Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
UP 05-04 040-130-047
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.buttegeneralplan.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. 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 9,2004) 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 prcject 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 necessary for 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 1 Postal ServiceT�, CERTIFIED RECEIPT ded) il only; No Insurance Coverage Provi ''.',•" (Domestic ttSw ti t�'+:'d,"•`.i',� „�,�)`ayla�. ."R .Mw•�`r"L Y • ..+_w..4.E3 - �."F - I '`D` a.. ho. "� 1"+ #SA�� y71� K+�.� j�'•=Silji(1'i 81 SIRfi4f [.'�.. ,. S �si+�'Postage $yr MOO 13: yJViqL)3A. Gtk a ru;tV3, Rifled Fe'e" i7.i:,y;" $:3#3 i>SSIr)` tA>21�rtG'Q ka l r .'•»FA+ F yy 1 iomq W.-Jtsq d9 S 3, Postri; rW ' `.l.�K:C 14*� 4 ir.1'-•`� `O'Here�a .rte a:,t9ii t<Retum:Receipt Fee �,�+r � afnE � .Of t �(Endorsement.Requlred) aH b < �. �i X 'pt q «tet h ¢ : .y+ 7r rluifYf S C 7"f =aS O Restricted Dellvery Fee r ,ro Y ^. ft t r �' v bb s"I.- (Endo ..- (Endorsement Requll' ` 1 • . - Q ... � -� � I�:.F L•tl h � ,tgtiV ?l-' ,C'f#1 iWnCMiS�t38 i44 Sti?s q x " _aY s exSt�i: u.�k rt a wa4�4� ''dtears. v 1 3 t£I.Total P.,osta99' Fees' $ ?r .kr tnorr..es3 r r IfE ." x h 4wh y 3 art+• i Y•r�Yi6 Y41e'sf ts�at 0'a - k� Xi Sent!. Oi2Q,n4 Y+r11' ■{Qn�, 'S - t� <iw ' "�1r�Q G�,AG3tiiZ7 tt+Uq , _. . t3dlt�i Fid'' <_�!_ u . O $treef %IptNo; 1St I fit or PO Boz No l{r a A"I� ;rid l wsJ.7�Y ,• _nn p " � � .. - �p�Aat00lft3 rrtaq 8 • : 1 1 1(1/1/ �_, i .. ;.. } X11.' i C3 w _.t,�Y'1 f�r ., il' x`t!nCi r a ,H _ n ".a,'t•y,�,t; "" rata 3suYcx�MtyGi+" 'b .01 'Postage 3rAf)lI 3 �aah4 begth9? t—W t Ln�a deaf 4% ,urktat;f" certified Fee b`a' botSttxT O ioc�3 dbV CA bt3iax� �^•� .:.--. •,.:`-.-.r., narkq�no '��b�•r le , 3 �e-r •CSN�!•f'f''' (sr ;ro�yf3 t»!Here�:. ,.s C jj1,A s Retrlm Receipt Fee C3l %(Endorsement Required) 3,B1ukt1*ryiyE bib •, "vf4vt."fA ^ s wwo dt ;L3 .ttl ' Cl'a Restricted Dellvery. Fee rsi d) li"�r bi+rt, t 3v s ` r " (Endoisemerd Required) 1 f s BYtt CI bE?e #i,ed ah11r Y °`')b ,F.CS IsriM72blY9. �:'... Fie jvxz uA e'9f r r} ,Total ge Posta'&Fees 3 . fUt ctr rro xu,It. aYi �r ar t i:ic ant o: r�c y + la h Its ataw / `�" ✓ �n 3i<7q 9,11, s a sb O �4ieer Apt No fCDYI a 1 / C f-3� orsPOBoxNor�7i fibS�� ��Q_✓!!... �`- crysmr�.Zl :_..x<01?" t .:.. .. t." _X DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1325 J STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-2922 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF November 15, 2004 Regulatory Branch (200400797) Stephen Betts - Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 Dear Mr. Betts: COUNTY NOV -1 7 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I -am responding to the Use Permit for a General Commercial/Distribution warehouse (UP 05-04), as well as the Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 04N-13) for the , Durham-Pentz Falager Court Projects located on Durham-Pentz Road near Falager Court. The Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction within the study area is under the authority of Section- 404 of. the Clean-: Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of .the United States. Waters o'f.the -United "States include;' but' ars `not limited` to; rivers,.perennial .or 'intermittent, streams, .lakes, ponds; -wetlands, •verna'i''pools'marshes�= wet meadows,; and seeps. ,.Project features tha't result in the discharge cif dredged'or`fill material into waters of the United States will require Department of the Army ..... authorization prior to starting work. Following a review of the- documents provided by the Butte County Department. we provide the following comments: a. The proposed project sites have a drainage swale and may also have adjacent vvetla„d fPrIhlres. b. We have not verified a wetland delineation for this site. c. The project proponent has not applied for a Department of Army Permit. The range of alternatives considered for the project should include alternatives that avoid impacts to wetlands or other waters of the United States. Every effort should be ,made=.to avoid .project`features which require the discharge of dredged or fill- material into ;waters -of the United States..'.In.the ; event it -can be clearly demonstrat'ed there are -no_`, practicable alter. natives .to,, filling waters; of "tlie United 'S'fates, mitigation plans should -be -developed to compensate for:the unavoidable losses resulting fr"om' project implementafiion. r -2- Please refer to identification number 200400797 in. any correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions, please contact. Laura Whitney at our Sacramento Valley Office, 1325 J Street, Room 1480, Sacramento, California 95814-2922, email Laura.A.Whitney@usace.army.mil, or telephone 916-557-7455. You may also use our website: www.spk.usace.army.mil/regulatory.html. Sincerely, - Tremas J:. Cavanaugh.- _ .. Chief, Sacramento Valley Office. Copies furnished without enclosures: William Isaac, 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 Robertson & Dominick, Civil Engineers, 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, California 95926 _ i' APPLICATION ACTIVITY LOG r UP 05-04 APN 040-130-038 Isaac t. Person Contacted . Phone Number** Action* Date .� Time Spent ` . r EC-R'oss, P.E., L.S ' Russ Erickson, P.E. ' Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor Civil Engineer ecross@robertson-dominick.com d rerickson@robertson-dominick.cc I l r 434 Redcliff Drive, Suite 6 ' • • 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A Redding, CA 96002 Chico, CA 95926 530-222-5194 530-894-3500 530-222-3684 fax :� 530-894-8955 fax robertson-dominick.com / robertson-dominick.com T1 a �' � � 1ST-...-s��...��� �.�:�,..t �J' y • .... 1 �'. n W .�I � .. 'r � �+ � � ' 1 i',4" I � « � � , � i -,• . � . '. � � � - - � �. P . � � . . .. t � 1 � . . � � 'r K. < - � - , .. -t. T ti.. � � �� 1 .. ' - . - t j.. . i � � ! A w \ ' - � � r , 1 y PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE NO.: UP 05-04 PROJECT TYPE: Use Permit APN: 040-130-038 - APPLICANT: ; William Isaac ADDRESS: 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 PHONE: OWNER: William Isaac y ADDRESS: 2865 Coldwater Canyon Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210 REPRESENTATIVE: Russ Erickson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. .ADDRESS: 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit for a General Commercial/Distribution warehouse and office LOCATED: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road at Falager Court, approximately 0.6 miles east of SR -99, south of Chico 'PROPERTY ZONED: U (Unclassified) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GOL (Grazing & Open Land) TOWN/AREA: Chico o 1. Application accepted: 7/30/2004 Amount: $ 3390 Receipt #: 407051 2. Assigned To: Stephen Betts ` 3. Comments sent to: Development Services Director, Public Works Director, Environmental Health, Assessor, LAFCo, Agricultural Commissioner, CDF, Building Manager, County Counsel 4. Sent to Inter -Departmental Review Committee (IDR): 5. Status Letter sent to applicant: 6. Date scheduled for IDR: 8/18/2004 7. Comments received from: 8. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 9. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 10. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No. Categorical Exemption-CEQA# Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Subject to Fish & Game: Environmental Impact Report Omer 11. Staff Report: Project Video: 12. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 13. Publication Notice Written: Display Ad Prepared: 14. Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: 15. Newspaper Publication Date: O C P G B 16. Planning Commission Hearing(s): Action taken: 17. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): Action taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Adopted: 18. Type Use Permit/Send for signature: 19. N.O.E. / N.O.D. / APPENDIX G: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No 20. Send validated Use Permit/Minor Use Permit to applicant, representative: 21. Assessor's Memo (Use Permit, Minor Use Permit): 22:• Copy of Use Permit/Minor Use Permit to Planning Technician: i DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION APPLICANT: Agent information to be is 2 provided on page APPLICANT'S NAME: (If application is different from owner an affidavit is required.) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: _ William040 --130 -038 ADDRESS: STREET, CITY, STATE, & ZIP CODE FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE)' .2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills,'CA 90210 NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT (If any) TELEPHONE: LOCATION OF PROJECT (Major cross streets and Address, if any) East of Hwy 99 South of Durham Pentz Road South of Falager,Court , "'�;: -� •k,,s t.�'�xv 'k¢'��1-'..5� :.. �z' ,C Yt�i. f''Y n .. - �L.`-?, s �fi" +` " '-'fii:+'trch ''<, �3..',C e -' w ; S x.3 M,- -. ... - ». �'..-� .. .•.� _ .. ..i�S -.. �, ,3; «�> X, .rb :,.: 1'&-,: h. �l?>t > .s„,J..wa,w.,.i�k�_<r�,r„_ ,-�....it'��..`�..`t y��C d�..si�'�"u'��a. s"r'4«�4. •y.-.3t,�i-.,e. >i#.;r OWNER'S NAME: TELEPHONE: William Isaac ( _ ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, &ZIP CODE: on Drive Beberly Hills, CA 90210 ZONE GENE $.A AN ww EXISTING LAND USE SITE SIZE (in Square Feet or Acres) U Vacant 210.9 Acres EXISTING STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) None (Check One) (Check One) ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER -,IC^'?�.,�5"R>B"ifrr.Sxli. �x ADPL"ICATIONREQiTESTED x YY':Ya�rMe�M.:MY6a:�+'�Y, � J�':.: '.if .... . ./.4.�,!Sr •. �: � e � S. s ^'S�:�1 �. ❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ❑ REZONE ]BUTTE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP ® USE PERMIT COUNTY ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP ❑ MINOR USE PERMIT JUL 3 0 2004 ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION ❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION DEVELOPMENT ❑ MINMVARIANCE SERVICES ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ OTHER tt i r,T1�s f ,y 1..Y �A•H - .':Iy"�`s� °A ,, 7z'�n x3 ! 4 ` SXS LLwI"S.1rYra .:,ti s ,, c _,;, a .x ;. 'i ;>i y. T 1 { wT ,a" xkc :�. :�'-.., ..,--.>-.. ..,:�':x d![- ?x .s...,::'i,t ..7Y..'.:;:Y„`.\�..µ.n.i.��,v,ex-5s.?..'Si..�te Yi",•ci.. �Ei �e:�:n �...e. h.'�LGltF M,:.Y�:LIi��.�: :ei.w� ra.���#.}»..aS4x .A3 .3..n. FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division, describe the number and size of parcels.) Distribution Warehouse & Office tax- - h i a,; OWNER:Ci ..:..:Z y>...St,T•,' 64" .L .. .. s� I CERTIFY THAT 1 AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. ; FURTHER, I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. (If an agent is to be authorized, execute an affidavit of authorization ao include the affidavit with this application.) DATE: "7 ' b SIGNATURE: K:\FORMS\UNIFORM APPLICATION Pagel oft AGENT AUTHORIZATION TO: Butte County, Department of Development Services: Robertson 9 Dominick, Tnc Phone Number u36) 894 - 3500 Print Name 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico CA 95926 Mailing Address is hereby authorized to process the application for William Isaac on my property, identified as Butte County Assessor Parcel Number: APN# 040 - 130 - 038 This authorization allows representation for all applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including document(s) relating to record title inteWtTE COUNTY Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name) JUL 3 0 2004 Wi iam Isa9yDEVELOPMENT Print Name / Print Name SURAWR- Signauu e Signature Architect d/or Engineer: Russ Erickson Phone Number5( 30) 894 - 3500 Print Name of Architect/Engineer 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico,'CA 95926 Mailing Address FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date Received: Total Amount Received: 33 (b ❑ AP Number(s) ❑ Legal Description ❑ Owners Authorization ❑ Zoning Requirements ❑ Project Description ❑ Copies ffof plot plan Taken by: My�— PAL l (� �Q, (/�Q,� Receipt No. 100 S PW/LD Plan t -q 70 E.H. US.O'� CDF U3 NOD/NOE Fees J9 X' d Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a deposit) will be returned upon final action. Current fee for this application is as of Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". K:%F0I:N13',IJNIf0RM APPLICATION Page 2 of 2 COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed By Project Applicant) Date Filed 7/15/04 GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of owner, and/or developer, and/or project. sponsor: William Isaac 2. Address of project: East of Hwy 99 South of Durham Pentz Road South of Falager Court Assessor's Parcel Number: 040-130-038 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Robertson & Dominick, Inc. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite 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: :UttlTi'E 'C&NTYY 6. Existing zoning district: M-1 JUL 3 0 2004 DEVELOPNXNT SERVICES .7. How is land currently used? Undeveloped Lot 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Distributions Warehouse & ,.Office Project Description: 9. Site size: 210.9 Acr 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full size: Total: 11. Plans attached: Yes No X 12. Proposed development schedul 13. Associated projects N/A Unknown at thisr.time 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development N/A Compact: ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ (Acres/Sq. Feet) A 1 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 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 19. If the project involves a minor variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change.in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. YES X X Discuss below all items ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ NO X X X X X X X X X -X— 0 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 BUTTE COUNTY JUL 3 0 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES K:1Planning\FORMS\Submittal\ENV-INFO.FRM 0 Butte County Department of Development Services 0 Planning Division 0 32. The site is a vacant with a generally level area over the westerly 2/3 of the site. The easterly third has small steep bluffs associated with a drainage swale. There are trees at the southerly part of the property in the drainage area.The site is bounded on the west by State Highway 99, on the north by Durham Pentz Road, and Falager Court. The property easterly of the site is also vacant. The property has an ephemeral drainage running north south in about the middle of the property and a second drainage going from the northeast corner of the site to the southerly corner. A third drainage area is located in the middle of the east half of the property and runs generally north -south with an existing pond. 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 BUTTE COUNTY i. JUL 3 0 2004 DEVELOPMENT Page 1/1 USE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKET CHECKLIST z This checklist is designed to assist applicants in making sure all necessary information is included in their application pacl<et. Please include this checklist along with your submittal. Applicant Planner l . ❑ A completed, signed, Uniform Application and Environmental Information form. If the application is signed by an agent for the property owner, an agent authorization form must be submitted along with the Uniform Application. The application shall not be accepted unless signed by the owner or authorized agent. 2. ❑ Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of the deposit will be returned upon final action, if any remains.) (Planner advises applicant) 3. ❑ Thirty-five(35) copies of plans which shall include a detailed site plan drawn to scale. All plans shall be drawn on uniform size sheets no greater than 24" x 36". The finished plans shall be folded to 8 ''/2" x 11 ". The detailed site plan must include: a. P ❑ Name and address of Applicant, Engineer and/or person who prepared the plan b. Z ❑ Property lines and lot dimensions BUTTE c. ❑ Assessor Parcel Number(s) and the street address. COUNTY JUL 3 0 2004 d. IN ❑ Proposed use and/or uses of the property. DEs L cMENT e. ❑ ' ❑ Proposed landscaping plan, if applicable. f. ❑ Dimensioned locations of existing and proposed improvements on the property (including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways, parking areas, wells, septic tanks and leach fields). ❑ Distances from any significant natural and constructed features of the property, such as streets, access roads, streams, rock outcroppings, major tree stands, storm drains, bodies of water, railroads, to the property lines. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 1 l� . r . ❑ Location of all slope banks, ponds, creeks, buttes, sloughs, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, irrigation canals and existing vegetation worthy of consideration for preservation, such as oak trees. I. ❑ Any existing faults or fractures and geologic hazards. j. J4 ❑ North arrow and scale of drawing. All plans shall be drawn to an engineering scale with the preferred scale of 1" = 20', with a north arrow preferably oriented to the top of sheet. k. B ❑ All plans must be clear and legible. 4. ❑ One copy of 8 %" x I V transparency reduction of the detailed site plan. 5. ❑ A vicinity map showing closest major cross streets, zoning and existing land use. After a meeting with a Butte County Planner the following checked items will be required to be submitted at the time of application: (optional) 6. ❑ ❑ One (1) set of colored plans mounted on foam boards, which shall include an illustrative site plan, illustrative building elevations, and any necessary cross-sections. Portions of this requirement may be waived by the Planning Manager. Portions waved ❑ YES ❑ NO 7. ❑ ❑ One (1) full size reproducible sepia for each sheet in the plan set of the detailed site plan. 8. ❑ ❑ Building materials on a sample board, 8 ''/2" X 11 V. 9. ❑ ❑ Detailed site plan including the following: a. ❑ ❑ Building setbacks from the ultimate road right-of-way (front, rear, sides). b. ❑ ❑ Proposed and existing on-site driveways and/or roads. c. El t, Location, height, and materials of walls and fences (sections may be required). , d. ❑ ❑ All driveways, drawn to scale, on adjacent and across the street properties within 100 feet of the subject site. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE.- NCOMPLETE.2 2 q e. ❑ ❑ Existing curbs, gutters, sidewalks and existing paving widths on-site or within 100 - feet of the site, on adjacent and across the street properties. f. ❑ ❑ Typical street section(s). g. ❑ ❑ Nearest cross streets on both sides with plus or minus distances from subject site. h. ❑ ❑ Approximate location of all buildings within 100 feet, on adjacent properties. 