Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMUP 03-07Butte County Department of Developmentovertices II p %3T Administration - AR 1 " (�9 o 7 County Center Drive /� Oroville, CA 95965 i �, / o / (530) 538-7601 Telephone o Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345 "A Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 File: MUP 03-07 bn APN: 040-200-013 / Date: January 26, 2004 ICv ,r TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 'I If The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,549.70 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 241.53 Publishing ,4 98.10 i PLANNING CHARGES $ 2,051.58 I Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.' II i REFUND'iDUEJO"YOU�$ 309 25 Biller. CS 41. T �. ;x ..i, x N s . a '_ e « 4*, % j j K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\REFUNDS\Gale MUP 03-07 REFUND 012604.xls I i i REFUND MUP03.07 } Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all ct%arges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. I V The following payment(s) have been applied to the processing of your application: I I� Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 350.00 Receipt: 20852 Environmental Health $92.00 Total Paid: $521.00 CDF/Fire $43 NOD/NOE filing fee paid $36.00 I Deposit Date: May 9.>2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICESIPLANNING DEPOSIT ,y $ 742.00 Receipt: 21149 Deposit Date: June 26. 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICESIPLANNING DEPOSIT 1, $ 409.88 Receipt: 21249 Deposit Date: DCtober 9. 2.003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT I $ 858.95 Receipt: 390455 i TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 'I If The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,549.70 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 241.53 Publishing ,4 98.10 i PLANNING CHARGES $ 2,051.58 I Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.' II i REFUND'iDUEJO"YOU�$ 309 25 Biller. CS 41. T �. ;x ..i, x N s . a '_ e « 4*, % j j K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\REFUNDS\Gale MUP 03-07 REFUND 012604.xls I i i County of Butte Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM DATE OF CLAIM: January 26, 2004 IMPORTANT: CLAIMANT: StephenGale. .,: �;��;.. ff, _v_ _. _ ��, ,-;�:':.., _ �.. s� ;�,.��:.�;� SEE INSTRUCTIONS ADDRESS: 9.3'4:5x• A•':Stanford Laney .:. BELOW CITY, STATE: SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT January 26, 2004 REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013, ATR 67968, a completed and approved project. $ 309.25 TOTAL $ 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. Signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation 0 or Specific Board Approval ❑(Check one), for the same. Dated this day of 2003, at Oroville Calif. Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or work performed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval,'the Department head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. Claims should be presented to officials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested or material ordered. Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of claim. Failure to do so may delay payment. . Dept. Exp. Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL -FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR' USE ONLY ';, DEPT & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. .. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMBER. I GROSS AMT. Claimant - Submitted for your approval/signature. Please return signed foam to: Development Services Department Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 l • 6/1/2004 Butte County Department of Development Services 9`31 AM Pr& -bill Wdrksheet Page 1 Nickname Gale.MUP 03-07 1 MUP 03-07 Full Name Stephen Gale Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham CA 95938 Business Fax Home Other Project Type MUP Deposit Status Deposit Project Planner Craig Sanders Salutation Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 12/2/2002 Diane 34.00 0.23 7.93 Do Not Bill Clerical Activities 0.23 7.93 Clerical application processing (not categorized elsewhere). 12/2/2002 Roni 34.00 1.95 66.30 Billable Clerical Activities File Set up 12/5/2002 Larry 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Mapping Mapping 1/15/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 1/17/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Site Review Field review of project site/vicinity including travel time. 1/28/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Clerical Activities File comments 1/31/2003 Craig 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable CEQA Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 3/26/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 6/1/2004 Butte County p Department of Develo ment Services 9:31 AM Pre bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) ' Date . Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time' Amount DNB Amt Page 2 Total 4/8/2003 Craig 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 5/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.12 6.88 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Phone call 5/9/2003 Craig 59.00 3.17 186.83 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/27/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/29/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/30/2003 Craig 59.00 0.33 19.67 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 6/12/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.33 15.00 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 7/14/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report Wor Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 7/15/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable Report Wor Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 7/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 7/24/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.78 35.25 Billable Clerical Activities Proof • 6/1/2004 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:31 AM Pre -bill W6rksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 3 Total 8/4/2003 Larry 59.00 1.50 88.50 Billable Mapping Mapping 8/4/2003 Craig 59.00 0.50 29.50 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/5/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/6/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.08 3.75 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 8/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.67 39.33 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/7/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.97 43.50 Billable Clerical Activities Proof / Packets 8/7/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Corrections to agenda report 8/11/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/14/2003 Craig 59.00 0.42 24.58 Billable Hearing - Planner 8/14/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.08 3.48 Billable Letters - Clerical Prepare & process correspondence. 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.80 35.91 Do Not Bill Minutes - Clerical 0.80 35.91 Minutes related to application. Page 4 Amount Total DNB Amt 63.00 Billable 16.29 Billable 27.27 Billable 5.33 Billable 1.02 Billable 27.75 Do Not Bill 27.75 11.25 Billable 27.75 Billable 29.50 Billable TOTAL Billable Fees Department of Develo ment Services 6/1/2004 Butte County p 9:31 AM Pre -bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 1.40 Mtg - Clerical 1.000 98.10 Arrange/attend associated with project review (incl. Public Hearings) 8/19/2003 Craig 59.00 0.28 Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.46 Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.09 Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.02 Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/26/2003 Joe 59.00 0.47 Management Review 0.47 Management Review 8/29/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 10/7/2003 Craig 59.00 0.47 Report &/or Project Analysis Reports and/or project analysis related to the application. 10/9/2003 Craig 59.00. 0.50 Hearing - Planner Page 4 Amount Total DNB Amt 63.00 Billable 16.29 Billable 27.27 Billable 5.33 Billable 1.02 Billable 27.75 Do Not Bill 27.75 11.25 Billable 27.75 Billable 29.50 Billable TOTAL Billable Fees 34.87 Do Not Bill 1.50 $71.59 Date Employee Price Quantity Amount Expense Markup % _ 7/24/2003 PUBLISH 98.10 1.000 98.10 Publishing Expense Publishing in Chico Enterprise 7/24/03 $1,953.48 Total Billable • •. 6/1/2004 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:31 AM Pre-bill Worksheet Page 5 Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Amount Total TOTAL Billable Costs $98.10 Amount Total Total of Fees (Time Charges) $1,953.48 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $98.10 Total new charges $2,051.58 Accounts Receivables Date Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Credit-Initial Deposit - Receipt 20852 ($350.00) 11/14/2002 INV Invoice-NOD/NOE Filing Fee $36.00 11/14/2002 PAY Payment - Receipt 20852 ($36.00) 5/9/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21149 ($742.00) 6/26/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21249Check No. # ($409.88) 10/9/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt #390455Check No. # ($858.95) Total Accounts Receivable ($2,360.83) Total New Balance ($309.25) Amount to replenish account to $350.00 $350.00 _.._.._...._....__.... ----.._._...................-.......... ........_............... -....._............ ........._................._......._........_...................... n.................... ..... _.-........... ..... ... .......................................................................................... _....... .......................................... .......... _.._......._.__....-..._........................._.........................._.........._ Display Revenue Status a. ,r _❑Ifx Return DISPLAY REVENUE STATUS—s-- Notes... Object (1S/(17J/7.OM...o.r_n rno l —ZOA_ 1 YEAR 04 FUNDI10010 COUNTY GENERAL FUND BUDGET UNIT 1440001 11DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PERIOD 11 ACCOUNT 4210900 PLANNING APPLICATIONS TRANS CODE 21 PROD/TASK TRANS DATE 05/05/04 PROD/TASK ACCT DATE ENTERED 05/05/04 ' 'CASH ACCOUNT 101001 TREASURY CASHDUE DATE 05/05/04 VENDORT21496 STEPHEN GALE INVOICE DATE 05/05/04 RECEIVABLE ACCT DISCOUNT AMT ---- _0_.00 DISBURSE FUND 11505 CO WARRANTS CLRNG F 1505 CHECK NUMBER •664303 ENCUMBRANCES 0 CHECK DATE 05/05/04 E.NUMBER PARTIAL/FINAL INVOICE/RECEIPT J 1099 N AMOUNT 309.25 CLEARED SALES/USE TAX '-_ 0.00 0.00 VOID DESCRIPTION. 1/26 MUP03-07 CONTROL NO J5 ENTERED BY kathleen BANK,CODE WARRANT NO NOTES N CLICK 'OK' TO CONTINUE County of Butte. Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM DATE OF CLAIM: January26, 2004 IMPORTANT: CLAIMANT: StephenGale... . -• �a 5.,, ...- SEE INSTRUCTIONS ADDRESS: ., BELOW CITY, STATE: DurhamTrCAi9593.8x� �_"=��- SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT January 26, 2004 REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 0--67,—A, 040-200-013, ATR 67968, a completed and approved project $ 309.25 TOTAL $ 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. ', Dated tlusda of TV �„201at 3�[Y' 6Y� �J�"� �� _—_ Y.,_ s, x �"✓�, �: yam` ,e Signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation I or Specific Board Approv (Check one) for the same. Dated this L -4,D day of 2003, at Oroville Cal Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or work performed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval, the Department head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. Claims should be presented to officials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested or material ordered. Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of claim. Failure to do so may delay payment. Dept. Exp. Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR' USE ONLY DEPT & SUB. PROD. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMBER. GROSS AMT. Claimant -Submitted for your, approval/signature. Please return signed form to: Development Services Department Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Oil Pe,-1�. Qau.4 IN County of Butte II Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM IM DATE OF CLAIM: October�23, 2003 IMPORTANT: I CLAIMANT: Stephen GaleE INSTRUCTIONS SE ADDRESS: 9.34:5A S.tanfor:."d�Lane :, „? ._',.r _ EYE kik BELOW CITY, STATE: Durham, SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO -AIV -01D DELAY) AMOUNT October 23, 2003 REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 03-07, AP,N 040-200-013, ATR 67968, a completed and approved project. $ 309.25 II TOTAL AL .$ 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this . claim is true and correct as stated. ,_ "Datedtfiis _� .day oft _ a ' m2,003 at `� Calif x ';: , signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget AppropriatO or Specific Board Approval 0(Check one) for the same. Dated this day of 2003, at Oroville Calif. Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS " ' All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or workperformed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval,the Department head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. I! Claims should be presented to officials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested) or material ordered.. Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of claim. Failure to do so may delay payment. Dept. Exp. �I Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR -P USE ONLY , DEPT & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. N0: I W. DATE I,CUMBER. GROSS AMT. li �i Claimant - Submitted for your approval/signature. Please return signed form tc Development Services Department - #i Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive I Oroville, CA 95965 r • Butte County Deparonent ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone Minor 11se: Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale. - 9 34 5 ale:9345 '.A" -Stanford Lane Durharn, CA 9.5938 File:: M U P: 03<07. APN: x0.40-200:=013 Date: October' 23'. ,2003 Deposit Date: November 14.'2002 " DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 350.00 Receipt: 20852 Environmental Health $92.00 Total Paid: $521.00.', CDF/Fire $43 NOD/NOE filing fee paid $36.00 Deposit Date: May 9i 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 742.00 Receipt: 21149 Deposit Date: June 26, 2003:` DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 409.88 Receipt: .21249' . Deposit Date: October 9. 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 858.95 Receipt: 390455. TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1;549.]0 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 241.53 Publishing 98.10 PLANNING CHARGES ' $ 21051:58 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. A negative amount reflects a credit. Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. (309.2 Biller: CS K:\FISCAL ADMIMBILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\REFUNDS\Gale MUP 03-07 REFUND 102303.xls County of Butte Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM DATE OF CLAIM: October 23, 2003 IMPORTANT: CLAIMANT: Stephen Gale ,;. y „; s ., ? ,t:, . #r� ., . EE INSTRUCTIONS S ADDRESS:9345:7 'Stanford Lane � kj ;,: , ' r ' ' 'm BELOW CITY STATE: Durham SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES DATE_ DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) _; AMOUNT October 23, 2003 REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013, ATR 67968, a completed and approved project. $ 309.25 TOTAL $ . 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of pedury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. ,I Dated this r���,p Signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget AppropriatO . or Specific Board Approval ❑(Check one) for the same. h Dated this day of 2003, at Oroville Calif. Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or work performed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval, the Department.head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. Claims should be presented to officials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested or material ordered. . Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of claim. Failure to do so may delay payment`. Dept. Exp. Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR' USE ONLY DEPT & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. I V. DATE CUMa BER. GROSS AMT. Claimant - Submitted for your approval/signature. Please return signed form'to: Development Services Department Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive Oroville,,CA 95965 1i _ �i -' �# 0 0 Butte County Departrnent ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone .......... ..................... Minor:bl Permit Applicant: :Stephen Gale': 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938. The following payment(s) have been applied to the processinq of Your application: File: MUP 03707 APN::040-200-013> Date: October 23; 2003, Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 350.00 Receipt: p `20852 . . Environmental Health $92.00 Total Paid: $521:00 CDF/Fire $43' NOD/NOE filing fee paid $36.00 Deposit Date: MaY 9;2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT, $ 742.00 Receipt: 21149` Deposit Date: JUne 26, 2003: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 409.88 Receipt: 21249 Deposit Date: October 9. 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 858.95 Receipt: 390455 TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1;549.70: Mapping 162.25'° Clerical 241.53 Publishing 98.10 PLANNING CHARGES $ 2,051.58 ming charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing progra]on re maybe additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you ive a FINAL INVOICE. negative amount reflects a credit. Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. ould you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Y REFUND DUE TO YOU", $ K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS & REFUNDS\REFUNDS\Gale MUP 03-07 REFUND 102303 10/23/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:51 AM Pre -bill Wdrksheet y Page 1 Nickname Gale.MUP 03-071 MUP 03-07 Full Name Stephen Gale P["vWr Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham CA 95938 +�3 Business Fax �t'l� 4 02, q Home Other Project Type MUP Deposit Status Deposit Project ✓ (� Planner Craig Sanders Salutation Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 12/2/2002 Diane 34.00 0.23 .7.93 Do Not Bill Clerical Activities 0.23 7.93 Clerical application processing (not categorized elsewhere). 12/2/2002 Roni 34.00 1.95 66.30 Billable Clerical Activities File Set up 12/5/2002 Larry 59.00 1.25 73.7 Billable Mapping Mapping 1/15/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 1/17/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Site Review Field review of project site/vicinity including travel time. 1/28/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Clerical Activities File comments 1/31/2003 Craig 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable CEQA Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 3/26/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 10/23/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:51 AM Pro-bill Wdrksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 2 Total 4/8/2003 Craig 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 5/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.12 6.88 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Phone call 5/9/2003 Craig 59.00 3.17 186.83 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/27/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/29/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/30/2003 Craig 59.00 0.33 19.67 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 6/12/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.33 15.00 Billable Administrative-Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 7/14/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report Wor Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 7/15/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable Report Wor Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 7/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 7/24/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.78 35.25 Billable Clerical Activities Proof 10/23/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:51 AM Pr6-bill Worksheet Page 3 Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amoent,, Total Task Markup % DNB Time Dto Amt 8/4/2003 Larry 59.00 1.50 88.50 Billable Mapping Mapping 8/4/2003 Craig 59.00 0.50 29.50 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/5/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/6/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.08 3.75 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 8/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.67 39.33 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Prepare agenda report 8/7/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.97 43.50 Billable Clerical Activities Proof / Packets 8/7/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Corrections to agenda report 8/11/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/14/2003 Craig 59.00 0.42 24.58 Billable Hearing - Planner 8/14/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.08 3.48 Billable Letters - Clerical Prepare & process correspondence. 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.80 35.91 Do Not Bill Minutes - Clerical 0.80 35.91 Minutes related to application. 9 10/23/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:51 AM Pr6-bill W6rksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 4 Total 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 1.40 63.00 Billable Mtg - Clerical Arrange/attend associated with project review (incl. Public Hearings) 8/19/2003 Craig 59.00 0.28 16.29 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.46 27.27 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.09 5.33 Billable Report &/or Project Analysis Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.02 1.02 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/26/2003 Joe 59.00 0.47 27.75 Billable Management Review Management Review 8/29/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 11.25 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 10/9/2003 Craig 59.00 0.50 29.50 Billable Hearing - Planner TOTAL Billable Fees Do Not Bill 34.87 $1,953.48 1.03 $43.84 Date Employee Price Quantity Amount Total Expense Markup % 7/24/2003 Lynn 98.10 1.000 98.10 Billable Publishing - Chico Enterprise Publishing in Chico Enterprise 7/24/03 TOTAL Billable Costs $98.10 Li� • 0 10/23/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 9:51 AM Pee -bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Total of Fees (Time Charges) Total of Costs (Expense Charges) Total new charges Accounts Receivables Date Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Credit -Initial Deposit - Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 INV Invoice-NOD/NOE Filing Fee 11/14/2002 PAY Payment - Receipt 20852 5/9/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21149 6/26/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21249Check No. # 10/9/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt #390455Check No. # Total Accounts Receivable Total New Balance Amount to replenish account to $350.00 Page 5 Amount Total $1,953.48 $98.10 ($350.00) $36.00 ($36.00) ($742.00) ($409.88) ($858.95) $350.00 VIL, VV I. VW ($2,360.83) i Monday, October 13, 2003 Development Services PLANNING DIVISION ver. 1.0 Counter -- - -' - Person Craig Payment Date 10/9/2003 Receipt Number 390455 Received From Stephen Gale NOD / NOE Same Applicant MUP 03-07 Application Number or In Reference To ' i Planning Review / EIR 1 040-200-013 Parcel Number $0.00 2938 I Check Number / Cash Non Sufficient' ; $0.00 Total Received IL $858.95 Total Fees _ $858.95 DDS Planning (General Fund) Public Works Environmental Health i CDF (Fire Department) $858.95 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ' NOD / NOE $0.00 (Recording Fee) Aunt.Minnie $0.00 $1, 500 or $2,000 Planning Review / EIR 1 $0.00 Fish/Game $0.00 ALUC $0.00 Non Sufficient' ; $0.00 Funds ($25.00 Fee) _ _T Cell Tower $0.00 Public Sales /Copies a $0.00 Other: $0.00 I COUNTY OF BUTTE FFICIAL RECEIPT rr--wr- F)R nEPARTMENTJSSUING RECEIPT Received from Tile Sum of For Received: Received By CASH ❑ Title CHECK By -Ml 7A%.nM I Form 75702 0 E COUNTY OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AND TREASURER'S RECEIPT OROVILLE, CA . RECEIVED FROM PLANNING DAG 0 316 ATR NO 67969 DAVE $ 01/012003 FUND FUND DEPT DESCRIPTION TITLE CODE CODE ACCT CASH CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE:: 1040 RECEIPTS: 3-30459 'PLANNING APPL FEES' GE:NIL 0010 44=1 .4210900 101001 2,305.95 P!p ect Number Amount of Fee #040-2011-043 S Gale MUP 03-07 $8+58.96 #063-360.036 Rolls Anderson TPM 04-08 $1,000 #025-160-105 S Mccracken MI 0¢03 $350 LAND DEVELOPMENT GE:NL 0010 440004 4611700 101001 3W_03 Project Number Amount of Fee #063-360-036 Rolls Anderson TPM 04-08 $330 ENVIRONMENTAL HLTH GENIL 0010 54OW3 4614901 101001 9S7.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #063-360-036 Rolls Anderson TPM 04-08 $967 FIRE PLNIC APPL FEE FIRE: PROTECT 0100 � IS17244T 9fD16DID1 129-00 T Project Number Amount of Fee #063-360-036 Rolls Anderson TPM 04-08 $129 NIODINOE: CLERKS FILING FE GENIL 0010 470 001 14612316 101001 36.00 (M) Project Number Amount of Fee #063-360-036 Rolls Anderson TPM 04-084 $36 APPROVED BY - AUDITOR -CONTROLLER DECEIVED BY: TREASURER TOTAL $ 3,770096 white --treasurer Pink --auditor canary=dePositor golden rod=file Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345'A":Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 File: MUP 03-07 APN: 040-200-013 Date: August 29, 2003 I I N V 0 1 C E MUP 03.07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing progi There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not refle on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,520.20 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 230.28 Publishing 98.10 TOTAL CHARGES: $ 2,010.83 The following payments have been applied to your application: Deposit Date: June 26, 2003 Receipt: 21249 costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited/paid amount by: $ 508.95 additional deposit is required to continue processing this application $ 350.00 TOTAL PLANNING FEES DUE $ 858.95 Butte County Code 3.44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to ar amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE cs Septembers 12, 2003 $ 858.95 K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS & REFUNDS\SENT BILLINGS\Gale MUP 03-07 082903.xls Deposit Disbursement: Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 Environmental Health $92.00 Receipt: 20852, Check 713 CDF/Fire Department $43.00 Total Payment $521.00 NOD/NOE filing fee $36.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING DEPOSIT $ (350.00) Deposit Date: May 9: 2003 $ (742.00) Receipt: 20852 Deposit Date: June 26, 2003 Receipt: 21249 costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited/paid amount by: $ 508.95 additional deposit is required to continue processing this application $ 350.00 TOTAL PLANNING FEES DUE $ 858.95 Butte County Code 3.44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to ar amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE cs Septembers 12, 2003 $ 858.95 K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS & REFUNDS\SENT BILLINGS\Gale MUP 03-07 082903.xls 8/28/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:32 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Page 1 Nickname Gale.MUP 03-07 1 MUP 03-07 Full Name Gale Rd- Address Business Fax Home Other Project Type MUP Deposit Status Deposit Project 7-3 Planner Craig Sanders Salutation Date Employee Rate Hours. Amount Total f5Cg ,5' Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 12/2/2002 Diane 34.00 0.23 7.93 Do Not Bill - Clerical Activities Clerical 0.23 7.93, / / application processing (not categorized elsewhere). __,_.