HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDS.GRD13-0001_Travis Curran_BOS Appeal Report Packet.pdf Grading Permit GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis) Page 1 of 3
July 29, 2014 Department of Development Services Staff Report
Butte County Department of Development Services
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | 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
July 29, 2014
Butte County Board of Supervisors
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of Grading Permit GRD13-
0001 (Curran, Travis)
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors take the following action:
Adopt the Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), and adopt the resolution making findings and approving Grading Permit
GRD13-0001, subject to the conditions of approval.
Background
Pursuant to Section 13-4 of the Grading Ordinance, the application and Draft Initial Study-
Negative Declaration was brought before the Butte County Zoning Administrator on April 23,
2014 for consideration at a noticed public hearing. During the public review and comment
period for this project, Development Services received three comment letters; two from
adjacent property owners and one from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (see
Attachment C - April 23, 2014 Zoning Administrator Agenda Report and attachments). Due
to the comments received, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning
Commission.
The application was subsequently considered by the Planning Commission at a noticed
public hearing on May 22, 2014. At the hearing, the Planning Commission, in a 3-2 vote,
approved a motion to deny the application. The applicant subsequently appealed the denial
to the Board of Supervisors (see attached appeal letter).
1
Grading Permit GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis) Page 2 of 3
July 29, 2014 Department of Development Services Staff Report
Project Overview
An application for a Grading Permit was submitted to Butte County for past grading activities
that have resulted in the disturbance of 1.5 acres of a 9.73 acre property, and the total
excavation of 800 cubic yards of material (450 cubic yards of cut and 350 cubic yards of fill).
The grading activities occurred over a one-week period in March 2013 using a small tractor-
bulldozer. Seven hillside terraces were formed with varying widths of approximately 10 feet.
Each terrace has a maximum cut height of 1½ feet, and a maximum fill height of 2 feet.
The subject property is located at 65 Wind Ridge Drive, off Big Bend Road, in the community
of Parkhill/Big Bend; APN: 058-210-097. Site elevations of the property ranges from 2,100
feet to 2,300 feet, and has an existing grade of approximately 30 percent. The property is
primarily undeveloped, with the exception of an existing driveway, a water well, 2,500 gallon
water storage tank, fencing, and three sheds of less than 120 square feet. The property
also included an unpermitted greenhouse, which was subsequently removed.
The request came before the County, pursuant to Chapter 13, Article I of the Butte County
Code, and as a situation where grading had been substantially completed prior to the
submittal of an application for a grading permit.
In accordance with Sections 13-8 & 13-10 of the Grading Ordinance, a grading plan, together
with an erosion and sediment control plan, have been prepared for the grading activities.
These plans have been prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the
Director of the Department of Public Works, with the plans having been found to be in
compliance with all applicable provisions of the current grading ordinance. Additional
information can be found in the attached Planning Commission staff report.
Analysis
In summary, the appeal filed by the applicant states that the Planning Commission had no
basis on which to deny the application, and that the Planning Commission’s decision to deny
the application was not supported by any substantial evidence demonstrating the project
would create significant impacts to the environment.
This report includes all application materials, and the record of consideration of the project
by the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission; including the Commission’s decision
to deny Grading Permit GRD13-0001. The staff recommendation of the Department of
Development Services and the Department of Public Works, however, is to approve the
Grading Permit subject to the recommended conditions. Approval of the Grading Permit will
help assure implementation of the plan’s conditions, together with the erosion and sediment
control plan, to bring the property into compliance with County Code.
At the same meeting, the Planning Commission directed Development Services and Public
Works to return to the Commission with the Draft Grading Ordinance so that the Commission
could make additional recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. On June 5, 2014 the
Commission reviewed the Draft Grading Ordinance and formulated a recommendation. This
2
Grading Permit GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis) Page 3 of 3
July 29, 2014 Department of Development Services Staff Report
recommendation is also scheduled to be presented to your Board on July 29, 2014.
If, in hearing this appeal, the Board of Supervisors supports the Planning Commission’s
decision and denies the appeal, staff recommends that Board provide direction to staff as to
the basis for findings of fact to support the denial, adopt a motion of intent to deny the appeal,
and direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny Grading Permit GRD13-0001.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Senior Planner Rowland Hickel
at (530) 538-7150 or me at (530) 538-6821.
Sincerely,
Tim Snellings, Director
Attachments:
A. Board of Supervisors Resolution granting the appeal and approving the project
and Exhibit A with conditions.
B. Appeal Letter.
C. May 22, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda Report and attachments.
D. May 22, 2014 Planning Commission Action Minutes. An audio recording of the
May 22nd Planning Commission meeting is available at http://bitly.com/GRD13-
0001PCAudio
E. Grading Permit GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis) Application Materials
F. Site Photos: May 29, 2013 and July 8, 2014
G. Public Comments
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING GRADING PERMIT GRD13‐0001 (CURRAN, TRAVIS)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of Grading
Permit GRD13‐0001 by the applicant, Travis Curran, at a duly noticed public hearing on July 29, 2014 in accordance with
Chapter 13, Article 1, Grading and Chapter 24, Article 37, Appeals and Calls for Review, of the Butte County Code on
Assessor’s Parcel Number 058‐210‐097; and
WHEREAS, said application was referred to various affected public and private agencies, County departments, and
referral agencies for review and comments; and
WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held by the Zoning Administrator on April 23, 2014 and Planning
Commission on May 22, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has considered public comments, reports from the Planning Division, and the
appeal letter on record:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors:
I. Adopts the Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) with the following findings:
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Said study
did not identify any significant environmental effects with approval of the project;
B. The Board of Supervisors has considered the Negative Declaration, together with comments received
during the review process.
C. On the basis of the whole record before the Board of Supervisors, including the Initial Study and any
comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Grading Permit for Travis Curran, Planning
Division File No. GRD13‐0001, with conditions here attached, would have a significant effect on the
environment.
D. The custodian of the record is the Land Development Division of the Public Works Department. The
location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965.
E. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead
Agency.
II. Finds that collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a Notice of
Determination for the project, unless the project proponent provides verification from the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife that the project is exempt from the fee requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project,
the project will not be operative, vested or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid (Fish &
Game Code Section 711.4 (c)(3)).
4
III. Makes the following findings regarding Grading Permit UP13‐0001:
A. Grading Plans are consistent with the provisions as set forth in Chapter 13, Article I of the Butte County
Code, including all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations.
B. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan conforms to the provisions as set forth in Chapter 13, Article 1 of
the Butte County Code, and contain temporary and permanent measures that, when implemented, would
ensure that sediment caused by grading activities would be retained on the project site to the greatest
extent feasible.
C. Upon a review of the proposed project and the associated documents, the Director of Public Works has
confirmed the project’s consistency with the provisions of Chapter 13, Article I of the Butte County Code,
and has recommended approval.
D. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the public
because the environmental controls and conditions of approval incorporated into the project will ensure
that any potential impacts will not adversely affect the surrounding area.
IV. Approves Grading Permit GRD13‐0001 for Travis Currant, subject to the conditions in Exhibit “A”
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 29th day of July by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
_________________________________
Doug Teeter, Chair
Butte County Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
By: _____________________________
Paul Hahn, Chief Administrative Officer and
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Attachment: Exhibit A – Grading Permit GRD13‐0001 Conditions of Approval.
5
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All grading activities shall be in conformance with the approved grading and erosion control plans on file with the
County of Butte.
2. Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water Resources Control Board
if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing, excavation, filling, and grading) of one or more acres.
The permit must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to grading.
3. The applicant shall implement the following best management practices for dust suppression during all proposed
grading and clearing activities:
A. Conduct daily cleanup. This practice shall include removal of mud and dust carried onto street surfaces
by construction vehicles. During clearing grading, earth‐moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or
fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site
and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
B. Cover haul trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times, except when loading or
unloading materials.
C. Water all exposed earth surfaces. This practice shall be conducted at a minimum in the late morning
and at the end of the day. Further, the frequency of watering shall increase if required by the butte
county air pollution control district.
D. All clearing, grading, earth‐moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds exceed 15 mph
averaged over 1 hour.
E. The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth‐moving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
F. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of 14 days shall be seeded
and watered until grass cover is grown.
G. The applicant shall minimize construction‐related exhaust emissions by maintaining construction
equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune according to manufacturer's specifications
and during smog season (May through October) by not allowing construction equipment to be left
idling for long periods.
H. All on‐site vehicles should be limited to a speed of 15 mph on unpaved roads.
I. Re‐vegetate exposed surfaces. This shall be completed as soon as possible to reduce dust emissions.
The Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to the County of Butte for review and approval prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
J. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to
prevent dust generation.
K. Abide by the following additional measures during all construction activity:
i. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all clearing and construction.
ii. Other measures as determined appropriate by AQMD and Department of Public Works to
reduce dust.
4. Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural resources (i.e., artifact concentrations, including
arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal
remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified professional archaeologist can
6
be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Recommencement of
development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided by the Butte County Department of Development
Services. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County
Coroner ((530) 538‐7404). Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological
context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State
law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains. A notation of
the above described measure shall be made to the final grading and erosion control plans.
7
8
9
Butte County Department of Development Services
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Office
(530) 538-7785 Fax
www.buttecounty.net
www.buttegeneralplan.net
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis) – Grading Permit Application Referral from the Zoning
Administrator; 65 Wind Ridge Drive, Parkhill/Big Bend (APN: 058-210-097)
DATE: May 22, 2014 Background:
An application for a Grading Permit was submitted to Butte County for past grading activities that have
resulted in the disturbance of 1.5 acres of a 9.73 acre property, and the excavation of approximately 800
cubic yards of material. The application includes an Erosion Control Plan and a Dust Suppression Plan.
These plans, once implemented, are anticipated to address any potential sediment discharges or fugitive
dust emissions that may have been created from the past grading activities.
The Planning Division prepared an Initial Study-Negative Declaration for the project to identify any
potentially significant impacts from the grading activities. However, with the proposed erosion control
plan, proposed dust suppression plan, and the provisions to contact a professional archaeologist in the event
cultural artifacts are discovered, no significant environmental impacts were identified.
Pursuant to Chapter 13, Article I of Butte County Code, the application and Draft Initial Study-Negative
Declaration was brought before the Butte County Zoning Administrator on April 23rd for consideration.
During the public review and comment period for this project, Planning received three comment letters;
two from adjacent property owners and one from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Due to
the comments received, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning Commission.
Agency Comments:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife – CDFW provided comments that expressed concerns with
regards to the preparation of the environmental document, and the use of the site for the cultivation of
marijuana. The following issues were discussed in the comment letter in Attachment D:
10
Incomplete Project Description – Information provided in the Initial Study/Negative Declaration did not
accurately describe the environmental setting of the project site because grading activities have resulted in
the clearing of vegetation without the benefit of an environmental review.
Response: The proposed project is intended to address previous grading violations on the subject property.