1. ❑ ❑ Proposed method of sewer and water connection or alternative method of sewage disposal and potable water supply. j. ❑ ❑ Existing and nearest fire hydrants. I:. ❑ ❑ Access, both pedestrian and vehicular, showing service areas and points of ingress and egress. 1. ❑ ❑ Internal circulation pattern. Ill. ❑ ❑ Elevation contours, at a minimum per USGS maps. 10. ❑ ❑ Illustrative Site Plan The plan.should include a graphic scale and north arrow, all proposed and existing improvements, landscape concepts such as earth mounding and meandering walkways, walls, ground cover, trees, shrubs, shadows, paving and other elements as may be necessary to illustrate the site plan. (Dimensions may be excluded from this plan.) 1 l . ❑ ❑ Conceptual Grading Plan Items to be shown include: it. ❑ ' ❑ Natural areas to be preserved. b. ❑ ❑ Proposed cut and fill areas in contrasting colors of zipatone pattern. c. ❑ ❑ Existing and proposed contours within 100 feet of project boundaries. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 3 d. ❑ ❑ Proposed drainage and flood control facilities. e. ❑ ❑ Erosion control measures (e.g. - slope landscaping). f. ❑ ❑ Natural drainage. g. ❑ ❑ Elevations and finished contours. 11. ❑ ❑ Location of retaining walls, drainage channels and existing structures. 1. ❑ ❑ Location, elevation and size of proposed building pads. 1?. ❑ ❑ Illustrative Building Elevations Illustrative building elevations showing all sides of existing and proposed buildings and structures. Illustrative building elevations means architectural elevations showing typical materials to be used, trees, landscaping and shadows to give the elevations graphic dimension. Additional information may be required in order to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the above submittal information or to complete any required environmental review documents, as deemed necessary by the Department of Development Services, Public Works, Environmental Health Division, Butte County Fire Department, or Agriculture Conllnissioner. Signature: //� Date Applicant/Representative Signature: l� �' CI GG�t'/�- Date: Planner Receiving Application K:'J'I:umin¢J0RMS\Suhmival\C1.1ECKLIMSEPERMLFRM BUTTE COUNTY JUL 3 0 2004 DEVELOPIvIJ:i 4' SERVICE6 117 INSUFFICI ENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 4 Feb 0411 02:17p Albert garland Neil Shah From: Breedon, Dan [DBreedon@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 4:51 PM To: Neil Shah Subject: Follow-up Attachments: Incomplete Letter.doc; DS_Lookup_AGS.pdf 916 484 5650 p..1 Neil, the other incomplete letter is attached. Also attached is the map of the study area 919 that was considered during the process (shows up in purple). Action on this study area took place on July 29, and 30, 2008. An explanation of the Study Area 'tis provided below. This included an alternative process as you can see below. In the end, the Board chose to retain the industrial designation and designating the rest of the area as Agriculture. My memory was a little off —the proposed alternative 3 included retail and a residential component (900 homes), not an industrial park. 19 STUDY AREA 19: DURHAM PENTZIHIGHWAY 99 Study Area 19, Durham Pentz/Highway 99, consists of 389 acres located adjacent to and south of Study Area 15, at the intersection of Durham-Pentz Road and Highway 99. The study area is currently undeveloped, and is characterized by open grazing land. ♦ Alternatives 1 and 2 follow the existing General Plan, designating the entire study area for . Agriculture. ♦ Under Alternative 3, approximately 220 acres along Highway 99 would be designated for retail purposes, while the remainder of the study area would be designated Medium Density Residential, allowing approximately 900 new homes. Dan Breedon, AICP, Principal Planner Butte County General Plan 2030 1 www.buttegeneralplan.net Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Ph. 530.538.7629 1 email: dbreedon@buttecounty.net DiSCLAILFER: This e-mail and any attacl-ment.thereto may contain private, confidertial, and privileced material for the sole use of the i.-itended recipient Any review, ccpying, or diEtribulion of this e-mail (or any attachments thereto) by other than the County of Butte or the intended recipient i� stricily prohibited. If you are NOT i.ie intended recipient, pleese contact the sender immediately and permanently delete We original and any copies or ihis e --nail and am, attachmen-s tnereto. 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.buftecounty.net/dds www.buttegeneraIplan.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; 040-490-018 ) 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. 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, 2004). 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; 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 O #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. Pleasefind 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 0, 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 sjolliffekbuttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stacey Jolliffe Principal Planner cc: Eric Robertson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 SEP -01-2004 16:47 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.01i05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION L :r FACSIMILE COVER C MR•1009 (REV 07/92) T i Attention From Steve Betts NORTH REGION — DISTRICT 3 Division of Planning, Office of Regional & Transit Planning 703 "B" Street P.O. Box 911 Marysville, CA 95901 univuampany Sende/s Name Butte County Planning Rick Holman Date Total Pages (lnduding cover) Se !ember 1, 2004 5 Sub/ect FAX # (area code) CALNET FAX a (530) 741-5346 8-457-5346 Comment Letter for UP 05-04, Isaac Warehouse & Office, SR 99 & D -P Rd. Phone #(area code) email: (530) 634-7612 rheiman@dot.co.gov Phone # (area code) FAX # (area code) Number of Pages Sent 530-538-7153 530-538-7785 4 ti r a SEP -01-2004 1$:47 CALTRANS D3. PLANN I NG DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 703 R STREET P. O. BOX 911 MARYS V ILLE- CA 95901-0911 . PHONE (530) 741-4025 FAX (530) 741-5346 Try (530) 741-4509 a 530.741 5346 P.02i05 A Rm your power! Be. rnegy efficient' September 1, 2004 ' 04BLJT0027 03 -BUT -99, P.M. 23.6 Warehouse and Office Use Permit, UP 05-04 Application Mr. Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Dear Mr. Betts: T Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the application for a use permit to construct a warehouse and office distribution center on a portion of a 210.9 acre site located on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road at Falager Court, east of State Route (SR) 99, in the community of Durham. Our comments on the application (project) are as follows: ' Potential aesthetic impacts: mitigation measures sue ested: • 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 distribution center will significantly change the scene from rural agricultural — open grassland to industrial. • To help mitigate any visual impacts to highway motorists due to the project, we suggest that a condition of approval or mitigation measure in the environmental document be added to the project that requires placement and maintenance of a vegetated, visual landscape buffer along the west and south edge of the property to adequately screen the facility from the SR 99 view shed. A tall tree screening will help to reduce the mass of the proposed structures and help preserve the integrity of the highway corridor. • 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. "Caltrumv improves mubiuiy arross Camprniu" SEP -01-2004 .16:47 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.04i05 " Mr. Stephen Betts " September 1. 2004 Page.1 . - _•r Potential trans ation/traffic impacts', Mitigation re ueste : " • The construction and operation of what scales out to be a 60,000 +/- square foot warehouse and " 20,000 +/- square foot office building 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. The Level of Service along Durham-Pentz Road will continue to decrease as new development is constructed until this roadway is widened. The proposed development will impact the timing for the need for the widening of the off -ramps to provide separate left and right turn lanes and the interchange widening at Durham-Pentz Road Interchange. ' • Therefore, we recommend that a focused Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which contains aen ro ate mitigation measures, should be provided for in the envi ronmental document prepared forthe 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: " htt ://www.dot.ca.eov/hq/traffooVdeveigpserv/c�perationalsystems/`-eports/tismiide.Ddf • The TIS should provide peak hour volume data from the projected vehicle trips generated by ' the project, and the trip generation rates and direction of travel of the users'of the facility. In addition, the TIS should provide an Annual Average Daily Traffic that is representative of average daily traffic when schools are in session to help the County in evaluating the need for left turn channelization on Durham -Peutz Road. The TIS should also identify the proportion of trucks coming from SR 191, SR 70, and SR 99. Along with this, the TIS should identify anticipated left turn volumes into the facility including employees who will be employed at the site. The analyses performed in the TIS must also take into account the peak hours produced by the college east of the project on Durham-Pentz Road. • Once this information is known, a determination should be made as to what improvements, if any, should be required as appropriate project specific traffic impact mitigation or if the impact would be limited to the assessment of traffic impact fees for cumulative impact , • Ddr ham-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 County ensure that any development that fronts on Durham -Peutz Road dedicate frontage to construct a standard Class II bike lane. This frontage dedication should take into account if further expansion is needed for left turn or right turn lanes. The width Y" needed for left turn lanes should not be taken from the shoulder but should be planned for by ROW dedication. • Signing should fit in with the surroundings, be aesthetically pleasing and not hinder sight distance along ramps or public road accesses to the property. - • The SR 149/99 Interchange project will impact some of the frontage along SR 99 near the Durham-Pentz Interchange. We suggest that the applicant should check with the Project Manager of the interchange project to ensure that his design proposals will not be in conflict with the State's plans on the interchange project and their frontage road designs. Winder "Caltrans impreve.t mabdity ar. r».cy C.ulifwnia' SEP -01-2004 16:47 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.03i05 Mr. Stephen Betts September 1, 2004 a - Page 2 fr Potential hydrologic, hydraulic, and'water ualit im acts• mitiptation requested:, „ ! The proposed project site is located just east of the northbound lanes of SR'99, and south o-f- Falager Court and Durham -Penta Road, The terrain in the vicinity of this site slopes generally to the southwest.w Surface water (storm water.) runoff form the site flows toward the State's highway right-of-way (ROW) and drainage facilities along a one-half miie'stretch of ' SR 99 including Bridge No. 12-75. The development of this site will increase impervious surface area through the construction of roads, driveways, parking areas, and buildings with a corresponding increase in surface water (storm water) runoff. This project will decrease surface water detention, retention and infiltration. ' • 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'slo 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. 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. "Caltrans improvrs mobility arross California,, w ' SEP -01-2004 16:48 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.05i05 { Mr. Stephen Betts " y , September 1, 2004 Page 4 Bajwa is the Project Manager for the interchange project who can be reached at (530) 741- 4432. Please send us a copy of the environmental document 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 , "CChmnr inVrruvr� rnrdANhy "rats ratj/arnia" k CC- PF&Vr /3&lrg FROM: FAX N0. : Mar. 03 2004 03:14AM 'PI "U6-1 f=L1704 10,1J MPI NUR I M.l 4% A i..Wl U a4 -.4•u s,,u. .0 � •..+_ � i Water Well Yield Test Butte County Envirau mentsal 90210 Division D&U of mat: L De don (strut ad es): �' 1 l`� � L�I�Y APNs�i1�`x b Name of Company Perhmain` Teat:_ Name of Ina vldaal P$rtonang Teat: C G1 ri Total depth of Well:, „L;�b -,k, Beginseing Static Water Level: Pa=p hep& Pnmp Capaeity: NO gid� Static ftmPw loevadon: �v Tim® Start Pump Tat: -2q C7 �. Time End Pump Test: : r Did Water utnrs to AM* water keel? Yes IVR Lengtb of 71me to Rwever to Static Waaor Level: L: Was tut ? Y .�.,� No RECEIVED AUG 2 6 2004 CUUNIy U1 i�J'tl'k LAND DEVE-1-09A17W 09' FROM : FAX NO. -aUG- It -lbeJV AvJ.c.., „Ia a..,.��..W....-.__.. Mar. 03 2004 03:16AM P1 4" SUlUERSIBLE PUMPS - S, 8, 12t 16, A 22 AND 25 GPM . RnepkW copecities in phm per 6mft at indkAftd discMle pnlssuret In p *r,& per sgwx indi. 1-1/4, NP7' 018cNA cs model [lumbar 20.3% _� 1 KP t ocoth to to btw 1n Feat I W04of Nmd 100 12S 1 225 250 2!S Io !90 4M 0 550 600 060 20 - - 24.8 23.8 22.8 71. 1 t6. 12.0 FW 605 PSI. ! Z52 30 - - - 21.9 24.0 23.0 21.9 20.8 18. 14.8 60 - - - 2S. 24.0 23.0 22. 20.9 1 .8 .8 12.5 ��t���■�rwwwwwww�■�rww■� _.. . �� r�w�■rwwr�■wo�ww�■ - 24.0 22.5 20.9 t .1 14 3 10.8 ��ww■wwwrrnr�■w �■rrr■■iwrrrrrrr�wrNw mrrw�r�rrrwrrrrrr ■rte - - - - - 2a.8 .3 21 1 . 15.6 12.8 .7 21.0 19.2 17.2 14.5 11.0 o,se�s®m��r�w�rrrrrrrw� - . 1 V.S 14.8 11.4 25.0 23 , ��tt�a�wwrw�■wiiii�iwr�w ma����■rrrrwrrrww�w ,., oaaaemt����rr�rrww .. �e�e�w��a���rrr■�rrr■�rr taea��®�rr�rrw�rrr �a� ®mnrtr rrrrr■��■ r-����m�wrww�ii■ rrrrrrr crar�,o-�®rrwwrr�■w�iii�■rrr ., Qaaawes®�����■w�ww :. oae�saa�mm��®re�wnw �waaer�®�cnn��r�rrrr maae¢�m®���ww �wr��wr r�■��m�cmmmarw�rr iwrw�r �drasaa�e¢���mr�r■w �n�rs�A�rism�a��m�� ww ��eic �i��m� �■rr�ww rrnsare�mm�c��rwrrr� model [lumbar 20.3% _� 1 KP t ocoth to to btw 1n Feat I W04of Nmd 100 12S 1 225 250 2!S Io !90 4M 0 550 600 060 20 - - 24.8 23.8 22.8 71. 1 t6. 12.0 FW 605 PSI. ! Z52 30 - - - 21.9 24.0 23.0 21.9 20.8 18. 14.8 60 - - - 2S. 24.0 23.0 22. 20.9 1 .8 .8 12.5 21.1 0 21A 19A 18.5 150 10.0 60 - 4. .2 222 Z1. 18.7 1100 12.8 20.600 ���91 q6o - 24.0 22.5 20.9 t .1 14 3 10.8 873 378 - - - - - 2a.8 .3 21 1 . 15.6 12.8 .7 21.0 19.2 17.2 14.5 11.0 - - - .4.8203 8.316.0 15.0 - . 1 V.S 14.8 11.4 25.0 23 aa��r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO 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 Septembei 1, 2004 ATION 04BUT0027 03 -BUT -99, P.M. 23.6 Warehouse and Office Use Permit, UP 05-04 Application Mr. Stephen Betts, Senior Planner Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Flex your power! Be energy efficient! BUTTE COUNTY SEP 0 12PO4 IPE VELOPM[ENT SERVICES Dear Mr. -Betts: Thank you for the o ortunit to review and provide comments on the application for a use Y PP , , Y P permit. to. construct a -warehouse and office distribution center on a portion of a 210.9 acre site located on. the south side_ of Durham-Pentz'Road at Falager Court, east of State Route (SR) 99, in the community of Durham: Our comments on the application (project) 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 distribution center will significantly change the scene. from rural agricultural — open grassland to industrial. To help mitigate any visual impacts to highway motorists due to the project, we suggest that a condition of approval or mitigation measure in the environmental document be added to the project that requires, placement and maintenance of a vegetated, visual landscape buffer along the west and south.edge'.of :thp property to adequately screen the facili'ty'from the'SR 99 view _,;shed. A`tall tree,screening will help to reduce the mass of the proposed structure's and help preserve the ihtegrJty.of the highway corridor. • 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. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" • Mr. Stephen Betts September 1, 2004 Page 2 E Potential hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quality impacts; mitigation requested: The proposed project site is located just east of the northbound lanes of SR 99, and south of Falager Court and Durham -Peutz Road. The terrain in the vicinity of this site slopes generally to the southwest. Surface water (storm water) runoff form the site flows toward the State's highway right-of-way (ROW) and drainage facilities along a one-half mile stretch of SR 99 including Bridge No. 12-75. The development of this site will increase impervious surface area through the construction of roads, driveways, parking areas, and buildings with a corresponding increase in surface water (storm water) runoff. This project will decrease surface water detention, retention and infiltration. • 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. 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. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" r Mr. Stephen Betts September 1, 2004 Page 3 Potential transportation/traffic impacts; mitigation requested: The construction and operation of what scales out to be a 60,000 +/- square foot warehouse and 20,000 +/- square foot office building 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. The Level of Service along Durham-Pentz Road will continue to decrease as new development is constructed until this roadway is widened. The proposed development will impact the timing for the need for the widening of the off -ramps to provide separate left and right turn lanes and the interchange widening at Durham-Pentz Road Interchange. Therefore, we recommend that a focused 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/developsery/operationalsystems/reports/tis uide.pdf The TIS should provide peak hour volume data from the projected vehicle trips generated by the project, and the trip generation rates and direction of travel of the users of the facility. In addition, the TIS should provide an Annual Average Daily Traffic that is representative of average daily traffic when schools are in session to help the County in evaluating the need for left turn channelization on Durham -Peutz Road. The TIS should also identify the proportion of trucks coming from SR 191, SR 70, and SR 99. Along with this, the TIS should identify anticipated left turn volumes into the facility including employees who will be employed at the site. The analyses performed in the TIS must also take into account the peak hours produced by the college east of the project on Durham-Pentz Road. , • Once this information is known, a determination should be made as to what improvements, if any, should be required as appropriate project specific traffic impact mitigation or if the impact would be limited to the assessment of traffic impact fees for cumulative impact Durham-Pentz Road from SR 99 to SR 191 is designated in the Butte County Bikeway Master Plan as a nigh 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 County ensure that any development that fronts on Durham -Peutz Road dedicate frontage to construct a standard Class II bike lane. This frontage dedication should take into account if further expansion is needed for left turn or right turn lanes. The width needed for left turn lanes should not be taken from the shoulder but should be planned for by ROW dedication. • Signing should fit in with the surroundings, be aesthetically pleasing and not hinder sight distance along ramps or public road accesses to the property. • The SR 149/99 Interchange project will impact some of the frontage along SR 99 near the Durham-Pentz Interchange. We suggest that the applicant should check with the Project Manager of the interchange project to ensure that his design proposals will not be in conflict with the State's plans on the interchange project and their frontage road designs. Winder "Caltrans improves mobility across California" o� Mr. Stephen Betts September 1, 2004 Page 4 Bajwa is the Project Manager for the interchange project who can be reached at (530) 741- 4432. Please send us a copy of the environmental document 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" California• Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Terry Tamminen Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretaryfor Redding Office Governor Environmental 415 Knollcrest Drive, Suite 100, Redding, California 96002 Protection t Phone (530) 224-4845 • FAX (530) 2244857 http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5 20 August 2004 BUTTE COUNTY AUG 2 3 2004 Stephen Betts Butte County Planning Division DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 COMMENTS ON WILLIAM ISAAC UP 05-04 FOR WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE,- APN 0404-490-018;. SOUTH OF CHICO, BUTTE COUNTY We have reviewed an application for a use permit (UP 05-04) for a general commercial/distribution warehouse and office near the intersection of SR 99 and Durham Pentz Road. In December 2003, the proponent of the project submitted a wastewater disposal plan to our office for a subdivision on the same property. We reviewed the plan and found it to be incomplete. No additional information has been provided with regard to wastewater disposal. During site visits to this property, our staff observed numerous wetlands, a seasonal stream, and a pond. We have the following comments on the proposed use permit. Wetlands -and/or stream course alteration -The project proponent may require a.Clean.Water Act Section 404 permit (§404 permit) frolh 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. Projects requiring a §404 permit also require a water quality certification (pursuant to Section 401 of the 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 i'so'lated 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. California Environmental Protection Agency 0a Recycled Paper T' I Stephen.Betts • - 2 - 20 August 2004 Industrial storm water - The USEPA on 16 November 1990 promulgated storm water regulations (40 CFR Parts 122, 123 & 124) which require specific categories of industrial facilities discharging storm water to obtain NPDES permits and to implement Best Available Technology Economically. Achievable (BAT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) to reduce or eliminate industrial storm water pollution. Should activity at this site fall under the industrial storm water regulations, coverage under an industrial storm water permit (e.g., the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities.) will be required. Failure to obtain an industrial storm water permit, when required, may result in enforcement action. A permit application package . may be obtained by contacting the Redding office of the Regional Board (see letterhead for contact information). 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 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 covered 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 Stales) 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 - A viable wastewater disposal alternative does not exist and has not been proposed. Waste discharge requirements will be necessary before wastewater is discharged at the site. Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Permit: - The owner should contact the Department of Fish and Game for a determination on whether a Streambed Alteration Permit is required for the proposed proj ect. 41 Stephen Betts -3- 20 August 2004 If you have any questions, please contact meat (530) 224-3249 or the letterhead address. - Ray Bruun, P.E. Associate Engineer Shasta -Cascade Watershed J r RB: sae 1 . _ r v dauo•da ` t • � � Xn � ��4TOpTn•LrA�En D•I •[vEt+ +''v r''rE .,� '};� ..�. � „"� .y�:;• - �`t8a`wr����^�a. Y • ",y 'l�...�� '' jFy�. „ �'—a.. .fir �i. �}:�?,} Y ti �`•y.+� 3 • � .' � ,3- 1.1 �.� \�` vY.. �af"j, ,�1 MrF .aaN D.oalD so ' / F{ 7 •. �.i "! ;•a�•&j, t7U1211A71 PtJV7t F2C4 0 !' . " TpT•i.•°[,a 1310 Y i_— .iNia.o•4.lYN ! �- .; cEN;F•L F{.J1 cEpVEDr S_ r ' 77 � � 'y MM14EApf pWELLINC VNrt Oi! �.-; - _ • � ,,,�......,,.{{{, rf' ��as D[tn��.soN r•nLaav { • . M1;R GCNF.tON EvR puFDt' Y • E = � j � � TArrL ADf+ VD )! D6Ffi ' .a ! �• rw r— A �� � •R •, z'a \ .:►�� 1 'Yae.e...Q.o 1V11>NF•v AIN . ICtAa I•A{00' • -•_P""'•^' l `• i �� � � \ 6CNCVL%.1N 0EOVFDi { 4 ��!• ,1 • t '• i• w ` ', � LL l \ p Lpv/DFNtt lv I ^•`+{ ,. • +r mei: t \-I aDIOIE AOI DWfIUNLVMD 3.1( • .. - pBVELOPCA. GapLApNp •93pLueED - ! i .\ ` '•�` . c'wt>2 C. naa�epvawpe rEwaace • „ � C . '� T+I' y./•'s} (l .{. t l'� - ; ! . DM CO OW POGNrpNppNe• :;..\ II r. {' - . .e elN ._wm +4 7 Y" V N \ DE ,3a1�P4°N N1" FYDgL eP.—ftM d FA..l RDN FAYM • •' °.l.la3dt �a 60"r N,,w ^ • ` �• •/I p�•. GENFD.L0.•u vlCUFii. - • C• • r - wue.Im a wPot •. � tr{ '•!� CpKV.Ev°:rt f 4 f , *. oil - ;o '. th1 CJI 4 ^`r '; .w.. •. ,6_:\ d .. s - • p i P S `)�'�'�E!� .�. rJ- . • ^ •l. Ci H.er`I .. .- e b-'Vk` Jam, ��i! � c .. yf i• r �1 . FOpNT.6F vApp Tp DNUFEE V' � ' ` ! - ' • T • • . + , , , " -r�l.x ��41`\ • / p•fO1 v:IIIIM:l1fl.\4111 aV fIl AFOIIafC11.ING CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN S.rbN6.:W? N SHAUNA DOWNS PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO " ' � . W LLIAM NEZ ALI•IALCI I AeC NIEFC f9 INC. .• am �LL%u � LlR�priDo `p �Y 2006194M BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA w�'mR. dwa r m, STATE OF CALIFORNUInTHE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF .FISH AND GAME SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CENTRAL SIERRA.REGION r 1701 NIMBUS ROAD, SUITE A. RANCHO CORDOVA, CALIFORNIA 95670 -BUTTE (916) 358-2900 COUNTY July, 13, 2004 JUL 16 2PO4 Tom Isaac DEVELOPMENT SERVICES c/o Albert Beck, Ph.D. Eco -Analysts 3028 Esplanade, Ste. A Chico, CA. 95973 Subject: Request for Additional Information, 2004-0091-R2 Dear Mr. Isaac and Dr. Beck: Based on the project description and site visit for the above -referenced stream/lakebed alteration notification, the Department has determined your project may have a significant effect on the environment. In order to issue an agreement, the Department requires information on'how impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources that exist on the subject property will be protected, avoided and/or mitigated. Specifically, the Department, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires preparation of an Initial Study, and most likely, a mitigated negative, declaration. If a local . government agency has already completed a CEQA document, please submit a copy and results of the US Army Corps of Engineers mitigation requirement to the Department address above. If you have any questions, please contact me at 916-358-4353.: c fly, Ke Wi er End onmental Scientist Lake and Streambed Alteration Program C: Wdn. Josh Brennan Tom Isaac Lt. Sam Castillo, Isaac Family Trust Jenny Marr, Biologist 39 Box Trace Court Henderson, NV 89914 I VVI MG dyv Qa ���oy,Wesi " �— 9 r i a r '' � ! �r�` e� �;�Ef. � �?` % . �'>r :^l�d,r!•��"r ' �r" i`.� �,4f..���i•+'3' 1%R �� • �''��.a;;}�'�� �`;.r�Ef,x` F�s`a`t�`�tk}"� t�'FE'•��l�i��`��•�', %``j�� i�s„j�t�✓i"�!—^3'M � iJ �S4 � =i,�����-.\'�•JC,., '�S1 ��t'�t�`� �� j '� �,'i�i',} _ k�rr: iV�•�t .J 41fj� 4� tt++!'1','Sfbi�j�i i•�'7�.r���i ��,�Y,'1`�� f���� w,�{� r�� �'?r"��'-� ;�.�'} � .�� i �' �}� tit � r„ i,€ ,r'ita `��.�;t } =1. �e�xj ��! i h ,Jr "��t } 4 �� �`�.`� i c %�., f-�E t ��f"4� �+•+ :"'� I r';A�' f { r'�j. � '_ V ' � � � �t %.:� �'•: .� •`7 �:-i's.. s ` , ! r . E �t ,1 v w e : ; .�'� ,�;� � � - : � s , e k ,2. Butte County Department of Development Services o�OTrFo TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 0 0 0 0 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 0-' ``=�G o (530) 538-7601 Telephone c�UHI'�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: Use Permit, UP 05-04, 040-130-038 - 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, . Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Service Assistant Cc: Russ Erickson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc.888 Manzanita Court, Suite A, Chico, CA 95926 • ' / � pis" 7 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services u T rF YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR o 0 7 County Center Drive o o Oroville, CA 95965 o (530) 538-7601 Telephone a cOUN'�y (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING-* GIS * PLANNING August 4, 2004 ' William Isaac 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Re: Use Permit, UP 05-04, APN 040-130-038 r :( Dear Mr. Isaac: , In an effort to keep our customers informed, we are notifying all applicants about the current status of their application and assigned Planner. Your project has been assigned to Stephen Betts and he can be reached at 538-7153, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Your project is being reviewed for completeness. Should you have any questions regarding your application, please call the planner listed above. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson ' Planning/Administrative , Support Service Assistant cc: Russ Erickson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. Butte County Department, ofDevelopment Services PLANNING DIVISION %30 7 County Center Drive a o - :/� o Oroville, CA 95965 `« °r ° _ (530) 538-7601 Telephone , (530) 538-7785 Facsimile CSU Nay Date TO: .� FROM: Stephen Betts, Butte County Planning Division • - = SUBJECT: W Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application; APPLICANT: William Isaac, Use Permit - UP 05-04 ' APN: 040-130-038 `.' DATE OF IDR*: 8/18/2004 ' *Inter -Departmental Review Committee IDR RESPONSE REGARDING' COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION DUE BY: August 16, 2004 `, + AGENCY/DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES DUE BY: September 2, 2004 x The Planning Division has received a project application as described below: This application is • being provided to you for review. , This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, to be determined at the Inter -Departmental Review (IDR) Committee meeting on 8/18/2004, and/or to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures -relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit for a General Commercial/Distribution warehouse and office , PROJECT L'OCATION:, on the 'south side of Durham -Peutz Road at Falager Court,v. - approximately 0.6 miles east'of SR -99, south of Chico :- COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO.: 4 - ZONING: 'ZONING: U (Unclassified) . GENERAL' PLAN: GOL (Grazing & Open Land)' , 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 email 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 12:00:00 AM, before the' Planning Commission. = aIDR'COMMITTEE`.�'' APPLICATION�COIVIPLETE ; ��',�` �`>� `• °,.,� :' k ...i.M �,�� ;,'.x ❑ No (Please send'response to Stephen Betts by. August 16, 2004) ❑ Yes (Conditions/mitigation measures due by September 2, 2004) ' K:\Planning\Projects\CommentRequestForm. dot 4`. } � • • PJB t � "DRAFT" LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: CAP 05 _0 AP# G q O- l 3 0 -0 36-- APPLICANT: � S aaC OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: 4- 00VIA q(C-k- .. tA(1- �vSS � `cckSa� PROPOSED REQUEST: (to be filled out by person taking in application) n ly" f f '-OtAJ fbr a 0 2c7Ut�'�L� . COv�tN� �[ LoI — !✓�S�-v'��v{�Ct-� FINAL REQUEST: (to be filled out by project planner) SIZE: °Z D • �4 . G c LOCATION: ©- b\3 r Q rN " "rL t� S ct SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # EXISTING ZONING: C,{ GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: (VDl. ASSIGNED PLANNER: c -+� PLAN rER's rNUTALS Date Application Received 0 (� Date Proiect Assigned IDR Date 8f /81 bS6 30 Day Complete S f 2 if O Preset Hearing Date /a/o KAPlanningTormsTead In Sheet.doc .n♦ COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST County Offices and Cities: Chief Administrative Officer X Environmental Health Sheriff X LAFCo Biggs _ Oroville Information Systems Dept. X County Counsel Irrigation District: _ Butte Water _ OWID Table Mountain Irrigation Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _ OWID Sewer X Develop. Services Director X Assesor BCAG Air Quality Mgmt. _ Gridley _ Paradise _ Animal Control Biggs/W. Gridley Water _ Paradise Irrigation Thermalito Irrigation _California Water Service Co. Thermalito Irrigation District _ Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation 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 Paradise Recreation & Park Richvale Recreation & Parks Utilities ZPG&E North - Chico _ Chambers Cable TV PG&E South - Oroville Viacom Cable TV State Agencies jLCalTrans (Traffic) :Dept. of Water Resources _ Forestry (Attn: Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. A4 Central Reg. Water Quality Cont. _ Caltrans, Aeronautics Program _ Department of Conservation — Off. of Mining Reclamation — Dept.Social Services, Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies US Forest Service US Bureau of Land Management _ Army Corps of Engineers _ _ National Marine Fisheries Sservice Other Districts, Agencies, Committees, etc. Lime Saddle Dist Community Association _ Drainage_ _ Butte Env.l Council _ 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 X Public Works Director X Building Manager _ ALUC _ Butte Co. Farm Bureau _ Chico Chico Airport Commission X Agricultural Commission _ Durham Irrigation _ Richvaie Irrigation Other _ Del Oro Water Co. Other Sterling City Sewer Main _ Feather River Rec. & Park Pacific Bell ✓Dept. of Fish and Game _ Highway Patrol Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations 4Z'US Fish & Wildlife Service School Districts K:\Planning\Forms\DISTR.wpd }r s A TRANSM ITTAL From: .Y Robertson & Dominick, "Inc. r Civil Engineers and Surveyors $ inc. 888 Manzanita Court, Suite A Chico, CA 95926 530-894-3500 894-8955 fax robertson-dominick.com Chico o Red Bluff o Redding 07/30/04 To: JOE BAKER From: ROSS ERICKSON (ak) A s..-w_wff_ 0%0%..uw M0 w uu.uw .%n-r.w r%qFww0_1L3qr OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES Re: ISAAC CONSTRUCTION —SHANNA DOWNS USE PERMIT CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ Please Reply ❑ Per Your Request • Comments: JOE: INCLUDED PLEASE FIND THE COMPLETED "USE PERMIT" APPLICATION AND CHECK FOR ISAAC CONSTRUCTION'S SHANNA DOWNS PROJECT. SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS PLEASE CALL ME. RUSS ENCL: ISAAC / SHANNA DOWNS 02-638 BUTTE COUNTY JUL 3 0 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES � �. • { -•. . _ • max- , F j 'k Dr . . '{ m� BERT GARLAND REAL ESTATE �.jC CONSULTING Co\Q 1802 North Carson Street Cell: (530) 200-0900 , ► ' / suite 212. Fax: (775) 884-1938 Carson City, NV 89701 Email: Garlandcanv@msn.com • - -..i -mow+.• �...�+...w.r tiw�.. ��f r.r'+�•�. '+ter +� ., ` � /%�//"///J//'/j EE '��//�/���j////j - /��i�• • 5 _ 6 v �C r _ •y y k � •- .4 } 'fir e� �. - .' f•' • �`y.�:, • �, M I • t ! 4 2 i 91-190- V8 ,' GUk N NEVEM /-/�00-�a 4/- 140 b �uLoi N 61A a/w1 c L hpk 462,0 0 j. GUCNY SEVEN LUG'Ky 91-19U 91-i4o-�� IV gA/CH SEVEN i poi` r 9izr for �o!'� S41 RANG N G+n1 µEi' 4 jgo'33} &o are 00 GdM RANCHES Q/M } �RA1G GtAa RANGHSS Rpb Q/ /4o-6S i Z /60A 2/M O.R 6 el•/so's► II %®9A 10 -p-1so- 4z 6 GtM RRNeNBS*M m1iA QRNCNB6,`1.P PArrERSo/VD R• 9 '2.46k 779Nr• NES �ro•9 4/-/ ao-n er is - 8 3.31A G *M (LASG �4os �sp coHes z].. -7 A^ ei• iso -z7 59 2:68/ 41_10-1f' 6C 2.J9/ 1/�7 1 Poq�• I /l I;. q>- / . pir9^. y % Cv9�P'®GCC 4/-/to-Jc +r/so- s q,. /se-rf c'nr. 4on^• C�wr. I cwnrsry i aNa/fiN ♦M C t / • %90- 37i1. ROcNi7 71- t Ant�ESSLE ZOMNM. 02.37A: FS-y 4 41*wcI C A 4vG1414 -/GooLM'Ro�A 7/f9C�9 a/ deo-7z �,1/ �. ,� iio r_-1111CAAMPIPE OuSDA6 d DYaoruc, 4FAA 6M £ Tit 9M �. 7A,- y/-/bC-..o %C ' r/ fP4 6�n p �ERr/ �RON/N��iGNAfG dH 51 INC. , �sr/� M oe„ z 10 H :FQ o 3M 100 /�600 1 s/H�• 4nt �e o "'t e corv8r.® o/Jf (, BROWN ,S,.,,,•C.6 y i oM 1y .`e N Vo .90- SAN • y , 22 21 41-14-z8 2.- 20 X 9c ` OoVF { cpd R��FHOQtROQIt ' q/4aeH�ZRREN Oo rs IM c 4n^. ti / A, wARsH a t PA,q r"y el- /Of ] . P /2S - iIDA 'Ye•4 �o/sT�gT/ �'k �.e RACRaBtea. "Af 4/-sao-/3 9/ zff/pcZ• 2tap�. �\ll aROW/V n Z 41-a/4;5) M C IQ O-CCw3 41-210-14 PAs 4/•i06.64 /Zpo�f gFJa-,/,. 2/�v. tien b Kn PAC 1Aw/- R64l5 xp/slr. \l 3204 10 3 / 9p fr �® v nrA PHAN 2M 'BIAP0W/V 1 .4L/®e'eri ,oL/Bf'1l P6d�a covsr�. Irk, ., cONNLA.- M;r/ 27 /NC. •4/-270-/e 28 4i_2u-44 2 I ' 29 259/�r 91 sio-sc 15tNr• i r,ca,rod- sera Bi'OWAI F "» ' F ^a 4/-220-02 1___/ Ij_-j .45 5 0.01 ani /ao.vc A14RHAM At q"spA� 4 I 1 o o ri S .a.l�'j�l�Rc __ ._. , . F _,. BROW y. . _ y(n I . v E,LQSOV-3 4kSHOWN fo7rpdw c WILDINGnaffs p - Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) J i Butte County California Department of Fish and Game October 2004 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROPOSED LEAD AGENCY:' Butte County Oroville, CA PROJECT: The proposed project entails light -industrial development of currently vacant property: LOCATION: The study corridor is located in Butte County, California. The project site is located east of Highway 99 and south of Falager Court and Durham-Pentz Road, south of Chico (see Figure 1 of the Initial Study). PROJECT NAME: Shanna Ranch Summary of Findings As documented in the Initial Study, project construction and operation could result in a less than significant impact to subsurface cultural resources (if present), soil erosion, air quality, light, construction -related noise, and noise exposure of new residents. to freeway noise in excess of county standards. Design features incorporated into the project will avoid or reduce certain potential environmental impacts. Remaining impacts can be reduced to levels that are less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures presented in the Initial Study. Because the Butte County will adopt mitigation measures as conditions of project approval and will be responsible for ensuring their implementation, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A mitigation monitoring program will also be adopted and implemented by Butte County. Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) SHANNA. RANCH INITIAL STUDY I. Project Description A. Location The Shanna Ranch project area is located south of the City of Chico, on the eastern side of Highway 99 and. south of Falager Court and.Durham-Pentz Road, Butte County, California (Figure 1). The site is situated within Section 36 and adjacent unsectioned land in Township 21 North, Range 2 East, MDM, ad depicted on the USGS 7.5' Hamlin Canyon topographic quadrangle map. The site will be developed on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 040-130-038. . B. Project Background and Proposed Improvements This Initial Study (IS) assesses the potential impacts of the light -industrial development of approximately 217 acres of property. (add more) A 300 -foot wide electric utility. easement passes though the site. 'The principal onsite plant community is Valley Grassland, with some riparian habitat along the southern margin. A large vernal pool, locally known as the Pentz Pool, is located toward. the west -central portion of the site, and numerous smaller vernal pools and swales are located primarily along the periphery of the site (described further below). Extensive cattle grazing and perimeter discing has caused some disturbance to many of the smaller vernal pools. State Highway 99 improvements have also altered drainages and . the vernal pools along the western boundary of the site. The proposed development will be connected to the stormwater and sewer systems. will provide night lighting for the project. Pacific Gas & Electric will supply power, SBC will provide telecommunications, the, will supply domestic water, and will be the source for cable television. KA Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) C. Permits and Approvals Prior to project implementation, discretionary permits and approvals .may be required from regulatory agencies, as listed below: • Certification by Butte County that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has been reviewed and considered by the decision -makers. • Issuance of a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. 3 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Figure' 1. Location Map (insert) Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study, (Not for Distribution) Figure 2.� Project Site Plans (insert) Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) II. Environmental Setting The project area is situated at an elevation of approximately 180 feet above mean sea level. The site has gently rolling topography, increasing in elevation towards the north and east. Overall drainage is good. Onsite water resources. include two intermittent tributaries of Dry Creek, which carry water from the higher elevations to the east through the site to, and under, Durham-Pentz Road. A large artificially constructed drainage channel exists parallel to the tributary of Little Dry Creek. The origin and uses of this feature are unknown - it does not connect to the tributary at its eastern end. The climate of the project vicinity is of the Mediterranean type, with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. The average length of the growing season measured .at the Oroville weather station is between 250 and 260 days (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2003). Annual precipitation averages between 26 and 28 inches (California Department of Food and Agriculture, 1978). III. Evaluation of Potential Environmental Effects The following Initial Study includes the environmental checklists based on criteria s suggested by the State of California Office of Planning and Research and presented in the current California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The basis for the conclusions in the checklist is presented in Section IV, along with references to supporting data. Measures to mitigate the potentially significant adverse impacts of the project are discussed in Section IV and summarized in Section V. 6 11 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) A. Aesthetics Table 1. Environmental Effects Checklist for Aesthetics Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect X on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing �( visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source: Project Description This project has no impacts on any scenic vistas or resources, nor will the project degrade the visual character of the site. There is no local review to prevent highway and neighborhood glare. B. Agricultural Resources There are no lands designated as Farmland (Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) within the site or surrounding area (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection 2000). Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) r Table 2. Environmental Effects Checklist for Agricultural Resources Less Than ' E Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ X agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) , Involve other changes . in the �( existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? Source: Project Description C. Air Quality The project area is located in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin. According to the Butte County General Plan ( ), Butte County is of all Federal , and state ambient air quality standards, with the. exception of Project implementation would result in a temporary increase in air emissions, primarily due to the use of paints and other volatile compounds, possible burning of vegetative debris, earthwork, and haul -road traffic. 8 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Table 3. Environmental Effects Checklist for Air Quality ,r Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated AIR QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct x implementation of the applicable air, quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively X considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors 'to X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors �( affecting . a substantial number of people? Source: Project Description ' All work undertaken will be in accordance with the following mitigation measure during the construction phase of the project. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURE # 2: • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based upon the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. 9 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) ' . 4 Land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour, as determined by an anemometer. on ' site or at the direction of BCAPCD. • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations, and hydroseed the area. • Plant vegetative cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible, if not covered by paving or houses. s • Cover inactive storage piles. • Paved roadway should be swept or washed at the end of each day as necessary to remove excessive accumulations . of silt and /or mud, which may have accumulated as the result of construction activities. • Use of alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site, such as chipping, or mulching, unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the BCAPCD. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of a responsible person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to mitigate impacts. of diesel equipment during construction. In the long term, air emissions attributable to project development are not anticipated to increase significantly. REQUIRED MITIGATION MEASURE #3: • The primary contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. • Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators when feasible. • Minimize diesel or gasoline engine. idling time to 10 minutes. 10 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) D. Biological Resources Table 4. Environmental Effects Checklist for Biological Resources Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, El 0 either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ �( on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have. a substantial adverse effect ❑ ❑ ❑ �( on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ X movement of any native resident or. migratory fish .or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife, nursery sites? • f 11 . Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) e) Conflict with any local policies, or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Source: Field Survey A reconnaissance level field survey was performed in June 2002 and included a botanical and wildlife survey and a survey for waters subject to US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Prior to undertaking the field survey, a records search was conducted to determine if any special -status plant or animal species had been previously reported on-site or in the general site vicinity. The records search included review of the USFWS species list for the USGS 7.5' quadrangle, review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base records (CNDDB ), and review of in- house records. For the purpose of this study, special -status plant and animal species are defined as: • Those listed in the California Fish and Game Code as Rare, Threatened or Endangered. • Those listed as Threatened or Endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. • Candidates for state or federal listing. • Unlisted species that may be significantly affected and warrant consideration. . Vegetation The native Valley Grassland, flora is still quite diverse and well represented within the project area. Numerous introduced. species of the grasses and forbs are dominant over much of the site. Plant species observed on site included several, species of 12 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys. spp.), several species of navarretia (Navarretia spp.), peppergrass (Lepidium nitidum), valley goldfields (Lasthenia chrysostoma), lupines (Lupinus spp.), valley. tassels (Orthocarpus attentuatus), blue dicks (Dichelostemma pulchellum), and several species of brodiaea (Triteleia spp.) Appendix A contains the Botanical Survey Report prepared in conjunction with the current study. Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States t Eco -Analysts began field evaluations of the site on June 7, 2002, and made ` several additional site visits to ground truth the survey mapping and to reach areas not accessible in June 2002. Work was completed in accordance with technical methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (US Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). Specifically, a routine determination with onsite inspection was undertaken. Sample sites representing the potential wetlands within the study area were established. Multi -parameter observations (vegetation, soils, and hydrology) were then made at these sites. Four representative sample sites were fully recorded and are appended to this report (Appendix _); a number of other sites were examined to , determine the absence/presence of wetlands but were recorded only for survey purposes. The results of the field delineation effort are shown in Figure _ and summarized in Table 1. Table 2 identifies the type and acreage of each feature by its map ID number. Types of jurisdictional waters identified on the site consist of vernal pools, ephemeral streams, constructed' channels, and constructed ponds/reservoirs. These features are generally described below: 0 Vernal Pools: Seasonally flooded depressions found on ancient soils with an impermeable layer such as a hardpan, claypan, or volcanic basalt. Vernal pools are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring, and are typically dry for most of summer and fall. Vernal pools are typically isolated, but are sometimes connected by swales. Vernal pools support a characteristic vegetation type, often including coyote thistle (Eryngium spp.), popcorn flowers 13 i F3 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) (Plagiobothrys spp.), lasthenias (Lasthenia spp.), downingia (Downingia spp.) and other habitat restricted plants. Ephemeral Streams: Drainage channels with apparent bed and bank features that flow during and shortly after precipitation events. Water sources may include direct precipitation and runoff from upstream channel reaches. Groundwater is not a source of water for ephemeral streams. There are five on-site streams, of which four are unnamed tributaries to Little Dry Creek, and one is Little' Dry . Creek itself, along the southern border of the project site. Constructed Channels: Artificially constructed, unlined ditches that convey. irrigation drainage water and surface runoff. Constructed ditches that convey water diverted to waterbodies subject to Corps jurisdiction are considered to'be subject to Corps jurisdiction, even if they are constructed in upland situations. The onsite drainage ditch does convey water to State Highway 99 drains and is probably subject to Corps jurisdiction. Constructed Ponds/Reservoirs: Artificially constructed, open water areas. that convey irrigation drainage water and surface runoff. Constructed ditches that convey water diverted to waterbodies subject to Corps jurisdiction are considered to be subject to Corps jurisdiction, even if they are constructed in upland . situations. The onsite pond/reservoir was created by damming upstream waters of an unnamed tributary to Little Dry Creek. The principal source of water for Little Dry Creek and the unnamed tributaries is from upstream storm water runoff. An additional water source would include direct precipitation. On the subject site, the ephemeral streams total 250,568 square feet (5.75 acres), the constructed channel totals 11,981 square feet (0.28 acres), and the constructed reservoir has a total area of 85,597 square feet (1.97 acres). The on-site vernal pools receive water primarily from surface runoff and shallow subsurface r 14 r Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) (groundwater) flow; there are a total of 15 vernal pools totaling 151,861 square feet (3.49 acres). Vegetation in the vernal pools is dominated by white -head navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala)(OBL), annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthanioides)(FACW), Fremont's goldfields (Lasthenia fremonti)(OBL), and slender popcorn -flower (Plagiobothyrs stiputatus)(OBL). Soils at these stations are generally black (5YR 2.5/1) with no mottling. Evidence of wetland hydrology was observed in the form of drainage patterns and sediment deposits (algal mats). At contrasting upland sites, there was no evidence of wetland hydrology. Soils at the upland station were found to be dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/3) with no mottling. Vegetation at the upland data point is dominated by non-hydrophytic plants such as medusa -head (Taeniatherum caput-mudesae)(NL). Table 1. Summary of Jurisdictional Waters by Type Jurisdictional Type Square Feet Acres Wetlands 1 Vernal Pool Vernal Pools 151,861 3.49 SUBTOTAL 151,861 3.49 3 Vernal Pool 501 Other Waters of the United States 4 Ephemeral Creeks 250,568 5.75 Constructed Channel 11;981 0.28 Constructed Reservoir 85,597 1.97 SUBTOTAL 348,146 7.99 TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 500,007 11.48 Table 2. Jurisdictional Waters by Map ID MAP ID Jurisdictional Type Area (sq. ft) Area (ac) 1 Vernal Pool 91903 2.11 2 Vernal Pool 12543 0.29 3 Vernal Pool 501 0.01 4 Vernal Pool 3863 0.09 5 Vernal Pool .5416 0.12 6 1 Vernal Pool 7055 0.16 15 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) MAP ID Jurisdictional Type Area (sq. ft) Area (ac) 7 Vernal Pool 2,197 0.05 8 Vernal Pool 499 0.01 9 Vernal Pool 3,138 0.07 10 Vernal Pool 1,867 0.04 11 Vernal Pool 7,439 0.17 12 Vernal Pool 6,899 0.16 13 Vernal Pool 5,354 0.12 14 Vernal Pool 170 0.004 15 Vernal Pool 3,017 0.07 16 Ephemeral Creek 32,460 0.75 17 Ephemeral Creek 7,916 0.18 18 Ephemeral Creek 237929 0.55 19 Ephemeral Creek 186,263 4.28 19 Constructed Channel 11,981 0.28 20 Constructed Reservoir 85,597 1.97 TOTAL JURISDICTIONAL WATERS 500,007 11.484 There were no observed and/or documented examples of an interstate or foreign commerce connection noted on site, such as recreational or other use by interstate or foreign travelers, sale of fish or shellfish in interstate or foreign commerce, or use by agricultural or other industries operating in interstate or foreign commerce. Buffer areas were designated based on local drainage topography. Most buffers were 25 feet from the edge of the vernal pools. The intermittent streams and drainage courses were set with 25 -foot buffers from the top of bank. A 50 -foot buffer was recommended for Little Dry Creek. The Pentz Pool buffer was extended to the top of the drainage area feeding this pool to exclude all post -development runoff. The Applicant is trying to avoid any fill other than the artificially constructed ditch that parallels Little Dry Creek. A letter is being prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game to determine if a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602) is required for. filling this ditch. The possible "Waters of the United States" to be filled would be 11,931 square feet. The Applicant' may not be able to avoid all vernal pools along the project periphery, and will apply to the Corps for an amended Nationwide Permit, if this is necessary. Compensation for this fill would be the creation of storm water detention `ll Shanna Ranch DRAFT. Initial Study (Not for Distribution) basins along the western edge of the property. These would be interspersed with the existing vernal pools and create emergent wetland .and vernal habitats, rather than the bare clay creek bottom which characterizes the drainage ditch. i Wildlife The field investigation determined that wildlife habitat in the project study area was limited to a non-native annual grassland. Wildlife species observed in the study area included common suburban area species such as yellow -billed magpie (Pica nuttalli), scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and black -tailed hare (Lepus californicus). Special -Status Species USFWS has identified a number of .listed plant and wildlife species as occurring or potentially being affected by work in the Orland quadrangle. Biologists from Eco - Analysts reviewed the USFWS list with consideration to the habitats present in the study corridor. A number of special -status plants or federally listed plant species have been previously reported as occurring in the western side of the site. They include Greene's orcutt grass (Tuctoria greenei), scribe allocarya (Plagiobothrys scriptus), dainty bluegrass (Poa tenerrima), Hoover's spurge (Chamaescyce hooven), depauperate milk- vetch .(Astragalus pauperculus), and Shippee meadow foam (Limnanthes floccosa). Only the dainty bluegrass was observed during a botanical field survey in April 1988 (Appendix A). While these plants were not observed at this time, the vernal pools on project site could support them. Subsequent field observations during the July. and August 2002 surveys revealed .Green's orcutt grass in the Pentz Pool. Other rare and endangered species reported within a few miles . of the project site include California hibiscus (Hibiscus californicus), adobe lily (Fritillaria plurif/ora), opposite -leaved calycadenia (Calycadenia oppositifolia), shield-bracted monkey flower (Mimulus glaucescens), and paronychia (Paronychia franciscana). Only the shield-bracted monkey flower was observed on site (at the southern end along a runoff swale),.while the California hibiscus is unlikely to be present, based on site conditions. 