- --------------- 12/2/2002 Roni 34.00 1.95 66.30 Billable Clerical Activities File Set up 12/5/2002 Larry 59.00 1.25. 73.75 Billable Mapping Mapping 1/15/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Circulation - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. - 1/17/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Site Review Field review of project site/vicinity including travel time. 1/28/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Clerical Activities File comments 1/31/2003 Craig 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable CEQA Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 3/26/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. s 8/28/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:32 PM Pre' bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time 4/8/2003 Craig 59.00 0.75 Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 5/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.12 Phone Calls/Counter- Planner Phone call 5/9/2003 Craig 59.00 3.17 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/27/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/29/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/30/2003 Craig 59.00 0.33 CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 6/12/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.33 Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 7/14/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 Report Prepare agenda report 7/15/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 Report Prepare agenda report 7/22/2003. Craig 59.00 0.25 Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 7/24/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.78 Clerical Activities P roof Page 2 Amount Total DNB Amt 44.25 Billable 6.88 Billable 186.83 Billable 59.00 Billable 118.00 Billable 19.67 Billable 15.00 Billable 73.75 Billable 118.00 Billable 14.75 Billable 35.25 Billable 's 8/28/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:32 PM Prd-bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 3 Total 8/4/2003 Larry 59.00 1.50 88.50 Billable Mapping Mapping 8/4/2003 Craig 59.00 0.50 29.50 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/5/2003 Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/6/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.08 3.75 Billable Administrative-Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 8/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.67 39.33 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/7/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.97 43.50 Billable Clerical Activities Proof / Packets 8/7/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report Corrections to agenda report 8/11/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/14/2003 Craig 59.00 0.42 24.58 Billable Hearing - Planner 8/14/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.08 3.48 Billable Letters - Clerical Prepare & process correspondence. 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.80 35.91 Do Not Bill Minutes - Clerical 0.80 35.91 Minutes related to application. Page 4 Total Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable TOTAL Billable Fees 34.12 $1,912.73 Do Not Bill 1.03 $43.84 Date Employee Price Expense Markup % 7/24/2003 Lynn 98.10 Publishing - Chico Enterprise Publishing in Chico Enterprise 7/24/03 TOTAL Billable Costs Total of Fees (Time Charges) Total of Costs (Expense Charges) Total new charges Quantity Amount Total 1.000 98.10 Billable $98.10 Amount Total $1;912.73 $98.10 $2,010.83 8/28/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:36 PM Pre-bill'Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Gale (continued) Date - Employee Rate Hours Amount Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 1.40 63.00 Mtg - Clerical Arrange/attend associated with project review (incl. Public Hearings) 8/19/2003 Craig 59.00 0.28 16.29 Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.46. 27.27 Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.09 5.33 Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.02 1.02 Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/26/2003 Joe 59.00 0.47 27.75 Management Review Management Review Page 4 Total Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable Billable TOTAL Billable Fees 34.12 $1,912.73 Do Not Bill 1.03 $43.84 Date Employee Price Expense Markup % 7/24/2003 Lynn 98.10 Publishing - Chico Enterprise Publishing in Chico Enterprise 7/24/03 TOTAL Billable Costs Total of Fees (Time Charges) Total of Costs (Expense Charges) Total new charges Quantity Amount Total 1.000 98.10 Billable $98.10 Amount Total $1;912.73 $98.10 $2,010.83 8/28/2003 3:36 PM Gale.MUP 03-07:Gale (continued) Butte County Department of Development Services Prediill ' Worksheet Accounts Receivables Date Type Description .11/14/2002 CRIED Credit -Initial Deposit - Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 INV Irnoice-NOD/NOE Filing Fee 11/14/2002 PAY Payment - Receipt 20852 5/9/2003 PAY Payment -Receipt 21149 6/26/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21249Check No. # Total Accounts Receivable Total New Balance Page 5 Amount Total ($350.00) $36.00 ($36.00) ($742.00) ($409.88) ($1,501.88) $508.95 7/1/2003 4:37 PM Butte County Department of Development Services Pre<<bill Worksheet Page 1 Selection Criteria Applicant (hand sel Include: Gale MUP 03-07 Nickname Gale MUP '03-071 MUP 03-07 1.25 Full Name Stephen Gale Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane P�. qd 9-0< Durham CA 95938 0.25 Phone 1 (530) 891-1264 Phone 2 6/,2- Phone 3 Phone 4 1.00 In Ref To Billable Fees Arrg. By billing value on each slip 0.25 Expense Arrg. By billing value on each slip Billable Tax Profile Exempt 5.00 Last bill 11/14/2002 Billable Last charge 6/12/2003 Last payment 6/26/2003 Amount $409.88 Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 12/2/2002 Diane L. 34.00 0.25 8.50 No Charge 41620 C 0.25 8.50 Clerical TS 12/2/2002 Roni Thornton 34.00 2.00 68.00 Billable 41640 C Clerical Set up 12/5/2002 Larry P. 41638 P Processing 1/15/2003 Craig S. 42098 P CIRCULATION 1/17/2003 Craig S. 42126 203 Site visit 1/28/2003 Craig S. 42198 P file Comments 1/31/2003 Craig S. 42240 104 Type initial study 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable 7/1/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 4:37 PM Pre-,,vbill Worksheet Page 2 Gale MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 2/5/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable 42274 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 3/26/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42788 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 4/8/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable 42903 Meetings Arranging and attending meetings (does not incl. public hearings) 5/6/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.12 6.88 Billable 43188 Phone/Counter Phone call 5/9/2003 Craig S. 59.00 3.17 186.83 Billable 43236 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/27/2003 Craig S. 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable 43382 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/29/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable 43404 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/30/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.33 19.67 Billable 43405 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 6/12/2003 Cheryl S. 45.00 0.33 15.00 Billable 43512 Administrative Billing/administrative tasks not related to actual processing of application TOTAL Billable Fees 20.45 $1,151.88 No Charge 0.25 $8.50 7/1/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 4:37 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Gale MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Total of billable expense slips Page 3 Amount Total $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $1,151.88 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $1,151.88 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges Accounts Receivables DatelID Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Deposit - Receipt #20852 1996 11/14/2002 INV Payment-NOD/NOE Filing Fee 2316 Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 PAY Payment 2317 5/9/2003 PAY Payment 2357 Receipt #21149. Check No. 2902 6/26/2003 PAY Payment. 2493 Receipt #21249. Check No. 3656 Total Accounts Receivable New Balance Current Unapplied Total New Balance ($350.00) $36.00 ($36.00) ($742.00) ($409.88) $1,151.88 ($1,501.88) $1,151.88 ($1,501.88) ($350.00) RECEIVED FROM COUNTY d OF B AUDITOR'S CERT9FICA-M AND,• 1-REASURER'S RECEIPT OROViLLE, CA.• PLANNING BACs # 330 ATR NO DATE 6482 W2612003 FUND FUND DEPT ACCT CASH DESCRBPT4CN TriLE CODE CODE CODE CODE Aa` OUI- @T DEPOSIT DATE: 6-26 RECEIPTS: 2124721254 ULAN7thliNG ADPL FE2�T GEHL 0010 44=1 421CO30 101001 01 3,75 !.68 Project Number Amount of Pee - 4031-2175-006 S Seidenglanz GP 0M3 ` S3,000 — - #00ts-050-093 Enw_cufi+ie Homs ADM 03-10 S30-0 #(140-200-012 S Gale MUP 03-07 401?.ES LAND 1DEVELOPIMEP4i^ G- EhL 10 4,10 064 Q61170 0 101401 150.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #i031-275-006 S Seidenglanz GRAP,203-03 EWRONMENTAL HLT i IGENL 0010 '540 3 Project Number X03#-27MO5 S Seidenglanz GPAJRZQ3-W FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT ECT 4140 Project Number #031-275-005 S Seidenglan-, G A,'PZ03-03 NODINCE CLERK'S FILING FE GENL 4010 470001 (S36) Project Number 4031-275-005 S Seidenglanz (3PAJ''RZ3M3 ,``APPROVED BY: AUDITOR•-CONMOLLE€a _ •fir a ��l .4614901 181401 287.00 Amount of Fee $287 4617240 10`1009 43.00 Amount of Fee 123'iS 1014131 36.00 Amount a Fes �w€ TOTAL - 4275.98 RECEIVED BY: TREASURER ud- te=,treasLm.r• pink --auditor canary.-depasitar golden rode f 4 RECEIPT JOURNAL COUNTY OF BUTTE OFFICE OF PLANNING E • Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive . Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen: Gale 9345 R `Stanford t.ane., • DurhamleltA 95938 Must be paid by June 27,2003 • 1 N V 0.1 C E M U P 03-07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner ; $ „ _995;13; Mapping Clerical 83;00 .._._.......,.,::......... ... Publishing TOTAL CHARGES: $ . 1 ............ ,151 88. x.... ... ._ .:......... ._.. The costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: NOD/NOE Filing Paid 11/14/02 Receipt 20852 - $36.00 Additional Deposit required to continue processing $ 350.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m..' Monday through Friday. K:\FISCAL ADMIMBILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\SENT BILLINGS\Gale MUP 03.07 061203 .xis G/a5/o� al � X09; �dcP� P 2`0,, . .0 -DATE RECEIPT NO. TOTAL -PUB LIC J­RECEIVED- -WORKS '%?• '`4 LAFCO ;- . "' `r' • •' ' PLANNING . PUBLIC- SALES ENV.- HEALTH - FIRE NOE/NOD. F/G FEE OTHER - APPLICANT RECEIVED FROM o ` RECEIPT /� 49 OFFICIAL RECEIPT L COUNTY OF BUTTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING w ISSUED BY '_ 7 0 0 _n o Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 Receipt: 20852 Deposit Date: May 9. 2003 Receipt: 21149, Check 2902 Must be paid by June 27, 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING Deposit File: MUP 03-07 APN: Date: June 12, 2003 $350.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING Deposit 742.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $1,092.00 I N V 0-1 C E MUP 03.07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There maybe additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 995.13 Mapping $ 73.75 Clerical $ 83.00 - Publishing TOTAL CHARGES: $ 1,151.88 The costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ " 59.88 NOD/NOE Filing Paid 11/14/02 Receipt 20852 - $36.00 Additional Deposit required to continue processing $ 350.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE BY " $ 409.88 . Biller. CS June 27 2003 K:\FISCAL ADMIMBILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\SENT BILLINGS\Gale MUP 03-07 061203 .xls �„ _ 1 6/12/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 1:43 PM Pre-bfW6rksheet Page 1 Selection Criteria Applicant (hand sel Include: Gale MUP 03-07 Nickname Gale MUP 03-07 1 MUP 03-07 Full Name Stephen Gale Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane 0.25 Durham CA 95938 Phone 1 (530) 891-1264 Phone 2 Phone 3 Phone 4 In Ref To Fees Arrg. By billing value on each slip Expense Arrg. By billing value on each slip Tax Profile Exempt Last bill 11/14/2002 Last charge 6/12/2003 99 <13 73 7S ��. oT Last payment 5/9/2003 Date Employee ID Task Amount $742.00s-C/,es-, Rate Markup % Hours DNB Time -F 75Z , d21 "-9 Amount*y ff T tal DNB Amt // 12/2/2002 Diane L. 34.00 0.25 8.50 No Charge 41620 C 0.25 8.50 Clerical TS 12/2/2002 Roni Thornton 34.00 2.00 68.00 Billable 41640 C Clerical Set up 12/5/2002 Larry P. 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable 41638 P Processing 1/15/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42098 P CIRCULATION 1/17/2003 Craig S. 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable 42126 203 Site visit 1/28/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42198 P file Comments 6/12/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 1:43 PM Pre -b* Worksheet Page 2 Gale MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 1/31/2003 Craig S. 