1 6Ac `, . 11 �6 31 Butte County Assessors Map Book 40, Page 13 DURHAM STATE LAND SETTLEMENT, 8 M.O.R. 24 6 38-15 CREATED BY DB CREATED ON 12-5-2003 AR 15 2004 REYSED BY I DB REVM ON 02-09-2001 - is may or may not be a survey of the. land depictEd FU NOME10-13 UffCDI•£ 2001-0.5 ROLL map reon. You should, not rely upon it for any purpose other Com ' TM Butte Caun Attea»re fNEiee 0 ian orientation to the general' location of the parcel or arcels depicted. Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company expressly disclaims any liability 'for alleged loss or upon this map. age that may result from reliance I !klqh—% ti Check Number / Cash FTotal Received C „$14,179.00 f Total Fees - -'$4'179.00 • Fish/Game $0.00 ALUC (Airport Land Use) $0.00 T $0,00 Non Sufficient - Funds ($25.00 Fee) Cell Tower ($2500.00) $0.00 ��- - Plic Sales / Coies" ub $0100 , $0.00lp Other: `_ .� i�^ 1 . � � � LV .';. - - ... -..'{... •' •_ _ r . �. ` _ ' •`. � y -a • r� Vis., °` - .i- t : 'UA uo; j co Nnr r : I U of BUTTE OFFICIAL RECEIPT 40.6532 • Y. r e �p�—Q—�,S�, OFFl 11 ICE OR DEPARTMENT'ISSUING RECEIPT J Receive] QC + 20ju _ .the Sum of S = `` 0 For , Received: f t Received n CASH 1 t CHECK7l ( -- ev i DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS • (530) 743-8511 Form 75702 r• • �pIG� Jofi acr-xm COUNTY OF BUTTE '406532, �/11�ai y�n�Dl OFFICIAL RECEIPT ,g FFICE OR DEPARTMENT ISSUING RECEIPT 20 Received rf O. - Ism. ff . Tile Sum Of . P J- �i ) in. , t1 I For Takk CA 13 Received: By Q DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS • (530) 70.18511 Farm 76702 APPROVE® BY: RECEIVE® BY: TREASURER By: s6te=treasurer pink --auditor : canary=deposotor golden rod=-Fule Q0UNTY OP P6 fii E AUDITOR'S CERTIl 6T"E AND TR A9,UREWS RECEIPT ._: OROVILLE ZA' ATR No x:3429 RECEIVES? FROM PLANNING BAG t DATA: '. _ v2siM4' FUND FUND DEPT ACCT CA�II° ®ESCRIPT 1ON TITLE CODE.'CODE.!. h. CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT SDATE:. 625 RECEIPTS: 4065132 PLANNING APPL FEES. :GENL 0MG 44OW1 4210900 18 WI 3i478-00 Pmject Number :; cmount of Fee AP14:040-4MW 8 W ISAAC TSM 04-13 LAND DEVELOPMENT . GEN L Project.N@e��reber mu Fee. i PN -040-490-048 WISAACTSM 04-13 $450:00 -- FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 01.00.-4617240 101001 2!&Q0 . Paoject'Nufiwber. Amp'-aerat mf Fee: APK04490-018 W ISAAC TSM 04-13 QODIN OE CLERK'S FILING FEI GENL 001€E 4700D01 _ 46.923.15 . 101001. ` ` . .36bo (`te) Project Number APN:040490.018 W ISAAC TSM 04-93 TOTAL $ 4,179°00 APPROVE® BY: RECEIVE® BY: TREASURER By: s6te=treasurer pink --auditor : canary=deposotor golden rod=-Fule APPROVED BY: vvWte=treasurer pink--atidits r' - TOTAL $ 4079.00 RECEIVED BY: TREASURER By: canary=depositor golden md=file - -COUNTY OF:`BUTTE AUDITOR'S.CER-TtOICATEANDTR �EASU.S C I 'R ER'RE E PT- - ORONnLLE ATR NO 75429* RECEIVED FROM PLANNING BAG J 329 612512004 FUND FUND DEPT. ACCT f4 DESCRIPTION. TITLE CODE CODE ,---'.'�---- CODE Cibb!E'- AMOUNT' DEPOSIT DATE.-. GM RECEIPTS: AeM PLANNING APPL FEES -dENL 0010 44010011 101001 3$478. Project Number-'. '.,Amount of Fed APN:040-490-01 8 W ISAAC TSM 04-13 ' =''$3,478 .00 LAND DEVELOPMENT -.0ENL 0010 451*06.. ProjectNumber �kitt dffoi. APM040-490-01 8 W ISAAC TSM Q4-93. FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 0160- ..AGW240 1011001 �16W. PMect'Number. AFfivOrit-of Fee- APN:040-490-0I 8 W ISAAC TSM 04-13 NODINOE CLERK'S FILING FEE GENL) 0010 470MI..'. 49123.19 '10"1001. .361.00' ($M) Project Number Am-du-nt'af Fee -1, APN:040-490-01 8 W ISAAC TSM 04-13 APPROVED BY: vvWte=treasurer pink--atidits r' - TOTAL $ 4079.00 RECEIVED BY: TREASURER By: canary=depositor golden md=file - Scott S. Hamm, MAI i `'h• ,,t i r < �' '1' i ''` _ � w +r r cv v j r ,�� �:y� q .a,. • -t-b a • 1 s _y � rc �i� '4�� '• ." i ,,g. y f f>,x • �!i { l• � r- + t :b i ) ,S " •�.. - ,. # i }s, .'S iy.�n;., ��-?'� i ,J .7 :l.• i ' 9'p '1id � iSjX� . r,` k. Wyk_. T•� €r rl ;: + � , ; rt x �y �;, .. _ cjr'•. j ��; �r7" y J"s •.i �;'. . t c �e _� tt � '..r� j fix' ,; ���J� ti mb " 4y � 4 " f v'? -F_ . n r n' ••t �" ,l { , at. tf :I �, a r,y'Y •,s .Yr �;'M .?.' .p•�:. r.�' „L� i i• �x'��" 7 JJ Grazing Butte V 1 r College a Ind. Park SUBJECT - ' ft Future Casino; t' 7 149 , .�f .'� ..S :�. 't -5� 1�7 ,,,�- y;r{;. >'�7!�.:. wy? =i� r _ ti.. '• _r�-Ps �A_ �r '�yi x) <. f •. 'tr ;.5' .-Kc,'rj.� �' z+t j •lig iG}.f + -� A x' pd'' t ,} �'. > �- � ^'j,•�1„ ii"+, X t yj ", .xtif""' i i t" �1� �- '" , ,,,r e-� ,Y""�i� '..+ r" u ) ,. ,i, :� ) E•,•3 .•'r a ^,� r- �r,,r� 4fl:',, r 5:. .lel. .,'< •x.. '� e':Szl v'-ri 'or. y•n -;: t f.� t ..L. '. i,. ���a •y �. '+- sr °,*�f, ;,Yt 7 �.-,�:_.•e !i t' .,i�._ Y':u., T7.; ',�, S ,,ir: A S 'F. w X31 J1 J' i�•;`r 1 !", -:h Y... `�• S� N„~ n . .' i ti, ( N r 1y e -t c •. , ( "i -. f > 2: ? , ., . l�j t ' . ,: a " '� .rr.. ."�:' NEIGHBORHOOD AREA MAP G '-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOIRATION DISTRICT •3 703 B STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-0911 PHONE (530) 741-4025 FAX (530) 741-5346 TTY (530) 741-4509 July 15, 2604 04BUT0018 03 -BUT -99, P.M. 23.6 Isaac Tentative Subdivision Map, TSM 04N-13 Application Mr. Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397. Dear Mr. Betts: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the application for a proposed 14 -lot subdivision for development of light manufacturing uses located on the south side of Durham -Peutz Road, the north side of Falager Court, and the west side of State Route (SR) 99, south of Chico. Our comments on the application are as follows: Potential aesthetic impacts; mitigation measures suggested: On page 2 of the Environmental Information Form, item 21 indicates no change in scenic views or vistas from public lands or roads; we disagree. Although the portion of SR 99 adjacent to the project site has not been officially designated as a State Scenic Highway, and is not listed on the current eligibility list, improvements associated with this project will visually impact the State Route Corridor. We typically have concerns with parking, screening and visibility of structures, architectural styles, height and setbacks of buildings, and signs affecting the visual integrity of the corridor. The subdivision itself will not change the view shed, but the development on the property will significantly change the scene from rural agricultural — open grassland to industrial as has taken place on the west side of the highway. • To help mitigate any visual impacts to highway motorists due to project construction, we suggest that the environmental document prepared for the project include the following: ■ A vegetated, visual landscape buffer of at least twenty-five feet between the State highway existing right-of-way (ROW) and all structures should be required. The landscape buffer should maintain visual integrity with the surrounding context. New vegetation should be positioned and maintained on the project proponent's property, and not within the State ROW. Landscape buffers may include, but are not limited to,, trees, shrubs, turf, earth berms, and garden walls. ■ Parking areas should be screened from the view of highway travelers. 'Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Stephen Betts July.15, 2004 Page 2 Building and screen tree setbacks should assume at least an ultimate fifty -foot half width configuration of the State highway ROW to allow for any additional width that may be required for the completion of future route improvements. If sound walls are used for noise attenuation, their design should consider an aesthetic treatment, which is sensitive to the surrounding context. • Potential exposure to motorists traveling on SR 99 adjacent to the project site of excessive light and glare should be evaluated in the environmental document and appropriate mitigation measures developed to minimize the impacts. Potential hydrologic,hydraulic, and water quality impacts, mitigation requested: It appears from the Vesting Tentative Subdivision map that drainage channel and detention facility will be adjacent to and flow into the State highway ROW. The development of this site will increase impervious surface area through the construction of roads, driveways, buildings, and parking lots with a corresponding increase in surface water (storm water) runoff. This project will decrease surface water detention, retention, and infiltration. Although a detention pond is shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision map, it appears that the drainage channel entering and exiting the pond will be directing the flow of storm water into the State highway ROW. Any runoff increase introduced by the construction of the project must be quantified'and mitigated for to avoid potential adverse hydrologic and hydraulic impacts down stream of the project site. • The project has the potential to create a significant negative hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality impact to the State's highway ROW. Any cumulative impacts to the State's drainage facilities arising from the effects of this development on surface water runoff discharge from the peak (100 -year) storm event should be minimized through project drainage mitigation measures. • We recommend that the environmental document prepared for.the project include mitigation measures that will minimize potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts to the State's drainage facilities. Such mitigation measures should include the following: ■ Pre- and post -project hydrologic/hydraulic plans and calculations for the project showing the coverage quantities for buildings, streets, parking, and landscaped areas shall be required, and submitted to the Butte County and to the State Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to map recordation. Said plans and calculations shall examine potential cumulative impacts to the State's drainage facilities arising from effects of development on surface water runoff discharge from the peak (100 year) storm event, and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Any potential increases of discharge into the State drainage system must be mitigated. ■ Increases in peak runoff discharge for the 100 -year return storm event to the . State's highway right-of-way and drainage facilities must be reduced to at or below the pre - construction levels. Runoff identified in the plans and calculations must meet all Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality standards prior to entering the State's right-of-way or drainage facilities. "Caltrans improves mobility across California " Mr. Stephen Betts July 15, 2004 Page 3 ■ No net increase to the surface water (storm water) peak runoff discharge (100 year storm event) within the State's right-of-way and drainage facilities may be realized as a result of the completion of the project. ■ Best Management Practices (BMP) systems should be included to remove pollutants and to manage storm water prior to discharging into the State's right-of-way. Once installed, the property owner must properly maintain these systems. The proponent/developer may be held liable for future damages due to impacts for which adequate mitigation was not undertaken or sustained. Acceptable constituency levels and appropriate BMP information can be obtained from the RWQCB. • The requested drainage plans and calculations should be sent to Mr. Mike DeWall, District 3 Hydraulics Branch at the above address in Marysville. Mr. DeWall can be reached at (530) 741-4056. Potential transportation/traffic impacts; mitigation requested: • The project will generate additional vehicle trips, which may result in significant traffic circulation impacts to the SR99/Durham-Peutz Road/Durham-Dayton Road interchange and to Durham-Pentz Road. Therefore, we recommend that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which contains appropriate mitigation measures, should be provided for -in the environmental document prepared for the project in accordance with the "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" updated December 2002. A copy of the guide can be downloaded at: http://www.dot.ca. ov/hq/traffops/developsery/operationalsystems/reports/tisguide pdf • Fair -share fees should be paid and improvements constructed as determined by the TIS for the. project. Subdivision Map Comments: • We suggest that all access to the parcels occur on the proposed internal roadway (Public Road "A"). The proposed new connection should be aligned opposite the existing private drive on Durham -Peutz Road so that the distance from the intersection of the Durham-Pentz Road/SR 99 northbound ramps is as far as possible from the proposed new connection. • Durham-Pentz Road from SR 99 to SR 191 is designated in the Butte County Bikeway Master Plan as a high priority segment. Bicyclists presently use this segment, and bicycle use is anticipated to increase once the SR 70/149/99 project is constructed. Therefore, we suggest that the shoulder width along the frontage of the project should meet the criteria for a Class II bike lane as well as provide right turn channelization into the project site. In 1995 Caltrans had discussions with Stuart Edell of Butte County regarding the additional westbound lane conditioned with the MC Horning Industrial Park access. Due to the potential need for widening two box culverts with the previous project, the County, at the time, suggested it might consider allowing the narrowing of the shoulder widths. This should no longer be acceptable due to the joint efforts of Butte County, the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) and the State to acknowledge the increasing importance of bicycle travel on Durham-Pentz Road between SR 99 and SR 191. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 'Mr. Stephen Betts July 15, 2004 Page 4 Request ROW dedication as subdivision map condition of approval: •_ The State ROW is controlled access along the entire west side of the project'property and along Durham-Pentz Road 194.64 feet from the off ramp. Due to the cumulative traffic impacts caused from development in the area, additional lanes on the ramps will be required when the future interchange planned at the SR 99/Durham-Peutz Road is constructed. To provide the minimum improvements with enough room to construct one more lanes on the northbound off ramp, the developer should dedicate 12 feet of land for ROW so that permanent structures cannot be built in the area that is needed for the improvement. • Along Durham-Pentz Road the State will require a dedication of 17 feet of ROW to facilitate a right turn lane and a Class II bike lane, 12 feet and 5 feet respectively. The State will process the dedications when an encroachment permit is applied for. Once the dedications are recorded by the State and all other requirements of the encroachment permit are met, the State will issue the encroachment permit. • It is strongly suggested that the County, in compliance with Butte County Bikeway Master Plan, require that the ROW be dedicated to provide the right turn only lane and the bike lane up to the Road "A" intersection. • We request that the County include in the Conditions of Approval for the map an irrevocable offer of dedication requirement to the State for the above stated ROW. For more information on the dedication procedure, please contact Jim Adams at the California Department of Transportation, District 3, North Region Office of Surveyors, Right Of Way Engineering Department, P.O. Box 911, Marysville. Mr. Adams telephone number is (530) 741-5302. Encroachment Permit required: • An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work conducted in the State's right of way, including for sign placement, traffic control, light installation, culvert maintenance, drainage pattern changes, sidewalk installation, or any new or rehabilitated access construction. To secure an application, please contact Mr. Bruce Capaul, Caltrans District 3, Office of Permits, at 530-741-4403. Please send us a copy of the environmental document and conditions of approval prepared for the project when available. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Rick Helman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 634-7612. Sincerely, BRUCE DE TERRA, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning, North "Caltrans improves mobility across California - r Betts, Steve From: richard_helman@dot.ca.gov _ Y Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:21 AM To: Betts, Steve Cc: ann murphy@dot.ca.gov Subject: Revised Heading on Letter Concerning Isaac Tentative Map, TSM 04N-13 04BUT0018SIGNED. doc(90 KB) Hi Steve: In the July 15, 2004 letter that was mailed to you, I erroneously referred to 03-BUT-162 in the heading on the first page. It should referred to 03-BUT 99. Please find attached a revised version of the letter for your files. The only change.i's. in the heading on the first page. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Thanks. • �. f Rick Helman Inter-governmental Review Coordinator CALTRANS-District 3, Office of Transporation Planning-North, P.O. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901 Voice: 530-634-7612 or 8-457-7612 Fax: 530-741-5346 (See attached file: 04BUT0018SIGNED.doc) 11 DEPARTMENT OF TR DISTRICT 3 703 B STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-0911 PHONE (530) 741-4025 FAX (530) 741-5346 TTY (530) 741-4509 July 15, 2004 ATION 04BUT0018 03 -BUT -162, P.M. 20.490 Isaac Tentative Subdivision Map, TSM 04N-13 Application Mr. Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Betts: BUTTE COUNTY JUL 19 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Flex your power! Be energy efficient! Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the application for a proposed 14 -lot subdivision for development of light manufacturing uses located on the southside of Durham-Pentz Road, -the north side of Falager'Court; and the west side of State Route (SR) 99, south of Chico. Our comments on the application are as follows: Potential aesthetic impacts; mitigation measures sug eg sted: • On page 2 of the Environmental Information Form, item 21 indicates no change in scenic views or vistas from public lands or roads; we disagree. Although the portion of SR 99 adjacent to the project site has not been officially designated as a State Scenic Highway, and is not listed on the current eligibility list, improvements associated with this project will visually impact the State Route Corridor. We typically have concerns with parking, screening and visibility of structures, architectural styles, height and. setbacks of buildings, and signs affecting the visual integrity of the corridor. The subdivision itself will not change the view shed, but the development on the property will significantly change the scene from rural agricultural —'open grassland to industrial as has taken place on the west side of the highway. • To help mitigate any visual impacts to highway motorists due to project construction, we suggest that the environmental document prepared for the project include the following: ■ A vegetated, visual landscape buffer of at least twenty-five feet between the State highway, existing right -'of -way (ROW) and all structures should be required. ,The landscape 'buffer should maintain , visual integrity with the surrounding ' context. New vegetation should be positioned and maintained on the project proponent's property, and not within the State ROW. Landscape buffers may include, -but are not limited to,trees, shrubs, turf, earth berms, and garden walls. ■ Parking areas should be screened from the view of highway travelers. "Caltrans improves nobility across California" Mr. Stephen Betts July 15, 2004 Page 2 Building and screen tree setbacks should assume at least an ultimate fifty -foot half width configuration of the State highway ROW to allow for any additional width that may be required for the completion of future route improvements. ■ If sound walls are used for noise attenuation, their design should consider an aesthetic treatment, which is sensitive to the surrounding context. • Potential exposure to motorists traveling on SR 99 adjacent to the project site of excessive light and glare should be evaluated in the environmental document and. appropriate mitigation measures developed to minimize the impacts. Potential hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality impacts; mitigation requested: • It appears from the Vesting Tentative Subdivision map that drainage channel and detention facility will be adjacent to and flow into the State highway ROW. • The development of this site will increase impervious surface area through the construction of roads, driveways, buildings, and parking lots with a corresponding increase in surface water (storm water) runoff. This project will decrease surface water detention, retention, and infiltration. Although a detention pond is shown on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision map, it appears that the drainage channel entering and exiting the pond will be directing the flow of storm water into the State highway ROW. Any runoff increase introduced by the construction of the project must be quantified and mitigated for to avoid potential adverse hydrologic and hydraulic impacts down stream of the project site. • The project has the potential to create a significant negative hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality impact to the State's highway ROW. Any cumulative impacts to the State's drainage facilities arising from the effects of this development on surface water runoff discharge from the peak (100 -year) storm event should be minimized through project drainage mitigation measures. • We recommend that the environmental document prepared for the project include mitigation measures that will minimize potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts to the State's drainage facilities. Such mitigation measures should include the following: „ ■ Pre- and -post -project hydrologic/hydraulic plans and calculations for the project showing the coverage quantities for buildings, streets, parking, and landscaped areas shall be . required, and submitted to the Butte County and to the State Department of Transportation for review and approval prior to map recordation. Said plans and calculations shall examine potential cumulative impacts to the State's drainage facilities arising from effects of development on surface water runoff discharge from the peak (100 year) storm event, and identify appropriate mitigation measures. Any potential increases of discharge into the State drainage system must be mitigated. ■ Increases in peak runoff discharge for the 100 -year return storm event to the State's highway right-of-way and drainage facilities must be reduced to at or below the pre - construction levels. Runoff identified in the plans and calculations must meet all Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality standards prior to entering the State's right-of-way or drainage facilities. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Stephen Betts July 15, 2004 Page 3 ■ No net increase to the surface water (storm water) peak runoff discharge (100 year storm event) within the State's right-of-way'and drainage facilities may be realized as a result of the completion of the project. ■ Best Management Practices (BMP) systems should be included to remove pollutants and to manage storm water prior to discharging into the State's right-of-way. Once installed, the property owner must properly maintain these systems. The proponent/developer may be held liable for future damages due to impacts for which adequate mitigation was not undertaken or sustained. Acceptable constituency levels and appropriate BMP information can be obtained from the RWQCB. • The requested drainage plans and calculations should be sent to Mr. Mike DeWall., District 3 Hydraulics Branch at the above address ir. Marysville. Mr. DeWall can be: reached at•.(530) 741-4056. . Potential transportation/traffic impacts; mitigation requested: • . The project will generate additional vehicle trips, which may result in significant traffic circulation impacts to the SR99/Durham-Pentz Road/Durham-Dayton Road interchange and to Durham-Pentz Road. Therefore, we recommend that a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which contains appropriate mitigation measures, should be provided for in the environmental document prepared for the project in accordance with the "Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies" updated December 2002. A copy of the guide can be downloaded at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/develo sery/operationa]systems/reports/tisguide.pdf • Fair -share fees should be paid and improvements constructed as determined by the TIS for the project. Subdivision Map Comments: • We suggest that all access to the parcels occur on the proposed internal roadway (Public Road "A"). The proposed new connection should be aligned opposite the existing private, drive on Durham-Pentz Road so that the distance from the intersection of the Durham-Pentz Road/SR 99 northbound ramps is as far as possible from the proposed new connection. • Durham-Pentz Road from SR 99 to SR 191 is designated in the Butte County Bikeway Master Plan as a high priority segment. Bicyclists presently use this segment, and bicycle use is anticipated to increase once the SR 70/149/99 project is constructed. Therefore, we suggest that the shoulder width along the frontage of the project should meet the criteria for a Class II bike lane as well as provide right turn channelization into the project site. In 1995 Caltrans had discussions with Stuart Edell of Butte County regarding the additional westbound lane conditioned with the MC Horning Industrial Park access. Due to the potential need for widening two box culverts with the previous project, the County, at the time, suggested it might consider allowing the narrowing of the shoulder widths. This should no longer be acceptable due to the joint efforts of Butte County, the Butte County Association of Governments (BCAG) and the State to acknowledge the increasing importance of bicycle travel on Durham-Pentz Road between SR 99 and SR 191. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Stephen Betts July 15, 2004 Page 4 Request ROW dedication as subdivision map condition of approval: • The State ROW is controlled access along the entire west side of the project property and along Durham -Peutz Road 194.64 feet from the off ramp. Due to the cumulative traffic impacts caused from development in the area, additional lanes on the ramps will be required when the future interchange planned at the SR 99/Durham-Pentz Road is constructed. To provide the minimum improvements with enough room to construct one more lanes on the northbound off ramp, the developer should dedicate 12 feet of land for ROW so that permanent structures cannot be built in the area that is needed for the improvement. • Along Durham-Pentz Road the State will require a dedication of 17 feet of ROW to facilitate a right -turn -.'ane• and a Class II, bike lane,. 12 feet and 5 feet respecti>✓ely;: The State will process the dedications when an encroachment permit is applied for. Once the dedications are recorded by the State and all other requirements of the encroachment permit are met, the State will issue the encroachment permit. • It is strongly suggested that the County, in compliance with Butte County Bikeway Master Plan, require that the ROW be dedicated to provide the right turn only lane and the bike lane up to the Road "A" intersection. • We request that the County include in the Conditions. of Approval for the map an irrevocable offer of dedication requirement to the State for the above stated ROW. For more information on the dedication procedure, please contact Jim Adams at the California Department of Transportation, District 3, North Region Office of Surveyors, Right Of Way Engineering Department, P.O. Box 911, Marysville. Mr. Adams telephone number is (530) 741-5302. Encroachment Permit required: • An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work conducted in the State's right of way, including for sign placement, traffic control, light installation, culvert maintenance, drainage pattern changes, sidewalk installation, or any new or rehabilitated access M construction. To secure an 'application, please contact r. Bruce Capaul, Caltrans District 3, Office of Permits, at 530-741-4403. Please send us a copy of the environmental document and conditions of approval prepared for the project when available. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Rick Helman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 634-7612. Sincerely, BRUCE DE TERRA, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning, North "Caltrans improves nobility across California" ►se�a aa: COUNTY . JUL 0 9 2004 . DEi'Ell.OPiVd�NT, - '^� LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY OFFICES OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 316 NELSON AVENUE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3318 AGRICULTURAL DEPT.: OFFICE: (530) 538-7381 FAX: (530) 538-7594 RICHARD B. PRICE LOUIE B. MENDOZA, JR. Agricultural Commissioner Assistant Agricultural Commissioner/ Director of Weights and Measures Weights and Measures To: Department of Development Services, Planning Division From: Agricultural Commissioners Office Subject: Response to Request for Project Review and Comments Date: July 6, 2004 Applicant: William Isaac. Project Designation: TSM 04n-13. APN• 040-490-018 Existing Conditions: I. Rangeland Gen. Plan designated Industrial (1) 2 GOL on the south boundary. 3 GOL on the Northeast corner boundary 4 Area is not impacted by development 5 R. Pertinent Excerpts from the Agricultural Element: Gen. Plan, AR. Element, Goal #Z Conserve and stabilize agricultural land uses at city and community boundaries in order to protect agricultural lands from encroachment and conversion to urban uses. Program 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 substantial tree stand, or, similarly defined feature. Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer area... Findings and Review Statement: Program 2.8 ... conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land shall only occur when full mitigation of impacts to the extent under law are provided... Agricultural set backs apply to newly created parcels in production ag. zones and on the boundaries of land under commercial agricultural production and CLCA lands. Recommendations: A buffer from adjacent agricultural land must be annotated on the map. Robert C. Hill- Deputy Agricultural Commissioner Butte County Department of Develop Services PLANNING DIVISION OJ�ReceivedZE co Services JUN 7 County Center Drive II Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone 9 (530) 538-7785 Facsimile -ACTURE June 25, 2004 TO: Agricultural Commissioner FROM: Stephen Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: William Isaac, Tentative Subdivision Map - TSM 04N-13 APN: 040-490-018 DATE OF IDR*: 6/30/2004 *Inter -Departmental Review Committee IDR RESPONSE REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION D.UE`BY: N/A AGENCY/DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES DUE BY: July 15, 2004 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding this application, to be presented at the Inter -Departmental Review (IDR) Committee meeting on 6/30/2004, and/or to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses PROJECT LOCATION: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road and the north side of Falager Court, with SR -99 bordering to the west, south of Chico COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO.: 4 ZONING: M-1 (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN: I (Industrial) If a response cannot be submitted prior to the due dates listed above, please call Stephen Betts at (530) 538-7153 or send him an e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2004, before the Planning Commission. Comments: Signature ems_ Date 71 La /&t-4 California Regional Water Quality COO- . -California Board ; Central Valley Region ion Terry Tamminen Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretaryfor Redding Office Governor Environmental 415 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 100, Redding, California 96002 Protection Phone (530) 2244845 • FAX (530) 224-4857 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5 2 July 2004 BUTTE COUNTY JUL 0 0 ZF04 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Stephen Betts Butte County Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 y COMMENTS ON WILLIAM ISAAC TSM 04N-13, DEVELOPMENT OF PARCELS FOR . LIGHT MANUFACTURING, SOUTH OF CHICO, BUTTE COUNTY We have reviewed an application for subdividing a 15..1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres. The proposed use is light manufacturing. We have the following comments. Wetlands and/or stream:course alteration —.The project proponent may require a Clean Water Act Sectiori•404 permit, (§404 permit) from the U;S. Army: Corps of Engineers. A .§404 permit is required for activities: involving a,discharge of dredged or fill material to waters -of the United States. .."Waters of the United States".- include wetlands, riparian zones, streambeds, rivers, lakes and oceans. The Army -• ,, Corps"of Engineers, Butte County contact for §404 permits is Ms. Laura Whitney,'(916) 557-7455.E Projects requiring a §404 permit also require a water quality certification (pursuant to Section 401 of the Y Clean Water Act)'verifying that the project does not violate State water quality standards. A water quality certification is required for any project that impacts water. of the State (such as streams and wetlands). Activities that fall under the water quality certification process include, but are not limited to: stream crossings, the modification of stream banks or stream courses, and the filling or modification of wetlands. A water quality certification must be -obtained prior to construction. Failure to obtain a water quality certification, when required, may result in enforcement action. The Regional Board Contact for water quality certifications is Scott A. Zaitz, who can be reached at the letterhead address or by telephoning (530) 224-4784. Isolated wetlands not covered by the federal Clean Water Act Wetlands not covered by the Clean Water Act are known as "isolated wetlands." Should the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determine that isolated wetlands exist at the project site and should the project impact or. have potential to impact the isolated wetlands, a Report of Waste Discharge and filing fee must be'submitted prior to commencing the construction activity. The Regional Board will -consider the provided information and either issue.or.waive Waste Discharge Requirements. Failure to obtain waste 'discharge requirements or a waiver thereof, when required, may result in enforcement- action. -Report of Waste'Discharge;application•forms are available by, calling our office at (530)224-4845. k -d. California Environmental Protection Agency ca Recycled Paper Stephen Betts -2- 2 July 2004 Construction storm water - A Construction Activities Storm Water Permit is required for storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in a land disturbance of one acre or more. Storm water discharges from construction activity that results in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which is part of a larger common plan development of one acre or more, also -requires a construction storm water permit. A construction storm water permit, if required, must be obtained prior to construction. Failure to obtain a construction storm water permit, when required, may result in enforcement action. Construction storm water permits can be obtained from Scott A. Zaitz (see above contact information) with the Redding office of the Regional Board.- Dewatering oard: Dewatering Alternative 1: discharge to storm drains or waters of the United States - A dewatering permit; General. Order for Dewatering and Other Low Threat Discharges to Surface Waters, may be required for construction activities. This general NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). permit covers the discharge, to waters of the United States of clean or relatively pollutant -free wastewater that poses little or no threat to water quality. The following categories are coveted by the dewatering permit: well development water; construction dewatering;, pump/well testing; pipeline/tank pressure testing; pipeline/tank flushing.or dewatering; condensate discharges; water supply system discharges; miscellaneous dewatering/low threat discharges. The dewatering permit applies only to direct discharges to waters of the United States. Failure to obtain a dewatering permit, when required, may result in enforcement action. An application form and a copy of the permit are available at this office. Dewatering Alternative 2: discharges to land - Construction dewatering discharges that are contained on land (i.e.; will not enter waters of the United States) are allowed under a general waiver adopted under Regional Board Resolution No. R5-2003-0008, provided the following conditions are met: (1) the dewatering discharge is of a quality as good as or better than underlying groundwater; and (2) there is a low risk of nuisance. Examples of dewatering discharges to land include a terminal basin, irrigation (with no return to waters of the United States); and dust control. You may request written confirmation from this office that the waiver is applicable. Wastewater treatment and disposal - We understand that wastewater from the project will be conveyed south across Falager Court and disposed of on a larger, separate property also under development by William Isaac. Due to this combined wastewater disposal scheme, there is potential for the smaller project to be named in waste discharge requirements for the larger project. The project applicant should contact our office to discuss this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at (530) 224-3249 or the letterhead address. Ray Bruun, P.E. Associate Engineer Shasta -Cascade Watershed jECEIVED BUTTE COUNTY JUL - 1 2004 STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR BUTTE COUNTY TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPLICANT: William Isaac DATE: 5/11/2004 AGENT: Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers APN: 040-490-018 FILE#: TSM 04N-13 PLANNER: Stephen Betts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses . Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: S. FIRE CLEARANCE X_ 1. Construction, installation or development of structures or'facilities on the parcels/lots shall comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations, (Public Resources Code 4290), and all other applicable State and County codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of application for improvement permits. X_ 2. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. X_ 3. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 4. In lieu of a pressurized water system or water storage tank, payment of $200.00 per created parcel into the Battalion water tend fund, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Place a note on the Final Map or on additional sheets that states "Development of these lots may require payment into the Water Tender Fund." X_ 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 300_feet, hydrant size 6"inches, and residual fire flow -2500 gpm. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. 6. Place a note ona separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet stating that: "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 $ 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. Provide an all weather access of at least 10 foot wide and with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus to all structures. Revised 1/29/98 kAforms\standcon\tsm Pacific Gas and Electric Company.460 Rio Lindo Avenue Don Chambers & Chico, CA 95926 Chico Land Rights Office 530/8944423 FAX 530/894-4414 BUTTE COUNTY June 30, 2004 JUL 0.1 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Mr. Stephen Betts Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 R, :-Tentative Subdivision Map -(Isaac) File: TSM 04N-13, APN: 040-490-018: Dear Mr. Betts: We have reviewed the subject site plan. Please dedicate a 10 -foot wide Public Utilities Easement behind sidewalk along all street front lot footages. Any relocation or rearrangement of any existing PG&E facilities to accommodate this project will be `at,the expense of the developer. There shall be no building of structures, or the storage of any materials allowed over or under any existing PG&E facilities, or inside any easements that exist. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to review this matter. If you have any questions, please call me. in Chico at 894-4423. Sincerely, Donald W. Chambers Land Agent (file: TSM04N-13.doc) ' t' . r.� �.. .. .4. �- .l. '`�r� - i! .-. `:.t.t}r."'1' _��Gi.i.�:T.t �R '� .�}•. :.t_ „t. - � .. _ / BUTTE LOCA, AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION titkwJ_ ,` 2770 Olive Highway, Suite C 0 Ore rille, California 95966-6117 , M. rK (530)538-7784 Fax (530)538-2847 a www.buttelafcc.org y BUTTE COUNTY MEMOR,ANDUM JUL 0 12004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO: Stephen Betts, Butte County Planning Division FROM: Stephen Lucas, Principal Planner SUBJECT: TSM 04N-13 -William Isaac DATE: June 30, 2004 The affected parcels are located within the Tax Rate Area (TRA 070-009) boundaries of the following local agencies: 1. Durham Mosquito and Vector Control District 2. Durham Recreation and Park District 3. Durham Unified School District 4. Butte Community College District 5. CSA No. 164 (Animal Control) NOTE: PLEASE DIRECT TO LAFCO A COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND THE STAFF REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT WHEN AVAILABLE. Please consider the following comments concerning the project described above. 