17 ' Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) E. Cultural Resources ' Table 5. Environmental Effects Checklist for Cultural Resources Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project - a) Cause a substantial adverse X • change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in `15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ElX change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to `15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a . ❑. E ❑ �( unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ E ❑ X including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Source: Literature Review An archaeological literature review conducted forthe project vicinity revealed that Basin Research Associates, Professional Archaeological Services, and California Archaeological Associates conducted negative archaeological surveys of the majority of the project area. Both the. Basin Research Associates and California Archaeological Associates surveys consisted of linear studies, covering narrow corridors through the project area. Professional Archaeological Services, in 1988, surveyed 211 acres of the current project area, excluding only a narrow swath along Little Dry Creek. In conjunction with the literature review, a prefield records search was conducted with the Northeast California Information Center of .the California Historical Resources Information System located at California State University, Chico. The records search 18 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) had revealed that there were no known prehistoric or historical resources located in the vicinity of the project area (NEIC 2002). Sources consulted to obtain information concerning previously identified sites or historic properties located in or near to the study area included the Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (NE/CHRIS); National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), California Register of Historical Resources, California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, Historic Spots in California, the Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California, the Directory of Properties in the Historic Data File for Butte County, and the General Land Office (GLO) plat map for T21 N, R2E (1867), which indicates William Burkes' House, the Road from Chico to Oroville, and an unnamed road, located within the project area. In compliance with NEPA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the California Native American Heritage Commission (CaINAHC) was contacted to request a search of the sacred land files for the project area. Although the search failed to yield information on Native American cultural resources located within or adjacent to the project area, the CaINAHC provided a list of individuals and organizations in the Native American community that may be able to provide information about unrecorded sites in the project vicinity. Eco -Analysts staff contacted all persons or organizations by letter on September 3, 2004 to request information on unrecorded cultural resources that may exist within the current project area, or to inquire about any concerns regarding sacred sites or Traditional Cultural Properties in the vicinity that might be affected by the proposed action. To date, no comments or concerns regarding the Shanna Ranch Project were provided to Eco -Analysts. If any additional comments or concerns are received from the Native American individuals/organizations after the submission of this report, they will be forwarded on company letterhead to the Client and the Lead Agency for further consideration. On September 9, 2004, the southern portion of the project area located along the north bank of Little Dry Creek, .which has not been previously surveyed, was subjected to an intensive pedestrian reconnaissance using 10 meter transects from east to west. The southern border of the creek was not accessible due to water and swampy terrain. During the survey, the ground surface was examined for indications of. surface or 19 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) subsurface cultural resources. The. general morphological characteristics of the ground surface were inspected for indications .of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances were examined for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. No subsurface investigations or artifact collections were undertaken during the pedestrian survey. The project area contains the remnants of a historic wagon road, likely dating to the mid to late 1800s. The site is situated within an open, slightly rolling field north of Little Dry Creek, and was likely missed by the .Professional Archaeological Services 1988 survey do to lack of experience with this type of resource, poor visibility, or transect spacing. The site runs approximately 2,020 feet south to north, starting from Little Dry Creek and running north until it connects with an ephemeral drainage just south of Pentz Road. No indications of a- bridge were noted at Little Dry Creek. The southern portion of the feature consists of an approximate 5 ft. wide dirt roadbed with a berm on the eastern margin measuring from 5 to over 5.5 ft. tall. The western margin does not contain a berm, and is approximately 4 ft. above the roadbed. Approximately 400 ft. north of the southern boundary, the road widens to approximately 15 ft. across, with the berm approximately 3 ft. tall, the western margin less than 1 ft. high, with bedrock making up the roadbed. At this point, ruts cut through various portions of the roadbed where bedrock is exposed. The ruts range in width from 6 in. at the top, to over 12 in., where there appears to be multiple tracks. The feature's northern terminus is at a modern berm, where the road would have connected to an ephemeral drainage. In the drainage near the berm, additional ruts were identified, along with 4 in. thick concrete roadbed. Most of the roadbed has been pulled up and piled next to be berm. The drainage continues north, under Pentz Road, and meanders south to Little Dry Creek. The majority of the creek bed is made up of gravels and sand. Vegetation consists of annual grasses, with visibility poor in portions of the feature, and along the margin. Disturbances to the road include modern equipment activity, as evidenced by damage to a section of the berm. On September 15, 2004, maps dating to the mid to late 1800s were examined for the ,wagon road at the California State University, Chico Merriam Library ,Special , ,- Collections Department. Several roads were identified that ran through the project area 20 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) between the 1860s and 1901, which may be representations of the above alignment, although none appear to be in the exact location as the road discussed above. In some instances, the locations of historical roads are not precisely plotted. The Butte County Historic Society and Danny Chow of the Butte County Department of Public Works were L also contacted for any information on the Road from Chico to Oroville, although no new information was obtained. The remnants of the Shanna Ranch wagon road suggest construction and use prior to the 1900s, and are clearly visible in aerial photos dating to 1952, 1962, and ". 1998. No other segments of the road in the vicinity of the project area were identified from the aerial photos. Based of the wagon road's proximity to the wagon road from Chico to Oroville, which is considered the most important route between northern California communities in the 1850s and 1860s, it is possible that it is one of the few existing remnants of this route, or is a possible connection between the Road - from Chico to Oroville, and an unnamed road to the north (see Figure 3). The road segment appears to retain much of .its integrity of design, workmanship, or feeling and may be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or .regional history. Therefore, the site may be considered significant under Criterion C. In addition, the road may have the potential to yield information. important to the prehistory or history of the local area, as discussed in Criterion D. In addition to the wagon road, one isolated feature was identified during the current survey, and consists of a rock cairn located 30 ft. north of Little Dry Creek (Figure 6). The cairn measures approximately 2.5 to 3 ft. tall, 8 ft. long north/south, and is 5 ft. wide east/west. The feature is made of creek cobbles measuring 2 to 5 in: in diameter, with one large bounder on the eastern side of the feature. No fill or lichen was noted. Star thistle and other annual grasses are growing out of the cairn, and the surrounding soil is covered with dense grasses. Based on the isolated, rock cairn's likely modern construction, and the lack of diagnostic artifacts or lichen growth, the feature does not appear to exhibit integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, it is unlikely to provide significant contributions to California or United States history. Under Criterion A, the feature lacks association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the ' 21 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) United States. As stated in Criterion B, the feature is not associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. The cairn does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method -of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values as designated in Criterion C. Finally, under Criterion. D, ' the site does not yield, and is not likely to yield, prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Because the site is not significant under NHPA or CEQA criteria, and because it appears to lack research potential, archaeological clearance.is recommended for the feature. However, if cultural materials, human remains, or remains. that are potentially human are identified during construction, Mitigation' Measures 2 and 3, as discussed below, should be followed. Potential Impacts: The Shanna Ranch project may have a Potentially Significant Impact on cultural resources, and subsurface. materials that may not have been identified during the field survey. Required Mitigation Measure #1: a. Based on the potential significance of the wagon road, avoidance of this resource is recommended where possible. At minimum, a 25 -foot buffer zone shall be placed on either side of the road alignment during and following project construction. b. However, because the resource extends along nearly the. entire length of the project area, crossings may be necessary. -If crossings are determined to be necessary, the location of the crossing(s) shall be determined in consultation ; with a cultural resource specialist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's, - Professional Qualifications Standards for historical archaeologist. Efforts . should be taken to minimize disturbances to the resource, such as backfilling or placing the crossings at strategic locations, which would result in the least possible impacts to the resource and would reduce those potential impacts to a level that is Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated (as defined by CEQA). Soils used to protect the wagon road should cover any: • 22 , L Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) portion of the alignment that may be impacted, including the berm, and should ensure that the feature is not damaged by vehicular or construction activities during all weather conditions. A minimum of 12 inches of soil above the resource is considered adequate coverage under normal use and conditions. c. If, during the implementation of any other protection measures relating to crossings, any ground disturbing activities will take place within the -25 -foot buffer zone, they shall be monitored by a qualified cultural resource specialist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for historical archaeologist. The State Code ofRegulations, 'Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (Title 14; Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5f) requires that "as part of the objectives, criteria, and procedures required by Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code, a lead agency should make. provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. These provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other parts of the building site where historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation takes place." Therefore, the following Mitigation Measure is required. Required Mitigation Measure #2: If subsurface deposits believed to be cultural in origin are discovered during construction, then all work must halt within a 100 -foot radius of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist retained to evaluate the significance of the find. Although no indications of human remains were identified on the, surface, subsurface human remains may become evident during construction activities. Applicable 23 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) procedures should be followed upon the unanticipated discovery of human remains, in' accordance with provisions of the State Health and Safety Code, Sections 7052 and 7050.5 and the State Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 to 5097.99. Sections 7052 and 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code define the disturbance of Indian'-- cemeteries ndian'--cemeteries as a felony. The codel further requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains and the Sheriff and Coroner notified immediately. The Coroner must determine whether the remains are those of a Native American within 48 hours. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Subsequent procedures shall be followed, according to State Public Resources Code Sections 5097.9 to 5097.99, regarding the role of Native American participation. Required Mitigation Measure #3: If human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are discovered during project construction or implementation, all work must stop within a 100 -foot radius of the find. The construction supervisor must notify the county Sheriff and Coroner immediately, and take appropriate action to ensure that the discovery is protected from further disturbance or vandalism. The Lead Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with these mitigation measures because damage to significant cultural resources is in violation of CEQA. F. Geology and Soils Table 6. Environmental Effects Checklist for Geology and Soils Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Effect Significant with Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated GEOLOGY AND SOILS --- Would the project: 24 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) 4 { Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Expose people or structures to ❑ 0 X potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving - i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ fault, as delineated on the most X recent .Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the - 0 ❑ State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground 0 X shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or 0 ❑ soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform. Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 25 X X Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) t . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact - Incorporated e) Have soils incapable of adequately �( ' supporting the use of. septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Source: Field Survey, Project Description ' Onsite soils (Figure 2) are mapped as Tuscan Association (0 to 5 percent slopes) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, .Soil Conservation Service, 1967). Soils on the site are a mixture of heavy adobe clay with moderately sized cobbles, underlain in the southern portion of the site with a sandy clay loam layer. Soil depths range from a few feet to several feet, with the shallower areas nearest the highway and Falager Court. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service list. of hydric soil map units occurring in Butte County indicates that this soil association is hydric (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Butte County Office, n.d.). ; The only significant adverse affect potentially resulting from project implementation is a potential increase in erosion. Implementation of the erosion control procedures presented in Mitigation Measure 5 will sufficiently reduce the potential for soil erosion resulting from project construction. REQUIRED MITIGATION #5: Mitigation will be achieved by re -vegetating the disturbed soils with herbaceous cover and plants, applying a mulch with tackifier, if not covered by buildings or paving before the rainy season.. • Construction activities with the potential to cause soil erosion shall be limited to the dry season (April. 15 through October 15) unless special erosion control measures are implemented. 26 4 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) • All disturbed soils shall be seeded and mulched prior to the onset of the rainy season. Because of the high erosion potential of soils on the project site, the mix will be applied via hydroseeding, along with a mulch and tackifier. Hydroseeding shall be completed. by October 15 of any season in which earth -moving construction is conducted. • Hay bales, silt fences, gravel berms, sediment basins, or other controls shall be used to prevent sediments from entering the storm drain system. • The effectiveness of the erosion control measures shall be regularly monitored by City personnel and any problems promptly corrected. Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Table 7. Environmental Effects Checklist for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less Than . Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant . with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a)'Create a significant hazard to the El�( public or the environment through the routine -transport., use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the El �( public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into ;. the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ X included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an ❑ X airport land use plan or, where such a plan has. not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ' working in.the project area? 28 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ �( physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ' ❑ �( significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to . urbanized areas or where residences, are intermixed with wildlands? Source: Project Description, Field Survey, Literature Review The potential for the project site to have been impaired by the release of.