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable 42240 104 Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable 42274 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 3/26/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 3 14.75 Billable 42788 CEQA ; Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 4/8/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable 42903 Meetings Arranging and attending meetings (does not incl. public hearings) 5/6/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.12 6.88 Billable 43188 Phone/Counter Phone call 5/9/2003 Craig S. 59.00 3.17 186.83 Billable 43236 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/27/2003 Craig S. 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable 43382 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/29/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable 43404 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 5/30/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.33 19.67 Billable 43405 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 6/12/2003 Cheryl S. 45.00 0.33 15.00 Billable 43512 Administrative Billing/administrative tasks not related to actual processing of application 6/12/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 1:43 PM Pre-INN Worksheet Page 3 Gale MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Amount Total TOTAL Billable Fees , 20.45 $1,151.88 No Charge ; 0.25 I $8.50 Total of billable expense slips I $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $1,151.88 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $1,151.88 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $1,151.88 Accounts Receivables DatejID Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Deposit - Receipt #20852 ($350.00) 1996 11/14/2002 INV Payment-NOD/NOE Filing Fee $36.00 2316 Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 PAY Payment ($36.00) 2317 5/9/2003 PAY Payment ($742.00) 2357 Receipt #21149. Check No. 2902 Total Accounts Receivable ($1,092.00) New Balance Current $1,151.88 Unapplied ($1,092.00) F Total New Balance $59.88 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone .Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 Receipt: 20852 Payment: 'November 14. 2002 Receipt: 20852 INVOICE • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING Deposit NOD/NOE Filing Fee File: MUP 03-07 APN: Date: May 6, 2003 MUP 03.07 $ 350.00 $ 36.00 ening charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing progra ,e may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you ive a FINAL INVOICE. following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner .Mapping Clerical $604.75. 73.75 68.00 TOTAL $ 746.50 The costs thus far In processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 396.50 Additional Deposit Required to continue processing $ 350.00 Butte County Code 3.44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE AND PAYABLE BY CS May 20, .2003 $ 746 50 1 K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLING LETTERS\SENT BILLINGS\050603 Inv Gale MUP 03-07.xls 5/6/2003 2:01 PM • • Butte County Department of Development Services Pre-thftl Worksheet Selection Criteria C ra Page 1 Applicant (hand sel Include: MUP 03-07 Nickname MUP 03-07 11981 Full Name Stephen Gale v Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham CA 95938 Phone 1 (530) 891-1264 Phone 2 1- 7- �v Phone 3 Phone 4 In Ref To ���` / . Fees Arrg. By billing value on each slip Expense Arrg.. By billing value on each slip � �� ? S [ Ian Tax Profile Exempt Last bill 11/14/2002 Last charge 4/8/2003 Last payment 11/14/2002 Amount $36.00 Date Employee Rate Hours Amount ` Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time - DNB -Amt 12/2/2002 Diane L. 34.00 0.25 8.50 No Charge 41620 C 0.25 8.50 Clerical TS s �� 12/2/2002 Roni Thornton 34.00 2.00 68.00 Billable 41640 C Clerical Set up 12/5/2002 Larry P. 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable 41638 P Processing 1/15/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42098 P CIRCULATION 1/17/2003 Craig S. 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable 42126 203 Site visit 1/28/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42198 P file Comments 5/6/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 2:01 PM Pre -oil Worksheet MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amount ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 1/31/2003 Craig S. 59.00 5.00 295.00 42240 104 Type initial study Amount Total 2/5/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.75 42274 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes $746.50 analysis $746.50 3/26/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 42788 CEQA $746.50 Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 4/8/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.75 42903 Meetings Arranging and attending meetings (does not incl. public hearings) TOTAL Billable Fees 13.50 No Charge 0.25 Total of billable expense slips 162.25 14.75 44.25 $8.50 Page 2 Total Billable Billable Billable Billable. $746.50 $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $746.50 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $746.50 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $746.50 Accounts Receivables DatellD Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Deposit - Receipt #20852 ($350.00) 1996 5/6/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 2:01 PM Pre*II Worksheet MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) 11/14/2002 INV Payment-NOD/NOE Filing Fee 2316 Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 PAY Payment 2317 Total Accounts Receivable New Balance Current Unapplied Total New Balance 1 Page 3 Amount Total $36.00 ($36.00) $746.50 ($350.00) ($350.00) �OUO.Ou COUNTY OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CER-nFICATE A1480tel SASURER'S RECEIPT OROVILLE, CA ATR NO 49025 RECEIVED FROM PLANNING BAG #316 ®ATE 1111612962 FUM® FLAN® DEPT ACCT CASH DESCRIP71ON TITLE CODE CODE CODE CODE AMOUNT DEPOSIT DATE: 1145 RECEIPTS: 2 2 PLANNING APPL FEES GENL 0010 440WII 4210M 101001 425.01) ENVIRONMENTAL I-ILTH GENL 0010 54OW3 4614901 101001 92.00 Project Number Amount of Fee #040-2MOQ S Gale M1 03-07 $92 FIRE PLNG APPL FEE FIRE PROTECT 0100 4617240 101M 43.GD Project Number Amount of Fee #040-200-013 S Gale MOP 03-07 $43 NOWN®E CLERK'S FILING FE GENL 0010 470MI 4612319 101001 36.00 (M) Projeci Number Amount of Fee #040-200-013 S Gale MOP "03=07 $36 TOTAL $ 596000 APPROVED BY: RECEIVE® BY:. AUDITOR -CONTROLLER' TREASURER white—treasurer pin auditor canary --depositor golden aod=FiIe / 0 Butte CountvDepartment ofDevelopmentSen ces Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen. Gale: 9345 "A Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938' • File: MUP 03-07 APN: 040-200-013 Date: January 26, 2004 REFUND MUP 03-07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following payment(s) have been applied to the processing of your application: Deposit Date: • .November 14. 2002'. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 350.00 Receipt: 20852 Environmental Health $92.00 Total Paid: $521.00 CDF/Fire $43 Deposit Date: May 9. 2003 Receipt: 21149 Deposit Date: June 26, 2003 Receipt: 21249 Deposit Date: October 9. 2003:. Receipt: 390455 NOD/NOE filing fee paid $36.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 742.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 409.88 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 858.95 TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,549.70 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 241.53 Publishing 98.10 PLANNING CHARGES $ 2,051.58 Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Billercs REFUND DUE TO YOU $ 309.25 K:IFISCAL ADMIMBILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\REFUNDS1GaIe MUP 03-07 REFUND 012604.xis County of Butte Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM DATE'OF CLAIM: January 26, 2004 IMPORTANT: CLAIMANT: $tephen�G'ale %; b'. ;,, �'.3.� , :;�', tv:.. ��.` ... �.:�.<: SEE INSTRUCTIONS ADDRESS: 9.345 "A',SWiford;Lane r te ', , .:: ::: ..,;,x> , n%; BELOW i CITY, STATE: SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS ORµ SERVICES DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013, ATR January 26, 2004 67968, alcompleted and approved,project. $ 309.25 k TOTAL $ 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated. Gelif I;:firs.F r`; 00,RMIQ-. Signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget Appropriation ❑ or Specific Board Approval ❑(Check one) for the same. Dated this day of 2003, at Oroville Calif. Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or work performed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval, the Department head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. Claims should be presented to offi'cials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested or material ordered. a Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of claim. Failure to do so may delay payment. Dept. Exp. Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND ! DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR'S USE ONLY DEPT & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. INV. DATE ENCUMBER. GROSS AMT. Claimant Submitted for your approval/signature. Please return signed form to: Development Services Department Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive i Oroville, CA 95965 i s 0 r C-) COUNTY OF BUTTE �J FFICIAL RECEIPT 390455 -OF FEOR DEPARTME SUING RECEIPT j1jr, °1 20n Received from Ile Sumof p� ForA0 P Received: Received By CASH Title CHECK By DAVCO BUSINESS FORMS • (530) 7439511 Form 757m U 0 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 7-1 M File: MUP 03-07 APN: , 040-200-013 Date: August 29, 2003 INVOICE MUP 03.07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing progran There maybe additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflecte on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, yo will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,520.20 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 230.28 Publishing 98.10 TOTAL CHARGES: $ 2,010.83 The following payments have been applied to your application: Deposit Disbursement: Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 Environmental Health $92.00 Receipt: 20852, Check 713 CDF/Fire Department $43.00 Total Payment $521.00 NOD/NOE filing fee $36.00 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING DEPOSIT $ (350.00) Deposit Date: May 9. 2003 $ (742.00' Receipt: 20852 Deposit Date: June 26. 2003 $ (409.88' Receipt: 21249 The costs thus far in processing your application have exceeded the deposited/paid amount by: $ C508.95 An additional deposit is required to continue processing this application $ 350.00 TOTAL PLANNING FEES DUE $ 858.95 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event tl applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNTFDUE AND PAYABLE,', gt 858.95.. ` September 12,, 2003 . K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS 8 REFUNDS\SENT BILLINGS\Gale MUP 03-07 082903.xis • i 9/11/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:19 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Page 1 Nickname Gale.MUP 03-071 MUP 03-07 Full Name Stephen Gale Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham CA 95938 Business Fax Home Other Project Type MUP Deposit Status Deposit Project Planner Craig Sanders Salutation Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 12/2/2002 Diane 34.00 0.23 7.93 Do Not Bill Clerical Activities 0.23 7.93 Clerical application processing (not categorized elsewhere). 12/2/2002 Roni 34.00 1.95 66.30 Billable Clerical Activities File Set up 12/5/2002 Larry 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Mapping Mapping 1/15/2003 Craig 59.00 LCircul �25 14.75 Billable tion - Planner Determine an application's completeness/circulate for staff comments/analysis. 1/17/2003 Craig_ 59.00 1..00 59.00 Billable `Site Review Field review of project site/vicinity including travel time. 1/28/2003 rCraig j 59.00 FO. -2 14.75 Billable Clerical Activities File comments 1/31/2003 Crag 59.00 5 00 295.00 Billable CEQA Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig 59.00 2 75 162.25 Billable LCEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 3/26/2003 Craig�� 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 9/11/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:19 PM Pre-bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task_.,_ Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 2 Total 4/8/2003 Craig) 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 5/6/2003 Craig 59.00 0.12 6.88 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Phone call 5/9/2003Craig 59.00 3.17 186.83 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/27/2003 -Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/29/2003 Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 5/30/2003 Craig 59.00 0.33 19.67 Billable CEQA Prepare initial studies, mitigations, neg. dec EIRs including analysis. 6/12/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.33 15.00 Billable Administrative-Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 7/14/2003 Craig 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 7/15/2003Craig 59.00 2.00 118.00 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 7/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Meeting - Planner Time spent in meetings (Not incl. Public Hearings). 7/24/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.78 35.25 Billable Clerical Activities P roof 9/11/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:19 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 3 Total 8/4/2003 Larry 59.00 1.50 88.50 Billable Mapping Mapping 8/4/2003 Craig 59.00 0.50 29.50 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/5/2003Craig 59.00 1.00 59.00 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/6/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.08 3.75 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . 8/6/20037Cr g� 59.00 0.67 39.33 Billable Report Prepare agenda report 8/7/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.97 43.50 Billable Clerical Activities Proof / Packets gD 8/7/2003,C iar 59.00 1.25 73.75 Billable Report Corrections to agenda report 8/11/2003(Craig 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/14/2003 Craig 59.00 0.42 24.58 Billable Hearing - Planner 8/14/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.08 3.48 Billable Letters - Clerical Prepare & process correspondence. 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 0.80 35.91 Do Not Bill Minutes - Clerical 0.80 35.91 Minutes related to application. 9/11/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:19 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Task Markup % DNB Time Amount DNB Amt Page 4 Total 8/15/2003 Lynn 45.00 1.40 63.00 Billable Mtg - Clerical Arrange/attend associated with project review (incl. Public Hearings) 8/19/2003 Craig 59.00 0.28 16.29 Billable Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.46 27.27 Billable Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/21/2003 Craig 59.00 0.09 5.33 Billable Report Reports & analysis related to the application/report. 8/22/2003 Craig 59.00 0.02 1.02 Billable Phone Calls/Counter - Planner Making/receiving phone calls and counter contacts regarding the project. 8/26/2003 Joe 59.00 0.47 27.75 Billable Management Review Management Review 8/29/2003 Cheryl 45.00 0.25 11.25 Billable Administrative -Clerical Time spent on billing and other administrative tasks not related to processing . TOTAL Billable Fees 34.37 $1,923.98 Do Not Bill 1.03 $43.84 Date Employee Price Quantity Amount Total Expense Markup % 7/24/2003 Lynn 98.10 1.000 98.10 Billable Publishing - Chico Enterprise Publishing in Chico Enterprise 7/24/03 TOTAL Billable Costs Amount Total of Fees (Time Charges) $98.10 Total $1,923.98 9/11/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 3:19 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Gale.MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Total of Costs (Expense Charges) Total new charges Accounts Receivables Date Type Description Page 5 Amount Total $98.10 $2,022.08 11/14/2002 CRED Credit -Initial Deposit - Receipt 20852 ($350.00) 11/14/2002 INV Invoice-NOD/NOE Filing Fee $36.00 11/14/2002 PAY Payment -Receipt 20852 ($36.00) 5/9/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21149 ($742.00) 6/26/2003 PAY Payment - Receipt 21249Check No. # ($409.88) Total Accounts Receivable Total New Balance Amount to replenish account to $350.00 $350.00 ($1,501.88) $520.20 PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET y FILE #: MUP 03-07 PROJECT TYPE: Minor Use Permit APPLICANT: Stephen Gale ADDRESS: 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Durham, CA 95938 OWNER: Stephen Gale ADDRESS: same REPRESENTATIVE: John C. Anderson ADDRESS: 530 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROPERTY ZONED: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) LOCATED: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane AP#: 040-200-013 TOWN/AREA: Durham GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: AR (Agricultural -Residential) 1. Application accepted: 11/15/02 Amount: $ 521.00 Receipt #: 20852 2. Comments sent to: Development Services Director, Public Works Director, Environmental Health, Assessor, LAFCo, Agricultural Commission, California Department of Forestry, Air Quality Management, Butte Co. Farm Bureau, Central Reg. Water Quality Cont. 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing List/Lead-in Sheet: 6. Assigned To: Craig Sanders 7. Environmental Determination: State Clearinghouse No: Categorical Exemption-CEQA# Negative Declaration Mitigation Negative Declaration Subject to Fish & Game: Environmental Impact Report Gen. Rule Ex. -CEQA # 15061.(bx3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: 9. Clearinghouse circulation required: Yes No L- Date Sent to SCH: 10. Publication Notice W 'tten: %/1i/o z Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: a- 0 �T� Number of Notices: 12. Newspaper Publica ion Date: a s4 f) v O C P G B 13. Planning Commission Hearing s): B - c2 Action taken: 910 Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14. Board of Supervis rs' Hearing(s): Action taken: r Board Resolution o.: Ordinance No: Adopted: 15. Type Minor Use Permit/Send for signture• /p 16. N.O.E. / N.O.D. / APPENDIX G: 10 sh & Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Minor Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: l la,f D 19. Copy of Minor Use Permit / Variance to Planning Technician: 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 530-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785 Stephen Gale, proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Minor -Use Permit to establish a large winery on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural — 5 acre parcels). The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. APN 040-200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) Mr. Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. He explained the suggested changes to Conditions 3, 16, 18, and 19. Commissioner Nelson asked if the applicant would be required to get a Minor Use Permit one time or every time there is a special event held. Mr. Sanders said the Code states that the first special event that is held requires a Minor Use Permit and subsequent events would only require an Administrative Permit. Commissioner Leland asked the source of the 24 x 24 foot exemption. Mr. Sanders said there is no 24 x 24 exemption. Mr. Wannenmacher said the diagram they received comes out of the Improvement Standards and is usually applied to subdivisions, whereas this is.a Use Permit. He said staff is attempting to craft a condition that the Fire Department thinks is important to health and safety, without the condition being burdensome. He said staff was trying to set a threshold whereby if the applicant remained - below the threshold, the applicant would not have to install the pressurized water system, but if the applicant goes above the threshold, he would have to install the pressurized water system. He saidwhen the Use Permit is granted, the applicant can make full use of the property and could put in a large processing building and at that point, the Fire Department could not impose this condition. Commissioner Evans asked, in regards to Revised Condition 3 which says that the applicant can not process any wine until the system is installed, is this correct. Mr. Wannenmacher said "yes." He said staff is trying to set the thresholds because they do not know the extent the property can be used. Ted Crawford said he tried to base this requirement on future needs and knowing if they do not have a pressurized system requirement in the condition that they can not impose a condition at a later time. He said that the 24 x 24 foot building would not need a pressurized water system, but a larger building would. He said the Commission can delete Revised Condition 3 as long as they keep Revised Condition 16. The hearing was opened to the public. Jeff Carter, representing the applicant, said he was concerned about the requirement for a pressurized water system. He said the cost would be prohibitive. He was concerned that the conditions were the same for all wineries. He asked if the Commission had the power to waive this condition. He said ------------ ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 1 ■ the Improvement Standards implement Chapter 20, which is for subdivisions, and this is not a subdivision. He said that Improvement Standards for a subdivision being used as a threshold to establish a condition for large wineries might be inappropriate. He felt that the applicant and the Fire Warden could work out the conditions. He said on Revised Condition 16, instead of a pressurized water system being required, there should be flexibility to put the responsibility on the Fire Warden. He suggested keeping the original Condition 3 and revising Condition 16 to have it subject to the responsibility of the Fire Warden. Mr. Wannenmacher noted that the Tuscan Winery only required an Administrative Permit and did not come before the Commission. Commissioner Nelson stated that the Winery Ordinance is still new. Commissioner Leland asked if the condition was adopted where any future expansion would require review by the Fire Department, would the Building Division pick this up when the owner came in for a new building permit for a large warehouse. Mr. Sanders said that when the Commission approves a Use Permit or Minor Use Permit, you are approving a site development plan. He said the Commission is approving the 24 x 24 foot building. He said a building that would come in for a large warehouse addition would be reviewed by Planning and Building staff and would be flagged for expansion to the Minor Use Permit. He said the applicant would have to apply for another Minor Use Permit in order to build another structure in conjunction with the winery because it would not be covered by the present Minor Use Permit. He said the Minor Use Permit is specific to a plan and layout that the Commission approves, and it does not give someone the right to do anything they want to. Mr. Crawford agreed with Mr. Sanders and said the County could apply conditions at the time of the new Minor Use Permit to expand. He said that he does have a new ordinance coming through soon to require a standardized fire flow and access to all new buildings in the County. Commissioner Nelson asked if Mr. Gale lived three miles down the road, would CDF impose the same standard for the pressurized water system. Mr. Crawford said they look at each permit separately. He said having to get a revised Minor Use Permit will protect future expansion and at that time they could impose conditions for a pressurized water system. The hearing was closed. Chairman Lambert said her concern was special conditions for wineries. She said she did not want to make conditions and flexibility that deal only with wine processing or the wine industry. Commissioner Leland felt that it was appropriate to build in the discretion that Mr. Carter suggested for approval by the Fire Warden. He agreed that they should go back to the original Condition 3. He would eliminate the hard restriction requirement for a pressurized water system and say that any future improvements will require review by the Fire Department. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 2 ■ 0 • Mr. Sanders said that staff would recommend that they maintain the original Condition 3. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously carried to approve the Minor Use Permit for Stephen Gale subject to the findings and conditions listed below, maintaining the original Condition 3, revising Conditions 16, 18, and 19 (re -numbered from 18) as submitted today, changing Revised Condition 16 to add after the italics "such shall be to the reasonable" then delete from "a pressurized community ..." and will then read "such shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Fire Marshall." Delete the sentence that starts with "average" and replace the last sentence with "Applicant shall submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval." Re -number original Condition 19 to Condition 20. ' I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. B. The Planning Commission. has considered the proposed Mitigated 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 Minor Use Permit for Stephen Gale, Planning Division File No. MUP TPM 03-07, would have a significant effect on the environment. D. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. E. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with Mitigation Measures 1 through 6, as referenced in the Agenda Report dated August 8, 2003. II. The design of the proposed project improvements will not cause significant environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a "de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The project site does not contain any streams, riparian vegetation, or blue oak habitat. The project site is located within a deer herd Designated Development Zone and is not within a critical winter deer herd area. The project site is not known to contain any rare, threatened, or endangered plant, insect, or animal species and does not contain any vernal pools or wetlands. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5. is not required. III. Recommend that the Planning Commission find that: (1) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 3 ■ use is consistent with Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code, in particular the A-5 zoning district and the provisions of Section 24-263 (F) addressing the specific requirements for large wineries - commercial facilities. (2) . That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is consistent with the Butte County General Plan, including the Agricultural Residential designation of the Land Use Element which identifies agricultural uses and outdoor recreation uses as being consistent and the conditional zoning and development criteria below: 1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities. Agricultural uses in the project area consist primarily of almond orchards and small scale seasonal crops. Adjoining property is zoned A-5. The Agricultural Commissioner's office has reviewed the project and does not have any agricultural compatibility issues with the growing of grapes or wine production and associated wine tasting. 