1. The proposal indicates the desire to utilize a private community water system and private on-site community sewage disposal, which will most likely require the creation of a maintenance entity for oversight. The use of such systems has resulted in additional burdens to local monitoring agencies such as LAFCO, Butte County Fire, County Environmental Health and Public Works, all of which have very limited resources to provide such monitoring. 2. If urban type services (e.g. sewer service, waterservice, street lighting, landscaping, drainage, fire protection, etc.) for the new development are proposed to be provided by a new governmental entity such as a county service area (CSA) or a community service district (CSD), LAFCO should be consulted early to allow for a meaningful analysis of the issue prior to County consideration of the application. Such a request would be reviewed based on state law and local LAFCO policies which are clearly directed at maximizing service efficiencies, minimizing the creation of new governmental entities, limiting urban sprawl and directing new development to areas with existing urban service providers. 3. If a new governmental entity is proposed to provide urban type services, this should be fully addressed in the appropriate environmental documents. The failure to properly address this issue in the environmental documents may result in additional environmental review requirements if a proposal is submitted to LAFCO. _ 4. The project is in close proximity to County Service Area No. 137 (Durham-Dayton Industrial Partners) which prov°�-,s structural fire protection services to industrial uses adjacent to the southbound off-ramp.,; SR 99 (Pepsico, SprayChem, etc..). Should an oversight entity be considered for this project to provide various services, an expansion of powers and annexation to CSA 137 would be preferable to the creation of a new entity. 5. In an effort to maintain the scenic integrity of the SR 99 corridor, will the County require functional landscaping, architectural design guidelines or other mitigations to screen the light industrial use of the parcel from the highway? If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact our office at your convenience. \\LAFCServer1 \Shared\Letters-Memos ALL non-project\Project CommentsWIEMOSWune 30-04 Isaac TSM 04N-13.wpd 'R Butte County Depttment of Development Servile's PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive LAFCo Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone JUN 2 9 2w (530) 538-7785 Facsimile June 25, 2004 Oroville, California TO: LAFCo FROM: Stephen Betts, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Develop men t/Land Use Application APPLICANT: William Isaac, Tentative Subdivision Map - TSM 04N-13 APN: 040-490-018 0-70 009 DATE OF IDR*: 6/30/2004 *Inter -Departmental Review Committee IDR RESPONSE REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION DUE BY: N/A AGENCY/DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES DUE BY: July -15,2004 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding this application, to be presented at the Inter -Departmental Review (IDR) Committee meeting on 6/30/2004, and/or to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Subdivision Map to divide a 15.1 -acre parcel into 14 parcels ranging in size from 0.53 acres to 1.62 acres for light manufacturing uses PROJECT LOCATION: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road and the north side of Falager Court, with SR -99 bordering to the west, south of Chico COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO.: 4 ZONING: M-1 (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN: I (Industrial) If a response cannot be submitted prior to the due dates listed above, please call Stephen Betts at (530) 538-7153 or send him an e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for September 9, 2004, before the Planning Commission. Comments: Signature Date c` r Results • Page 1 of 1 Print table Export entire table to a text file Close window Results for HAMLIN CANYON Quad (3912166) -13 elements selected Record QUADNAME ELMCODE SCINAME COMNAME FEDSTATUS 1 Hamlin Canyon AFCHA0205A Oncorhynchus tshawytscha spring -run spring -run chinook salmon Threatened 2 Hamlin Canyon CTT4411OCA Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool None 3 Hamlin Canyon CTT61410CA Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest None 4 Hamlin Canyon ICBRA10010 Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Endangered 5 Hamlin Canyon PDEUPOD150 Chamaesyce hooveri Hoover's spurge Threatened 6 Hamlin Canyon PDLAM18082 Monardella douglasii ssp. venosa veiny monardella None 7 Hamlin Canyon PDMALOHOQO Hibiscus lasiocarpus rose -mallow None 8 Hamlin Canyon PDMAL11OPO Sidalcea robusta Butte County checkerbloom None 9 Hamlin Canyon PDSCROD482 Castilleja rubicundula ssp. rubicundula pink creamsacs None 10 Hamlin Canyon PMCYP091JO Eleocharis quadrangulata four -angled spikerush None 11 Hamlin Canyon PMLILOV060 Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary None 12 Hamlin Canyon PMPOA4G040 Orcuttia pilosa hairy orcutt grass Endangered 13 Hamlin Canyon PMPOA6N010 Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria Endangered Print table Export entire table to a text file . Close window http://maps.dfg.ca.gov/CNDDB_Quads/list cnddb_species.asp?theServerName=205.225.240.80&th... 7/8/2004 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA* 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile www.buttecountv.neVdds www.buttegeneralalan.net ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING September 4, 2009 Isaac Family Trust 2865 Coldwater Canyon Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Subject: 60 -day Notice of Action on three project located east of Highway 99, south of Durham Pentz Road: Use Permit 05-04 (Distribution Warehouse and Office; 040-130-047) Use Permit 05-05 (Gas Station and Market; 040-490-018), and Tentative Subdivision Map 04N-13 (to.divide a 15.1 acre parcel into 14 parcels for light industrial use; 040490-018 ) Dear Members of the Isaac Family Trust: You are being contacted as the owner of record for the above referenced properties. Our records indicate three 2004 and 2005 entitlement applications have not been deemed `complete' and are not actively being processed. i We are attempting to work to completion all outstanding applications prior to adoption of Butte County's comprehensive update -to the General Plan, GP2030. A brief status of the projects is as follows: UP05-04 Project is incomplete (August 24, 2006) Additional information was requested from CA Department of Fish and Game (July 13, 2004) Additional information and mitigation requested from CA Department of Transportation (September 1, 2004) This project remains inconsistent with the current and proposed General Plan designations for the site UP05-05 Project is incomplete (August 26, 2004) Project lacks adequate access (Butte County Public Works June 9, 2003) TSM04-13 An Environmental Impact Report was determined necessary (July 9,', 2.0'04) While we understand the complexities of the project sites involved, and we have spoken with Mr. Bert Garland from time to time on related matters, no material advancement has been made relative to the entitlement applications on file. I spoke with 'Mr. Eric Robertson with Robertson & Dominick, as authorized agent, on September 4 about the status of the projects. In my telephone conversation, Mr. Robertson indicated that a wetland mitigation bank is currently being processed with State and federal agencies for a portion of -the project area. He also indicated that industrial uses continue to be contemplated on that portion of the area designated for industrial use, and a revised map for TSM04-13 is anticipated to incorporate project modifications. The Department of Development Services has an expectation that projects not persist in the system for long periods of time without progress towards completion. From the Department's -perspective.. there are four options for the projects: 1. Withdraw the applications; 2. Submit required funds and materials that will allow the Department to begin processing your applications as submitted; 3. Provide updated project description(s), timeframes, additional applications (if necessary) and funds for processing; or 4. If we do not receive information from you relative to #1 #2 or #3 above by November 4, -2009, the projects will be moved forward to the Planning Commission for. action with a recommendation of denial without prejudice. This means your projects would be denied -for procedural reasons and not on their merits, leaving you free to resubmit them at such time as you are able to provide all the materials necessaryfor their processing. We would like to work with you to process these applications to completion, if that continues to be the desire, or to close them out if your plans have changed for the property. Depending on your planned objectives, we can provide additional detail on what additional materials are needed relative to #2 and #3 above. Please find attached an authorized agent form for each of the three applications. It is'necessary that you re -submit these forms if pursing items #2 or #3, because property ownerships have changed since the applications were filed by Mr. William Isaac. After completing the forms with necessary owner signature(s), please return them to.this office. Please let me know if you would like additional detail, have questions, or would like to discuss this matter further. You can contact me at 530-538-6573, Monday through Friday between 7:30am and. 4:30pm, or via email at siolliffe@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner cc: Eric Robertson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 S _ %I©y\ve. c�r,s4p �.4-rc 5 r• G= S SG'' _ 3. -. ,� 5� •u•�uJ�ICl • yon �r ` �S4�a�� �7'2q��Mt✓l i.Ji IO-e'<� N►�iT'�, e P X Q Y%it 45 IJgSw� tet' ,� kt►� S'J6n^ C� -to.. I,J Q C8 COw► �av'. Ae ��ee�ved �i`Or i5 Q. ne .'' .. � C, nd wr 1J ._ ez I -e-g �n� �- �,►ee,�. - -(`' ed e4se ivy en xi= l.I wq-�r c"-�IP,r�Qe ,l�rg - c6 y� .. .�S � �'CA�C��dec6: �o'�- (`fie; � - , • � , - t s ` � 1 i . � .' � - r i 1 � . _ _ e .�_ _ _.. ...._ - �_ � M1 r i � � _- _. 4 . 9� .. _ c .. ..� .:.: .,�, - .- ��- 1 .. .f �- � - _. ., �. .. ,. .. .��. y.• '• ', v. —- � ala . - - i i i _ __ �� ____ . _ _.�a f �' - - .. _ I Ii -- - 'I -- --- -- -- • Tf ------ ±•1 - �_�-__ �. f� t � , �fi .. M1 i �� f + � - • t .' .. ` f J i Ci f DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ru'ri-rE C'OUNTY UN.Iti ORN(I APPLICATION inforni.,ition to be provided Is un page 2 \}'I'LII.�.:\� I"� \.4titE tlf a)pphc.uion Is different fri .i o\\�ner an al)iitavit Is reyulri:il. � s���:�c»\n: a I-r\Ic� I:L. iV�.,lYI�JI,f\. Robertson & Dominick, Civil En5'aa r "i _ 040 - 490 - 018 _ r\DIIItEss: - — -- _ S'fftl:fi'l . CITY. Sf'ATI-„ 7.11' CODE FIL'F'. 11.4UN111131-:1:. (I. -()R 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 kiL be, kW T5 01 0 i3 tiA\•il� QP f'R(:)POSf.;I) PRQ.ITC'T (I f anyl "1'EiL,I:PF10Nli: DP Commerce Center ( 530 ) 894 - 3500 1 ()('ATION OF PROJ[=C", tmajor cross streets and Address. if any) East of Durham Pentz and Hwy 99 — GENERAL, FORMAT" N REQtj.. ` ED O\k)Nh.IN, 'S N1.1mF: TI L,[_PItC)Nh: William Isaac t ! - ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE": 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 _ N}:. C; L`.NI''.RA[.. PL..aN L;,\15'flNt LAND USE S[`fl.: 5t�fi fit) Siivare meet or Acies) M-1 490 Industrial Undeveloped Lot 15.1 Acres I \iS'fINC �'I'RIIC'}"liRl:S tin ti luarc Feet) PROPOSED ti'IRUC.TURFS (in Squaie Fuel) None (Check One) (Check ()lie) ❑ PfZO}'I IZ f!' Iti C)ht I'RUPOStiD'I'O L3f SI'1\'PiRF:>D ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSEi) "f'O [3E U'\ ® I'ROPEiR'11` IS OR PROPC)Sl::f)'I'O I3E': ON Sf31''fIC' ® PR.OPt RTY IS OR PROPOSEI) T(.) BE' OiV 41•`1;1.1„ 1t'F1'f[alt APPL�:CA"t"N REQUrSTED g_ ('J '.N; ERAL. PLAN A F"NDN1E;NT ® TENTATIVF?. St (31_)[VISION MAP ❑ Rt; (: N ❑ "rEN'1'ATtVL PARCEL. �1Af ❑ !. SL: I,rRmI'I' ❑ WAIVER OF PARCGI- b1AP ❑ 1iNlOfZ L'•Sl; PI:R11i'1 ❑ BOUNDARY I..]NE 1101)IFIC:AI'iC)N ❑ VARIANC L. ❑ I,E EAI, LOT I ETF.RMINA'TION ❑ A-111NC)R VARIANCh ❑ (.:['R'1'1FICA] -F..0F' Net F:RG[It ❑ A.I)►�EINISTR:\'fl1`f: 111.4,R11 -MIT [' ❑1111NIN(.i :1ND R[ t.:l_A?11A t lO\ PL:\N ❑ f7FVE,1,0Pk11 \1 ;\(JJZE:FMI.-:Nl' ❑ 0-1-H EP PROJ.1 C'T DI SCRIiIyTION _ t'i.[ f)Otit'RlPTtC? i C)I' Plt(1Pi14L;D~I'ft0:113t:"F' (Aitach nrce szuy sheets If this application is fora hand division, describe the numlk.l and sve THE PROJECT IS A SUBDIVISION OF A 15.1 ACRE SITE INTO 14 LOTS OF 0.97 ACRE AVERAGE SIZE OW R CLRTI i CAT1�ON �. (1-1:;11"t TI IA"r I :\�-1'PRCi r';V'I"i 1' I F[F.'L.FCi11. OWNER C)R 1'Hfi At "I'{ LORI""/..I 1.) A(aEi:N`1'C>I'"1'fLE' O��'NI'R {7F'I'}il' ;\t�OVf 1')faC`R.11'3fi17 I''Itt)!'I it'I'1' i't!!'tl'IfF:1:.;\('KN<71V1,1f:Krf:'I"IIFIIl.I\t?C)F"FII1S,1t'1'1.li'A'1'IUNANUCF.Ii"J'f}Y'I'Fii\rAi..L.Oi'I'1}IAfOVV.:.INF'c_)RK4ATR )NISTRUI-AND ( C•t RA IT ( [fan agent Is to tie authorized, t.xecute an affidavit of authorization and Inc ludo the affidavit \vitlt this aPPIIcaticon.l . S1GNATI RF.,: 1 N."I q I;V I rf NY at A.Pi' 1 I('\IIU(i I �� _ r � + �. ' �� f L !. a � t ... � � � " � � � �� �^ � a i 7 � _ _ + Y � f �, � � � 1 A • � � . ," ,. • I � . 7 . • 5 f' r A +^ .� r ... _ - _ I� � - a f r • � a �� � • .1 ' � � � � � f •- � i � � ti• . Y � . 1 ' + t c 1 � , � � ' .. - 1 � � � ., r � �r. .. a � � s r - ` .. � _ � � ' � , .. 