* hazardous materials was investigated through review of federal, state, and local records as well as field inspection. No evidence of hazardous materials release was observed during the site inspection. No indications of hazardous substances in connection with identified uses; hazardous substance containers and unidentified substance containers; storage tanks, drains, .or sumps; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); solid waste disposal; asbestos -containing materials; and lead-based paints were located. Project operation will not involve routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials; create a significant risk of hazardous materials release; create significant safety hazards; interfere with implementation of emergency response plans; or significantly increase the threat of wildfires. However, fuels and/or hazardous materials may be used on the site during project construction. Compliance with .existing - requirements governing the transport, use, and disposal of fuels and other hazardous materials that may be used during construction reduces the potential for releases.. of such materials to an insignificant level; no mitigation measures are warranted. 29 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) H. Hydrology and Water Quality Table 8. Environmental Effects Checklist for Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effects " Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality ❑ ❑ X ❑ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or -area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner . that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Less Than Potentially Significant Effect Significant with Impact Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact C t t ;b t ff ater V or on rI u e runo w e) rea c ❑ ❑ X ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degradeXwater quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year F1 X flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood x hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a �( significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as. a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or X mudflow? Source: Project Description A minor tributary of Little Dry Creek has been dammed to provide stock watering. Areas along the southern boundary of the site, adjacent to Highway 99, are subject to periodic overbank flows of Little Dry Creek. Water in the summer months is just a few feet below the surface in these lower I.ying ' areas. Storm water runoff is generally moderate, but accumulates in depressions on the site. Discussion of required. erosion control measures is presented. in Section V: Mitigation Measures. Project design measures, in conjunction with the erosion control 31 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) measures, will preclude the potential for significant impacts on hydrology and water ; quality. I. Land Use and Planning Table 9. Environmental Effects Checklist for Land Use and Planning Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated LAND USE•AND PLANNING --.Would the project: a) Physically divide an established �( community? b) Conflict with any applicable land X use plan, policy, or .regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the ` project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ' Source: Project Description, General Plan The project area is designated as under the Butte County General Plan ( ). The proposed project is expected to be compatible with surrounding land uses and in conformance with applicable plans and policies for the area. No mitigation measures are required for land use and planning. Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) J. Mineral Resources Table 10. Environmental Effects Checklist for Mineral Resources Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ �( a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 'state? b) Result in the loss of availability of ❑ 0 �( a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 'general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Source: Project Description According to the Butten County General Plan ( ), no mapped mineral resource zones, active aggregate mining operations, or past producers are known from within the project area nor were any mineral operations observed during field surveys of the study corridor. Accordingly, project implementation will not significantly impact mineral resource availability. K. Noise Table 11. Environmental Effects Checklist for Noise Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Effect Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: 33 Shauna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with . Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or X generation of excessive ground - borne vibration or ground -borne . noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase X �. in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ �( airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been. adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people.residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source: Field Survey The dominant noise source near the site is traffic on Highway 99. Noise -sensitive receptors near the study corridor include . A noise assessment using specific noise models of the Housing and Urban Development model was conducted for this 34 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) facility based on current and projected traffic counts. The assessment and calculation sheets are provided in Appendix B. - Short -term noise impacts on these residents may occur, during project construction due to onsite activities and construction traffic. Onsite noise -generating activities will include use of construction equipment. These residents may experience significantly increased noise levels during project construction. Although .construction equipment typically generates on the order of 80 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet, . residential structures generally reduce noise, levels by 40 decibels. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 7,.which requires adequate mufflers on construction equipment and limits construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7 AM to 7 PM, will adequately mitigate the potential for short-term noise impacts on residents. In the long term, no significant noise -level increases are anticipated. Noise -generating activities from the project will be limitedto residential traffic. REQUIRED MITIGATION #6: Noise -level increases during project construction shall be minimized by confining construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM and by requiring all vehicles and equipment to be equipped with mufflers in good condition. L. Population and Housing Table 12. Environmental Effects Checklist for Population and Housing Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: 35 M. Public Services Table 13. Environmental Effects Checklist for Public Services . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or . physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X 36 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) r Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact .. . Incorporated a) Induce substantial population �( growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new. homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension .of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of �( existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?' Source: Project Description Project implementation will not induce substantial population growth. Therefore, no impacts to population and housing are anticipated. M. Public Services Table 13. Environmental Effects Checklist for Public Services . Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or . physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X 36 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) ' Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with 'Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ �( ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ �( ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ �( e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ �( ❑ 'Source: Project Description Project implementation would have no significant adverse effects on public services. No schools or park facilities would be affected by project implementation. No mitigation measures are warranted with respect to the above public services. - N. Recreation Table 14. Environmental Effects Checklist for Recreation Less Than. Potentially Significant . Less Than No Effect'. Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 37 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) `, w ' Source: Project Description No recreation facilities are .located in the project vicinity nor would any such facilities be affected by project implementation. No mitigation measures are warranted with respect to recreational opportunities. O. Transportation/Traffic Table 15. Environmental Effects Checklist for Transportation/Traffic Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC =- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which ❑ X is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards X due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 38 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) 'Result in inadequate emergency �( access? f) Result in inadequate parking �( capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, �( plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 'Source: Project Description, Field Survey The traffic study prepared for this project was conducted in The study determined that. The current Level of, Service for the project area is designated The study concluded that the cumulative increases in traffic volume from the proposed development will cause and that the level of service category will remain Minor increases in traffic volumes and short interruptions of traffic flows could be experienced during construction, but are not considered significant. P. Utilities and Service Systems Table 16. Environmental Effects Checklist for Utilities and Service Systems Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:. a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 39 . Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) TI' Less Than ' Potentially Significant Less Than No. - -` • Effect' a' Significant with Significant /R Impact Impact - Mitigation Impact , ' Incorporatedn � •b) Require or result in the ❑ ❑ ❑ �( construction of new water or- wastewater `' treatment facilities or . expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause :significant environmental effects? �, Y . ' c) Require or result r in the'.w ❑ 4 a x a. 5 construction. of new storm: water drainage facilities or expansion' of existing facilities, the construction of �; •" - which could cause significant R environmental effects?. d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ �( ''" available to serve the project from' E existing entitlements and' resources, , or are new:, or expanded entitlements ; needed? + e) Result in a determination" by the " ❑ ❑, X wastewater treatment provider that - serves ormay. serve the project. that ' { ` it has adequate capacity to serve the- _ , project's projected demand in + addition to the provider's existing •� commitments? , t° '. • r: F M f) Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ x ❑ ". sufficient permitted capacity to; , accommodate the, project's solid. „ waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and 0 ❑ ❑ ,. X t . L. r, f . local statutes and regulations related Ao solid waste? ' Source: Project Description - a, ' .. + �'.'.�'1,���7/;%�i%��i���'�,E�����!�/G%���A��i�i.�4L�� �y�e+ r,' •' � �••``! i +, 40 .� ' r Shauna Ranch DRAFT'Initial Study (Not for Distribution)t .' _ { �;_ { f' { wj i Q.1 Environmental Analysis Conclusions/ Mandatory Findings of Significance - Table 17.- Environmental. Effects Checklist for Mandatory Findings of Significance ° :. Less Than .. . Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect' Significant with Significant Impact. . Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated .. MANDATORY FINDINGS.OF SIGNIFICANCE -- s a) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ a to degrade the quality of the t environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species W - cause a fish or wildlife population to drop. below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a • plant or - animal community, reduce the , number or restrict the range of a rare or "endangered plant or animal or _ s eliminate important examples of the f major periods of -California history or :. prehistory? [ b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ x ❑. - .. `-` are ' individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? 4 ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a " project are considerable• when t viewed in connection with the 'effects of past projects, the 'effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? +�'" 41. y 'Source: Project Description, Field Survey, General Plan, Literature Review This study revealed that the project construction and operation could result in impacts to subsurface cultural resources (if present), soil erosion, construction -related noise, air quality, light, and exposure of new residents to freeway noise in excess of city standards. Design features incorporated into the project will avoid or reduce certain potential environmental impacts. Remaining impacts can be reduced to levels that are less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study. Adoption and implementation of these, or other equally effective measures, will � ensure that . the project does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. IV. Mitigation Measures . Implementation of design measures included in the project proposal and compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for the project to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Environmental regulations applicable to the project include those of the Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (architectural coatings and burning requirements), US Fish and Wildlife Service (migratory birds), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (water quality certification, erosion control, and hazardous materials). Even with these existing plans and requirements, there is some potential for environmental impacts to result from project construction. Implementation of the following required mitigation measures, or other equally effective measures, will ensure that the environmental impacts of the project are not significant. 42 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Effect Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated c) Does the project have X 0 ' environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 'Source: Project Description, Field Survey, General Plan, Literature Review This study revealed that the project construction and operation could result in impacts to subsurface cultural resources (if present), soil erosion, construction -related noise, air quality, light, and exposure of new residents to freeway noise in excess of city standards. Design features incorporated into the project will avoid or reduce certain potential environmental impacts. Remaining impacts can be reduced to levels that are less than significant through implementation of the mitigation measures presented in this Initial Study. Adoption and implementation of these, or other equally effective measures, will � ensure that . the project does not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. IV. Mitigation Measures . Implementation of design measures included in the project proposal and compliance with existing regulations will minimize the potential for the project to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Environmental regulations applicable to the project include those of the Glenn County Air Pollution Control District (architectural coatings and burning requirements), US Fish and Wildlife Service (migratory birds), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (water quality certification, erosion control, and hazardous materials). Even with these existing plans and requirements, there is some potential for environmental impacts to result from project construction. Implementation of the following required mitigation measures, or other equally effective measures, will ensure that the environmental impacts of the project are not significant. 42 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Required Mitigation Measure. #1: Aesthetics Project lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at the project site parcel boundaries. All outdoor lighting shall be shielded and directed inward onto the project site. All outdoor lighting on the project, site, including lighting from �- fixtures installed on the outside of project buildings, shall be shielded so. that, at a minimum, no light is emitted above a horizontal line parallel to the ground, to prevent glare from impacting surrounding residences and passing traffic on Interstate 5. r Required Mitigation Measure #2: Air Quality • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based upon the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. • Land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities suspended when winds exceed 20 miles per hour, as determined by an anemometer on site or at the direction of GCAPCD. • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations, and hydroseed the area. • Plant vegetative cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible, if not covered by paving or houses. • Cover inactive storage piles. • Paved roadway should be swept or washed at the end of each day as necessary to remove excessive accumulations of silt and /or mud, which may have accumulated as the result of construction activities. • Use of alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site, such as chipping, or mulching, unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the GCAPCD. t • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of a responsible , person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. 