The CEQA Guidelines require only that the Initial Study describe the physical environment at the time the
environmental review is commenced and not to rollback the baseline conditions to the time the grading activities were performed (CEQA Guidelines §15125 (a); Riverwatch et al. v. County of San Diego 76 Cal.App.4th 1428). Nevertheless, Planning made efforts to describe the preexisting conditions of the site,
including using past aerial photos of the area to identify vegetation types. Whatever past baseline
conditions that could not be determined; the surrounding area was evaluated to identify the baseline.
Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Impacts - The Project will allow for an increase in human presence and
associated impacts including the introduction of exotic weeds, attraction of pest species or predators,
increase in impervious surfaces, increased human/wildlife interactions, and increased use of hazardous
materials such as rodenticides, pesticides, and herbicides that all should be addressed in the environmental
review. Response: The proposed project is consistent with the general plan designation and zoning of the area,
which is Foothill Residential (FR). This zoning allows residential uses in a low-density setting, and
includes accessory uses such as crop cultivation, animal grazing, and heavy equipment storage. These
uses are anticipated to cause an increase in the human presence in the project area, including the increase presence of exotic weeds, pests, impervious surfaces, and human/wildlife interactions. Impacts associated with development in the FR zone have already been evaluated in previous programmatic environmental
documents. No additional impacts associated with grading activities are anticipated.
Biological Survey – A survey is recommended because sensitive plant species are located in the vicinity of
the project site.
Response: The Draft Initial Study discussed the biological resources of the project site, including the
special-status species identified as being located in the project area. The identified species were evaluated
and determined that the habitat for these species are not present on the project site. Additionally, grading activities have already occurred, and no additional disturbance is anticipated that would cause any impacts to these special-status species.
Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds – The IS/ND did not determine if nest for raptors and other migratory
birds are present within the potential area of disturbance, and that construction takes place outside the
nesting season.
Response: Because grading activities have already occurred, the potential impact to nesting raptors or
migratory birds is not expected. Nevertheless, due to the presence of single-family residential uses around
the project site, the suitability of the project site for nesting raptors and migratory birds is marginal.
Deer Herd – Recommends that the graded area be fenced prior to planting of any crop to reduce the chance
of human/wildlife interaction.
Response: The project site is identified as being located within the State’s Buck Mountain Deer Herd Critical Winter Range, but is located outside the County’s Deer Herd Migration Area. The draft Initial Study-Negative Declaration is intended to address the past grading activities, and does not include an
11
evaluation of the subsequent planting of crops. Under the FR zone, agricultural uses, and gardens
incidental to the residential use, are permitted uses in the zone.
Hazardous Materials – Suggested that the lead agency consider the long term effects of marijuana
cultivation will have on plant and animal species in the area through the use of rodenticides, herbicides,
and pesticides applied to the crops.
Response: Butte County has not authorized the cultivation of marijuana on this property and it is not part of the proposed project. The relevant County ordinance on marijuana cultivation in Chapter 34A of Butte
County Code titled “Restrictions on Cultivation of Medical Marijuana.”
As such, the use of rodenticides, herbicides and pesticides associated with medical marijuana cultivation is not expected, unless it is associated with the allowable uses in the FR zone..
Recommendation:
Adoption of Resolution No._ for GRD13-0001, approving the Negative Declaration and Grading Permit
for Travis Curran, subject to the conditions in Attachment B.
Attachments:
A) Resolution No. _
B) Conditions of Approval
C) Zoning Administrator Decision (ZDN14-0006)
D) Zoning Administrator Agenda Report Packet – April 23, 2014
E) Comment Letter - California Department of Fish & Wildlife, North Central Region
12
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING GRADING PERMIT GRD 13-0001 (Curran, Travis)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Grading Permit GRD 13-0001 by the Travis
Curran for past grading activities that resulted in the disturbance of 1.5 acres of a 9.73 acre property, and
the total excavation of 800 cubic yards on Assessor’s Parcel Number 058-210-097; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered an Initial Study and Draft Negative
Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and
WHEREAS, said grading permit application was referred to various affected public and private
agencies, County departments, and referral agencies for review and comments; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held on May 22, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered public comments and a report from the
Planning Division.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission:
I. Adopts the Negative Declaration with the following findings:
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act. Said study did not identify any significant environmental effects.
B. The Planning Commission has considered the Negative Declaration, together with
comments received during the review process.
C. On the basis of the whole record before the Planning Commission, including the Initial
Study and any comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the Grading Permit
for Travis Curran, Planning Division File No. GRD13-0001, with conditions here attached,
would have a significant effect on the environment. .
D. The custodian of the record is the Land Development Division of the Public Works
Department. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965.
E. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County,
which is the Lead Agency.
II. Approves the Grading Permit GRD 13-0001 for Travis Curran, subject to the following findings
and the conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibit A:
A. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the general health, safety and welfare of
the public because the measures incorporated into the project plans will insure that any
potential impacts will not adversely affect the surrounding area.
B. The Director of Public Works has reviewed the project, and has determined that the Grading
Plan and Erosion Control Plan conforms the standards as set forth in Chapter 13, Article 1
of the Butte County Code.
13
DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd Day of May, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Chuck Nelson, Chair
Planning Commission
County of Butte, State of California
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Kim McMillan, Secretary
Planning Commission
County of Butte, State of California
14
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All grading activities shall be in conformance with the approved grading and erosion control plans
on file with the County of Butte.
2. Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water Resources
Control Board if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing, excavation, filling, and
grading) of one or more acres. The permit must be obtained from the State Water Resources
Control Board prior to grading.
3. The applicant shall implement the following best management practices for dust suppression during
all proposed grading and clearing activities:
1. Conduct daily cleanup. This practice shall include removal of mud and dust carried onto
street surfaces by construction vehicles. During clearing grading, earth-moving,
excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems are
to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
2. Cover haul trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times, except when
loading or unloading materials.
3. Water all exposed earth surfaces. This practice shall be conducted at a minimum in the
late morning and at the end of the day. Further, the frequency of watering shall increase if
required by the butte county air pollution control district.
4. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when winds
exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
5. The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation
operations shall be minimized at all times.
6. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of 14 days shall be
seeded and watered until grass cover is grown.
7. The applicant shall minimize construction-related exhaust emissions by maintaining
construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune according to
manufacturer's specifications and during smog season (May through October) by not
allowing construction equipment to be left idling for long periods.
8. All on-site vehicles should be limited to a speed of 15 mph on unpaved roads.
9. Re-vegetate exposed surfaces. This shall be completed as soon as possible to reduce dust
emissions. The Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to the County of Butte for
review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
10. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil
binders to prevent dust generation.
11. Abide by the following additional measures during all construction activity:
A. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all clearing and
construction.
B. Other measures as determined appropriate by AQMD and Department of Public
Works to reduce dust.
15
4. Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural resources (i.e., artifact concentrations,
including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans, glass, etc.; structural remains;
human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find shall cease immediately until a qualified
professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the remains and implement appropriate
mitigation procedures. Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance
is provided by the Butte County Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal
remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner. Should
the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an archaeological context, the Native
American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State law,
to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains. A
notation of the above described measure shall be made to the final grading and erosion control
plans.
16
BUTTE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DECISION ZDN14-0006
GRADING PERMIT GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis)
Request to allow grading activities encompassing 1.5 acres of
a 9.73 acre property, resulting in the total excavation of 800
cubic yards.
APN: 058-210-097
April 23, 2014
The public hearing was opened to accept previously submitted comments from the
public for Grading Permit (GRD13-0001), and to accept any new comments. Due to the
comments received, the Zoning Administrator referred the application to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
Approved By: Pete Calarco, Zoning Administrator
Date: April 23, 2014
17
BUTTE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
AGENDA REPORT – April 23, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval of a Grading Permit, pursuant to Butte County Code,
Chapter 13, Article I, for past grading activities that resulted in the disturbance of 1.5 acres of a
9.73 acre property. Grading activities included the formation of seven, approximately 10-foot
wide terraces on the hillside of the subject property, resulting in 450 cubic yards of cut and 350
cubic yards of fill.
In accordance with Section 13-8 & 13-10 of Butte County Code, a grading plan and an erosion
and sediment control plan have been prepared for the project site. The plans have been reviewed
by the Director of the Department of Public Works and have been found to be in compliance
with all applicable standards.
Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator adopt the Negative Declaration (ND) prepared
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approve the Grading Permit
GRD13-0001 for Travis Curran, subject to the findings in Exhibit A.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Site disturbance totals 1.5 acres.
Applicant: Travis Curran Location: The project site is located at 65
Wind Ridge Drive, off Big Bend
Road, in the community of
Parkhill/Big Bend. Owner: Travis Curran
File #: GRD13-0001 Supervisor
District:
1
Request: Grading Permit Project
Planner:
Rowland Hickel,
Senior Planner
G.P.
FR (Foothill Residential)
Parcel Size:
Exhibits:
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
9.73 acres
Recommended Findings and
Zoning Administrator Decision
Recommended Conditions of
Approval
Draft Grading Plan
Draft Initial Study/Negative
Declaration
Public & Agency Comments
Zoning:
FR-5 (Foothill Residential, 5
acre minimum parcel size)
APN: 058-210-097
18
• Grading activities include the creation of seven; approximately 10-foot wide hillside
terraces.
• Excavations include the removal of approximately 450 cubic yards and fill of
approximately 350 cubic yards.
• The maximum height of cuts is 1.5 feet and fills is 2 feet.
• Cut and fill slopes vary between 2:1 to 4:1 (H:V).
• Grading activities were performed over a one-week period in March 2013 using a small
tractor-bulldozer.
• No additional materials were imported into the site.
• Greenwaste generated as a result of grading activities will be mulched on-site and/or
disposed of in a greenwaste facility for composting.
• The proposed project includes a Dust Suppression Plan that identifies best management
practices (BMPs) to be applied to future grading and clearing activities, and will consist
of stabilizing the site for water quality protection and erosion control. The BMPs of the
Dust Suppression Plan, include:
1. Conduct daily cleanup. This practice shall include removal of mud and dust
carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles. During clearing grading,
earth-moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks
or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to
create a crust after each day's activities cease.
2. Cover haul trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times, except
when loading or unloading materials.
3. Water all exposed earth surfaces. This practice shall be conducted at a
minimum in the late morning and at the end of the day. Further, the frequency
of watering shall increase if required by the butte county air pollution control
district.
4. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when
winds exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
5. The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth-moving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
6. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of 14
days shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown.
7. The applicant shall minimize construction-related exhaust emissions by
maintaining construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications and during smog season (May
through October) by not allowing construction equipment to be left idling for
long periods.
8. All on-site vehicles should be limited to a speed of 15 mph on unpaved roads.
9. Re-vegetate exposed surfaces. This shall be completed as soon as possible to
reduce dust emissions. The Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to the
County of Butte for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
10. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
19
11. Abide by the following additional measures during all construction activity:
A. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all clearing
and construction.
B. Other measures as determined appropriate by AQMD and Department of
Public Works to reduce dust.
