Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail from George Sipple regarding Leen Subdivision TSM16-0002 Menchaca, Clarissa From: Bennett, Robin Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 11,43 AM To: Snyder, Ashley Cc: Menchaca, Clarissa Subject: FW: A point of view for your meeting on June 13, please read, Attachments: COEXISTENCE.pdf 1300 einail from Gcorgc Sipple is atl.ached. Robi,n 13ennett, I v'et�tttixe Assistant (.530) 872-6304 rben.nett Btate Coitiqy slyervisor""s Qfii(':e Sillpervisor Dottg Teeter. Board qfSitpervisors, District 5) 7117b,"Ilion 16ad, Pa,radise, CA 95969 From: George Sipple [m,ailto:gsipple@hotmaii.com] Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 2:16 PM To: BOS District 4<District4@buttecounty.niet>; Connelly, Bill <BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Wahl, Larry <LWahl@buttecounty.net>; Kirk, Maureen <M Kirk @ buttecou nty,n et>;Teeter, Doug<DTeeter@buttecounty.niet> Subject:A point of view for your meeting on June 13, please read. ® _ The Right to Farm • a Coexistence Begins at 301 Feet May 19, 2017 Re: Leen Subdivision TSM16-0002 To Our Supervisors, At the June 13th Supervisors Meeting you will be hearing the appeal on the above referenced subdivision, TSM16-002. It is my hope that after learning of our concerns that you will vote to stop this development as it is being proposed. 1 have owned and operated a small business in Chico for the last 29 years, and am a true believer in the statement "Trust but Verify".This development has been handled poorly since the beginning.The engineer submitted the original plans with incorrect and incomplete information regarding the adjacent farming operations. It was on this information from the engineer and the developer that Staff based their recommendation to approve a reduced setback.Their errors and omissions were only corrected after I wrote them and pointed out the inconsistencies and mistakes in their assessment. Upon further investigation, we learned that a Proper unusual circumstance review form was never submitted to the AG Commissioner, and instead a letter was substituted. I registered a complaint with the very new AG Commissioner. He did what his Deputy Commissioner didn't and came out to do a property visit. With this new, on-site information, he reversed the recommendation regarding the ag buffer reduction. My invitation for each of you to come out and see the property itself is still open and 1 hope you will come so that you can see firsthand how unsuitable this project is. It is inconceivable that the County would approve lots to be developed in this area and thereby expose people to potential health and safety dangers.The farming operation to the south that abuts this site is a prime example for the reasoning behind the 300 foot setback rule. The Agricultural Commissioner's letter dated April 5th, 2017 to DDS attests to the need for the full buffer. A reduction to the requested 150 feet would impact that orchard disastrously and impose unfair restrictions on his farming. I farm to the North and realize that because of VLDR zoning I am not protected by this buffer, instead it has been recommended that I get an SO foot buffer. It is unfortunate that the property in question isn't farmed currently. The development proposal is on great farmland with an ag well and solid set sprinkler system,that would be a shame to lose. Sincerely, George Sipple 1336 Stanley Ave. Chico, CA 95928 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 1 WEIGHTS & MEASURES 316 NELSON AVE. f 'l OROVILLE,CA 95965 P: (530)538-7381 F: (530)538-7594 butteag@buttecounty.net Louie B.Mendoza Jr. Tom Pisani AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Assistant Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer Date: April 5, 2017 To: Tim Snellings, Butte County Development Services Director Mark Michelena, Senior Planner Subject: TSM 16-0002—Agricultural buffer setback From: Louie B. Mendoza Jr.,Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights &Measures On March 27, 2017 the Butte County Planning Commission voted 3-1 to not accept the Agriculture Department's recommendation to reduce the agricultural buffer set back from 300 feet to 150 feet on TSM 16-0002.The original recommendation came from staff based on discussions with the property owner and/or engineer in October and December 2015. In Article 17 - Agricultural Buffers, the Criteria for Decision (Section F) allows for a reduced setback as long as "the adjustment will not result in a modification to adjacent agricultural practices". After review of the proposed development and orchard operation to the south of Comanche Creek; I believe a reduced buffer to 150 feet would impact the adjacent agricultural operation to the south. The Agricultural Commissioner has taken into consideration the width of buffers based on crop types,prevailing winds, agricultural practices and other relevant factors. My recommendation is that a 300 foot buffer apply to the proposed project(TSM16-0002)to protect the adjoining agricultural zone. Buffers not only protect our agricultural zones but also provide a measure of protection to the residential housing from existing agricultural operations. Agricultural buffers serve to protect the public's health and safety as well as reduce agriculture/urban interface issues from the following: Pesticide Use • Provides for a margin of safety for the public and sensitive non-target areas. • Reduces the need for spray buffers due to potential label or permit conditions or other governmental restrictions, which can negatively impact agriculture. • Helps maintain the feasibility of pesticide use as a tool for agriculture, especially aerial applications. • Reduces local neighbor conflict and complaints to agriculturalist and government agencies. Noise and