9 From:ROBERTSON AND DOMINICK 53 894 8955 05/07/2004 09:27 #710 P.002/002' AGENT AU MORIZATION 'F0: Butte Cuunly,.Dcpartmem of Development Services: Robertson & Dominick, Civil En iineers � phone ",cumber( 530 )_ 894 -.,3600 Print \sme -- 888 Manzanita Court, suite A, Chico, CA 95926._— .Muilatg Addrvss is hereby authorized to process the application for William Isaac on my property. identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Number. APN4 040 - 490 018 This authoilzmion allows representation for all applications, hearinges, appeals, etc. and to sign all docw-ne)nts necessary 1`or said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title interest. Owner(s) of Record! (sign and print name) William 'ct11 \:WnC A—A�ci 'i�_i�atarr print ;vane _T --- 9sgmm re Architect and/or Engineer: Russ Erickson ["hone Numtbcr( 530 } 894 - 3500 inrx \amr;il':�rci7i^cx;f/Engmacr --•- 888 Manz_anita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95928 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verif ?'cur KC;xV cd: Total Amouut Received: AP Numbers) ❑ Legal Dmription Owmem Autborization ❑ Zoning Req)itements Project Description ❑ Copies of plot plan Taken by:, ! U-1 .._ Receipt No. 11W/1-1) Plan �J E.H. - C'D.F 5.0" NOT11NOR Fees Puyn;%ttt of tbl: outTently 1•E'Cluired Application Fee andlor Deposit (Any unused poition of a deposit) will be retumed upon ;final a�tit}1t. Current foe for this Application is Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". ti rctr.•.,.:.:ruxx4Pr�cr.:�r;o Page 2 oft _ as of Fj y COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed by Project Applicant) Date Filed 5/4/04 GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of owner, and/or developer, and/or project sponsor: WILLIAM ISAAC 2865 COLDWATER CANYON DRIVE, BEVERLY HILLS. CA 90210 2. Address of project: EAST OF HWY99 AND DURHAM—PENTZ ROAD Assessor's Parcel Number: 040-490-018 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project ROBERTSON & DOMINICK, INC. 888 MANZANITA COURT, STE A, CHICO, CA 95926 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 plan designation: 411113M INDUSTRIAL 6. Existing zoning district M-1 7. How island currently used? UNDEVELOPED LOT 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION INTO 14 LOTS Project Description: 9. Site size: 15. 1 Acres (Acres/Sq. Feet) 10: Off-street parking spaces: Full size: Compact: Total: 11. Plans attached: Yes No X 12. Proposed development schedule UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME 13. Associated projects 14. Anticipated incremental or phased developme 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. N/A ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 1 C 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood., city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. N/A 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. N / A 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. N / A 19. If the project involves a minor variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit N / A 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. _ X 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. _ JL . 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. -L- 23. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. _ 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. _ —X- 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. X 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. _ X 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. X 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. _ X 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). X _ 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). _ X 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. _ ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ 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. 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. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature 3 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ ,3 32. The site is a vacant generally level area with no trees, bounded on the west by , State Highway 99, on the north by Durham Pentz Road and on the south by Falager Court. The property easterly of the site is also vacant. 33. The surrounding property easterly of Highway 99 is similar, with no trees, vacant and generally level. The area westerly of Highway 99 is vacant south of Durham Pentz Road and industrial to the north of Durham Pentz Road. M25 Dominic Drive, Suite J o Chico, CA 95928 (530)891-2882 (530) 891-2878 Fax d July 14, 2004 Stephen Betts, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center'Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: TSM 04N-13 — William Isaac Dear Mr. Betts: W. James Wagoner Air Pollution Control Officer Robert McLaughlin Asst Air Pollution Control Officer BUTTE COUNTY JUL 16 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The District has reviewed the request for comments for the project noted above. Based on the information submitted the District recommends incorporating the District's Indirect Source Review Guidelines Standard Mitigation Measures into the proposed project. Standard Mitigation Measures include the use of adequate dust control measures during all phases of project development and construction. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, please contact the District at 891-2882. Sincerely, Gail Williams Air Quality Planner File No 3452 t:\apps_files\eir\bctsm04-13.doc RC o 019/2/zoo4 srt? TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT: STATE ROUTE 99 in BUTTE COUNTY DURHAM-PENTZ RD. I/C ' • t . NB & SB RAMPS PM 23.863 EA - 03 '- 4A840K March 01, 2001 Prepared by: Damion Farley Caltrans — District 03 Traffic Operations D03 - BUT 99 - Durham-Peutz I/C State o_' Califomia — Department of Transportation 'jkC���•SSj0 lIrl rn Expo —3o-c3 ' � 9 �21r• This Traffic Operational'Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. t - Ronald S. Sykes Date y I. INTRODUCTION , 1 State Route(SR) 99 is a rural two-lane highway to the south of the junction with State Route 149. North of the State Route 149 junction, State Route 99. is a four-lane expressway/freeway extending to the northern reaches of Chico. Several at-grade.' intersections. exist in this stretch of highway. This section of State Route 99 is faced with increasing demand frorn the surrounding urban areas. The increase in demand presents the need for operational improvements. As urban areas expand, state highway facilities must serve an increasing amount of local and comiilutdr traffic. As flow rates continue to • increase the impact on the existing interchange becomes significant. Congestion on the Durham-Pentz Interchange suggests that improvements be made at this location. As urban growth increases, impacts of local trips continue to impact mainline and minor , road performance. The study area under consideration is the Durham/Peutz Road interchange with State Route 99 in Butte County. Tliis inteichange is particularly busy in the morning hours due to Butte College commuter traffic. During the school semester a mixture of local, commuter, and interstate tricks use the interchange facility. The college commuter traffic creates long queues of cars stacked up on the southbound off-ramp to Durham/Pentz Road. This stacking of vehicles is known to back-up onto State Route 99, particularly during the first few weeks of each new semester during the 7AM to 8AM hour. As the North Valley continues to grow, more and more traffic use this facility resulting in unacceptable operational conditions unless improvements are made, Purpose The purpose of this Traffic Operational Analysis Report is to determine the extent of the , congestion problem now and in the future and to evaluate and define solutions for the • future conditions. Based on the analysis, recommended actions are presented for improvements to the SR 99/ Durham-Pentz Interchange (Figure 1.). ' Study Area , The section of SR 99 in Butte County under study is located at kilometer post 38.4 (PM 23.86). The interchange under study is located approximately 9.8 kilometers (6.14 miles) south of the city of Chico. The interchange is in a rural setting. Presently the land use surrounding the interchange is agricultural and industrial: The area is sparsely populated and is continually being rezoned from agricultural to M-1, industrial. Impacts of urban growth and future industrial developments will be significant as the number of vehicles using the interchange continues to grow. , In the study area SR 99 is a four-lane expressway. The intersecting street, Durham-Peutz Road, is a two-lane high-speed rural road. Durham-Pentz Rd. traverses,level terrain; with ` exception of the over crossing, with curves of large radius. Limited sight distance on the over crossing contributes to the delay on the SB off-ramp. The delay on the southbound(SB) off -ramp, at this location, is compounded by experienced drivers bypassing this interchange. Neal Rd., an at -grade intersection, is just North of Durham- Pentz Road on SR 99. Neal Rd. and'Oro-Chico Highway, a connector to Durham -Peutz Rd., are used by these experienced drivers to bypass the Durham -Peutz Interchange. The constant flow of traffic eastbound through the SB ramp intersection at Durham -Peutz Rd. leaves few gaps for vehicles waiting on the SB off -ramp to make the left turn.move onto Durham -Peutz Road. The overcrossing structure has total width of 12.2m (40 ft). The speed limit is posted at 88 km/h (55 mph). Right turn channelization is striped for the southbound and northbound (NB) on -ramps, also left turn pockets of length 32.3 in (1.06 ft.) and 38.4 in (126 ft.), respectively, are striped on the over crossing. Analysis Methodology The methods described in the Highway Capacity Manual- Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, were utilized to evaluate the interchange and the unsignalized intersections as appropriate for the conditions. Traffic signal warrants were evaluated at the unsignalized intersections in accordance with the current Caltians Traffic Manual. The SYNCHRO program was utilized to predict the overall system performance. The HCS -3 program was used to determine the performance of stop controlled intersections at the northbound and southbound ramps. The SigCinema program was used to determine level of service for the individual signalized intersections. The level of service (LOS) is a measure utilized to describe roadway and intersection operation conditions. Levels of service qualitatively indicate the conditions from "A" (best) to "F" (worst). Traffic volume inflation, due to local growth and associated regional increases in this area, is characterized by about a 5% increase per year. The Forecasting and Modeling Traffic Study is the source of this information. The various alternatives were evaluated with projected normal peak hour and peak of peak hour volumes. Peak hour volumes are taken directly from an hourly count. Peak of Peak volumes are taken from the peak 30 minutes in the peak hour and this 30 minute count is expanded to a hourly volume. Related Studies The subject roadway was included in a Route Concept Report (RCR) that was completed in 1989. The concept objectives 'in that document are a LOS D and built as a four -lane controlled access expressway. When the RCR study was completed the LOS was not expected to fall below the concepts LOS of D within the 13 -year projection. The only problem area mentioned in the RCR was the Durham-Pentz interchange. This interchange does not have an impact on the capacity of SR 99. The problem exists on Durham -Peutz Rd. and the SB off -ramp. Fi,anre 1. Vicinity Map DIST COUNTY ROUTE IPOST W E TOTAL PROJECT 03 But 99 a3.96. 4� R yy . v� 1•..® m. ��� 1pla.� ' r ua im.. i moo i v cr.oro �• i . � � �,�u• rma i a �_—To Yuba CRY )C P �O j Ca ,,o )C Traffic movement analysis presented in a SR 99/ Durham -Peutz Interchange Traffic . Study done by the Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling were utilized as the basis for traffic counts in this study. A list of alternatives modeled in this traffic analysis is given in Table 6. The alternatives were evaluated with projected volumes for the years 2000, 2005, 2012, 2015, and 2025. Organization of Report The remainder of this report consists of two main sections. In the first section, the SR 99 / Durham -Peutz Interchange is described in detail and analyzed with regard to traffic operations under current conditions. The second section investigates several signal and lane configuration alternatives to the existing facility (Table 6.). This report ends with a J discussion of the recommendations and concluding remarks. Conclusions are based on peak hour volumes. 4 II. PRESENT CONDITIONS The following provides a detailed description of the interchange under study and summarizes the present traffic operations along the route. Study Segment The SR 99 study segment is located at kilometer post 38.4 (P.M. 23.86) in Butte County. SR 99 is a four -lane rural expressway traversing level terrain. The interchange is a modified diamond configuration with stop controls on the ramps. Durham -Peutz Rd. is in the east -west direction with a posted speed of 88 km/h (55mph). The lane widths are variable across the stricture. The overcrossing is 12.2 in (40 ft.) wide with 2.1 m (7 ft.) shoulders. On Durhain-Peutz Rd. a 3.5 m (11.5 ft.) left tum pocket. with length of 32.3 in (106 ft.) exists for the SB on-ramp. The left turn pocket on Durham -Peutz Rd. for the NB on-ramp is 3.6 m (12 ft.) wide and 38.4 m (126 ft.) long. The total length of the overcrossing is 399 m (1310 ft.) (Figure 2.). The overcrossing has a vertical curve that limits sight distance. The 300 m (1000 ft.) vertical curve reduces the sight distance to 123 m (404 ft.) ( HDM Table 201.413.). For a 55mph design speed 160 m (525 ft.) stopping sight distance(SSD) is required (HDM Table 201.1). If you add the average queue at the proposed signal. locations to the required stopping sight distance, the sight distance required at the NB ramp intersection is 221 in (725 ft.) and 183 m (600 ft.) at the SB ramp intersection. By the year 2025 the projected volume increase will result in required stopping sight distance of 298 rn (975 ft.) and 212 m (695 ft.) at the NB and SB ramp intersections respectively(Figure 2.). The SB off -ramp has a 4.3 in (14 ft.) lane with 1.52 m (5 ft.) right shoulder with painted cross hatch. The left shoulder is .762 in (2.5 ft.) wide. An auxiliary lane with 304.8 in (1000 ft.) of storage was added to SR 99. The SB on-ramp has 4.3 in (14 ft) lane width with 1.83 m (6 ft.) right shoulder.and .61 m (2 ft.) left shoulder(Figure 2.). The NB off -ramp consists of a 4.3 m (14 ft.) lane with 1.83 m (6 ft.) right shoulder and .61 m (2 ft.) left shoulder. The NB on-ramp has a 4.3 in (14 ft.) lane width with 1.83 m (6 ft.) right and 1.23 m (4 ft.) left shoulder(Figure 2.). The roadway approaching the SB rarnp intersection from the west consists of a 4.3 m (14 ft.) inbound lane and a 4.3 in (14 ft.) outbound lane. The roadway approaching the NB ramp intersection from the east consists of a 3.6 m (12 ft:) inbound lane and a 3.9 m (13 ft.) outbound lane. Painted islands provide channelization for the right turns to both on - ramps (Figure 2.). Fib re 2. Existing Intersection Geometry (not to scale) 397 96 0 0 7 2 0 0 181 77 54 23 11 10 94 90 0 0 34 37 0 0 58 s3 19 3 559 97 0 0 0 0 71 36 129 ss note: % is percentage of approach volume Year2005 ` SB I/S NB I/S lefts Yn . through rights % lefts Ya Yn • 496 96 0 0 9 2 0 0 226 77 68 23 14 io 118 90 0 0 43 37 0 0 73- 63 24 3 699 97 0 0 0 0 89 36 161 65 note: Volumes were provided by Office of Forecast and Modeling Traffic Study Traffic Volumes Caltrans traffic volumes for 1999 list an AADT of 24,000 and a PHV of 2350 SR 99. The 1999 ADT for the SB off -ramp is 2789 and the SB on-ramp is 685. The 1999 ADT for th,,- NB on-ramp is 2931 and the NB off -ramp is 700. Figure 3 indicates lane configurations and volumes for year 2000 peak hour and peak of peak hour volumes. The Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling traffic study states the flow rates for year 2000 Normal peak hour are 404 vph on the SB off -ramp. The SB ramp intersection with the Durham -Peutz has 397 left turns onto EB Durham -Peutz Road and Tright turns onto WB Durham -Peutz Road. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 181 through and 54 right turns onto SB on-ramp. Westbound (WB) volumes at the SB ramps are 94 through movements and 11 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 1). The traffic study states that the NB off -ramp volume is 92 vph. At the NB ramp intersection with Durham -Penta Rd. 58 right turns are made onto EB Durham-Pentz. 34 left turns onto WB Durham -Peutz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 559 through movements with 19 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at this location is 71 through movements with 129 right turns onto NB on-ramp (Table 1). The Office of Travel Forecasting*and Modeling traffic study states the flow rates for year 2000 peak of peak hour are 604 vph on the SB ramp. The SB off -ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Rd. has 591 left turns and 13 right tuins onto Durham -Peutz Road. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 286 through and 47 right turns onto SB on-ramp. Westbound (WB) volumes at the SB ramps are 104 through movements and 15 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 1). The traffic study states that the NB off -ramp volume is 138 vph. At the NB ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Rd. 100 right turns are made from the off -ramp. 38 left turns onto WB Durham -Peutz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 832 th ough movements with 45 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at tivs location is 81 through movements with 125 right turns onto NB on-ramp (Table 1). The Travel Forecasting and Modeling Traffic Study states that this location will experience a 5%growth rate per year. Level of Service The year 2000 Normal Peak LOS was calculated in the traffic study report. The HCS -3 software calculated the SB ramp intersection off -ramp approach LOS to be LOS C with delay of 23.4 seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). At the NB ramp intersection the off -ramp approach operates at LOS C with a delay of 16.5 sec/veh (Table 2). The year 2000 Peak of Peak LOS was calculated in'* the traffic study report. The peak of peak occurs between 7:30am and 8:00am. The SB off -ramp diverge section experiences 8 Figure 3. 2000 No Build Configuration & Volumes r 2000 Normal Peak ' . +. SB But99 NB But99 N 7. 397 S WB Durham-Pentz 4MI 94 129 11 4M 71 ' 181 19 4 54 559 EB Durham-Pentz 34 58 2000 Peak Peak SB But99 NB But99 ` 13 591 WB Durham-Pentz • 4M104 129 , r 15 r ' 4=1 71 . 286 19 47 559 EB Durham-Pentz ' 34 58 y Table 2- Level of Service (normal peak) - 2000, 2005, & 2015 Existing & Signals Year ILS_ Alternative # JOS ela 2000 SB -off appr no build C 23.4 2000 NB -off appr no build C 16.5 Year ILS_ Alternative # JOS ela 2000 SB -off appr no build C 23.4 2000 NB -off appr no build C 16.5 2000 SB 1 C 22.3 2000 NB 1 A 6.7 2005 SB -off appr no build F 107.3 2005 NB -off appr no build C 22.7 2005 SB 1 C 30.4 2005 NB 1 A 8.4 2013* SB* 1 * F* 137.2* 2013* NB* 1* B* 18.1* 2015 SB -off appr no build F 11831.7 2015 NB -off appr no build F 13253.9 2015 SB 1 F 558.1 2015 NB 1 F 157.9 i 'note' - In the year 2013 the SB off -ramp will need to be widened to two lanes. The structure will also need to be widened at this time. Table 2A - Level of Service (peak of peak) - 2000 & 2005 Year ILS Alternative # LOS e 2000 SB -off appr no build F 488.4 2000 NB -off appr no build D 32.7 2005 SB -off appr no build F 1643.2 2005 NB -off appr no build F 208.3 1 Table 2B - Level of. Service (normal,'eak) - 2015&2025 Alternatives Year I S Alternative # L Delayrseclvew 2015 SB' 2 B 14.8 2015 NB 2 A 5.8 2015 SB 3 A 9.2 2015 NB 3 A 5.8, 2015 SB 4 A 9.2 201.5• 'NB 4 A 6.7 2025 SB 2 C 20.3 2025 NB 2 B 13.4 2025 SB 3 B • 12.5 .2025 NB 3 B : 13.4 2025 SB 4 B 10.7', 2025 � N B 4 B 14 a LOS' F in existing conditions. The HCS -3 software calculated the SB off -ramp approach LOS to be LOS F with delay of 488.4 seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). Field observations verifies the 488 sec/veh delay with 171.9 sec/veh delay for a 15 min. duration during the peak of peak time. The Forecasting and modeling study also verifies the 483.4 sec/veh delay in the peak of peak hour with a 324 sec/veh delay. The NB off - ramp approach operates at LOS D with a delay of 32.7 sec/veh (Table 2A). Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis All future signal warrants are analyzed utilizing projections of vehicle counts made in the field. Signal warrant analysis revealed that utilizing counts made in the field, for the SB ramp intersection warrant:numbers 10 and 11 were satisfied in 1999. These warrants are Peak Hour Delay, and Peak Hour Volume respectively. By the year 2004 Four Hour Volume Warrant, Warrant 9 and Warrant 7, Systems Warrant should be met based on traffic growth. By the year 2010 Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, Warrant 1, should be met, based on traffic growth (Table 4.). Considering left and right turns on this single lane ramp, the NB off -ramp presently satisfies Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume. The Interruption of Continuous Movement, Warrant 2, is presently 80% satisfied. It should be 100% satisfied by year 2003 based on traffic growth. Four-hour Volume, Warrant 9, should be met based on traffic growth in 2004. A Systems Warrant, Warrant 7, should be met based on traffic growth in 2001 (Table 4.). Accident Experience Actual accidents over the past three years, Oct. 01, 1996 to Sept. 30, 1999, were queried for the SB ramps and the rates were approximately the same as the average for similar facilities Actual/Average for FAT (fatalities) .000/.017, F+I (fatalities plus injuries) .56/:47; and TOT (total accidents) 1.27/1.20. No fatalities occurred on the SB ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Road. Actual accidents over the past three years, Oct. 01, 1996 to Sept. 30, 1999, were queried for the NB ramps and the rates were approximately the same as the average for similar facilities Actual/Average for FAT (fatalities) .000/.017, F+I (fatalities plus injuries) 0.0/.47; and TOT (total accidents) 1.12/1.20. No fatalities occurred on the NB ramp intersection with Durham -Peutz Road. 12 Table 4- Signal Warrants Sa US Warrant # DescroDtion 2001 2=1 2003 ZUA 2005 Zoos 2007 Z=12MI 2010 2011 2012 2M12014 2015 ZM 2017 2018 1 Minimum Volume X 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic 7 7 Systems Warrant X 9• Four Hour Volume X 10 Peak Hour Delay X 11 Peak Hour Volume X NI3 ILS note: All Vehicle Volume Related Warrants Met By Year 2025 Except #2 Warrant # D t' 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 zoos 2oos 2007 2008 2oos 2010 2011 2012 2013 2.1114 2015 2016 2017 20111 1 Minimum Volume X 2 Interruption of Continuous Traffic X '7 Systems Warrant X 9 Four Hour Volume X 10 Peak Hour Dela 11 Peak Hour Volume X x- indicates year warrant is met note: All Vehicle Volume Related Warrants Met By Year 2025 s III. EVALUATION OF FUTURE CONDITIONS AND. ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS Based on the analysis of the existing facility, it is proposed that improvements be made at this location. r Description of Possible Changes or Improvements The No Build Alternative is one possibility for the intersection. With increasing volumes, the No Build Alternative performs at LOS F in the year 2005 peak of peak conditions. By the year 2013 a total breakdown of the system will be experienced if no improvements are made. Alternative 1 proposes signals at the SB.and NB ramp intersections. The proposed signals will improve the perfornnance of the NB ramp intersection. In the year 2013 dual left turning lanes on the SB off -ramp will be needed. As the SB ramp intersection reaches capacity, Alternative 2, dual left turning lanes on the SB off -ramp are required. Dual lefts increase the capacity of the intersection by providing additional lanes. This alternative will require widening of the structure to accommodate an additional lane in the EB direction. The EB approach to the SB ramp intersection needs to be widened in order to provide a thru/right lane. Alternative 3 models a loop off ramp at the SB ramp intersection. A loop off will reduce the number of conflicting moves at the SB ramp intersection. This alternative requires widening and lengthening of the structure. A loop on at both ramp intersections with dual lefts on the SB off -ramp is modeled as Alternative 4. This alternative reduces the number of conflicting moves by providing a free right for what would be left turns onto the on -ramps. This alternative requires the same improvements to the structure as Alternative 3. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE Analysis of 2005 Conditions Traffic Projections Figure 4 indicates lane configurations and volumes for year 2005 peak hour and peak of peak hour volumes. The Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling traffic study states the flow rates for year 2005 Nonnal Peak hour are 505 vph on the SB off -ramp. The SB ramp intersection with the minor street has 496 left turns and 9 right turns onto Durham -Peutz Road. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 226 through and 68 right turns onto SB on - 15 Figure 4. 2005 No Build Configuration .& Volumes 2005 Norrr EB Durham-Pentz 2005 Peak . EB Durham-Pentz s t ramp. Westbound (WB) volumes at the SB ramps are 118 through movements and 14 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 1). The traffic study states that the NB off -ramp volume is 115 vph. At the. NB ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Road 73 right turns are made onto EB Durham -Peutz Road. 43 left turns onto WB Durham -Peutz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 699 through movements with 24 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at this location is 89 through movements with 161 right turns.onto NB on-ramp (Table 1). The Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling traffic study states the flow rates for year 2005 peak of peak hour are 755 vph on the SB off -ramp. The SB ramp intersection with the minor street has 739 left turns and 16 right turns onto Durham-Pentz Road. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 358 through and 59 right turns onto SB on-ramp. Westbound (WB) volumes at the SB ramps are 140 through movements and 59 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 1). The traffic study states that the NB off -ramp volume is 172 vph. At the NB -ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Road 125 right turns are made onto EB Durham-Pentz . Road. 48 left turns onto WB Durham-Pentz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 1040 through movements with 56 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at this location is 114 through movements with 145 right turns onto NB on-ramp (Table Levels of Service The 2005 Normal. Peak LOS for the SB off -ramp was calculated using the HCS -3 Program. The LOS for the SB off -ramp approach is F with delay of 107.3 sec/veh. The NB off -ramp approach performs at LOS C with delay of 22.7 sec/veh. (Table 2). The year 2005 Peak of Peak LOS was calculated using the HCS -3 Program. This model does not include a signal. at the SB. off -ramp. The peak of peak occurs between 7:30am and 8:OOam. The SB off -ramp approach operates at a LOS F with delay of 1643 seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). The NB off -ramp approach operates at LOS F with a delay of 208.3 sec/veh (Table 2A). Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis All future signal warrants are analyzed utilizing projections of vehicle counts made in the field. Signal warrant analysis revealed that utilizing counts made in the field, for the SB ramp intersection warrant numbers 10 and 11 were satisfied in 1999. These warrants are Peak Hour Delay, and Peak Hour Volume respectively. By the year 2005, Systems Warrant, Warrant 7, should be met based on traffic growth along with Four Hour Volume Warrant, - Warrant 9(Table 4.). 