43 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Required Mitigation Measure #3: Air Quality • The primary contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction equipment is.properly tuned and maintained. • Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators when feasible. • Minimize diesel or gasoline engine idling time to 10 minutes. Required Mitigation Measure #4: Cultural Resources The Lead Agency shall notify the project contractor of the possibility of encountering subsurface cultural materials. If such materials are encountered, all ground -disturbing activities shall be halted within a 50 -meter (164 -foot) radius of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can examine the materials, make a . determination of their significance, and recommend/implement further mitigation measures as needed. In the unlikely event of the discovery of human remains, or of remains that are potentially human, all work shall stop immediately and the County Sheriff and Coroner notified. Required Mitigation Measure #5: Erosion Mitigation will be achieved by re -vegetating the disturbed soils with herbaceous cover and plants, applying a mulch with tackifier, if not covered by buildings or paving before the rainy season. • Construction activities with the potential to cause soil erosion shall be limited to the dry . season (April 15 through October 15) unless special erosion control measures are implemented. • All disturbed soils shall be seeded and mulched prior to the onset of the rainy season. Because of the high erosion potential of soils on the project site, the mix will be applied via hydroseeding, along with a mulch and tackifier. Hydroseeding shall be completed by October 15 of any season in which earth -moving construction is conducted. 44 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) • Hay bales, silt fences, gravel berms, sediment basins, or other controls shall be used to prevent sediments from entering the storm drain system. • The effectiveness 'of the erosion control measures shall be regularly monitored by City personnel and any problems promptly corrected. Required Mitigation Measure#6: Construction -Related Noise Noise -level increases during project construction shall be minimized by confining construction activities to weekdays between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM and by requiring all vehicles and equipment to be equipped with mufflers in good condition. V. Mitigation Monitoring Program Implementation of a mitigation monitoring or reporting program is required under CEQA whenever a public agency approves a project that may have a significant adverse environmental effect and the agency requires modification of the project or implementation of mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen the adverse effects. The requirement to prepare a mitigation monitoring or reporting program applies to projects for which either a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report has been prepared. The goal of monitoring is to ensure . that the required modifications and/or mitigation measures are implemented. . Monitoring and reporting may be conducted either by the lead agency, or the agency may delegate its responsibility to another public agency or private entity selected by the lead agency. The lead agency remains ultimately responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the program. The mitigation monitoring program included here is designed to satisfy the monitoring program requirements rrelated to the adoption of specified environmental findings for the Benson Estates Project. Monitoring will be carried out by the County. Monitoring will involve review and approval of the construction bid package and other. documentation, as well as site inspections, follow-up studies, and/or other actions. Table 18 identifies the specific measures recommended for adoption by the County, describes the monitoring actions to be taken, and identifies the timing and 45 Shanna.Rarich DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) f frequency of monitoring. actions. In some cases, a single review of written documentation will satisfy the monitoring requirement. In other cases, monitoring may involve site-specific resource surveys followed by periodic field checks during, construction and beyond. The indicated monitoring frequency is a minimum; additional monitoring may be required as a condition of project permits or may otherwise be. warranted, particularly if there are repeated violations of conditions. Where inspection indicates that mitigation measures have not been fully implemented, the environmental monitor will submit a written description of all noted deficiencies to the Butte County Public Works Director, who will be responsible for working with the County staff and/or contractors to remedy any lack of compliance. Following this, a verification inspection will be conducted and the results will be documented. All inspection reports,. noncompliance notices, and verification reports prepared following rectification of noncompliance will be kept on file at the Butte County Public Works Department. The documentation will be kept up to date at all times, and will be made available to the public upon request. 46 0 Table 18. Mitigation Monitoring Program Checklist Mitigation Measures Monitoring Action Monitoring Timing/Frequency Date Checked/By Whom 1. Aesthetics Before Construction: Before Construction: Project lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles at the Confirm that the specified Check bid documents to ensure project site parcel boundaries. All outdoor lighting shall be lighting equipment and contractor's understanding of shielded and directed inward onto the project site. All installation requirements are requirements. outdoor lighting on the project site, including lighting from included as conditions of the fixtures installed on the outside of project buildings, shall be construction contract. Durinq Construction: shielded so that, at a minimum, no light is emitted above a Field.check to ensure compliance during horizontal line parallel to the ground, to prevent glare from During Construction: the installation of outdoor lighting. impacting surrounding residences and passing traffic on Field check to ensure Interstate 5. compliance. Responsibility: Butte County Building and Planning Departments . 47 ^ Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Mitigation Measures Monitoring Action. Monitoring Timing/Frequency Date Checked/By Whom 2. Air Qualitv Before Construction: Before Construction: 48 Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. . Confirm that the specified • Check bid documents to ensure Frequency should be based upon the type of operation, soil erosion control requirements contractor's understanding of and wind exposure. Land clearing, grading, earth moving or are included as conditions of requirements. excavation activities suspended when winds exceed 20 the construction contract. miles per hour, as determined by an anemometer on site or Durinq Construction: at the direction of GCAPCD. Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., Durinq Construction: Field check to ensure compliance upon latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill Field check to ensure commencement of grading and operations, and hydroseed the area. Plant vegetative cover compliance. construction activities. in disturbed areas as soon as possible, if not covered by paving or houses. Cover inactive storage piles. Paved roadway should be swept or washed at the end of each day as necessary to remove excessive accumulations of silt and /or mud, which may have accumulated as the result of construction activities. Use of alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site, such as chipping or mulching, unless otherwise deemed infeasible by the GCAPCD. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number of a responsible person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. Responsibility: Butte County Planning Department, Glenn County Air Pollution Control District y 48 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Mitigation Measures Monitoring Action Monitoring Timing/Frequency Date Checked/By Whom 3. Construction -Related Air Quality Before Construction: Before Construction: The primary contractor shall be responsible for ensuring . Confirm that the specified Check bid documents to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and equipment maintenance and contractor's understanding of maintained. Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power operation requirements are requirements. poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power included as conditions of the generators when feasible. Minimize idling time to 10 construction contract. During Construction: minutes. . Field check to ensure compliance upon During Construction: commencement of grading and Responsibility: Butte County Planning Department, Butte . Field check to ensure construction activities. County Air Pollution Control District compliance. 4. Cultural Resources Before Construction: Before Construction: Butte County shall notify the project contractor of the Confirm that the notification One check of construction bid documents possibility of encountering subsurface cultural materials. If and contractor requirements .to ensure contractor's understanding of such materials are encountered, all ground -disturbing are included as conditions of requirements. activities shall be halted within a 50 -meter (164 -foot) radius the construction contract. of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can examine During Construction: the materials, make a determination of their significance, During Construction: . If cultural resources are encountered, the and recommend/implement further mitigation measures as If cultural resources'are archaeologist will determine the needed. In the unlikely event of the discovery of human encountered, field -check monitoring frequency. remains, or of remains that are potentially human, all work implementation of measures shall stop immediately and the County Sheriff and Coroner recommended by a qualified notified. archaeologist. Responsibility: Contractor and Butte County staff 49 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Mitigation Measures Monitoring Action Monitoring Timing/Frequency Date Checked/By Whom 5. Minimize Construction Related Erosion Impacts Before Construction: Before Construction: Erosion control measures to be undertaken shall include Confirm that the specified Check bid documents to ensure the following or other equally effective measures: 4 erosion control requirements contractor's understanding of Construction activities with the potential to cause soil are included as conditions of requirements. erosion shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 through the construction contract. October 15) unless special erosion control measures are During Construction: implemented. All disturbed soils shall be seeded and During Construction: . Field check to ensure compliance upon, mulched prior to the onset of the rainy season. Because of Field check to ensure commencement of grading and the high erosion potential of soils on the project site, the compliance. construction activities. mix will be applied via hydroseeding, along with a mulch and tackifier. Hydroseeding shall be completed by October Following Construction: 15 of any season in which earth -moving construction is . During each year in which earth -moving conducted. Hay bales, silt fences, gravel berms, sediment construction activities have been basins or other controls shall be used to prevent sediments undertaken: a) inspect the site prior to from entering the storm drain system. The effectiveness of start of the winter rains (October 15) to the erosion control measures shall be regularly monitored ensure that erosion control measures by City personnel and any problems promptly corrected_. have been implemented, and b) inspect. the site after each major storm. Conduct Responsibility: Butte County remedial actions and follow-up field inspections as needed to ensure that problems are corrected. 50 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) Mitigation Measures Monitoring Action Monitoring Timing/Frequency Date Checked/By Whom 7. Minimize Construction Related Noise Impacts. Before Construction: Before Construction: - Noise control measures to be undertaken shall include the Confirm that the specified • One check of construction bid documents following or other equally effective measures: Noise -level equipment maintenance and to ensure contractor's understanding of. increases during project construction shall be minimized by operation requirements are requirements. confining construction activities to weekdays between the included as conditions of the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM and by requiring all vehicles and construction contract. During Construction: equipment to be equipped with mufflers in good condition. During all construction periods. During Construction: Responsibility: Contractor/Public Works Department Determine that all machines are adequately muffled. • Ensure that construction is carried out only during designated hours. .. 5 - Y Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) A. References Alliance Environmental Services, Inc. (Alliance) 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Cortina Estates in Orland, California. _ Alliance Environmental Services Inc Chico California Department of Fish & Game 2003 California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), December. Jensen, Peter M. 2002 Archaeological Inventory Survey: Proposed Cortina/Newport Development Project, c. 2.72 -acres in Orland, Glenn County, California. Prepared for Community Housing Improvement Program, Chico. Jensen & Associates, Chico. Northeast Information Center (NEIL) 2002 Results of records search IC File #D02-6, dated January 30, 2002. Pacific Municipal Consultants 2003 City of Orland General Plan 2003-2020. Chico, California. University of California 2001 Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare.Plants of Northern California. US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.. Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 45 r A. References Alliance Environmental Services, Inc. (Alliance) 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment: Cortina Estates in Orland, California. _ Alliance Environmental Services Inc Chico California Department of Fish & Game 2003 California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), December. Jensen, Peter M. 2002 Archaeological Inventory Survey: Proposed Cortina/Newport Development Project, c. 2.72 -acres in Orland, Glenn County, California. Prepared for Community Housing Improvement Program, Chico. Jensen & Associates, Chico. Northeast Information Center (NEIL) 2002 Results of records search IC File #D02-6, dated January 30, 2002. Pacific Municipal Consultants 2003 City of Orland General Plan 2003-2020. Chico, California. University of California 2001 Illustrated Field Guide to Selected Rare.Plants of Northern California. US Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1.. Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 45 Shanna Ranch DRAFT Initial Study (Not for Distribution) VII. Report Preparation Personnel and Persons Contacted. 1. Report Preparation Personnel Eco -Analysts Dr. Albert J. Beck: Principal and Senior Analyst Lisa D. Westwood, MA, RPA: Project Manager Erin Dwyer, MA: Archaeologist Brianna Wood, BS: Environmental Analyst 2. Persons and Organizations Contacted Native American Heritage Commission California Office of Historic Preservation: Northeast Information Center 46 u BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR USE PERMIT APPLICANT: William Isaac DATE: 7/30/2004 AGENT: Russ Erickson, Robertson & Dominick, Inc. APN: 040-130-038 FILE #: UP 05-04 PLANNER: Stephen Betts PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit for a General Commercial/Distribution warehouse and office Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: . 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. 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 Fite Warden. Average required hydrant spacing 300 feet, hydrant size _6 inches, and residual fire flow _2000_ gpm. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. ❑ 6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment may be made into the hydrant fund at a cost of $1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $ ❑ 7. Prior to recordation of the Map or application for a building permit, the applicant shall pay the then current fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund. ❑ 8. Provide an all weather access of at least 10 foot wide and with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus to all structures. ❑ 9. Provide plans and specifications to the Butte County Fire Marshal to determine compliance with fire and life safety standards of Titles 19 and 24, California Code of Regulations. X 10. Commercial sprinklers shall be installed per NFPA 13 Revised 8/13/03RT Betts, Steve From: Wannenmacher, Felix Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 2:58 PM To: Betts, Steve; Christopher, Yvonne; Baker, Joseph Cc: Miller, Gloria r. Subject:, Isaac Application (UP 05-04) A#04-322 Hi Steve, Yvonne, and Joe, s GOL does not appear,to contemplate this activity. U allows it by UP. 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. } Irk tp"Apr aw.t 4 , " V, • , 1 -.4 , . - A to"'AX 1 Mat �lar !i!gNiz Ik— J 06 �141V "Ia"QuE ToTAL �n,� 4,6z ars .1w p !7%* "EDdFA" 4 A �l rmrKAle CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN II ..SH.AUNA DOWNS, wl MU�M HEZ-1. AALCI I PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO A ClilTECIS INC. BUTTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 4-6 G ° ,• Ie -'e yl - o to • • • ` � .. Z c�-+�••I c_ ee Jae-- - . 1pe 614 w Ctd ( X 2OV'L VL Q c cess 40 .--_---------- � ,--T.�. - - --- -- -- - - .�. - - ----- ---- --. .. I. i� ----- - , +' -- — — — i ----- _ is � s i _ -- . w,i .. � �' (. _ _ _ f I( ,� ), ,.P � y, t a � ♦- � 1 '-. a � � i i.* � 1 i 1 .. `� � f � _... li . `" � :, �� � �F A � I } --- - ---------------- - -----• -- --•- ---- -------- ----- •-- ----- I ��----- -- ----- 1 _Il Change Area H, Durham Pents/SR-99 Recommendations for changes received from Bert Garland October 14, 2007 Alternative 2 847 Units on 127.7 acres 158 acres commercial Alternative 3 940 units on 171 acres 218 acres commercial 2525 Dominic Drive, Suite J Chico, CA 95928 (530) 891-2882 (530) 891-2878 Fax August 24, 2004 Stephen Betts, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: William Isaac, Use Permit UP -05-04 Dear Mr. Betts: W. James Wagoner Air Pollution Control Officer Robert McLaughlin Asst Air Pollution Control Officer Pr BUTTE COUNTY AUG 2 6 2004 DEV,EI,O Pb3.ENT SERVICE'S The District has reviewed the request for comments to allow a Distribution Warehouse & Office to be located on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road at Falager Court, east of SR -99, south of Chico. Based on the information provided the District submits the following comments. 1. The general plan depicts this area as grazing & open land. Will the proposed use permit for a warehouse and office space also require a general plan amendment? 2. The information submitted with the use permit application does not provide enough detail for the District to perform an adequate air quality review. Specifically, what type of warehouse is proposed? How many square feet is the proposed warehouse and office space? What are the projected vehicle trips and truck trips associated with the proposed project? What is the projected off-road equipment uses for loading and unloading? 