• An Erosion Control Plan that includes measures Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
stabilizing the soils on the project site is included with the Draft Grading Plan, these
BMPs of the Erosion Control Plan include:
1. If one or more acres of ground are to be disturbed, a permit must be obtained
from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to construction.
2. All erosion control measures shall conform to the Caltrans standard
specifications May 2006 and the erosion control plans shown on the
construction drawings.
3. Interim erosion control measures may be needed and shall be installed during
construction to assure adequate erosion control facilities are in place at all times.
4. All slopes with disturbed soils greater than 10% that are free of vegetation shall
have earth guard applied or mulch spread and tacked down prior to a 30%
chance of rain.
5. Dust control measures in the form of water application to all exposed soil
surfaces to prevent the transport of soil from exposed surfaces on construction
sites in the form of airborne particulates. Watering of exposed soil surfaces
shall occur at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is
done for the day. All clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation activities
shall cease when winds exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
6. To minimize the tracking of mud and dirt and to stabilize the point of
ingress/egress by construction vehicles the contractor should place 4" to 6"
angular rock with a minimum depth of 12" in conjunction with an underlay of
filter fabric. Any soil material carried onto street surfaces by construction
equipment shall be removed on a daily basis. (broom clean- do not use water to
wash the street) If equipment traffic is minimal, stabilized entrance may not be
needed. Any sediment tracked off the property and onto paved roadways shall
be swept immediately after each vehicle leaves the site.
7. Haul trucks shall be covered with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all
times.
8. If the construction site is to remain inactive longer than 14 days then the site
shall be stabilized by applying "earth guard" or seeded and watered until grass
cover is grown.
9. Inspect sediment control devices before each storm to verify they are in proper
order. Inspect the sediment control devices after each storm, removing
collected sediment and repairing deficiencies.
10. During long periods of rain and high intensity rainfall bmp's may become
clogged. Extreme care should be taken to clean BMP's to reduce fugitive
discharge and potential flooding.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
20
• The project site encompasses 9.73 acres.
• Zoning of the project site is Foothill Residential (FR-5).
• The Butte County General Plan designates the project site as Foothill Residential (FR).
• The project site is identified as being located in the following constraint areas:
o Moderate to Severe Erosion Hazard Area;
o High Potential for Expansive Soils;
o High Potential for Landslide;
o High Wildfire Hazard Zone; and
o State Responsibility Area.
• No Jurisdictional Waters of the United States are located within the project site
boundaries. The North Fork Feather River is located approximately one mile east. Dark
Canyon Creek is located approximately ½ mile west.
• Site elevations range from 2,100 feet to 2,300 feet above M.S.L. with a grade of
approximately 30 percent on the southerly slope.
• Development on the project site include driveway, domestic well, 2,500 gallon water
storage tank, and 3 temporary out-buildings (each less than 120 square feet).
• The project site is located on the foothill slopes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and
consists of a mixed Chaparral habitat community, which is dominated by common
manzanita, whiteleaf manzanita, and scrub oak, with associated species such as toyon,
California buckeye, and poison oak.
• No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community was identified to be located
within the project site boundaries.
• The potential occurrence of six species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species were identified within one-mile of the project site.
• Surrounding use include single-family residences situated in FR-5 zoning. Residences
are located approximately 250 feet to the east, 430 feet to the northwest, 350 feet to the
north, 525 feet to the northeast, and 900 feet to the south.
ANALYSIS
• Erosion control measures incorporated into the project plan will insure that soils on
the project site are effectively stabilized, minimizing the potential for substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil.
• The proposed project will not create the potential for landslides in the project area
because the slopes of the disturbed area are at ratios of 1.5:1 with a 2-10% slope on
the terraced portion. Additionally, erosion control measures incorporated into the
project plans will stabilize sediment within the disturbance area, minimizing the
potential for landslides.
• No candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be adversely affected by the
proposed project because no suitable habitats for the identified species are located
within the project site.
• No permanent improvements are proposed that would be impacted by expansive soils
identified on the project site. In the event any future improvements are proposed, the
21
applicant will obtain any necessary engineering or soils analysis to insure that
structures will not be affected.
• Adjacent waterways will not be adversely affected by the proposed project because
the applicant will file a Notice of Intent with the State of California State Water
Resources Control Board, which will include the submission of a site-specific Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will identify all potential
sources of sediment and pollutant runoff and mitigate them accordingly, minimizing
the potential for water quality degradation to any nearby waterways.
• The proposed project will not create the potential for wildfires because the project
includes the removal of fire prone vegetation from the project site.
• The Director of Public Works has reviewed the project, and has determined that the
Grading Plan and Erosion Control Plan conforms the standards as set forth in Chapter 13,
Article 1 of the Butte County Code.
• The proposed project is consistent with the designated zoning and land use of the project
site.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The project was reviewed by the Butte County Public Works Department, Butte County
Environmental Health Division, Butte County Fire Department/CalFire, and the Butte County
Assessor.
• Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed project, and included conditions of
approval that will be incorporated into the approved grading plans.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bonnie Masarik – The comments provided by Ms. Bonnie Masarik expressed concerns regarding
erosion, slope stability, and the impacts of terracing on aesthetics and wildlife.
The proposed grading permit application has been submitted to the County to address grading activities that have already occurred, and is in response to the County’s enforcement action against the property owner. With approval of the grading permit,
potential issues regarding erosion and slope stability are intended to be addressed
through the implementation of site specific erosion control measures. Included among
these measures is the requirement for the applicant to revegetate portions of the disturbed area with slopes in excess of 10 percent. Implementation of this measure would minimize any aesthetic issues created by grading activities.
Gertrude E. Strong – The comments provided by Ms. Gertrude Strong acknowledged that the
proposed project is in regards to grading activities, but expressed concerns of odors and the
impacts area groundwater wells from water usage associated with marijuana cultivation.
The proposed project is intended to address pre-existing grading activities, and not the subsequent use of the land for marijuana cultivation. Impacts related to marijuana
cultivation were not addressed in the subject environmental review.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073(a), the Initial Study/Negative Declaration
22
(IS/ND) for this application was submitted to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day review by
state agencies and the public. The review period occurred began March 20, 2014 and ended on
April 21, 2014. A Notice of Intent to adopt a negative declaration was published in the Chico
Enterprise Record and Oroville Mercury Register, with notices of the documents availability
mailed to adjacent property owners within 300 feet.
The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a
Notice of Determination for the project, unless the project proponent provides verification from
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that the project is exempt from the fee
requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project, the project will not be operative, vested or
final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid (Section 711.4 (c) (3)).
23
EXHIBIT A
BUTTE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DECISION ZDN14-00__
GRADING PERMIT GRD13-0001 (Curran, Travis)
Request to allow grading activities encompassing 1.5 acres of a 9.73
acre property, resulting in the total excavation of 800 cubic yards.
APN: 058-210-097
April 23, 2014
I. The Zoning Administrator has considered the Initial Study and Negative Declaration in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and adopts the
Negative Declaration subject to the following findings:
A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act. Said Study did not identify any significant environmental effects
with approval of the project;
B. The Zoning Administrator has considered the Negative Declaration, together with
comments received during the review process.
C. On the basis of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator, including the
Initial Study and comments received, there is no substantial evidence that the
Grading Permit for Travis Curran, Planning Division File No. GRD13-0001, with
conditions here attached, would have a significant effect on the environment.
D. The custodian of the record is the Land Development Division of the Public
Works Department. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville
CA 95965.
E. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
County, which is the Lead Agency.
II. The Zoning Administrator approves Grading Permit GRD13-0001, subject to the
following findings:
A. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the general health, safety and
welfare of the public because the measures incorporated into the project plans will
insure that any potential impacts will not adversely affect the surrounding area.
B. The Director of Public Works has reviewed the project, and has determined that
the Grading Plan and Erosion Control Plan conforms the standards as set forth in
Chapter 13, Article 1 of the Butte County Code.
Approved By: _______________, Zoning Administrator
Date:______________
24
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. All grading activities shall be in conformance with the approved grading and erosion
control plans on file with the County of Butte.
2. Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water
Resources Control Board if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing,
excavation, filling, and grading) of one or more acres. The permit must be obtained from
the State Water Resources Control Board prior to grading.
3. The applicant shall implement the following best management practices for dust
suppression during all proposed grading and clearing activities:
1. Conduct daily cleanup. This practice shall include removal of mud and dust
carried onto street surfaces by construction vehicles. During clearing grading,
earth-moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks
or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to
create a crust after each day's activities cease.
2. Cover haul trucks with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times, except
when loading or unloading materials.
3. Water all exposed earth surfaces. This practice shall be conducted at a
minimum in the late morning and at the end of the day. Further, the frequency
of watering shall increase if required by the butte county air pollution control
district.
4. All clearing, grading, earth-moving, or excavation activities shall cease when
winds exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
5. The area disturbed by demolition, clearing, grading, earth-moving, or
excavation operations shall be minimized at all times.
6. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of 14
days shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown.
7. The applicant shall minimize construction-related exhaust emissions by
maintaining construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper
tune according to manufacturer's specifications and during smog season (May
through October) by not allowing construction equipment to be left idling for
long periods.
8. All on-site vehicles should be limited to a speed of 15 mph on unpaved roads.
9. Re-vegetate exposed surfaces. This shall be completed as soon as possible to
reduce dust emissions. The Dust Suppression Plan shall be submitted to the
County of Butte for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit.
10. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
11. Abide by the following additional measures during all construction activity:
A. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material during all clearing
25
and construction.
B. Other measures as determined appropriate by AQMD and Department of
Public Works to reduce dust.
4. Should grading activities reveal the presence of cultural resources (i.e., artifact
concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans,
glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains), work within 50 feet of the find
shall cease immediately until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to
evaluate the remains and implement appropriate mitigation procedures.
Recommencement of development activities shall not occur until clearance is provided
by the Butte County Department of Development Services. Should human skeletal
remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County
Coroner. Should the County Coroner determine that such remains are in an
archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall
be notified immediately, pursuant to State law, to arrange for Native American
participation in determining the disposition of such remains. A notation of the above
described measure shall be made to the final grading and erosion control plans.
26
2
7
2
8
Butte County Department of Development Services
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Office
(530) 538-7785 Fax
www.buttecounty.net
www.buttegeneralplan.net
BUTTE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Butte County has prepared an
Initial Study and is considering the adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project listed below at a
public hearing before the Butte County Zoning Administrator to be held on April 23, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.
in the Butte County Department of Development Services, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA.
Project Information
Project: GRD13-0001 – Travis Curran Grading Permit
Location: The project site is located at 65 Wind Ridge Drive, off Big Bend Road, in the
community of Concow. APN: 058-210-097.
Proposal: The applicant is proposing a Grading Permit to disturb 1.5 acres of the 9.73 acre
property for the purposes of terracing land for the cultivation of medical marijuana. The
grading request includes excavation of approximately 450 cubic yards of cut and 350 cubic
yards of fill. All grading activities including the implementing erosion control measures have
already been completed.
Zoning: The project site has a FR-5 (Foothill Residential 5 acre minimum) land use
designation and FR General Plan designation.
The Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and reference documents for this project are on file for
public review and comment starting March 20, 2014 through April 21, 2014, at the Butte County
Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. The IS/ND’s are also available for review on
the County website at www.buttecounty.net/dds by selecting Planning, Negative Declarations and the
project document. All persons are invited to review the documents. Comments may be submitted in
writing to the Planning Division at the above address at any time prior to the hearing or orally at the
public hearing listed above, or as may be continued to a later date. If you challenge the above application
in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
or in written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator at, or prior to, the public hearing.
The above mentioned application is on file and available for public viewing at the office of the, 7 County
Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call or send an email to Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner,
Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division at (530) 538-7150 or
rhickel@buttecounty.net.
Tim Snellings, Director of Development Services
29
Draft Initial Study and
Proposed Negative Declaration
for the
Curran Grading Permit
APN 058-210-097
Lead Agency:
Butte County
Department of Public Works
Prepared By:
March 2014
111 Mission Ranch Blvd., Suite 100, Chico, CA 95926
P: 530.893.1600 F: 530.893.2113 www.northstareng.com
30
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 1
Project Information
1. Project Title: Curran Grading Permit Application
2. Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Public Works
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7266
3. Contact Person: Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner
(530) 538-7150
4. Project Applicant: Travis Curran
1450 Foxglove Ln.
Boulder Creek, CA 95006
(831) 706-7344
5. Project Location: Figure 1 – Location Map
APN 058-210-097, located at 65 Wind Ridge Drive in Concow, CA in
Butte County. Affected area is 1.5 acres on a 9.73-acre site.
Latitude: 39.71723N, Longitude: 121.48892W
6. General Plan Designation: Foothill Residential
7. Zoning: FR-5 (Foothill Residential, 5-acre minimum parcel size)
8. Environmental Setting:
The property is situated between State Route 70 and the North Fork of the Feather River in a rural
area of Butte County, California. The property can be accessed from SR 70 via Pinkston Canyon
Road and Big Bend Road. A 0.20-mile driveway provides access to the site from Wind Ridge Drive.
The property is primarily undeveloped, with the exception of an existing driveway and grading and
clearing activities that have already taken place. The grading and clearing activities are described in
more detail in the Project Description. The property drains to the southwest into Dark Canyon. Dark
Canyon drains into Lake Oroville near the confluence of the West Branch and the North Fork of the
Feather River. Site elevations range from 2,100 to 2,300 feet. The property is bisected by a ridgeline
that runs in a northwest and southeasterly direction. From this ridgeline, the southern property
slope is about 30 percent. There is an existing water well located on the ridgeline as well as an
approximately 2,500 gallon water storage tank and three temporary out-buildings (less than 120
square feet) located within the project boundaries. Review of historic plat maps shows that the
water well was installed as part of a previous mobile home in 1982; the mobile home is no longer
located on the site. At the time that previous grading activities commenced, a greenhouse was in the
process of being erected; however, this structure has been subsequently removed from the site.
The property was previously dominated by montane-conifer habitat that includes both conifer and
hardwood tree species. However, during the Poe Fire of 2001, the area experienced significant
wildfire disturbance, resulting in the emergence of a successional species assemblage resembling
mixed chaparral habitat. Chaparral occurs on foothill slopes, within the understory of woodlands,
31
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 2
and at higher elevations throughout Butte County. This plant community is adapted to wildfires and
at lower elevations is dominated by common manzanita, whiteleaf Manzanita (Arctostaphylos
viscida), and scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), with associated species such as toyon, California
buckeye, and poison oak. At higher elevations, whiteleaf manzanita may be the only dominant
shrub, and it often occurs on serpentine or gabbro substrates. (GP EIR, pg. 4.4-15) The small
mosaic-like grove of conifer tree species that occur to the northwest of the property along the
ridgeline was not impacted by grading activities. Additionally, grading activities conducted on-site
avoided multiple small conifer trees species.
9. Surrounding Land Uses:
The property is located east of State Route 70 and accessed via Wind Ridge Road. Surrounding
parcels vary in size from 4 to 20 acres. Properties are also zoned FR-5. Surrounding land uses
include single-family residences. The nearest residence from grading activities is located
approximately 250 feet to the east. Residences are also located approximately 430 feet to the
northwest, 350 feet to the north, 525 feet to the northeast, and 900 feet to the south of the
property. The North Fork of the Feather River is located approximately one mile east of Wind Ridge
Road.
10. Project Description:
The applicant requests approval of a Grading Permit pursuant to Butte County Code Chapter 13,
Article I for a grading operation that disturbed 1.5 acres of a 9.73 acre property for the purposes of
terracing land for the cultivation of medical marijuana pursuant to Butte County Ordinance #4051.
Disturbance to the site included the formation of seven, approximately 10-foot wide terraces along
the hillside of the property. Terraces were formed over a one-week period in March 2013 using a
small tractor-bulldozer. An above ground, gravity fed irrigation system consisting of PVC piping and
drip line was installed to provide water to the garden. Vegetation in the area where the terracing
activities occurred was sparse, and consisted primarily of woody shrubs and immature tree species.
While grading activities avoided the thick stands of vegetation located on the property adjacent to
the terraces, several immature trees of unknown species were removed, Figure 2, Grading Plan.
The Grading Permit request includes the following estimates of excavation, cut, and fill (please note,
that final grading will take place once the Grading Permit is issued):
1. Hillside terracing; the extent of grading, clearing, and terracing activities comprise
approximately 1.5 acres. The applicant has terraced the existing hillside and proposes to
remove a total of 450 cubic yards and fill approximately 350 cubic yards.
2. The maximum height of cuts is 1.5 feet and fills is 2 feet.
3. The maximum and minimum slope of the work site is Cuts (H:V) 2:1 maximum, 4:1
minimum; Fills 2:1 maximum, 4:1 minimum.
A Grading Plan has been prepared for grading activities on a portion of the 9.73 acre site. The
grading excavations that are the subject of this Initial Study and Grading Permit have already taken
place. According to the applicant, grading and clearing activities took place in March 2013; prior to
implementation of stormwater and erosion control measures. Both a Notice of Intent and County
approval of measures will be needed. Filing the Notice of Intent package with the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) will include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
site map, and other Permit Registration documents including associated fees. The purpose of the
32
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 3
SWPPP is to ensure that the existing grading and clearing activities do not result in water quality
impacts off-site as the result of a storm event.
Grading and clearing activities has resulted in stockpiles of green waste within the project area.
This waste will be mulched on-site and/or disposed of in a green waste facility for composting.
The Grading Plan also includes a Dust Suppression Plan that identifies best management practices
(BMPs) to be applied to future grading and clearing activities, which will consist of stabilizing the
site for water quality protection and erosion control. The following is a list of BMPs proposed to be
implemented in the Dust Suppression Plan:
1. If one or more acres of ground is to be disturbed, a permit must be obtained from
the state water resources control board prior to construction.
2. All erosion control measures shall conform to the Caltrans standard specifications
May 2006 and the erosion control plans shown on the construction drawings.
3. Interim erosion control measures may be needed and shall be installed during
construction to assure adequate erosion control facilities are in place at all times.
4. All slopes with disturbed soils greater than 10% that are free of vegetation shall
have earth guard applied or mulch spread and tacked down prior to a 30% chance
of rain.
5. Dust control measures in the form of water application to all exposed soil surfaces
to prevent the transport of soil from exposed surfaces on construction sites in the
form of airborne particulates. Watering of exposed soil surfaces shall occur at least
twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All
clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation activities shall cease when winds
exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
6. To minimize the tracking of mud and dirt and to stabilize the point of ingress/egress
by construction vehicles the contractor should place 4" to 6" angular rock with a
minimum depth of 12" in conjunction with an underlay of filter fabric. Any soil
material carried onto street surfaces by construction equipment shall be removed
on a daily basis. (broom clean- do not use water to wash the street)
7. Haul trucks shall be covered with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times.
8. If the construction site is to remain inactive longer than 14 days then the site shall
be stabilized by applying "earth guard" or seeded and watered until grass cover is
grown.
9. Inspect sediment control devices before each storm to verify they are in proper
order. Inspect the SWPPP measures after each storm, removing collected sediment
and repairing deficiencies.
10. During long periods of rain and high intensity rainfall bmp's may become clogged.
Extreme care should be taken to clean BMP's to reduce fugitive discharge and
potential flooding.
33
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 4
The project also includes the preparation of an erosion control plan, which is part of the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Construction General Permit (CGP) for Storm
Water Dischargers Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance activities will also be
required. The SWPPP, part of the CGP, identifies erosion control measures and site stabilization
measures that will ensure the protection of water quality and minimization of soil erosion during
storm events. Sediment control measures may include contouring a swale at the top of the slope to
direct water around the disturbed area, as well as the installation of silt fencing at the toe of the
disturbed area to capture sediment leaving the site.
Following approval of the Grading Permit, the SWPPP will be implemented and regular inspections
of the site’s erosion control measures as required under the CGP will be conducted. Pre and post-
storm event inspections and monitoring will also occur, as necessary. Status reports will be
prepared and submitted to the State and Butte County Public Works Department to verify
compliance with the CGP.
The use, storage, and disposal of chemicals associated with subsequent uses within the project
boundaries are subject to all applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The following agencies and/or Butte County Departments may be responsible for approvals or
review of the project:
Butte County Public Works
Butte County Department of Development Services and Planning
Butte County Fire Department
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
34
Curran Grading Plan Project Area Location Map
0 0.5 1
MilesWithin Sections 17-20 ofT18N, R5E Butte County, CA.Bangor USGS 7.5' Quad.Map Date: September16, 2013
Figure 1
R
Project_Area
Chico Concow
Oroville
Paradise
BUTTE
PLUMAS
TEHAMA
YUBAGLENN
ÃÆ70
ÃÆ32
ÃÆ162
ÃÆ99
ÃÆ149
ÃÆ191
ÃÆ162
PROJECT
SITE
35
3
6
3
7
38
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 10
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses
following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced
information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards, (e.g., the
project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants based on a project-specific screening
analysis.)
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one
or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant
Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used: Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures: For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation
Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to
the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.
39
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 11
Environmental Checklist
1. Aesthetics
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources
within a state scenic highway? X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the
site/surroundings?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. The property is located on the foothill slopes of the Sierra Nevada
Mountains and consists of a mixed Chaparral habitat community, which is dominated by
common manzanita, whiteleaf Manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida), and scrub oak (Quercus
berberidifolia), with associated species such as toyon, California buckeye, and poison oak.
This habitat’s visual character dominates the site. The total parcel encompasses 9.73 acres,
however, for the purpose of the Grading Permit, the total area affected by grading and
terracing activities is approximately 1.5 acres. The grading operation involves removal of
trees and brush and temporary disturbance to the soil. Water features, unique geologic
features, and wildlife habitat areas are considered scenic resources within Butte County.