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. The -Butte County Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and did not have any objections to the proposed use of septic systems, or individual wells, provided the necessary permits are obtained. Groundwater is generally plentiful in the area as evidenced by the wells that serve the orchards: 3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities. The site is approximately 1.25 miles from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is considered adequate to serve the proposed development. 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service area. . The site abuts a paved, County -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle approximately 10 additional weekend trips represented by the wine tasting use (10 people per weekend day/2 people per car/5 trips in -5 trips out). 5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools. Commercial services and schools are located between 1 and 1.5 miles from the property. This is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed project. (3) That the location,.size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 4 ■ • be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: a. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; The size of the proposed structures fit with the scale of the existing development on-site and in the area. The proposed structures are relatively small, covering approximately 0.8% of the site. b. The availability of public facilities, services and utilities; The project will not affect the limited public facilities that serve the area (sheriff, fire, roads) because the winery and wine tasting will not generate significant concentrations of people. C. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; The desirable neighborhood character would not be affected because the limited wine production and wine tasting will be conducted within the interior" confines of a 5+ acre parcel and will not generate noise or other undesirable effects that would conflict with the character of the neighborhood. d. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; Grape growing and the limited amount of wine processing on-site will not generate any significant traffic. The tasting activities will generate some additional traffic to the area. This will generally be on the weekends during daylight hours. Without the support of a significant number of wineries in the area, wine tasting as a tourist attraction will be limited. e. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; At 5.43 acres, the site is suitable for the limited growing and production of wine as proposed by the applicant. Up to 300 cases of wine may be processed on the premises. f. Any other relevant impact of the proposed use. The site is physically suitable for processing a limited amount of grapes as proposed by the applicant. , (3) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 5 ■ • use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Adherence to the conditions of this permit will address public heath and safety issues such as water supply, sewage disposal, site access off of a public road and building codes. (4) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Chapter, except for an approved Minor Variance. The project would meet the existing County Codes for the proposed use once all attached conditions are met. IV. Recommend approval of Minor Use Permit 03-07 for Stephen Gale to allow a winery— Large commercial facility on APN 040-200-013 subject to conditions in exhibit "A". Conditions of Approval: Planning Division If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses.. (Mitigation Measure) Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. ` 2. Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified, archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site.. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. 3. The processing of wine on the site is limited to the amount of grapes grown on the property. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 6 ■ 0 0 No more than 500 gallons of wine processing wastewater may be generated per day unless approval is received from the Butte County Environmental Health Division. Public Works 4. Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing in the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Construct a public road'approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public.Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on-site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 7. Provide all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs 8. Deed to Butte County, in fee simple, 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Stanford Lane along the entire frontage of the property. Environmental Health 9. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for on-site sewage disposal. 10. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for the provision of ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 7 ■ • drinking water. • 11. Sewage System and drinking water systems must be installed under County permit. 12. Meet all applicable requirements of the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. 13. Meet all applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fire Department/CDF 14. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. 15. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed in a manner acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 16. Aside from the existing buildings, the applicant states that he intends to construct only one new structure with the dimension of 24 feet by 24 feet for the purpose of wine tasting and retail sales. If any additional new structures are built or the dimensions of the new structure the applicant intends to build exceeds 24 feet by 24 feet, such shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Fire Marshall. Applicant shall submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. 17. Provide an all-weather access that is at least 10 feet wide with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus. 18. Although this minor use permit is consistent with holding special events, an additional minor use permit must be applied for and be granted as set for in Butte County Code sub -section 24-263(F)(2)(d) before any such events may be held on the property. Such events include, but are not limited to, weddings, assemblies, and craft fairs. Even though such events may have been held previously on this property, they can not be held once this minor use permit is granted until the separate minor use permit for special events is granted. County Counsel 19. If this entire matter. or any finding, action or condition of this matter is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, the applicant or any other developer/operator other than the applicant agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss related to the approval of this project in any subsequent action or forum, and agrees to sign an indemnification agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, this condition is deemed satisfied. Other 20. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances, and ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 8 ■ regulations. There is a 10 -day appeal period on all decisions with the Clerk of the Board. There was a discussion on small wineries and,large wineries and having special ordinances for special interest groups. N f t ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ OCTOBER 9, 2003 ■ PAGE 9 ■ r' f Stephen Gale, proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural — 5 -acre parcels). The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. APN 040-200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) Craig Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. He said the applicant is requesting a continuance. The hearing was opened to the public. Mr. Gale said he needed a continuance until October. The hearing was closed. I Commissioner Evans was present at this time. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously carried to continue the Minor Use Permit for Stephen Gale opened to October 9, 2003. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ AUGUST 28, 2003 ■ PAGE 1 ■ j J Stephen Gale, proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural — 5 -acre parcels). The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. APN 040-200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) Craig Sanders gave a brief summary of the project. A letter was received from Dale Daqlrymple. Chairman Lambert asked if there were hours of operation proposed for this winery. Mr. Sanders said not at this time. He said staff does not anticipate that there will be enough traffic generated to be an issue. The hearing was opened to the public. Jeff Carter, representative, said he accepts the report with two exceptions. He said this proposal 1 .---presents the opportunity for special events to occur. He said he has two exceptions to C&iditibns ' one'on #15 and the otherone on #16 regarding a pressured water system. He felt this was a lack of service issue in the area. He said the cost of a pressurized community water system and availability is impossible. He said the special events would not be in an enclosed area. He said the wine tasting would only be on weekends. He submitted an informal traffic count on Sanford Lane and Durham • Dayton Highway. He said their water is from an individual well and sewage disposal is by septic systems. Steve Gale in answer to Commissioner Marin's questions said the well produces 60 gallons a minute. He said there is one well on the property. He noted a small pond also on the property. He said the buildings that are lacking in permits were installed prior to his buying the property. In answer to ' Commissioner Evans' question regarding water storage, he said there is a 200 -gallon tank on the well. Chad Wimple discussed the differences between a small and large winery. He said the applicant needed to apply for a large winery in order to later apply for a permit for special events. He said only allowing a maximum of 20 cars for special events is not enough. Robert Sandrock said he lives across the street from Mr. Gale and has no problems with the winery or with special events being held there. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Marin questioned removing Conditions 15 and 16. Mr. Sanders said it would be at the discretion of the Commission to remove the conditions. He said he spoke with Mr. Crawford, CDF, and questioned the need for the conditions in light of this permit for just the winery. He said Mr. Crawford said it was their position that the conditions remain, that this is a commercial building and needs a pressurized system. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ AUGUST 14, 2003 ■ PAGE 8 ■ Commissioner Leland asked if the Commission has a way to waive these conditions. Commissioner Nelson asked if there was another option to store water for fire, protection. Mr. Sanders said there have been other permits where water storage has been used rather than a pressurized water system. He said that typically the amount has been'2,500 gallons. Mr. Baker said since this is a Fire Department condition, they need a representative from CDF here, and asked that this hearing be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Sanders said an alternative is for the applicant to install his own pressured system. Commissioner Evans discussed the Improvement Standards & Flow Chart on the construction of water systems. He agreed that the Commission needs input from CDF. Commissioner Marin asked how far the property was from the river. Mr. Sanders said approximately 1,000 feet from Butte Creek. Mr. MacKenzie said the issue is whether the Commission can waive the Fire Department conditions. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Evans, and unanimously carried to continue this hearing open to August 28, 2003, to have the opportunity for staff to confer with CDF focusing on the source of the requirement for the pressurized water (possible alternatives.). There was a brief discussion on the possible building and septic violations. 'The Commission also discussed the need to review the Winery Ordinance. C ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES ■ AUGUST 14, 2003 ■ PAGE 9 ■ County of Butte Oroville, California GENERAL CLAIM DATE OF CLAIM: October 23, 2003 IMPORTANT:. r a CLAIMANT: Stephen Gale ,�t `�_;, = ,� r SEE INSTRUCTIONS ADDRESS: 9345„' A StanfordrLane ; ., , :y ,... ; ,' „ ` ' BELOW CITY, STATE: I SUBMIT CLAIM TO DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES DATE DESCRIPTION OF CLAIM (DESCRIBE FULLY TO AVOID DELAY) AMOUNT October 23, 2003 REFUND of remaining funds on application MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013, ATR 67968' a completed and approved project. $ 309.25 TOTAL $ 309.25 I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that the services or articles claimed have been performed or delivered, and that this claim is true and correct as stated: a LDated this, da of 2003 at ai".', sx� .. y Callf -. _ Signature of Claimant I, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the services or articles specified above have been performed or delivered and that there is a Budget AppropriatO or Specific Board Approval ❑(Check one) for the same. . Dated this day of 2003, at Oroville Calif. Department Head or Authorized Deputy INSTRUCTIONS TO CLAIMANTS All claims against the County must be itemized, giving dates and character of service rendered or work performed, quantities, description and unit prices of articles furnished or delivered. Claims must be certified by the claimant and submitted to the Department head for approval. Upon approval, the Department head will forward claim to the County Auditor for payment. Do Not file with the County Auditor first. Claims should be. presented to officials for approval immediately upon completion of services requested or material ordered. Compliance with the above instructions will expedite payment of. claim. Failure to do so may delay payment. Dept. Exp. Code 440-001 Code 4210900 / 101001 PAYABLE FROM GENERAL FUND DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - AUDITOR' USE ONLY DEPT & SUB. PROJ. SUB. OBJ. CLAIM NO. INV. NO. 14V. DATE ENCUMBER. GROSS AMT. Claimant - Submitted for your approval/signature. Please return signed form to: Development Services Department Accounts Receivable 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 .