HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter Re Leen Property Development Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Bennett, Robin
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:44 AM
To: Menchaca, Clarissa
Cc: Snyder, Ashley; Hahn, Paul
Subject: FW:In regard to TSM16-0002
Attachments, Letter to the Board of Supervisors.clocx
Importance: High,
Please see the, attached BO�S correspondence froin Dr. David L,. Gallo. CSUC. regarding the, J,eeit pro mly
de,veloPmeni,
Robin Bennett.
Lxecutb�e Asst"stan"I
(5.30) 872-63'04 i°betiiiett(a.)btiite(.°oti.iit,,y.tiet,
BtUte (,ottrit.y Su, ervisors Qf
,P 'f'i�ce
Stiper,visorDo-ug Teeter,
Board o Stymrvisors, District 5
747 Elliott Road
P(m'adise, CA 95969
From:Gallo, David [mailto:DEGaVlo@csuchico.edu]
Sent:Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:15 PM
To:Teeter, Doug<DTeeter@buttecountynet>
Subject: In regard to TSM16-0002
Mr. Teeter,
I am submitting this letter with regard to the exemption being sought for the 300 foot agricultural setback
requiirement on the Leen Subdivision.
Dr. David E. Gallo
Professor Emeritus
Department of Economics, CSU Chico
Members of the, Butte County Board of Supervisors May 16, 2017
|nreference toTSK4lG-QUQ2, Leen Subdivision omStanley Avenue
The Leen subdivision map provides a 150 foot setback for structures located within the development and
the agricultural opematiomstothe south. The claim |sthat the reduction from the county standard nf3OU
feet|sjustified bythe presence ofavegetative screen along Comanche Creek. Yet the developers have
provided no evidence that the discontinuous stand of deciduous trees that constitutes the "vegetative
screen" will offer any significant protection from pesticide drift, dust, and noise from the adjacent walnut
orchard.
There has been a �onsiderable amount of research on the effectiveness of vegetative screens, particularly
for reducing dust and odors from poultry operations. However, the tested screening vegetation bears no
resemblance tothe vegetation along Comanche Creek. |none study the screen was a"—thremrow
planting of4.9m high bald cypress (9mfrom fans),4.S m high Leyland cypress(12.2nmfrom fans)and 2,4
rnhigh red cedar(14.6nmfrom fams)..." (
). Clearly all ofthe trees used were evergreens with dense
foliage.
While the screen cited above was effective tosome extent, itwas clearly not sufficient toeliminate the
nuisance. "Total dust was reduced 53%(0.659 vs. 0.333 mg/m3) and 5QY6/1.039vs.0.527 me/m3\ in
years 2002 and 2003, respectively".What would be the percentage reduction in the case of the
"vegetative screen" currently implace along Comanche Creek? | believe the point isthat: (1) uvedon't
know, as the effectiveness of deciduous tree screening has not been assessed, and (2)we can be certain
that it will be considerably less than the 50 percent achieved in the research cited above.
Kna2003study,
the Great Valley Center and University of California Cooperative Extension authored a study
ainalyzing key ingredients and effective methods for addressing land use confUicts between
egricu|tureandsuburbannasidents.Thmstudystated °asetbackdistencenf2DDfeetvvas
frequently cited within the polices reviewed, but there is no hard evidence that 200' is the
optimal distance, or that it even works" and recommended that"until more information is
available, the setback size discussion would be best served by considering the unique mix of
topography, weather,patterns, commodity and uses mt the particular site'.
my emphasis)
Note that the study points to the type of agricultural operation and weather patterns as important
considerations iodetermining the appropriate setback. Knthe case nfthe proposed Leen development
there isalarge walnut orchard tothe south. Pesticide applications are done byhelicopter and mowing
and harvesting raise a considerable amount of dust. In addition,the prevailing winds are from,the south,
sowhatever dust isproduced will drift directly tothe land occupied bvthe development's residents.
There is�learly no justification for reducing the 300 foot agricultural setback requirement adopted by
Butte County.
Respectfully,
Or. David E. Gallo