These features are not located on the property. In addition, only a portion of the site has
been affected by grading and terracing activities. The perimeter of the site is screened by
native vegetation. The site cannot be viewed from adjacent roadways, therefore grading
activities will have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista.
b) No Impact. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles east of State Route 70 (SR
70). A Scenic Highway Overlay Zone extends 350 linear feet from the centerline of scenic
routes, which includes portions of State Route 70 north of the State Route 149 (SR 149)
intersection (GP, page 262). The property is located outside of this Zone and is not visible
from SR 70. Therefore, grading activities would have no impact to scenic resources within a
designated scenic highway.
c) Less Than Significant. Refer to the discussion under Item a) above.
d) No Impact. Grading activities would not result in a new significant source of lighting, nor
would it affect nighttime views in the area.
40
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 12
2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Convert Farmland (Prime, Unique or of
Statewide Importance) pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the CA Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 1220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
X
Discussion
a,b) No Impact. A review of the Butte County General Plan 2030 Land Use Map identifies the
property as being located within an area designated as Foothill Residential and a zoning
designation as FR-5 (Foothill Residential, 5-acre minimum parcel size). Foothill Residential
allows single-family dwellings at rural densities of 1 to 40 acres per dwelling unit,
depending on the zoning. Grading activities would not convert Farmland (Prime, Unique or
of Statewide Importance) pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency.
c,d) Less Than Significant. As stated under Item a) above, the site is designated as Foothill
Residential and a zoning designation as FR-5. The project would not result in the rezoning
of forest land or timberland zoned for Timberland production. Grading would not result in
the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use or non-agricultural use.
Refer to Section 4, Item b) further below for a description of vegetation communities in the
project area and on the project site.
e) No Impact. As stated under Item a) above, grading activities would not convert Farmland
(Prime, Unique or of Statewide Importance) pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.
41
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 13
3. Air Quality
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan? X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
X
c) Result in a cumulatively 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 emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. The property is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB),
which is divided into two planning sections. Butte County belongs to the Northern
Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB). The NSVAB has been categorized as “moderately”
non-attainment for ozone and particulate matter.
The County is under the jurisdiction of the Butte County Air Quality Management District
(BCAQMD), a regional agency responsible for regulating sources of air pollution in Butte
County. The BCAQMD is responsible for the preparation of plans for the attainment and
maintenance of Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), adoption and enforcement of rules
and regulations for sources of air pollution, and issuance of permits for stationary sources
of air pollution.
The Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts’ (Districts) for the
counties located in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley together compromise the
Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area (NSVPA). The NSVPA Districts have committed
to jointly prepare and adopt a uniform air quality attainment plan for the purpose of
achieving and maintaining healthful air quality throughout the air basin. This triennial
update of the NSVPA Air Quality Attainment Plan (Plan) addresses the progress made in
implementing the 2009 Plan and proposes modifications to the strategies necessary to
attain the California ambient air quality standard for the 8-hour ozone at the earliest
practicable date. The 2012 Plan identifies those portions of the NSVPA designated as “non-
attainment” for the State ambient air quality standards and discusses the health effects
related to the various air pollutants. The Plan identifies the air pollution problems which
are to be cooperatively addressed on as many fronts as possible in order to make the region
42
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 14
a healthier place to live now and in the future. Like the 2006 and 2009 Plans, the 2012 Plan
focuses on the adoption and implementation of control measures for stationary sources,
area wide sources, and indirect sources, and addresses public education and information
programs (NSVPA Air Quality Attainment Plan, pg. 3).
The project consists of clearing and grading of 1.5 acres of land. The Grading Plan for the
property includes a Dust Suppression Plan that identifies best management practices
(BMPs) that reduce dust and particulate matter associated with grading activities. These
include:
1. If one or more acres of ground is to be disturbed, a permit must be obtained from
the state water resources control board prior to construction.
2. All erosion control measures shall conform to the Caltrans standard specifications
may 2006 and the erosion control plans shown on the construction drawings.
3. Interim erosion control measures may be needed and shall be installed during
construction to assure adequate erosion control facilities are in place at all times.
4. All slopes with disturbed soils greater than 10% that are free of vegetation shall
have earth guard applied or mulch spread and tacked down prior to a 30% chance
of rain.
5. Dust control measures in the form of water application to all exposed soil surfaces
to prevent the transport of soil from exposed surfaces on construction sites in the
form of airborne particulates. Watering of exposed soil surfaces shall occur at least
twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All
clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation activities shall cease when winds
exceed 15 mph averaged over 1 hour.
6. To minimize the tracking of mud and dirt and to stabilize the point of ingress/egress
by construction vehicles the contractor should place 4" to 6" angular rock with a
minimum depth of 12" in conjunction with an underlay of filter fabric. Any soil
material carried onto street surfaces by construction equipment shall be removed
on a daily basis. (broom clean- do not use water to wash the street)
7. Haul trucks shall be covered with tarpaulins or other effective covers at all times.
8. If the construction site is to remain inactive longer than 14 days then the site shall
be stabilized by applying "earth guard" or seeded and watered until grass cover is
grown.
9. Inspect sediment control devices before each storm to verify they are in proper
order. Inspect the SWPPP measures after each storm, removing collected sediment
and repairing deficiencies.
10. During long periods of rain and high intensity rainfall bmp's may become clogged.
Extreme care should be taken to clean BMP's to reduce fugitive discharge and
potential flooding.
43
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 15
Therefore, this specific project will have grading related emissions, but no further
construction or construction vehicle related emissions. The grading project does not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, therefore, there is a less
than significant impact.
b, c) Less Than Significant. The BCAQMD uses general screening criteria to determine the type
and scope of projects requiring an air quality assessment, and/or mitigation. These criteria
are based on project size and are focused primarily on the indirect emissions (i.e., motor
vehicles) associated with residential, commercial and industrial development. Due to the
relatively limited scale of grading required, 1.5 acres, construction related emissions would
not exceed District emission thresholds. Therefore, grading will not violate State or Federal
air quality standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation in the basin as only
minor amounts of material has been, or will be moved. Therefore, grading would not result
in locally elevated levels of regulated air emissions in close proximity to sensitive receptors.
d) No Impact. Sensitive populations (i.e., children, senior citizens and acutely or chronically ill
people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population.
Land uses considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds,
childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. The area is
designed as FR-5, which means that adjacent parcel sizes are five acres or greater in size.
While there are adjacent residences, the nearest resident is approximately 250 feet east of
grading activities. In addition, grading activities are temporary, and a Dust Suppression Plan
will be implemented as part of future grading work; thereby minimizing dust emissions.
There are no other sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site.
e) No Impact. Grading activities would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people.
4. Biological Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, 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?
X
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?
X
44
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 16
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the 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?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
g) A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the
range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any
unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species
of animals?
X
h) A reduction in the diversity or numbers of
animals onsite (including mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?
X
i) A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat
(for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? X
j) Introduction of barriers to movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? X
k) Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise,
human presence and/or domestic animals)
which could hinder the normal activities of
wildlife?
X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. There are six species within a 1-mile radius of the project
area that qualify as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. None of these species or
their habitats will be adversely affected by the project. The project area falls within pallid
bat range, however, no sufficient pallid bat habitat exists within the project area. See Table
1 for a list of the species with their nearest proximity to the project perimeter. See Figure 3
– CNDDB Map for a map that shows the locations of these species relative to the project
area.
45
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 17
Table 1 – Species within a 1-mile Radius of Property
Species Common
Name
Nearest Proximity to
Project
Adversely affected by Project
Mildred’s clarkia 4,620 feet No, does not grow in/near project area
Mosquin’s clarkia 2,440 feet No, does not grow in/near project area
bald eagle 4,373 feet No, nesting range is not in/near project
area
obtuse starwort 5,262 feet No, does not grow in/near project area
white-stemmed clarkia 4,940 feet No, does not grow in/near project area
pallid bat Range covers project area No, no suitable habitat within project area
b) No Impact. According to the General Plan EIR, Figure 4.4-1, Vegetative Communities and
Wildlife Areas, portions of the project area are designated as conifer and oak woodland.
Many conifer forest types occur within Butte County, all of which are dominated by conifers
but vary in the dominant species and elevations at which they occur. The area typically
consists of montane hardwood-conifer forest, which occurs at lower elevations below 4,000
feet. In this forest type, California black oak (Quercus kelloggii), bigleaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), and dogwood (Cornus sp.) occur with
conifers such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii), incense cedar (Calocedrus
decurrens), and ponderosa pine. This forest type generally has little understory except in
areas of disturbance (GP EIR, pg 4.4-8).
Oak woodlands are scattered throughout the county but are concentrated in the transition
area between the lower valley and higher elevations of the county. The General Plan also
designates the project area as blue oak–foothill pine, which is co-dominated by foothill pines
(Pinus sabiniana) and blue oaks and occurs at slightly higher elevations than blue oak
woodland. Other representative tree species include interior live oak, valley oak, and
California buckeye. The understory of blue oak–foothill pine woodlands in Butte County
contains several shrub species clumped together and interspersed with patches of annual
grassland. Dominant shrub species include manzanita, ceanothus, redberry, California
coffeeberry, poison oak, blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), gooseberry (Ribes sp.), silver
lupine (Lupinus albifrons), and western redbud (Cercis occidentalis) (GP EIR, pg 4.4-12).
Given the history of fire on the project site (Poe Fire, 2001), the property is currently
dominated by successional species of a postfire event and is similar to a mixed chaparral
vegetation. This community is is dominated by common manzanita, whiteleaf Manzanita
(Arctostaphylos viscida), and scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), with associated species
such as toyon, California buckeye, and poison oak (GP EIR, pg. 4.4-15).
There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified within the
property boundaries. Therefore, no impact is anticipated relative to the riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community.
c) No Impact. No Jurisdictional Waters of the United States are present within the property
boundary. The nearest receiving Water of the U.S. is the Feather River, which is located
approximately one mile east of the property. The land between the project area and the
46
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 18
Feather River is heavily wooded and vegetated. There is no risk of adverse effect through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to the Feather River.
d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is located within an area designated by the
General Plan as Critical Deer Herd Range (GP EIR, Figure 4.4-4, Migratory Deer Herd Areas).
At this time, there is no fencing around the parcel or affected area. If the graded area is
fenced as part of future uses, it will only account for a 1.5 acre portion of a 9.73 acre parcel.
The fencing of the graded portion of the site would not pose a significant impediment to
migrating deer populations within the area. Therefore, there is a less than significant
impact on the movement of native resident wildlife species.
e) No Impact. Grading activities would not conflict with any Butte County policies or
ordinances for protecting biological resources, including the Butte County Oak Woodlands
Management Plan. Given the history of fire on the project site (Poe Fire, 2001), the site
consists of the successional species of a postfire event.
f) No Impact. The project site is not located in an area identified as having an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or any other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plans.
g) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to discussion under Item a) above. The project is not
located in an area identified as critical habitat, nor is the project in the recovery area for
unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals.
h) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Item a) and Item b) above. The
graded area comprises 1.5 acres within a 9.73-acre site, the remainder of the site is
undisturbed and provides habitat for a variety of species. The site consists of Chapparal
vegetation and habitat, which is not considered a sensitive natural community, nor is the
area a designated critical habitat or recovery area for any listed rare, threatened and
endangered species. The animals typically associated with this habitat type are common
species, the diversity of which would not be significantly impacted by the removal of a
portion of their associated habitat.
i) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Item h) above. The project site
does not contain habitat for any fish species. Given the size of the area that was graded,
wildlife that may have used the site are still able to forage, breed, roost and nest within the
surrounding area.
j) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Item d) above.
k) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the discussion under Item d) above. In addition,
although site activities may include temporary lighting and noise associated with human
activity, it is not anticipated to be at a level that would substantially alter the normal
activities of wildlife, such as with a residential subdivision or commercial land use
development.