3. In a separate land use application (UP 05-05) received by the District on August 5, 2004, the area adjacent to this site proposes a gas station and minimart with the ability to fuel large trucks. The District recommends that the environmental review look at the full site development of both uses with respect to potential air quality impacts. 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\bcup0504warehouse.doc JUL=15-2004 17:01 CAL'TRANS D3 PLANNING STATE QF CALIFORNIA • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ji ;FACSIMILE COVER MR -1009 (REV 07!92)aeww 530 741 5346 P.01i05 Y tri , • x Y Attention From Steve Betts NORTH REGION - DISTRICT 3 Division of Planning, Office of Regional & Transit Planning 703 "B" Street .; P.Q. Box 911 Marysville, CA 95901 unit/Company Sander's Name Butte County Planning Rick Holman Date Total Pages (Including oow) • July 15, 2004 5 Subject FAX # (area code) CALNET FAX # (530) 741-5346 8-457-5346 Comment Letter for the Isaac TSM04N-1 Phone #(ama code) email: (530) 634-7612 rhelmanQdot.ca.gov Phone # (area code) FAX # (area code) Number of Pages Sent 530-538-7153 530-538-7785 4 JUL-15-2004 17:01 CRLTR3 PLANNING 530 741'`534b P.0di05, ; DI CIPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 `* a• * = L J703 B STREET r. F , ' �. P. O. BOX 911 , .4 MARYSVILLE. CA 95901-0911. - ,- ' •Fiex your power! ` t-` `rgy PHONE (530) 741-4025 - Y �, , .. �' • ` , Deme ` . tient! ` - �+ FAX (530) 741.5346 ' ' a. - b♦ TTY (530) 741.4509 -, L w + ' 'July 15, 2004, ' 04BLTNO18 03-BUr-162, P.M. 20.490 ... ; t - Isaac Tentative Subdivision Map, TSM 04N-13 r ...: *• ' Application `- Mr. Stephen Betts, Senior Planner ` Butte County Department of Development Services ' 7 County Center Drive ` Oroville, CA 95965-3397 1 ' f . Dear Mr. Betts: r, ' y �. s Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the application for a proposed L 14 -lot subdivision for development of light manufacturing uses located on the south side 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 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 . f w affecting the visual integrity of the corridor. The subdivision itself will not change the view.• �x� shed, but the development on the property will significantly change the scene from rural �• fi k,. w f•:. • ' , , . 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_ .: } t - •. 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 a';j 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. • - "relfram impr(wes mobility(Krias cali(�oo'nio r-� r! 1 ."` ,' :•} - JUL-15-2004 1702 ' Mr. Stcphen Setts r ' July 15, 2004 Page 2 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.03i05 ■ 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: i . • Pre- and post -project hydrologicthydraulic 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. " Cal"My impmvec mabdiry arraca rblifnrnla" JUL-15-2004 1702 CALTRANS D3 PLANNING 530 741 5346 P.04/05 y Mr, Stephen Hefts _. 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 r .r 0 be held liable for future damages due to impacts for which adequate mitigation was not- �. A undertaken or sustained. Acceptable constituency, levels and appropriate. BMP ° information can be obtained from the RWQCB. ' 4 ` • The requested drainage platis 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) ti • - 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 x Traffic Impact Studies" updated December 2002. A copy of the guide can be downloaded at- hitp://www.dot.ca.goyj�q/traffopsldevelouscry/opr, i_on IsystcrOs/rcport3/ti idq. f �. J • Fair-share fees should be paid and improvements constructed as determined by the TIS for 4 ' the project. ` Subdivision Mag Comments: • We suggest that all access to the parcels occur on the proposed internal roadway (Public 4•- 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. r • Durham-Peutz 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 t ' "4 _ 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-Peutz Road between SR 99 and SR 191, - , "Caltrans impravrr mobility arron California" JUL-15-2004. 17:02 CALTRw,6-D3 PLANNING 530.741.5346. P. 05/05 *. 1• t. A ' Mr. Stephen Betts AY 7uly 1S, 2004 Page 4 Reguest ROW dedication as subdivision map condition of anaroval; - is `} V. ' ••_ • The State ROW is controlled access along the entire wesuside 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 s. permanent structures cannot be built in the area that is needed for the improvement- • Along Durham -Penta Road the State will require a dedication of 17 feet of ROW to facilitate a right turn lane and a Class H 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 ` 1 Plan, require that the ROW be dedicated to provide the right turn only lane and the bike lane y i up to.the Road "A" intersection. „ :�• ► . • We request that the County include in the Conditions of Approval for the map an irrevocable ��'- w ..• = „ offer of dedication requirement to the State for the above stated ROW. For more information on the dedication procedure, please contact rim Adams at the California Department of .41 Transportation, - Transportation, District 3, North Region Office of Surveyors, Right Of Way Engineering t "Department, P.O. Box 911, Marysville. Mr. Adams telephone number is (530) 741-5302. Encroachment Permit required: i { • An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work conducted in the State's right of. way, including for sign placement, traffic control, lightainstallation, 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 t - - Rick Helman, Local Development/Inter-Governmental Review Coordinator, at (530) 634-7612: r t• r~ �. , • Sincerely, BRUCE DE TERRA, CHIEF Office of Transportation Planning, North +"Catlranx impro%vs mahiUry acrvac C;alijnmio" �` r• 'TOTAL P.05 ` A f .J lwtj a ,w Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile - X ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING- - August 26, 2004 T William Isaac y 2865 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 ' Re: Project Incomplete — Use Permit for a Distribution Warehouse and Office for William Isaac on APN 040-130-038, File # UP 05-04 Dear Mr. Isaac: On August 18, 2004, the Butte County Inter -Departmental Review Committee (IDR) reviewed the above referenced project for completeness. The IDR determined that the project is incomplete for the following reasons: 1. The project site is zoned Unclassified ([>) and is designated by the Butte County General Plan as Grazing and Open Land. The U zone allows an industrial use (distribution warehouse) with approval of a use permit. However, the Grazing and Open Land designation does not allow such use. Therefore, in order for your proposed use to be established, you would need to submit and receive approval of a General Plan Amendment project to change the land use designation from Grazing and Open Land to Industrial. Additionally, you should also consider submitting a Rezone application to change the zoning district on the parcel from Unclassified to either M-1 (Light Manufacturing) or M-2 (Heavy Industrial). You should consider doing the General Plan Amendment and Rezone projects for the whole parcel. 2. Insufficient information was received with your Use Permit application regarding on-site sewage disposal. The Butte County Environmental Health Division cannot evaluate your Use Permit project until such time as they receive detailed information on waste disposal. As you are aware, Butte County Board of Supervisor's Resolution 87-108 does not. permit the use of ponds for sewage disposal. The Butte County Environmental Health Division also requires that you submit detailed information on the quantity and quality of groundwater that would be utilized for the proposed distribution warehouse and office use. Additionally, r .. 1 the Environmental Health Division requires that you submit detailed information on the actual uses that will occur on the site and on the number of employees. 3'. The Butte, County Public Works Department cannot evaluate your Use Permit project until such time as they receive a detailed traffic study, including existing traffic conditions and the average daily traffic, including automobile/truck mix, that the proposed distribution center and office use would generate. 4. There are several items on the site plan that were not identified and staff does not know what they mean. First, there is a solid line drawn around the proposed , warehouse and office site. Does this line indicate a future parcel? Please indicate what this line means. Second, there are long, rectangular shapes shown on the northeast corner and south side of the warehouse: What do these shapes denote? Please provide us with a revised site plan that labels these features. 5. The Butte County Building Division needs additional information on what types of buildings will be constructed on the site. Will they be multi -story buildings? Will fire sprinklers be installed in these structures? 6. The Butte County Fire Department/California Department of Forestry and Fire - Prevention is concerned about the lack of secondary access to the proposed warehouse facility., Please provide a revised site plan that shows secondary access to the facility. 7. The following studies will need to be prepared to allow the County to adequately review the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act: • Biological botanical study (rare, threatened, or endangered, plant and animal species) , • Wetlands/vernal pool delineations • Archaeological study As was discussed at the August 12 meeting, you have already prepared these studies. However, I have not yet received a copy of these studies. No further processing of this project will occur until such time as the required information is submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the applicable County department. The timelines pursuant to .the California Permit Streamlining Act are hereby suspended until such time as the required information is submitted. 2 Should you have any further questions regarding this matter please contact me between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at (530) 538-7153, or via e-mail at sbetts@buttecounty.net. Sincerely, Stephen Betts Senior Planner cc: Robertson & Dominick, Inc. , K -----Original Message ----- r Betts, Steve . From: Hill, Rob Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:07 PM To: Betts, Steve Subject: RE: Completeness of Application, UP 05-04 -----Original Message ----- From: Thornton, Roneva Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 3:28 PM To: Bottenfield, Cliff; Breedon, Dan; Christopher, Yvonne; Fogel, Doug; Fowler, Steve; Hill, Rob; Johnston, Mary; Lawrence, Gail; MacKenzie, Robert; Price, Richard; Read, Darren; Reimers, Ken; Schroth, Eric; Severin, Vance; Starrett, Bill; Vieira,. Mike; Wannenmacher, Felix; Willis, Don Subject: Completeness of Application, UP 05-04, William Isaac; Steve Betts, planner Butte County Department of Development Services . Planning Memorandum August 5, 2004 To: Inter -Departmental Review Committee Subject: UP 05-04, Isaac Planner: Stephen Betts' ; APN: 040-130-038 Location on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road at Falager Court, approximately 0.6 miles east of SR -99, south of Chico 30 -Day Complete: 8/27/2004 Date of IDR: 8/18/2004 Please respond by August 16, 2004, regarding completeness of application. Do you find this application complete? x I No. What is needed to make the application complete? Setback fTo.m south adjacent GOL land need to be annotated on the m.ap and Ag Element policy 3.5 - needs to be addressed, Is it relevant or not'? ` 8/18/2004 d ---=-Original Message----- Page 2 of 2 Yes. Conditions and/or mitigation measures (please respond by 09/02/2004). Standard Conditions are attached for your convenience. Signature: Wobert (: Ifid 1DevuUg.C'ommissioner Date: August 18, 2004 (Please send your response to sbetts@buttecounty.net.) This application is being provided to you for comments. Please see attached documents. A hard copy of the application, including maps, has been sent to Environmental Health, LAFCo, County Counsel, the Development Services Director; the Assessor's office, the Public Works Director, the Agricultural Commissioner, CDF, and the Building Manager. All Environmental Health correspondence is routed through Mary Johnston at 7 County Center Drive. The purpose of this notice is to give you the opportunity to comment on the completeness of this application electronically to the planner, so that preparations can be made for the IDR meeting on 8/18/2004. i ! i 8/18/2004 Butte County Department of Development Services PLANNING DIVISION ° AUT rF° < ° ° 7 County Center Drive ° ° Oroville, CA 95965 0 �; ' ° (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile c�UNty 'T August 5, 2004 " ro 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, Use Permit - UP 05-04 , APN: 040-130-038 ' DATE OF IDR*: 8/18/2004 *Inter -Departmental Review Committee IDR RESPONSE REGARDING COMPLETENESS OF APPLICATION DUE BY: August 16, 2004 AGENCY/DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS/MITIGATION MEASURES DUE BY: September 2, 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 the completeness of this application, to be determined at the Inter -Departmental Review (IDR) Committee meeting on 8/18/2004, and/or to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Use Permit for a General Commercial/Distribution warehouse and office " PROJECT LOCATION: on the south side of Durham-Pentz Road at Falager Court, approximately 0.6 miles east of SR -99, south of Chico COUNTY SUPERVISOR DISTRICT NO.:. 4 ' ZONING: U (Unclassified) GENERAL PLAN: GOL (Grazing & Open Land) 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 email 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 12/09/04, before the Planning Commission. 'IDWCOMMITTEE APPLICATION, COMPLETE , No (Please send response to Stephen Betts by August 16, 2004) Yes (Conditions/mitigation measures due by September 2, 2004) 1. heed information related to traffic ADT and vehicle types for determination of necessary road improvements. 2. Does applicant propose creation of a separate parcel for site? 3. Show legend for site plan. pq LJ Pacific Gas and Electric Company 460 Rio Lindo Avenue, & Chico, CA 95926 ' 530/894-4423 FAX 530/8944414 August 12, 2004 Mr. Stephen Betts Butte County Department of Development Services, Planning Division 7 CountyCenter Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 RE: Use Permit -(Isaac) ~� _ File: UP 05-04, APN: 040-130-038 Dear Mr. Betts: We have reviewed the subject site plan. • f Don Chambers Chico Land Rights Office BUTTE COUNTY AUG 16 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Any relocation or rearrangement of any existing PG&E facilities in the area 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. Thank you for the opportunity to review this matter. If you have any questions, please call me in Chico at 894-4423. Sincerely, DonaldW. Chambers Land Agent" ' (file: UP05-04.doc) f yge'r Si•... r�fa . ... tl:o �} �w °.. , . .._. � u :,�.`I �'i:y r'.� �; - r .r< ._ �ti�. -�J ;.. .,.7T'_iF�•^,l: L a!i:.':.i: �i�r':.a s ..r :Z, '�: �,Rp. f,: �.,°ir.t, 1~`ir�.ii r rs ..T_'� `7 .'i. ::._..��. .. a RECEIVED FROM DESCRIPTION COUNWOF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CERTiFICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIRT OROALLE. CA' PLANNING SAG FUND TITLE FUND DEPT CODE CODE ATR NO DATE ACCT CASH CODE CODE 76540 812f?.004 AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE: &2 RECEIPTS- 407051-407059 PLANNING APPL FEES GENL 0010 44OW1 421WMI 101001 7,C .19 Project Number Amount of Fee' �PN:020-QQ0•"034 APIM:04 x PN:G4iQKAAC- CONST- UP 05-04-65 PAT 11 EN 5ASSER AD(-�l 05-05 $1 00.00 APP3iQ3Q-13,2-017P HALL &CO TSM04-03 LAND DEVELOPMENT GENL Gel 113 440004 4611700 101001 330..00 Project Number Amount of Fee 4 'C r'O"' ST - UP 05-04 N -C 3 -ONST -up 054� A IRO f&TA FILTH GENL WiO .5400W 4614901 101001 370.03, Project Number Amount of Fee CONST- UP 05-04 P"'* �3 C)fqsT- Up $45-00 )j85.00 PN- 4 .R E PL I�C� APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 0100 4617240 101001 061. a) Project Number Amount of Fee APN 040 038 ICA C CONS71 - UP 05--G4 $43 -.GQ 040W �lleAA�,CCr)NSi--ISP 05-44;.Ois* $43.00 �FqO INOE-CLERK'S,Ft GENL 4612319 101001 LING FE Froieut Number Amount of Fee 7"pk-..ck 6- 1 30 L3,8, i'SAA*.0 CON S -T - JP 015-G4 A.PN:G4Q4#-4;244SkAC CON ST - UP 0544- 4D TOTAL S 7,95-0.19 FOR lr�,Xl APPROVED BY: RECEIVED BY: AUDITOR-001IFFROLLER TREASURER B By— white=treasurer Pink--a.udkor canes rf--- d e p o i t 0 r golden rod=flie /.-- k. - �,- j �t A COUNTY OF BUIfTE ,. . AUDITOR'S CERI FICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIPT , OROVILLE, CA ATR NO 76548 RECEIVED FROM Ptsilti NINts BAG 3 ©RTE 812f2004 FUND FUND DEPT AGGT CASH DESCRIPTION TITLE CODE CEDE CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE: M RECEIPTS: 407ffil- 07ffi-G a PLA.E<@l�9IN6"APPL 4FEtS Y GENL 0010 44OW1 425E .1 101001 7,098.19 , Pmjert,Number _ _ Amount of.Fee r APitil:04 i tG�-Q:g tG Ci�(�IST- UP GE -+'t FEu:G4 41, ACi^�O�dST--U 15-,0d- 05 $2,87G.44 �'-.FN:026-090-034 PA Il ENGASS4ERAL)WI 415-45 $iG4.GG r .Pi'd:434-132-C i 7 R HALL & CO TS V 44-03 $1,058.19 LAND 4DEVELOP14ENT GENL 0015 44COID4 46117W 1Er1cul 3301 00 Project Number Amount of Fee t'SV:444�S'i - UP 05-44 $i65.4(l A [ (:14 �i S G CC�i�ST-BJP 05-64— f? $i55.GQ �S4^IRC)1�1�EP�TAL PILTI I GENL 0010 540M 4614801 10101,11 '370.00 ' Project Number Amount of Fee Pied:Q4""'SS: tj CONST- C P 45-04 $i8S.4G Ktl:04M�� C i�� KIS*i- UP G�*.C�•a:.-RE PLNG APDL FEE FIRE PROTECT 010 4617241D 101001 36.00 , Project Number'--- Amount of Fee Pfd 04' P,�O-Q�B8 =lit; U`�!S - ;j�' rir* i `S4?.42�:KC C�3f�diT- UP 45-;4wO� $43.40 ' N66H 0E CLERK'S FILING FEE GENL 0010 470001 4612313 101041 '12-00. #project Number ,.. Amount of Fee- rAS="N:CkQ-i3G-O S iS..AA-C i-ONbT- UP r',5 -G4 � � M- - $38:44 APN:G41 SAA'- COKIS,T- UP 65t4- a5 TOTAL 79956.19 FOR Zko APPROVED BY: RECEIVED BY: AUDITOR -CONTROLLER TREASURER BY white--treasurep pink=au€€i:tor canary-a;epositoP. 4 pIden rod=file Monday, August 02, 2004 Development Services PLANNING DIVISION ver. 1.0 Counter=---- -- - DDS Planning $2,970.00 Person Mark (General Fund) Payment Date 7/30/2004 Public Works $165.00 (Land Development) Receipt Number P 407051 Environmental Health $185.00 Received From ilsaac Construction CDF (Fire Department) `$43.00 Applicant William Isaac — ! NOD / NOE $36.00 i (Recording Fee) Aunt Minnie $0.00 Application Number UP 05-04 $1, 500 or $2,000 or In Reference To_—_— --_ - -- Planning Review / EIR $0.00 Parcel Number _ 040-130-038 Fish/Game --- $0.00 Check Number / Cash -- ----- ---- — - ALUC $0.00 Total Received $3,399.90 (Airport Land Use) - - Non Sufficient $0.00 Total Fees$3,399.00 _ --_ Funds ($25.00 Fee) — Cell Tower $0.00 ($2500.00) - - Public Sales /Copies $0.00 Other: $0.00 • E " 0