�i Butte County Department ofDevelopmentServices Administration AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone .Minor Use Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345'"A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 File: MUP 03-07 APN: 040-200-013 Date: October 23, 2003 Deposit Date: November 14, 2002 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 350.00 Receipt: 20852 Environmental Health $92.00 Total Paid: $521.00 CDF/Fire $43 NOD/NOE filing fee paid $36.00 Deposit Date: May 9. 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 742.00 Receipt: 21149 Deposit Date: June 26, 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 409.88 Receipt: 21249 Deposit Date: October 9. 2003 , DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING DEPOSIT $ 858.95 Receipt: 390455 TOTAL PLANNING DEPOSITS $ 2,360.83 The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $ 1,549.70 Mapping 162.25 Clerical 241.53 Publishing 98.10 PLANNING CHARGES $ 2,051.58 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. negative amount reflects a credit. Please sign and return the enclosed General Claim form. lould you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. REFUND DUE TO YOU $ g (309.25) er. CS K:\FISCAL ADMIN\BILLINGS & REFUNDS\REFUNDS\Gale MUP 03-07 REFUND 102303 { DEPARTMNT OF DEVELOPM NT SERVICES BUTT OUNTY UNIFORM AP CATION PLICANT: Agent information to be provided is on other side: APPLICANT'S NAME ( If applicant is different from owner an affidavit is required) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: _ 0 ADDRESS: 1, CITY.ATE & ZIP CODE: FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE) '0/1 r G11�'i I IP 03 -6 7 ON NAME OF PROPOSED P OJECT ( If any ,, q'> 55�TEYPHONE LOCATION OF PROJECT ( Major cross streets and Address. if any, ) I , GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED OWNER'S NAME ` Qi� �'► t TELEPHONE h p ('7��77'a ADDRESS: ��/� r ' CITY. STATE & ZIP CODE: 7.79 G / Y 1 a �/ .� ZONE GENERAL PLAN EXISTING LAND USS % ITE SIZE ( in Square Fret or Acres ) EXISTING STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) PROPOSED STRUCTURES (in Square Feet) (Check One) (Check One) ❑OPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEWERED ❑ ROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER (PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED T'O BE ON WELL WATER PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC ❑ GENERAL PLAN ❑ REZONE ❑ USE PERMIT [MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE ❑ MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUESTED T ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP ® 0 W ETENTATIVE PARCEL MAP �,BI WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP NOV � 5 2002 IWAIVER L6gE MODIFICATION Fy J ❑ LOT DETERMINATION B NNINI TE DMOUN T I ❑ �EGAL ERTIFICATE OF MERGER PLANNING DIVISION ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN ❑ OTHER PROJECT DESCRIPTION FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division. describe the number and size of parcels.) ^ r `► / �2 Yid C 14 C �, / G 1' OWNER CERTIFICATION I CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY. FURTHER. I ACKNOWLEDGE THE FILING OF THIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE INTORMATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE. (If an agent is to be authorized, execute an affidavit of authorization and include the affidavit with this application.) DATE: ) I d SIGNATURE: A � t - AGENT AUTHORIZATION o Butte County, Department of Development Services. Print NameXAgent and Phone Number Mailing Address is hereby authorized t rote: on my property, identified This authorization allows rep documents necessary for said interest. this application for utte County application/ sor Parcel Number se tion for applications, hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all rocesst t not including document(s) relating to record title Owner(s) of Record: (sign a/priname) ~NOV 15 2002 , �- Print NameX-1 Print Name PLANNING DIVISION Signature Signature Architect and/WEngineer: 0 44,1 1— 112— Print —112— Print Name o Ardtitect/Engitteer and Phone Number ylailindAddress FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Verify: Date Received: !/ /'/�o� Total Amount Received: 5 - �P Number(s) Legal Description Owners Authorization 'Zoning Requirements �Pruiect Description --Copies of plot plan Taken by Receipt No. d109rJ-" E.H. q�-- LD Plan 3SO FD V3 /Uc0 b Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of a eposit) will he returned upon final action. Current fee for this application is S 5 �'/ as of /f —/41 ;\lake check payable to "Butte County Treasurer". COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (To be completed By Project Applicant) Date Filed /y A10/1 O a GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Name and address of owner, and/or developer, and/or project sponsor: 2. Address of project: 4' 3 f � A~ PPAd LRt+Atic , Ca ry I ft 3 9 Assessor's Parcel Number: 09'0-90,0— 1913 3. Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: ✓1/({r ,S,T TQ % I - ` 9&f 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required 11by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 1J I 5. Existing general plan designation: e i 6. Existing zoning district: /A "S 7. How is land currently used? A!I At ci1w4 1151-/°-14« 8. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): AeU ,4 4!fL,c� 4,y5r.�csS� Project Description: 9. Site size: (Acres/Sq. Feet) 10. Off-street parking spaces: Full sizer Compact: Total: _ y&9 11. Plans attached: Yes OL No 12. Proposed development schedule E. -c- �1 a.©O. 13. Associated oroiects 4.v,✓ar {U UI NOV 15 2002 14. Anticipated incremental or phased development I PLANNING DIVISION ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 0 Attach description of project containing the following information: „(��15. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and ^'1�" type of household size expected. �/,4 16. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities. LOCA --7 17. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities. 18. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project. 19. If the project involves a minor variance, conditional use, rezoning application, or any development permits, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required. If permits have already been issued, please attach as Exhibit ,4 W, -rill V5'&, OQt-t 6bf ;' - Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES 20. Change in existing features of any hills, buttes, canyons or substantial alteration of ground contours. 21. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 22. Change in pattern or character of general area of project. 23. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 24. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 25. Change in bay, lake, river, stream or ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 26. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 27. Site on filled land or on slopes of 10 percent or more. 28. Use of, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 29. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc. including special districts). 30. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 31. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Discuss below all items ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ G Environmental Setting: (Attach brief description) 32. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Ff41 5,f:tw--� A 4,,(U 4tow,fi (8q-0 j c{�j/� ^a✓`�� 33. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one -family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 4-o 1-4eert,-,+ S13AP puc&j[S c--Wti, �+aw"sS'• Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature D E -E Nov 15 2002 J -10 iE c©uN TY �] PLANNING DIVISION K:\Planning\FORMS\Submittal\ENV-INFO.FRM ❑ Butte County Department of Development Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ n- MINOR USE PERMIT APPLICATION PACKET CHECKLIST This checklist is.,designed to'assist applicants in making slue all -necessary information is included in their application packet. Please include this checklist along with your submittal. Applicant Planner;`'; 1. Lam" A completed, signed, Uniform Application. If the application is signed by an agent for the property owner, an agent authorization form must be submitted along with the Uniform Application. The application shall not be accepted unless signed by the owner or legal agent. 2. ❑ LJ Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit (Any unused portion of the deposit will be returned upon final action, if any remains). (Planner advises applicant) J. �Twent 20 copies of plans which shall include a detailed site plan drawn to scale. All plans Y( ) P shall be drawn on uniform size sheets no greater than 24" X 36". The finished plans shall be folded to 8 1/2" x 11 ". The detailed site plan must include: a. b. El C. d. ❑ Name and address of Applicant, Engineer and/or Archi Property lines and lot dimensions Assessor Parcel Number(s) and the street address tE ro C�,Eq..4E_ I NOV 1 5 2002 PUT TE COUNPY PLANNING DIVISION Dimensioned locations of existing and proposed improvements on the property (including, but not limited to, buildings, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, wells, septic tanks and leach fields). Proposed method of sewer and water connection or alternative method of sewage disposal and potable water supply. Distances from any significant natural and man-made features of the property, such as streets, access roads, streams, rock outcroppings, major tree stands, storm drains, bodies of water, railroads, to the property lines. North arrow and scale of drawing. All plans shall be drawn to an engineering scale with the preferred scale of 1 " = 20', with a north arrow preferably oriented to the top of sheet. IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 1 h. 4. All plans must be clear and legible. 0 A vicinity map showing closest major cross streets, zoning and existing land use. Additional information may be required in order to clarify, amplify, correct or otherwise supplement the above submittal information or to complete any required environmental review documents, as deemed necessary by the Department of Development Services, Public Works, Environmental Health Division, Butte County Fire Department, or Agriculture Commissioner. Signature: Applicant/Representative Signature: Pwf. 41 '\ Tanning Receiving Application Date: Date: /,/ //"/ //x7a le NOV 1 5 2002 t 9U-1 TE COUNTY i PLANNING DIVISION IF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED, THE APPLICATION WILL BE DEEMED INCOMPLETE. 2 Smooth Feed SheetsTm K:\PROJECTS\MINOR USE PERMIT\GALE\LabelsMUP0307. doc 040200015000 WASHBURN BRIAN & LISA M 9283 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 040200048000 DALRYMPLE DALE & GERALYN 9309 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 Ci 040200013000 GALE STEPHEN 9345 "A" STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 040200017000 DUBOSE ROBERT J & LAURA G C POBOX 53 DURHAM CA 95938-0053 040200049000 WILKERSON WALTER M & DORIS J 9317 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 040260027000 040550001000 PETERSON RICHARD TRUSTEE ETAL ADAMS ERIC HERSHAL & KELLY P O BOX 1222 9397 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 DURHAM CA 95938 040550003000 040550004000 BROCKEL LORY A & ANN C MURPHY JOHNSTON JAMES R & DIANA D 9387 STANFORD IN 7070 ORO COUNTRY CLUB RD DURHAM CA 95938 OROVILLE CA 95966 040550007000 WOOD RICHARD L 9378 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 040550013000 SAIP RAVI SHANKAR & MARY EL 9343 STANFORD LANE DURHAM CA 95938 040550018000 PERKINS KEITH A 3850 NEAL RD PARADISE CA 95969 040550009000 CHESSON JOSEPH H ETAL 9100 LIMOGES WAY BAKERSFIELD CA 93311 040550014000 SANDROCK ROBERT F & KATHLEEN 9338 STANFORD. LANE DURHAM CA 95938 040550019000 PERKINS MARGARET C TRUSTEE 9322 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 Use template for 51600 JOHN C ANDERSON 530 ESPLANADE CHICO CA 95926 040200045000 MCCRAE DUNCAN P O BOX 155 DURHAM CA 95938-0155 040200083000 KEENEY MORRIS BUD ETAL 2243 DURHAM DAYTON HWY DURHAM CA 95938-9651 040550002000 ABBOTT RICHARD J & JOY J 9391 STANFORD LN DURHAM CA 95938 040550006000 PETERS ANDREW J & BARBARA A 9383 STANFORD LANE DURHAM CA 95938 040550011000 APPLEGATE R A & JULIA 9357 STANFORD LANE DURHAM CA 95938 040550016000 MEAD KELLY 3143 BURDICK RD CHICO CA 95928 "AVERY@ Address Labels laser 5160@ . Q o a C>Q O O O m O p © o o Yllp fi to � � .7 j;, � ►� � � � � �, o C I - t�l l i �11 1'I yrs i i. II r - r .I �r 1 �_. BUTTE COUNTY SEP 15 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES September 13, 2004 Joseph Baker Butte County Department of Development Services -Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca 95965 Re: Minor Use Permit, MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013 Dear Mr. Baker: I am requesting a one-year extension on the above stated Minor Use Permit. Per my conversation with Mark Michelena, the extension will be granted due to the delay in the construction process of the winery. Please contact me if you need further information. Sincerely, Stephen Gale 530-891-1264 717 . Q ' 'J 1� MAR 1 9 2004 March 17, 2004 BUiTECOUNTY PLA14tJ{.JG DI�IISION Tom Loushine R.E.H.S. Division of Environmental Health Butte County Department of Public Health FILE 411 Main Street Chico CA 95927 RE: Pre -Application For Minor Use Permit For Special Events In Conjunction With Large Winery Dear Mr. Loushine, Listed below is the. information you requested in your letter dated February 26, 2004: 1.The maximum people attending and employed will be 150. The septic system is not under permit and will need to be addressed. 