47
pallid bat
obtuse starwort
Mildred's clarkia
bald eagle
white-stemmed clarkia
Mosquin's clarkia
Mosquin's clarkia
Curran Grading Plan Project Area Figure 3: Special Status Species within 1 mile radius of project area
0 1 2
MilesWithin Sections 17-20 ofT18N, R5E Butte County, CA.Bangor USGS 7.5' Quad.Map Date: September16, 2013
Source: California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
R
Legend
Project_Area
1 Mile Buffer of Project Area
1 mile CNDDB selection
Mildred's clarkia
Mosquin's clarkia
bald eagle
obtuse starwort
white-stemmed clarkia
pallid bat
PROJECT
SITE
48
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 20
5. Cultural Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in California Code of Regulations, Section
15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CA Code of Regulations, §15064.5?
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Discussion
a, b) No Impact. The site and the immediate surrounding vicinity are not designated as
archaeological or historically sensitive areas. The existing project area has been completely
disturbed and unknown cultural resources have not been discovered. Further activities on
the site would consist of stabilizing the site for water quality protection and erosion control.
Additional grading activities are not anticipated. Site stabilization measures would consist
of the best management practices (BMPs), as described in Section 9, Item a) Hydrology and
Water Quality, and would not lead to the discovery of any unknown cultural resources.
c) No Impact. Due to the project site’s location, lack of outcroppings, or unique geologic
features on the property and that existing disturbance has not revealed any sub-surface
resources, continued grading and clearing activities is not likely to directly or indirectly
destroy sub-surface resources.
d) No Impact. There are no known grave sites within the project limits. Therefore, the
disturbance of human remains is not anticipated. However, in the unlikely event that human
remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must
be notified of any human remains find immediately. If the remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of
the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the
discovery, and must complete the inspection within 24 hours of notification by the NAHC.
The MLD will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the NAHC on the
disposition of the remains.
49
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 21
6. Geology and Soils
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
X
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii.) Seismic-related ground failure/liquefaction? X
iv.) Landslides? X
b) Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
X
Discussion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Less Than Significant. The project lies within 2.5 miles of 2 fault lines. The project area
is northeast of an inferred portion of the active Cleveland Hills Fault and southwest of the
potentially active Big Bend Fault (GP EIR, Figure 4.6-1). Because the project is limited to the
grading and terracing of land without the placement of permanent structures, it will not
expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss,
injury, or death.
ii. Less Than Significant. The project lies within the area of Butte County most likely to be
subject to strong ground shaking. According to the California Geological Survey’s
Probabilistic Seismic hazard Assessment Program, Butte County is considered to be within
an area that is predicted to have a 10 percent probability that a seismic event would
produce horizontal ground shaking of 10 to 20 percent within a 50-year period. (GP EIR, pg.
4.6-9) Because the project is limited to the grading and terracing of land without the
50
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 22
placement of permanent structures, it will not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death.
iii. Less Than Significant. Within Butte County, the areas of liquefiable soil are found on
the valley floor. (GP EIR, pg 4.6-10) The project area lies at an elevation of roughly between
2,100 and 2,300 feet and is in the general foothills portion of the county. Because the
project is not located in an area that will be prone to ground failure or liquefaction in
addition to the fact that the project is limited to the grading and terracing of land without
the placement of permanent structures, it will not expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death.
iv. Less Than Significant. The project lies within an area that has a high landslide
potential. (GP EIR, Figure 4.6-2) The slopes within the project are at ratios of 1.5:1 with a
2-10% slope on the terraced portion. Per the project SWPPP, the terrace portions will be
stabilized with 4 inches of aggregate base and the slopes between the terraces will be re-
vegetated. Interim stabilization while waiting for vegetation will be achieved using
hydroseed with tacifier, mulch, and seed. The stabilization efforts combined with the fact
that the project is limited to the grading and terracing of land without the placement of
permanent structures, result in no significant exposure of people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death.
b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project lies within an area that has a high erosion
hazard potential. (GP EIR, Figure 4.6-4) As stated earlier, stabilization of exposed soil
within the project area will be accomplished through the use of hydroseed (containing
mulch, seed, and tacifier) as well as aggregate base. Additionally, the SWPPP requires the
monitoring of the project area until stabilization is reached. Any areas that are not
effectively stabilized will be addressed accordingly. Effective stabilization techniques and
regular site inspections, as required by the project SWPPP, will yield no substantial soil
erosion or loss of topsoil.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is
considered unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Therefore, the
potential for on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, or collapse is less than
significant. As stated earlier, the soil type within the project area is not prone to
liquefaction. Additionally, there have been no documented incidents of subsidence in Butte
County and the only areas at risk for subsidence are in the valley region (GP EIR, pg 4.6-12,
not the foothills where the project is located.
d) No Impact. The project is located in an area with low expansive soil potential. (GP EIR,
Figure 4.6-3) Expansive soils are generally found in basin deposits in the low-lying portions
of the county near the Sacramento and Feather Rivers as well as localized areas elsewhere
in the county. (GP EIR, pg 4.6-12)
e) No Impact. The project will not use or install septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems.
51
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 23
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on
the environment?
X
b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
Discussion
a, b) The proposed project is the grading and clearing of 1.5 acres of land. Generally, GHG
emissions that are normally associated with land use projects include: water vapor, carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Grading and clearing activities will not result in a long
term net increase in GHG emissions. The project will have short-term air emissions,
particularly with regard to dust; a Dust Suppression Plan has prepared as part of Grading
Plan (refer to Section 3, Air Quality). The project will not interfere with the State’s goals of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, per AB 32, nor would
the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is 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?
X
52
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 24
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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 result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
X
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?
X
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
X
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?
X
Discussion
a) No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials, and would not result in such impact.
b) No Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous
materials into the environment.
c) No Impact. Grading and clearing activities do not involve any emission or handling of any
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. No
existing or proposed school facilities are located within a one-quarter mile radius of the
project site.
d) No Impact. The property is not included on a list of sites containing hazardous materials,
and would not result in a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, Appendix A.
e) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public airport and would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area.
f) No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip
and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area.
g) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any actions within the roadway that
would physically interfere with any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
53
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 25
The short-term traffic impacts generated by grading activities would not reduce the current
level of service of the area road network.
h) No Impact. The property is located in a high fire hazard severity zone (GP EIR, Figure 4.7-
1). However, given that the project is the grading and terracing of land and the removal of
fire prone vegetation, this would reduce the potential for wildland fire. Grading activities
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of wildland fires.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been
granted)?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
X
f) Otherwise degrade water quality? X
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
X
54
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 26
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
X
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?
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project proponent is required to file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) with the State of California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). This NOI
will include the submission of a project specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), site map, and associated fees. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify all
potential sources of sediment runoff and all potential sources of pollutant runoff and
mitigate them accordingly. The filing of the NOI and SWPPP submission will satisfy all
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program, which was established under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Measures in the SWPPP
that are designed to prevent runoff incorporate a series of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) which are applied and monitored weekly during non-storm events and daily during
qualifying storm events. BMPs which will be utilized at this project site include but are not
limited to:
1. Scheduling: The contractor will abstain from conducting any ground disturbing
work during qualifying rain events.
2. Stabilization: The contractor will apply various stabilizing agents to all areas of
exposed soil such as aggregate base (to a thickness of 2”) and hydroseed mix (to
include mulch, seed, and tacifier). Additionally, all stockpiles and spoil piles will be
covered or stabilized in such a manner that they are protected from wind and rain
erosion.
3. Sediment Controls: Existing Vegetative buffers, straw wattle, and silt fencing will be
used throughout the project site to capture any sediment that may become
dislodged secondary to a rain event.
4. Supply Storage: Any supply that could result in the release of a pollutant (e.g. fuel
fertilizer, concrete mix, paint) will be stored in such a manner that it is not exposed
to any storm water. Secondary containment will also be used where necessary.
Additionally, the project proponent will submit an Erosion Control Plan (ECP) to Butte
County. This document will re-iterate the BMPs that will be utilized on the project site to
prevent runoff and water quality degradation.
55
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 27
b) No Impact. No activities associated with the project are anticipated to have any impact on
ground water. Project activities are limited to surface grading for the terracing of land.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project activities include grading and terracing of an
existing hillside. Though the contours of the existing drainage pattern will change, the
overall direction of flow will not. The terracing will serve to slow the rate of runoff from the
site, not accelerate it. No streams or rivers will have their course altered as a result of
project activities.
d) No Impact. The project does not lie in an area designated as a FEMA flood zone nor is it
immediately adjacent to any areas that are designated as flood zones (GP EIR, Figure 4.8-3).
Furthermore, the project activities involve the terracing of already sloped land. There is no
net change in the flow of water on or off the site that would lead to an increase in flooding
on- or off-site.
e) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not yield an increase in storm water runoff.
As addressed in Item a) above, any potential pollutant sources will be identified in the
SWPPP and stored in such a manner that they are not exposed to storm water.
f) Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to Item a) above. The ultimate goal of a SWPPP is to
prevent degradation of water quality through the prevention of sediment and pollutant
runoff. The SWPPP is project specific and mitigation measures within the document are
designed to reduce runoff to the maximum extent possible. Additionally, the regular weekly
inspections combined with daily during storm inspections help to analyze the site and
provide real-time corrections to any deficiencies that are noted. Thus, there is a two-fold
approach to effectively preventing any degradation to water quality.
g-i) No Impact. The proposed project area, which is grading and clearing activities, is not
located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Project activities would not result in placing
housing in a 100-year flood hazard area, nor would activities impede or redirect flood flows.
The project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding as a result of levee or dam failure.
j) No Impact. There are no anticipated impacts to the proposed project from seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow, as no topographical features of water bodies capable of producing such events
occur within the project site vicinity.
10. Land Use and Planning
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Conflict with any applicable land 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?
X
56
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 28
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
X
Discussion
a) No Impact. Grading activities are performed completely within the subject property, and
therefore, will not have an impact on the physical arrangement of an established
community.
b) No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation
of Foothill Residential and the Zoning designation of FR-5 (Foothill Residential, 5-acre
minimum parcel size). The project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the site.
c) No Impact. The project site is not located in an area identified as having an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan.
11. Mineral Resources
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site on a
local general plan, specific plan or other land use
plan?