Night time li hg ting • Reduces the potential for nuisance from a variety of agricultural sources such as bird frightening devices,pumps, heavy equipment and complaints to agriculturalists and government agencies • Reduces local neighbor conflict and complaints to governmental agencies • Reduces the disturbance from noise and light associated with night harvesting and field preparation. Dust/Odor • Creates distance or screening for dust to settle out before affecting homes or people. • Creates distance to dissipate odors from field decomposition, fertilizer and pesticide applications. TrespassNandalism/Theft/Litter/Liability • Helps reduce the potential negative impact that people and pets can have on agricultural property. • Helps reduce the impact that stray livestock can have on neighbor's property. Rodent Control • Helps maintain the use of agricultural rodent control materials, which may be otherwise prohibited in close proximity to homes, schools, and other urban areas. • Reduces the likelihood of accidental poisoning of pets. Agricultural Burns • Helps maintain agricultural burning as a disease management option. Otherwise,burns may be prohibited or further regulated if dwellings are built too close to agricultural property. • Protects the public's health and safety. Harborage and introduction of disease and pests • Protects agriculture by reducing the incident of insect and diseases moving from backyard situations to adjacent agriculture. Proposed developments/residences within 300 feet have the greatest potential to inhibit agricultural operations and practices.For future recommendations on the reduction of the 300 foot buffer,the Agricultural Commissioner will weigh the criteria for decisions to the development/residences and agricultural operations. I believe the agricultural buffers described above are necessary to protect our agricultural zones, the public's health and safety as well as reduce agriculture/urban interface issues. Please contact me if you have any questions. information and addressed the agricultural impacts, along with agricultural buffer setbacks and residential dwelling setbacks, which were addressed above in the response to the April 29, 2016 letter (above). September 2, 2016—Mr. Sipple submitted a letter to his neighbors on Stanley Avenue about the proposed subdivision. He identified that the project application had incorrect information in the Project Setting Description. The Project Setting Description did not correctly identify that there is an active agricultural use (orchard) to the north and one (orchard) to the east. He also identifies that the 300 foot setback from the southern property line be enforced and an appropriate setback from the active farming to the north. The project should have required a full environmental review due to the sensitive nature of the creek. Counp2 Res onse — The applicant provides this information as part of the application submittal package. As part of project analysis, staff reviews the information and uses as information in their analysis. As part of the analysis, the additional agricultural uses were identified and included in the environmental analysis and identified as surrounding uses. The determined agricultural buffer from the adjacent agriculturally designated land to the south and the residential setback determination was addressed above in the response to the April 29, 2016 letter (above). Biological analysis was done as part of the environmental document and was addressed in the response to the August 23, 2016 letter (above) and in the response to the September 25, 2016 letter from the Stanley Avenue and Diamond Avenue neighbors (below). September 7, 2016 — The proposed subdivision is shown to be bordering my property. Looking across the proposed subdivision, you can see Comanche Creek and the walnut orchard to the South. The pictures show what lots 15 and 16 will look like during my harvest of the first variety of almonds. I expect similar effects when I harvest the second variety of almonds in the next few weeks. It was a relatively calm day, without wind. I never thought this would be a problem due to the fact the 300 foot AG buffer was in effect for the South property. The property to the South is zoned AG 20 and is in a land trust that would mean it will never be likely to be developed. When the developer purchased this property he was aware of that fact and chose to purchase it anyway. When making neighbors aware, I was told by Jerald Davidson that his organic mandarin orchard was sprayed with drift from a neighboring farmer, and was being tested by the AG office now, with a filed complaint. This buffer was implemented to prevent this type of thing from happening. I ask you again to enforce the AG buffer rules in place to prevent this from happening in the future. County Resuonse — The determined agricultural buffer from the adjacent agriculturally designated land to the south and the residential setback determination was addressed above in the response to the April 29, 2016 letter(above). The issue raised regarding spray drift between the organic mandarin orchard and the orchard to the south is not applicable to this situation. There is approximately only 40 feet between the two orchards with no type of vegetation screening; it is an open area. Both those parcels are designated agriculture. The proposed project includes a 150 foot recommended residential setback from the mandarin orchard property. The applicant did follow the AG buffer rules by identifying unusual circumstances with consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner's Office, which resulted in the reduced setback recommendation from 300 feet to 150 feet. ■Butte County Department of Development Services■ ■ March 23,2017■Agenda Report—Leen Subdivision TSM 16-0002■Page 13 of 34■ 13