17 For the NB ramp intersection Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume, was met in year 2000. Warrant 7, Systems Warrant should be met based on traffic growth in year 2001. In year 2003 Warrant 2; Interruption of Continuous Service, should be met based on traffic growth. Warrant 9, four-hour Volume, should be met based on traffic growth in 2004 (Table 4.). Analysis of 2015 Conditions Traffic Projections The Office of Forecasting and Modeling projected numbers were utilized in this analysis. Figure 5 indicates lane configurations and volumes for all alternatives for year 2015 peak hour volumes. The Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling traffic study states the flow rates for year 2015 normal peak hour- are 825 vph on the SB off -ramp. The SB ramp intersection with the minor street has 800 left turns and 25 right turns onto Durham-Pentz Road. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 400 through and 130 right turns onto SB on-ramp. Westbound (WB) volumes at the SB ramps are 230 through movements and 270 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 5.). The traffic study states that the NB off -ramp volume is 250 vph. At the NB ramp intersection with Durham -Peutz Road 150 right turns are made onto EB Durham -Peutz Road. LOO left turns onto WB Durham -Peutz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 1040 through movements with 160 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at this location is 400 through movements with 680 right turns onto NB on-ramp (Table 5.). Levels of Service The year 2015 No Build Alternative LOS was calculated using the HCS -3 program. The SB off -=amp approach performs at LOS F with delay of 11831.7 sec/veh. In 2015 Normal Peak conditions the NB off -ramp approach operates at LOS F with a delay of 13253.9 sec/veh (Table 2). Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis All future signal warrants are analyzed utilizing projections of vehicle counts made in the field. Signal warrant analysis revealed that utilizing counts made in the field, for the SB ramp intersect -ion warrant numbers 10 and 11 were satisfied in 1999. These warrants are Peak 18 Figure 5. Alternatives 1 &2 Configuration & 2015 Volumes J Alternative 1 - SB & NB Signals ; SB But99 NB But99 N ' 25 800 ' S WB Durham-Pentz 4=1 230 M4O ` r 270 r 400 160 130 1040 EB Durham-Pentz 100 150 Alternative 2 - SB Off EB Durham-Pentz L WB Durham-Pentz_ N t r •i Table 5. Traffic Volumes Year 2015 & 2025 (Normal Peak) Year 2015 SB IIS NB IIS lefts14 hr u 14 rights°1n lefts °!s Lh-ro-u—qh'/s dgh151� Off Ramp EB D -P WB D -P 800 97 0 0 25 3 0 0 400 75 130 25 270 54 230 46 0 0 Off Ramp EB D -P WB D -P 100 40� 0 0 150 60 160 13 1040 67 0 0 0 0 400 37 680 63 note: % is percentage of approach volume 4 Year 2025 SB IIS NB IIS Le s% ou % rights 14 e s % throu 1fl i s Off Ramp EB D -P WB D_P 963 97 0 0 30 3 0 0 525 72 204 28 436. 54 371 as 0 0 Off Ramp EB D_P WB D -P 122 40 0 0 183 6o 193 13 1295 87 0 0 0 0 685 37 1167 63 note: % is percentage of approach volume Y Table 6- Description of Alternatives - r - k � Alternative DescriatLon' No Build, No Build - Existing Configuration t 1 Signals at both ramp intersections' , 2 Dual Lefts on SB off, Dual lefts on Durham-Pentz for SB on-ramp Widen Structure, and Signals at both ramp I/S Widening of EB approach to SB ramp intersection for a thru/left lane 3 Loop Off, Dual lefts on Durham-Pentz for SB on-ramp Widen Structure, and Signals at both ramp I/S 4 Loop On and Signals at both ramp I/S, Widen and Lengthen Structure, Dual left turning lanes on the SB off -ramp a *note* All improvements include an exclusive right turn pocket to the NB on-ramp The modeled alternatives in the years 2015. & 2025 include two lanes on the NB off -ramp. r Hour Delay, and Peak Hour Volume respectively. By the year 2005, Systems Warrant,, Warrant 7, should be met based on traffic growth along with four-hour Volume Warrant, Warrant 9. By the year 201.0 Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume Warrant, should be met based on traffic growth (Table 4.). For the NB ramp intersection Warrant 11, Peak Hour Volume, was met in year 2000. Wan -ant 7, Systems Warrant should be met based on traffic growth in year 2001. In year 2003 Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Service should be met based on traffic growth. Warrant 9, four-hour Volume should be met based on traffic growth in 2004(Table 4.). ALTERNATIVE 1 - ADDING SIGNALS It should be noted that Alternative 1 is the addition of signals at both ramp intersections. This alternative includes lengthening of the left turn pocket for EB Durham -Peutz to NB on-ramp. A second left turn lane for WB Durham-Pentz to SB on-ramp needs to be provided to service year 2025 volumes. Dual lefts to the SB on-ramp will require the SB on-ramp to be widened to two lanes. The addition of right turn pockets at each intersection is also needed. Analvsis of 2000 Conditions The signal -timing unit was contacted and a cycle length of 60 seconds was determined to be adequate for the SB signal in year 2000. The SYNCHRO model verified this timing. Levels of Service The year 2000 Normal Peak LOS was calculated using the SigCinema program. A signal is modeled at the SB ramp intersection. For the SB intersection performance was LOS C with delay. of 22.3 sec/veh (Table 2.). The NB ramp intersection operates at LOS A with delay of 6.7 sec/veh when a signal is modeled at the intersection (Table 2.). The SYNCHRO program calculated the arterial, Durham -Peutz Rd., system performance in the year 2000 to be LOS C in both directions with delay of 15.7 sec/veh EB and 13.5 sec/veh WB(Table 3.). Analysis of 2005 Conditions The SYNCHRO program calculated the optimum cycle lengths to be 65 sec. at the SB intersection and 60 sec. at the NB intersection. Levels of Service The year 2005 Normal Peak LOS was calculated using the SigCinema program. A signal is modeled at the SB ramp intersection. For the SB intersection performance was LOS C 22 Table 3 - Arterial Level of Service (normal peak) - 2000, 2005, & 2015 Existing & Signals Year Arterial Alternative # 2000 EB 1 C 15.7 .2000 WB 1 C " 13.5 2005 EB 1 D 20.4 2005 WB 1 D 17.1 2015 EB 1 F 118.2 2015 WB 1 E 41.4 2015 EB 2 D 23.4 2015 WB 2 D 19.9 2015 EB 3 D --33.1 2015 WB 3 C 12.2 2015 EB 4 E 35.6 2015 WB 4 C 13.4 2025 EB 2 E 48.3 •2025. WB 2 D 21.4 2025 EB 3 F 74.1 2025 WB 3 F 300.3 2025 EB 4 F 153.6 2025 WB 4 E 49.2 ' R y with delay of 30.4 sec/veh (Table 2.). The NB ramp intersection operates at LOS A with delay of 8.4 sec/veh when a signal is modeled at the intersection (Table 2.). The SYNCHRO program calculated the arterial, Durham -Peutz Rd., system performance in the year 2005 to be LOS D in both directions with delay of 20.4 sec/veh EB and 17.1 sec/veh WB(Table 3.). Analysis of 2013 Conditions In the year 2013 Alternative 1 breaks down. The SB ramp intersection operates at LOS F with delay of 137.2 sec/veh (Table 2.). At this time the addition of signals is no longer a viable solution. Additional capacity is needed on the SB off -ramp. Analysis of 2015 Conditions The SYNCHRO program calculated the optimum cycle lengths to be 100 sec. at the SB intersection and 100 sec. at the NB intersection. Levels of Service The year 2015 Normal Peak LOS was calculated using the SigCinema program. A signal was modeled at the SB ramp intersection. The intersection performs at LOS F with delay of 558.1 sec/veh (Table 2). With a signal the NB ramp intersection will operate at LOS F with delay of 157.9 sec/veh ( Table 2). The SYNCHRO program calculated the arterial, Durham -Peutz Rd., system performance in the year 2015 to be LOS F with delay of 118.2 sec/veh EB and LOS E with delay of 41.4 WB(Table 3.). Analysis of 2025 Conditions Traffic Projections The Office of Forecasting and Modeling projected numbers were utilized in this analysis. Figure 7 indicates lane configurations and volumes for alternatives 1 & 2 with year 2025 volumes. The Office of Travel Forecasting and Modeling traffic study states the volumes for year 2025 normal peak hour are 993 vph on the SB off -ramp. The SB ramp intersection with the minor street has 963 left turns and 30 right turns. Eastbound (EB) traffic volumes at the SB ramps are 525 through and 204 right turns onto SB on-ramp. Westbound (WB) 24 • 1 Figure 7. Alternatives 1&2 Configuration & 2025 Volumes Alternative 1 - SB & NB Signals SB But99 NB But99 y N 30 963 S WB Durham-Pentz 371 1167 ' 436 �■■ 685 525 193 r , 204 1295 EB Durham-Pentz • i •122 1 183 Alternative 2 - SB Off Dual Lefts r SB But99 NB But99 r 30 963 WB Durham-Pentz 371 1167 436 685 J- 5255*193 204 1295 ' I EB Durham -Pent 122 183 • r h , volumes at -the SB ramps are 371 through movements and 436 lefts onto SB on-ramp (Table 5.). The traffic study states that the NB offramp volume is 305 vph. At the NB ramp intersection with Durham -Peutz Road 183 right turns are made. 122 left turns onto WB Durham -Peutz are made. The EB traffic at the NB ramp intersection is 1295 through movements with 193 lefts onto NB on-ramp. The WB traffic at this location is 685 through movements with 1167 right turns onto NB on-ramp (Table 5.). Levels of Service The year 2025 Normal Peak LOS was calculated utilizing the SigCinema program. Performance of signalized intersections are very low, LOS F, after year 2012. Improvements to the structure will be needed to accommodate more lanes. Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis All future signal warrants are analyzed utilizing projections of vehicle counts made in the field. Signal warrant analysis revealed that utilizing counts made in the field. For the SB ramp intersection all vehicle volume related warrants should be met based on traffic growth by the year 2025 with the exception of Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Traffic (Table 4.). By the year 2025 all vehicle volume related warrants should be met based on traffic growth for the NB ramp intersection with Durham-Pentz Rd. (Table 4.). ALTERNATIVE 2 — DUAL LEFTS, WIDEN STRUCTURE, AND SIGNALS This alternative requires improvements to the structure. Two -EB through lanes over the structure must be provided through the NB ramp intersection, which requires widening of the structure. An additional lane on the NB off -ramp is also required for the performance of the NB ramp intersection. An exclusive right turn lane for WB Durham-Pentz to NB on-ramp will be required. The EB approach to the SB ramp intersection must be widened to provide a thru/right turn lane. A second left turn lane for WB Durham -Peutz to SB on- ramp needs to be provided to service year 2025 volumes. Dual lefts to the SB on-ramp . will require the SB on-ramp to be widened to two -lanes (Table 6.). Analysis of 2015 Conditions The dual lefts will improve the performance of the SB off -ramp from LOS F to LOS B, with delay of 14'.8 sec/veh . This improvement will accommodate a larger volume of left turns with the same green time for the signal. The NB off -ramp intersection will perform at LOS A with delay of 5.8 sec/veh if a shared left -through turn lane is constructed on the off -ramp (Table 2B). The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) perfonnance for the dual lefts alternative to be -LOS D in both directions. The EB direction will experience 23.4 - sec/veh delay and the WB direction will experience 19.9 sec/veh delay(Table 3.). Analysis of 2025 Conditions The dual lefts will increase the capacity of the intersection. This improvement will accommodate a larger volume of left turns with the same green time for the signal. The SB intersection will perforin at LOS C with 20.3 sec/veh delay. The NB intersection will operate at LOS B with delay of 13.4 sec/veh if an exclusive right turn lane is constricted on the NB off -ramp (Table 2B). The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) performance to be LOS E in the EB direction and LOS D in the WB direction. The EB direction will experience 48.3 sec/veh delay and the WB direction will experience 21.4 sec/veh delay(Table 3.). ALTERNATIVE 3 — LOOP OFF (L-8) WIDEN STRUCTURE AND SIGNALS This alternative requires improvements to the structure. Two EB through lanes over the structure must be provided through the NB ramp intersection to accept the traffic on the * loop off, which requires widening of the structure. The structure will also require lengthening in order to accorm-nodate an additional lane beneath it. A second left turn L lane for WB Durham -Peutz to SB on-ramp needs to be provided to service year 2025 volumes. Dual lefts to the SB on-ramp will require the SB on-ramp to be widened to two lanes. An exclusive right turn lane on the NB off -ramp is also required for the performance of the NB ramp intersection. Exclusive right turn lanes at both ramp intersections is required(Table 6.). r Figure 8 shows lane configurations for alternatives 3 & 4 with year 2025 volumes. Analysis of 2015 Conditions This proposed scenario offers the ability to make the move from SB •off -ramp to EB Durham -Peutz without conflicting movements. The signal at the SB ramp will need to service few right turns from the, off -ramp and the projected 270 left turns from WB Durham-Pentz Rd. along with EB and WB through movements. With EB through movements numbering 400, the intersection will operate at LOS A(Table 2B.). This alternative will improve the SB signalized intersection to LOS A from LOS F with delay of 9.2 sec/veh. The NB off -ramp intersection will experience a LOS A with 5.8 sec/veh delay if an exclusive left turn lane is constructed on the NB off -ramp. (Table 2B). 27 4 , r r , Figure 8. Alternatives 3&4 Configuration & 2025 Volumes Alternative 3 - SB Loop Off ' SB But99 NB But99 r N, 30 S WB Durham-Pentz 4=371 1167 -WOO4MVOM436 685 ' 525 193 204 1295 EB Durham-Pentz , . 