X
Discussion
a-b) No Impact. The property is not located in a designated mineral resource zone (GP EIR,
Figure 4.6-5) and thus would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the residents of the state or local importance.
12. Noise
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
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?
X
57
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 29
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
X
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
X
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?
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. The Butte County Board of Supervisors passed Ordinance #4053,
Noise Control on March 26, 2013. The Ordinance became effective on April 25, 2013. The
Ordinance states:
Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or
grading of any real property or public works project located within 1,000 feet of
residential uses, provided said activities do not take place between the following hours:
Sunset to sunrise on weekdays and non-holidays;
Friday commencing at 6:00 p.m. through and including 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, as
well as not before 8:00 a.m. on holidays;
Saturday commencing at 6:00 p.m. through and including 10:00 a.m. on Sunday;
and,
Sunday after the hour of 6:00 p.m .
Provided, however, when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a
construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be
continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed
to continue work into the hours delineated above and to operate machinery and
equipment necessary to complete the specific work in progress until that specific work
58
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 30
can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection
acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner.
Considering the short-term nature of any additional grading activities and the provisions of
the Noise Ordinance, the temporary and periodic increase in noise levels is less than
significant.
b) Less Than Significant. The project encompasses grading and clearing on 1.5 acres, most of
which has been conducted. Any additional grading activities would be temporary, occur
during less sensitive daytime hours, and short in duration. As a result, any potential
impacts from grading-related groundborne vibrations or noises would not be significant.
c) No Impact. The proposed project does not involve uses or activities that would result in a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Noise
associated with any additional grading and clearing activities would be temporary.
d) Less Than Significant. The property is located in a rural area with generally low noise
levels and is not subject to any significant continuous noise. The nearest residence is 250
feet east of project activities. Any additional grading activities on the site would temporarily
generate an increase in noise levels on and adjacent to the site. However, noise levels would
be temporary and would not be in excess of local standards.
e, f) No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within
two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. As such, the project
would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
13. Population and Housing
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. No significant population growth associated with the proposed
project is expected. Any employment generated by grading activities would be temporary
and drawn from the local work force, and would not create a permanent population growth
to the area.
59
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 31
b, c) No Impact. As stated under Item a) above, grading activities will not generate a permanent
increase to the local population that would displace existing housing or add a substantial
number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
14. Public Services
Would the project: result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need, 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:
Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
Discussion
a-e) No Impact. The project includes grading and clearing activities and site stabilization
measures on 1.5 acres of land. These activities would not result in substantial physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities
including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public and quasi-public
services.
15. Recreation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
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?
X
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?
X
60
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 32
Discussion
a) No Impact. No significant population growth is anticipated with the proposed project that
would generate an increase in demand for existing public or private parks or other recreational
facilities that would either result in or increase the physical deterioration of the facility.
b) No Impact. Project activities does not include recreational facilities.
16. Traffic and Transportation
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bicycle,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
X
61
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 33
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. Grading activities has the potential to generate short-term changes
to the traffic volumes to the area road network. Vehicle trips may be generated from the arrival
and departure of construction workers. In addition, heavy truck trips could be generated from
hauling equipment and materials to and from the project site. The potential increase in traffic
volumes from these activities would be temporary and would not create a substantial impact to the
operating conditions of the area road network.
b) Less Than Significant. As stated in Item a) above.
c) No Impact. No public use airports have been identified as being located within the vicinity
of the project site. The project site is located outside the compatibility zones for the area airports,
and therefore, would not result in a change to air traffic patterns, including increases in air traffic
levels or safety hazards.
d) No Impact. The property is accessed from Wind Ridge Road via a gravel driveway. The
issuance of a Grading Permit, and any additional grading, clearing, or site stabilization would not
substantially increase hazards due to a transportation design feature. New roadways are not
proposed as part of this project.
e) No Impact. No existing residential uses are located on the project site, and the proposed
project would not generate a permanent increase in traffic volumes to cause the existing road
network to have inadequate emergency access.
f) No Impact. The proposed project would not generate a permanent increase in population
growth to the project area that would cause an increase in demand for alternative transportation
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
17. Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Water Quality Control
Board?
X
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?
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
62
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 34
Would the project: Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
X
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves/may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
Discussion
a,b,e) No Impact. The project does not include construction or expansion of wastewater
treatment facilities.
c) No Impact. No existing stormwater drainage facilities are located on the project site and
none would be required with approval of the proposed project due to project site having
adequate area within the project site to allow stormwater to infiltrate into the ground
before leaving the site.
d) No Impact. The project site is located in a rural area of Butte County where water services
are provided by individual groundwater wells. The availability of groundwater in the area
depends largely upon the geologic, hydrologic and climatic conditions of the project area.
Though the availability of existing water supplies is uncertain due to the variability of site
conditions, water demand for the proposed project would not be greater than with the full
build-out conditions of the project site.
f-g) No Impact. Grading and clearing activities has resulted in stockpiles of green waste within
the project area. This waste will be mulched on-site and/or disposed of in a green waste
facility for composting. Issuance of a Grading Permit would not result in an increase to the
Butte County Neal Road Landfill. The project would not impact federal, state, and local
statutes related to solid waste.
63
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 35
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially
Significant
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
X
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
Discussion
a) Less Than Significant. Potential impacts to biological resources were found to be less than
significant, (refer to Section 4, Biological Resources). In addition, there are no known
cultural resources located on the property that are examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory (refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources).
b) Less Than Significant. The project is the issuance of a Grading Permit on 1.5 acres of a 9.73
acre parcel. Impacts identified in this Initial Study were found to be less than significant or
would have no impact on environmental resources. Adherence to applicable regulatory
requirements, i.e., erosion control plan, SWPPP, and other permits or approvals of
responsible agencies would ensure less than significant cumulative impacts.
c) Less Than Significant. Based on the preceding environmental analysis and adherence to
applicable local, state and federal regulations, as noted in this document, the proposed
project would not result in potentially significant cumulative, direct or indirect adverse
effects on the environment or human beings.
64
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 36
Preparers and References
Report Preparation and Review
Kamie Loeser, Senior Planner, NorthStar Engineering, Preparer
Carol Wallen, QSP, Biologist, NorthStar Engineering, GIS/Graphics
Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner, Butte County Development Services, Reviewer
Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager, Butte County Development Services
References
Butte County. 2010. Butte County General Plan. October 26, 2010
Butte County. 2010. Butte County General Plan, Draft EIR. April 8, 2010.
Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD). 2008. CEQA Air Quality Handbook,
Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts for Project Subject to CEQA Review. January 2008.
Sacramento Valley Air Quality Engineering and Enforcement Professionals. 2013. Northern
Sacramento Valley Planning Area 2012 Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan. Spring 2013.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Soil Survey of Butte Area, California Parts of Butte
and Plumas Counties. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
65
Curran Grading Permit March 2014
Initial Study/Negative Declaration Page 37
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Agencies, Boards, Commissions, Districts:
BCAQMD ......................................................................................................... Butte County Air Quality Management District
CARB ............................................................................................................................................... California Air Resources Board
DFW ..................................................................................................................... (California) Department of Fish and Wildlife
DWR .................................................................................................................... (California) Department of Water Resources
DTSC .................................................................................................. (California) Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA ............................................................................................................................................ Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA .......................................................................................................................... Federal Emergency Management Agency
NOAA ............................................................................................................... National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
NSVAB ............................................................................................................................ Northern Sacramento Valley Air Board
USFWS ........................................................................................................................... United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Guidelines, Policies, Programs, Regulations:
AB ..........................................................................................................................................................................................Assembly Bill
A-P EFZ ................................................................................................................. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
BCGP ......................................................................................................................................................... Butte County General Plan
CEQA ................................................................................................................................... California Environmental Quality Act
CESA ......................................................................................................................................... California Endangered Species Act
CFR ........................................................................................................................................................ Code of Federal Regulations
CVP ...................................................................................................................................................................... Central Valley Project
CWA ............................................................................................................................................................................... Clean Water Act
EIR ..................................................................................................................................................... Environmental Impact Report
ESA.................................................................................................................................................................. Endangered Species Act
HCP ............................................................................................................................................................ Habitat Conservation Plan
IWRP ........................................................................................................................................... Integrated Water Resources Plan
NCCP ............................................................................................................................... Natural Community Conservation Plan
OCAP ...................................................................................................................................... (SWP) Operations Criteria and Plan
PRC .................................................................................................................................................................... Public Resources Code
SWP ......................................................................................................................................................................... State Water Project
Miscellaneous:
AF ................................................................................................................................................................................................... Acre-feet
AFA ....................................................................................................................................................................... Acre-feet per Annum
CNDDB .............................................................................................................................. California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS .................................................................................................................................................California Native Plant Society
CSC ....................................................................................................................................... California Species of Special Concern
dB ................................................................................................................................................................................................ Decibel(s)
FIRM ......................................................................................................................................................... Flood Insurance Rate Map
GHG .......................................................................................................................................................................... Green House Gases
kWh ................................................................................................................................................................................... Kilowatt hours
PM10 / 2.5 ............................................................................................................. Particulate Matter less than 10 / 2.5 Microns
TAF .......................................................................................................................................................................... Thousand Acre-feet
66
Appendix A
Support Documentation & Maps
67
68
Curran Grading Plan Project Area Soil Characterization Map
0 0.5 1
MilesWithin Sections 17-20 ofT18N, R5E Butte County, CA.Bangor USGS 7.5' Quad.Map Date: September16, 2013R
Legend
Project_AreaSoil Types
MILLERIDGE-BOXROBBER COMPLEX, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
MILLERIDGE-BOXROBBER COMPLEX, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES
SURNUF-BIGRIDGE COMPLEX, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
SURNUF-BIGRIDGE COMPLEX, 3 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES
SURNUF-BIGRIDGE COMPLEX, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES
SURNUF-BIGRIDGE COMPLEX, 50 TO 70 PERCENT SLOPES
TYPIC HAPLOXERALFS, MAGNESIC, LOW ELEVATION-EARLAL-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES
TYPIC HAPLOXERALFS, MAGNESIC, LOW ELEVATION-EARLAL-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 3 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES
69
70
71
72
From:David Masarik
To:Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Hickel, Rowland
Subject:Granding Permit: GRD13_0001
Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:38:45 PM
Dear Staff,Project:GRD13-0001 - Grading Permit.
Concerning the proposal for a grading permit in Concow. For those of us who live in the uncorperatedareas of the county, especially in the foothills of Yankee Hill, Cherokee, and Concow. Erosion is a verybig worry. Especially since the devasting Poe fire in 2001 and more recently the Concow fire in 2008.
Hundreds upon hundreds of 100 ft pine trees were lost in those fires, and the fires inbetween. These
tree's take 100yrs to get to that height. So we will never get to see the replacement of those lost trees.And what about the burned soil in those area's , how long does that take to recover, if at all. We have all seen the ugly sights of grading and terracing in the foothills, "legal" and illegal. No
matter what it is devasting. Not only to the land but also to the wildlife in the area. The whole purpose
of a grading ordinance is stated : as to protect the counties natural resources and scenic beauty. Tocontrol erosion and sedimentation, and avoid the creation of unstable slopes of fill area's, Think, thedevastating land slide in Washington. Its a wonder it hasn't happened here in the foothills yet with all of
the fires and loss of tree's.
This is not a simple application. This is a well organized test, by the pot advocates and growers. Ifthis application is granted, then the whole planning division will be absolutely flooded with requests, Iwill give you one guess what will happen to the safety and scenic beauty of the foothills. It will no
longer exist!!.
Bonnie Masarik.
73
74
75
76
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ ACTION MINUTES ■ MAY 22, 2014 ■ PAGE 1 ■
Butte County Department of Development Services
TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-7601 Telephone
(530) 538-7785 Facsimile
ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * PLANNING
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION MINUTES
May 22, 2014
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
Chair Nelson called the meeting to order at 9:05 am.
PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room
County Administration Center
25 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. ROLL CALL – Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, White, Wilson and Chair Nelson.
Present: Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, White, Wilson and Chair Nelson
Other’s present:
County Counsel: Felix Wannenmacher, Council
Land Development: Tom Fossum, Deputy Director
Environmental Health: Kristin McKillop, Manager, Program Development
Development Services: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director
Chuck Thistlethwaite, Manager, Planning Division
Stacey Jolliffe, Principal Planner
Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner
Tristan Weems, Assistant Planner
Kim McMillan, Administrative Assistant, Senior
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA – Commission members and staff may request additions,
deletions or changes in the Agenda order.
A motion to approve the agenda was made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by
Commissioner White.
Vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, White, Wilson and Chair Nelson
Noes: None
Absent: None
77
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ ACTION MINUTES ■ MAY 22, 2014 ■ PAGE 2 ■
Abstain: None
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by
State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda).
None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION – The Chair will call
for a presentation of the report of staff. The hearing will then be opened to the public for
proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be then be closed to
the public and discussion confined to the members of the Planning Commission and staff.
The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. It is requested that
individual public comments be addressed to the Chair and limited to a maximum of 5
minutes so that all interested parties will have an opportunity to address the Commission.
Following your presentation, please print your name and address on the speakers sheet
so that the record will be accurate.
A. Grading Permit GRD13-0001 (Curran)
Applicant: Travis Curran
Project: Grading Permit (GRD13-0001
Planner: Rowland Hickel APN: 058-210-097
G.P.: FR (Foothill Residential)
Zoning: FR-5 (Foothill Residential - 5 acre)
Location: The project site is located at 65 Wind Ridge Drive, off Big Bend Road in
the community of Parkhill/Big Bend
Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Grading Permit for past grading activities
that disturbed 1.5 acres of a 9.73 acre property, and the excavation of 800 cubic
yards.
Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of resolution, adopting the Negative
Declaration prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and
approving Grading Permit GRD13-0001, subject to conditions.
Rowland Hickel presented this item to the Planning Commission.
A motion to deny grading permit GRD13-0001, was made by Commissioner Wilson and
seconded by Commissioner Kennedy.
Members of the public who spoke:
Jay Lowe – NorthStar Engineering – applicant’s representative
Kamie Loeser – NorthStar Engineering – preparer of CEQA Initial Study/Negative
Declaration
Vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Donati, Kennedy and Wilson
Noes: Commissioner White and Chair Nelson
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Staff requested direction from the Planning Commission to agendize a review of the
78
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ ACTION MINUTES ■ MAY 22, 2014 ■ PAGE 3 ■
proposed grading ordinance for the June 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting for
discussion and adoption of potential recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A motion to agendize a review of the proposed grading ordinance for the June 5, 2014
Planning Commission meeting for discussion and adoption of potential recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors was made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by
Commissioner Kennedy.
Vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, Wilson, White and Chair Nelson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
B. Conditional Use Permit UP14-0001 (Old Durham Wood, Inc.)
Applicant: Old Durham Wood, Inc.
Project: UP14-0002
Planner: Rowland Hickel APN: 040-120-033
G.P.: AG (Agriculture)
Zoning: AG-40 (Agriculture – 40 acre)
Location: The project site is located at 1156 Oro Chico Highway, Durham. The project
site is located approximately five miles southeast of Chico, westerly of Highway 99 and
1.8 miles north of the Durham-Pentz Road exit to Highway 99.
Proposal: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to bring an existing
green waste receiving, chipping and grinding operation, composting facility, and
firewood processing operation into compliance with Butte County Zoning Code, and
to allow for a +/-25.0 acre expansion of the facility and establish an orchard/farm wood
milling operation.
Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of resolution, adopting the
Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, and approving Conditional Use Permit UP14-0001, subject to conditions.
Rowland Hickel presented this item to the Planning Commission.
The following staff spoke regarding this project:
Mike Huerta – Environmental Health
Matt Damon – CalFire
The following members of the public spoke to this item:
Wes Gilbert – Project Engineer
Vine Wheelock – neighbor
A motion to adopt the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use
Permit UP14-0002, Old Durham Wood, subject to findings in exhibit A along with the
following corrections; modifications to mitigation measures #3, 5 and 10, and addition of
#31 as noted in the May 21, 2014 memo to the Planning Commission and also the
revisions to condition #33 to state “prior to any expansion of the facility” was made by
Commissioner Donati and seconded by Commissioner White.
Vote:
Ayes: Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, White, Wilson and Chair Nelson
79
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ ACTION MINUTES ■ MAY 22, 2014 ■ PAGE 4 ■
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
VI. GENERAL BUSINESS - This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning
Commission and Director of Development Services on items of interest, general
discussion, or items for which staff have been directed to do research and bring back
to the Commission. Items may not always be addressed at every hearing, but will
always be listed as part of the agenda.
A. Directors’ Report
Report on Zoning Administrator Activity
Chuck Thistlethwaite presented a list of all 19 projects that have been heard by the
Zoning Administrator. 18 of those projects were approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
B. General Plan Follow-up and Implementation Program
C. Update on Recent Board of Supervisors’ Actions
On May 5, 2014 Development Services took a request to BOS to provide direction on
interpreting General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG5.3 the requirement for the
300’ buffer from agricultural uses. The Board of Supervisors asked Development
Services to develop some language to strengthen the Counties right to farm
ordinance. The Board of Supervisors also requested DDS look at and bring back
some amendments to the Right to Farm ordinance that would apply to areas that are
adjacent to agricultural outside of the agricultural designations in the county.
On May 22, 2014 at 2:00 pm Development Services will hear public comments
regarding the Notice of Preparation for Durham Villas Planned Development. This
meeting is to take input on the scope of the environmental document.
D. Legislative Case Law Update
E. Planning Commission Concerns
VI. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications received and referred. (Copies of all
communications are available in the Planning Division Office.)
None
VII. MINUTES - None
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Nelson adjourned the meeting at 10:52 am.
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
Site Photos - May 29, 2013
89
Site Photos – July 8, 2014
90
1
Hickel, Rowland
From:CC <ccinchico@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Monday, July 14, 2014 4:16 PM
To:Hickel, Rowland
Subject:Travis Curran @65 Wind Ridge Road
Dear Mr. Hickel;
What is it about this situation that Mr. Curran refuses to understand? Why is it that Butte
County continues to allow Mr. Curran; who is breaking County codes to grow crops on his
property? As we make our way through the second growing season we continue to be riddled
with the same questions and lack of consideration or compliance at 65 Wind Ridge Road in
Yankee Hill.
We are neighbors of Mr. Curran; living directly across the narrow, one lane private road of
Wind Ridge. When we built our home just over eight years ago we were faced with following
building codes. One small 3 foot high retaining wall brought our approval and move in to a
halt. Our home could not be lived in until that wall was finished! We were expected to follow
code laws and we did! Mr. Curran has not only left the destruction of his grading but continues
to grow his Marijuana crops without regard to the county codes. There is not a house on the
property; rather a small travel trailer. There is not septic on the property. What is there are
large green houses, piles of trash, disrespectful attendants, mid night traffic, the sounds of gun
fire and the transference of fear to neighbors.
Ironically, when we call the Sherriff or County Officials we have little resolve and hang up
feeling the wrong-doer rather than the one actually breaking numerous codes or laws. We once
heard upwards of twenty shots directed in the air, at the ground and less than 100 feet from
where we were seated on our balcony. When requested to stop shooting our 65 Wind Ridge
neighbors continued stating they were shooting a rattlesnake. Excessive? With a large caliber
semi automatic weapon? In the air?! When we called the Sherriff; the response was, "Were
they shooting safe? Could you hear the bullets 'whizzing' past your face?" As the daughter of a
hunter, I took and passed hunters safety...this was not safe! Again, nothing was
resolved. Neighbor's pets have been shot...what next?
Smack in the middle of the worst drought since the season of 1976-77, we already fear our
wells reaching bottom; why do we allow the constant watering of a non-taxable crop by non law
abiding residents? When our forest is one spark shy of disaster why do we allow stray gun
fire? It seems apparent Mr. Curran does not have the best interest of his neighborhood in mind!
We can only hope that the Butte County Board of Supervisors stand their ground and not allow
exception to the Butte County Code , Chapter 13, Article 1. Mr. Curran, a Santa Cruz resident,
91
2
seems to believe he is already above the law; please don't grant him more feathers to put in his
hat. Our small neighborhood has suffered enough since he purchased this property.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration to a situation that is very important to
us.
Sincerely,
Carroll Curtis
Tara Ramelli
47 Tobin Court
Yankee Hill, CA 95965
92
From:David Masarik
To:Snellings, Tim; Calarco, Pete; Hickel, Rowland
Subject:Granding Permit: GRD13_0001
Date:Tuesday, April 15, 2014 5:38:45 PM
Dear Staff,Project:GRD13-0001 - Grading Permit.
Concerning the proposal for a grading permit in Concow. For those of us who live in the uncorperatedareas of the county, especially in the foothills of Yankee Hill, Cherokee, and Concow. Erosion is a verybig worry. Especially since the devasting Poe fire in 2001 and more recently the Concow fire in 2008.
Hundreds upon hundreds of 100 ft pine trees were lost in those fires, and the fires inbetween. These
tree's take 100yrs to get to that height. So we will never get to see the replacement of those lost trees.And what about the burned soil in those area's , how long does that take to recover, if at all. We have all seen the ugly sights of grading and terracing in the foothills, "legal" and illegal. No
matter what it is devasting. Not only to the land but also to the wildlife in the area. The whole purpose
of a grading ordinance is stated : as to protect the counties natural resources and scenic beauty. Tocontrol erosion and sedimentation, and avoid the creation of unstable slopes of fill area's, Think, thedevastating land slide in Washington. Its a wonder it hasn't happened here in the foothills yet with all of
the fires and loss of tree's.
This is not a simple application. This is a well organized test, by the pot advocates and growers. Ifthis application is granted, then the whole planning division will be absolutely flooded with requests, Iwill give you one guess what will happen to the safety and scenic beauty of the foothills. It will no
longer exist!!.
Bonnie Masarik.
93
94
95
96
97