963 • 122 183 •� • Alternative 4 - SB & NB Loop Oh • _ 'SB But99 NB But99 30 963 t IL�436 WB Durham-Pentz 371 1167 � .. F f;� 1295 i EB Durham-Pentz 193 • 122 183 • • z } The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) performance to be`LOS D' in the EB direction and LOS C in the WB direction. The EB direction will experience 33.1 sec/veh delay and theWB direction will experience 12.2 sec/veh delay (Table.3:). Analysis of 2025 Conditions This proposed scenario offers the ability.to make the move from SB off -ramp to EB Durham -Peutz without conflicting movements. The signal at the SB ramp intersection will need to service few right turns, 29, from the off -ramp and the projected 436 left turns from WB Durham-Pentz. With EB through movements numbering 525 the signalized intersection will perform at LOS B with delay of 12.5 sec/veh (Table 2B.). ' The NB in will perform at LOS B with delay of 13.4 sec/veh if an additional lane is added to the NB off -ramp. (Table 213). The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) performance to be LOS F in both directions. The EB direction will experience 74.1 sec/veh delay and the WB . direction will experience 300.3 sec/veh delay (Table 3.). , ALTERNATIVE 4 — LOOP ON (L-9), WIDEN STRUCTURE, AND SIGNALS This alternative allows the signal to operate on a two-phase cycle. This alternative requires improvements to the structure. A total of three laries on the structure is required for this alternative. The structure will also require lengthening in order to accommodate additional lanes beneath it. Dual left turning lanes on the SB.off-ramp are modeled in this alternative. An additional lane on the NB off -ramp is also required for the performance of the NB ramp intersection. Right turn lanes at both ramp intersections is required (Table 6.). Analysis of 2015 Conditions Alternative 4 would be to place L-9 ramps at both ramp intersections. Loop -on ramps are designed to reduce the number of conflicting movements. If used at this facility_the SB ramp intersection conflicting moves would be reduced by 270. If used at this facility the NB ramp intersection conflicting moves would be reduced by 160. When compared to signalized intersections this improvement increased the performance of the SB ramp, intersection from LOS F to LOS A with delay of 9.2 sec/veh. The NB ramp intersection performance increased to LOS A from LOS F with delay of 6.7 sec/veh (Table 2B.). The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) performance to be LOS E in the EB direction and LOS C in the WB direction. The EB direction will experience 35.6 sec/veh delay and the WB direction will experience 13.4 sec/veh delay (Table 3.). 29 Analvsis of 2025 Conditions Alternative 4 would. be to place L-9 ramps at both ramp intersections. Loop -on ramps are designed to reduce the number of conflicting movements. If used at this facility the SB ramp intersection conflicting moves would be reduced by 436. If used at this facility the NB ramp intersection conflicting moves would be reduced by 193. When compared to signalized intersections this improvement increased the performance of the SB ramp intersection to LOS B with delay of 10.7 sec/veh . The NB ramp intersection performance is improved to LOS B from LOS F with delay:of 14.0 sec/veh (Table 2B.). The SYNCHRO program calculated the total system (arterial) performance to be LOS F in the EB direction and LOS E in the WB direction. The EB direction will experience 153.6 sec/veh delay and the WB direction will experience 49.2 sec/veh delay (Table 3.): 30 DISCUSSION Accident history on the Durham -Peutz interchange is not significant enough to warrant the signal improvement. Although only 4 accidents have occurred on the facility, the short sight distance over the structure may cause an,increase in accidents at the intersection as the flow rates reach capacity. The sight distance on the structure is 123 in , (404 ft.). As vehicles travel over the structure they may approach the back of the queue unknowingly. If the speed limits were reduced to 30 mph adequate SSD can be achieved for present volumes. The projected future volumes will require SSD of 290 in (854 ft.) -which is almost 2/3 the total length of the overcrossing. Presently the delay on the SB off -ramp is compounded by experienced drivers using Neal Rd. to bypass the SB off-ranip. The volume of cars using the bypass cause cars on the off -ramp to experience long delays due to few gaps in the eastbound traffic. The projections used in this analysis take into account the latent moves from Neal Rd. to the Durham-Pentz SB off -ramp as the SB off -ramp improvements are made. The delay on the existing SB off -ramp can become, at times, significant enough to back up traffic onto SR 99 causing delay. With the increase in volume over the next 20 years significant increases in delay will be experienced. The proposed project to install signals will alleviate the delay on the SB off -ramp; improving both the SB ramp intersection and the delay on the ramp. Signals tend to increase rear -end accidents, but reduce the severity of the accidents. When the NB ramp intersection is signalized coordination of the two signals will be appropriate. Coordination of the signals will reduce the delay and the number of rear -end accidents. Advance signing and flashing beacons in both directions will be needed. A' , The signals at the ramps will improve the operation until volumes increase and capacity is reached. By the year 2013 dual left turn lanes on the SB off -ramp will need to be constructed. The structure will need to be widened to accommodate the two turning lanes. The structure is 40 feet wide and can only accommodate 2 lanes, short left turn pockets, and shoulders at the present time.. The addition of lanes will. improve the capacity of the intersection. When signals are installed at the ramp intersections it is necessary to add exclusive right turn lanes at both ramp intersections. A 122 in (400 ft.) exclusive right turn lane is recornmended. Alternative 2 will require a thru/right turn lane at the SB ramp intersection with 92 in (300 ft.) of storage. This requires widening of both approaches to the intersections. When .the structure is widened the EB left turn lane to the NB on-ramp needs to be lengthened to 61 in (200 ft.) to accommodate turning volumes. An additional left tum lade on Durham -Peutz Rd. to the SB on-ramp will need to be provided to service year 2025 volumes. The dual left turn lanes on Durham-Pentz Rd. to the SB on-ramp will need to have 61 in (200 ft.) of storage. The SB on-ramp will require widening to two lanes to accept the dual lefts. These tum lanes, are essential to the performance of the intersections. 4 t , 31 By the year 2015 an exclusive right turn lane on the NB off -ramp with storage of 150 ft will be needed to ensure that the right turn volumes reach the signal during each cycle. A loop off -ramp can handle the projected volumes with no conflicting movements. Loop -offs increase the capacity, decrease the delay, and reduce the number of conflicting movements. A loop off at this location will operate at a LOS B into the year 2025 as opposed to dual lefts that operate at LOS C. The structure will need to be lengthened in order to accommodate an additional lane beneath it. The structure will also need to be widened to provide two EB lanes in order to accommodate the loop off lane. Although loop offs can handle large volumes, accident rates on this type of design are larger than with a diamond interchange. L9's or Loop On ramps reduce the number of conflicting movements by allowing what would normally be a left turning vehicle to have an exclusive right turn lane onto a loop ramp. These ramps are significantly safer than loop -off ramps due to lower speeds involved at the entrance. Two loop on ramps would be appropriate for the Durham -Peutz interchange, one at each ramp intersection. Each intersection would require a two-phase signal. An L-9 facility with dual left on the SB off -ramp and signals at the ramp. intersections would operate at LOS B for the SB and NB ramp intersections in the year 2025. CONCLUSIONS The Durhanz-Peutz But 99 interchange has been studied for a number of years. The congestion problem was temporarily remedied by the addition of a 305 m (1000 ft.) auxil_ary lane to the SB off -ramp. This solution has worked for the last few years. As the volumes continually increase at a 5% growth rate, the addition of the auxiliary lane will become insufficient. A signal at the SB ramp intersection will alleviate the queuing problem. A second signal at the NB ramps will guarantee the travelers on the NB off - ramp time to execute their maneuvers. Each signal will run on 3 phases. In the year 2000 a 60 second cycle will be sufficient. By the year 2025 a 100 second cycle will be needed. The length between signals is large enough to constitute the need for two separate controllers for the signals. The two controllers can be coordinated, but this system will not run like a tight diamond interchange due to the 408 m (1340 ft.) distance between intersections. A second signal at the NB ramp intersection will also help the proposed signal, 3.21 km (2 mi.) away, at Butte College. Without a second signal the constant flow of traffic over the structure will cause a large queue at the entrance to Butte College approximately 3.21 km (2 mi.) to the east. This is a safety concern due to the high speeds in the area. A loop off -ramp is not suggested due to travelers being unfamiliar with the roadway. Every semester new students will be attending Butte College. Drivers unfamiliar with roadway sections can cause accidents, especially when traveling at.65+ mph exiting onto a 25 mph loop off. 32 A loop on facility has many safety related benefits. At this location the left turns from the SB off -ramp constitute the need for improvements. A loop on facility may be needed in the future. Alternative 4 can be constucted as a staged project, Alternative 2, dual lefts and signals, should be constructed as Phase 1. As left turns onto SB on-ramp increase a loop on-ramp, Phase 2, may become appropriate. In the year 2025 Alternative 4 will perform at LOS B at both ramp intersections. At this time dual lefts on the SB off - ramp will be sufficient. Alternative 2 will be sufficient for the study area. This alternative requires the widening of the SB off -ramp to provide dual left turn lanes with 107 m (350 ft.) of storage each. The NB off -ramp will also need to be widened to two lanes for an exclusive right turn lane with 46 m (150 ft.) of storage. This improvement to the NB off -ramp will insure that all right turning vehicles can reach the signal. An exclusive right turn lane 122 m (400 ft.) in length at the NB ramp intersectionis essential to the performance of this facility. The left turn lane on Durham-Pentz Rd. for the NB on -ramps needs to have 6.1 m (200 ft.) of storage. By the year 2025 an additional lane on SR 99 will also be needed. Widening the structure will be needed in order to receive the dual turning lanes from the SB off - ramp. An additional left turn lane on Durham -Peutz for the SB on-ramp will need to be . provided to service the year 2025 volumes. The dual left turn lanes to the SB on-ramp from Durham- Pentz will need to provide 61 m (200 ft.) of storage each. The SB on- ramp will need to be widened to provide two lanes in order to accept the dual left turning lanes from Durham-Pentz. The EB approach to the SB ramp intersection will need to be widened to provide a thru/right lane with 92 m (300 ft.) of storage. The two EB through lanes need to be extended through the NB ramp intersection for 100m (328 ft.). The 100m (328 ft.) is per HDM Fig. 405.9. In the year 2025 Alternative 2, dual lefts on the SB off -ramp and signals at both ramp intersections, will operate at LOS C at the SB ramp intersection and LOS B at the NB ramp intersection. 33 D03 — But 99 -- Durham -Deniz State of California — Department of Transportation APPENDIX As Built Plans Geometry of Alternatives Sigh and Stripe (Existing) Stopping Sight Distance (Existing) Accident Record Summay Y Signal Warrant Analysis ' Caltrans 1999'Ramp, Volumes SYNCHRO Analysis' * ' HCS -3 Analysis SigCinerna Analysis 4 r • t • � i * y 5 � t { X � r Results Page 1 of 1 Print table Show entire table in new window Export entire table to a text file Results for HAMLIN CANYON Quad (3912166) - 13 elements selected Record QUADNAME ELMCODE SCINAME COMNAME FEDSTATUS-' 1 Hamlin Canyon AFCHA0205A Oncorhynchus tshawytscha spring -run spring -run chinook salmon Threatened 2 Hamlin Canyon CTT4411OCA Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool None 3 : Hamlin Canyon CTT6141OCA Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest None 4 Hamlin Canyon ICBRA10010 Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Endangered 5 Hamlin Canyon PDEUPOD150 Chamaesyce hooveri Hoover's'spurge Threatened 6 Hamlin Canyon PDLAM18082 Monardella douglasii ssp. venosa veiny monardella None 7 Hamlin Canyon PDMALOHOQO Hibiscus lasiocarpus rose -mallow None 8 Hamlin Canyon PDMAL110PO Sidalcea robusta Butte County checkerbloom None 9, Hamlin Canyon PDSCROD482 Castilleja rubicundula ssp. rubicundula pink creamsacs None 10 Hamlin Canyon PMCYP091JO Eleocharis quadrangulata four -angled spikerush None 11 Hamlin Canyon PMLILOV060 Fritillaria eastwoodiae Butte County fritillary None 12 Hamlin Canyon PMPOA4G040 Orcuttia pilosa hairy orcutt grass Endangered 13 Hamlin Canyon PMPOA6N010 Tuctoria greenei Greene's tuctoria Endangered + Print table Show entire table in new window Export entire table to a text file . GN http%/maps.dfg.ca.gov/CNDDB_Quads/list cnddb_species.asp?theServerName=205.225.240.80&th... 7/6/2004 SEC.. 26 & : PTN. SEC. 2 7 T.21 N. RIE, M. D. 8. &M. -_ _ 4a �49 22 2324 N84'41 jg iy •S ' �f,16.� 3�8s7 - srrsr 7x3.00 'y __ •_ - ";j ,.'.._ ,... "36:42Ac' s .. • , ' . •, _ . - 9�s, ,� 51.66Ac 71 AAA�'.G_ 163.03Ac : DAYW 1i 07.13 �� t 125 23o t:tt - _ Butte County Assessor's Ma ` Book 40, Page 49 .. NOTE These pawls are for assessment pu 4" - only and may not constitute legal 41 CREATED BY SOT CREATED ON 2-7-2002 REMO BY _ SOT REVISED ON 2-7-2002 EFFECTNE 2002—a3 ROLL Previous Book , Portion Of Page Com Aed &Y The Butte Counte Assessor's Office • } � .. J Vii; , .. . ` DURHAM STATE LAND SEM-EMENT 8 M_.O.R._24 S 13 . e ' E 1/4 COR)' - SEC. 26 Ac t. 1 1 CREATED BY SOT CREATED ON 2-7-2002 REMO BY _ SOT REVISED ON 2-7-2002 EFFECTNE 2002—a3 ROLL Previous Book , Portion Of Page Com Aed &Y The Butte Counte Assessor's Office • } � .. J Vii; , .. . ` DURHAM STATE LAND SEM-EMENT 8 M_.O.R._24 S 13 . e ' E 1/4 COR)' - SEC. 26 Ac t. 1 1