2. Craig Erickson stated there is no need for a community water system with our limited usage under the special events permit. 3. All food is prepared off-site by certified caters, e.g. Guzzetti's Catering, Bacio Catering Company, Sicilian Cafe. If you have questions, please call me. Sincerely, Stephen Gale Enclosure cc: Joe Baker, Planning Division Jeff Carter, Carter Law Office February 26, 2004 Stephan Gale 9345 Stanford Lane Durham, CA 959 BEAUTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 202 Mira Loma Drive q�A11 Main Street 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 P.O. Box 5364 Oroville, CA 95965 TEL: (530) 538-7282 Chico, CA 95927 TEL: (530) 538-7281 FAX: (530) 538-2165 TEL: (530) 891-2727 FAX: (530) 538-7785 FAX: (530) 895-6512 RE: Pre -Application for Minor Use Permit for special events in conjunction with a large winery. Dear Mr. Gale: Before we can further process the above project, we will need additional information. In order to keep the project moving, this information should be submitted as soon as possible. 1. The maximum number of people attending and employed at the special events is required in determining the sizing of the septic system(s), which must be installed under permit(s) issued by this department. 2. Indicate the proposed source of water for the events. It appears that a community water system is required under permit issued by this department. 3. Indicate the source of prepared food for the events. Do you plan to prepare food on-site or have it prepared by off-site caterers? These issues relate to this special events use permit application, and are applicable to the conditions of the use permit for the winery. Permits are required in order to provide for on-site sewage disposal and for domestic water for the winery and for special events. .If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact this office at the above listed address or telephone number between 8 and 9 a.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Tom Loushine R.E.H.S. Division of Environmental Health TUgi/land/preappUaddinfo/Gale9345 StanfordLane cc: Planning Division Craig Erickson, Environmental Health Division r _ ■ Complete items 1, 2,W3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted De ivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. to: A Mr. Stephen Gale'., - . , 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA,.95938 2. Article Number (transfer from service label)([ 7 0 0.1 A. X ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee B. ceived by ( nt Name) C. Aat�of D TIII D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Se ce Type Certified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes . err • D 5�447�2�4121�_"'•.,��r� tttt tJt "t. PS Form 3811, August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First Class Mail Postage "Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION BUTTE 7 County Center Drive COUNTY Oroville, CA 95965-3397 JAN —120 MINOR USE PERMIT BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: ax - 2 at (Certified Mail Rec.) MUP 03-07 PERMIT NO. 040-200-013 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Butte and the special conditions set forth below: Stephen Gale is hereby granted a Minor Use Permit in accordance with application filed: Minor Use Permit to allow a Winery — Large Commercial Facility on a 5.43 acre parcel zoned A-5. 1. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of application and issuance of Permit, constitutes cause for the revocation of said permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, including Butte County Code Sec. 24-41. 2. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this Minor Use Permit, all conditions must be completed prior to or concurrently with the establishment of the granted use. The use granted by this permit must be established within '12 months of the delivery of the countersigned permit to the Permittee. 3. Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Directors of Development Services, Environmental Health, or Public Works upon receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant, or their respective designee. Prior to such approval, verification shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the application, fees paid, and environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes deemed to be major or significant in nature shall require a formal application for amendment. 4. If any use for which a Minor Use Permit has been granted is not established within one year of the date of receipt of the countersigned permit by the Permittee, the permit shall become null and void and reapplication and a new permit shall be required to establish the use. 5. The terms and conditions of this permit. shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the Permittee. Conditions of Approval: Planning Division If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Lighting. fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. (Mitigation Measure) MUP 03-07 — Page 1 of 4 — October 9, 2003 07 Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. 2 Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her -findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in. the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. 3. The processing of wine on the site is limited to the amount of grapes grown on the property. No more than 500 gallons of wine processing wastewater may be generated per day unless approval is received from the Butte County Environmental Health. Division. Public Works 4. Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing in the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. (Mitigation Measure0 Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 5. Construct a public road approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on -an incident basis. MUP 03-07 — Page 2 of 4 — October 9, 2003 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained ori -site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 7. Provide all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs 8. Deed to Butte County, in fee simple, 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Stanford Lane along the entire frontage of the property. Environmental Health 9. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for on-site sewage disposal. 10. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for the provision of drinking water. 11. Sewage System and drinking water systems must be installed under County permit. 12. Meet all applicable requirements of the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. 13. Meet all applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fire Department/CDF 14. . Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building. construction and maintained continuously thereafter. 15. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed in a manner acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 16. Aside from the existing buildings, the applicant states that he intends to construct only one new structure with the dimension of 24 feet by 24 feet for the purpose of wine tasting and retail sales. If any additional new structures are built or the dimensions of the new structure the applicant intends to build exceeds 24 feet by 24 feet, such shall be to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Fire Marshall. Applicant shall submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval. MUP 03-07 — Page 3 of 4 — October 9, 2003 17. Provide an all-weather access that is at least 10 feet wide with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus. 18. Although this minor use permit is consistent with holding special events, an additional minor use permit must be applied for and be granted as set for in Butte County Code sub- section 24-263(F)(2)(d) before any such events may be held on the property. Such events include, but are not limited to, weddings, assemblies, and craft airs. Even though such events may have been held previously on this property, they can not be held once this minor use permit is granted until the separate minor use permit for special events is granted. County Counsel 19. If this entire matter or any finding, action or condition of this matter is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, the applicant or any other developer/operator other than. the applicant agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss related to the approval of this project in any subsequent' action or forum, and agrees to sign an indemnification agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, this condition is deemed satisfied. Other 20. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations. NOTE: Issuance of this Minor Use Permit does not waive requirement of obtaining Building and Health Department permits before starting construction,. nor does it waive any other requirements. C73 Butte ColInty Planning Commission Chairman CC: Land Development Division Building Division Environmental Health Division Butte County Fire Department/CDF Assessors Office MUP 03-07 -Page 4 of 4 — October 9, 2003 Stephen Gale �C 9345 Stanford Lane P�°q a Durham, CA 95938 Y 14 "ci' Joseph Baker ---Planning Division Butte County Dept. of Developement Services 7 County Center Drive !!� Oroville, CA 95965 1I` - � J 9x36 t33�T 22 IIIIIII. III I III d I I I I I I I III I I I 1111 111 • 2 Lo"eation ME .Minor. Use Permit, i nfo-4d ta r 'Oaks Wine ry Architect: John C. Anderson 530 Esplanade Chico, Ca �95926 (530) 891-4242 -Site Plan APPROVED *CT ?evelo ment Plan 10 DATE 200? e DATE 0 USE JSE PERM IT VARIANCE, MINOR1 0 U r INOR U.P. ZADM.PERMIT—' PLANNING COMMI'SS. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Minor'Use Permit 'Stanfoid, �Oiks... Winery . OAS -Stanford Ln. ,Durhant,.Ca for 2 4LrL Durham, Ca -(530)591-1264 Am= SM' .'Chocked ;41- ftAwd F' NOV r 5, 2002 LJ I I . .............. FIL -Site Plan APPROVED *CT ?evelo ment Plan 10 DATE 200? e DATE 0 USE JSE PERM IT VARIANCE, MINOR1 0 U r INOR U.P. ZADM.PERMIT—' PLANNING COMMI'SS. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Minor'Use Permit 'Stanfoid, �Oiks... Winery . OAS -Stanford Ln. ,Durhant,.Ca for 2 4LrL Durham, Ca -(530)591-1264 Am= SM' .'Chocked ;41- ftAwd 0 0 Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING December 31, 2003 Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 CERTIFIED MAIL Re: Minor Use Permit, MUP 03-07, APN 040-200-013 Dear Mr. Gale: Enclosed is your validated Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery, # MUP 03-07. I have also included the Notice of Determination filed by the Butte County Clerk/Recorder on December 10, 2003. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Roni Thornton OAII Enclosures cc: John C. Anderson Land Development Division (g) Building Division (y) Environmental Health (p') Department of Forestry (gld) Larry Painter - 4 1 I Postal CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT !.(Domes i+ 7 ni7ee ge $ 1, r� t; S ee ~ Ln ee Y Pgtimark O (Endd) Here O Rese O (Endorsement Required) H Er� Mr'. Stephen G l'o �; ,.9345 `tA" Stanford'Lane— ---•—•-•-•- o Durham, CA 95938 0 1 6 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO: Butte County Assessor's Office FROM: Butte County Planning Department SUBJECT: Stephen Gale, MUP 03-07 DATE: December 31, 2003 Pursuant to Section 65863.5 of the Government Code, the following parcel, identified as 040-200-013, was: Rezoned from to zoning district. Granted a variance to X Issued a conditional Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, zoned A-5, (Agricultural, 5 -acre parcels) Documentl 2 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: _ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 X Butte County Clerk FROM: Butte County Planning 7 County Center Dr., Oroville 95965 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title: MUP 03-07, Minor Use Permit AT Number: 040-200-013 Applicant: Stephen Gale, 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Durham, CA 95938 State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted to clearinghouse): Contact Person: Craig Sanders Telephone Number: 538-7601 Project Location: on'the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Project Description: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery This is to advise that the Butte County Planning Commission has approved the above-described project on 10/9/2003 and has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1. The project will, —L will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ,L A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures %f were, were not, made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A statement of overriding considerations was, f was not, adopted for this project. This is to certify that the final EIR, with comments and responses and record of project approval, is available to the general public at: Date received for filing and posting at OPR Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center DAe r,�pyille, CA_9,59 Director - Develbpmenf Services • Mitigation Measures: If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. (Mitigation Measure) Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. 2 Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. 4. Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing in the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. (Mitigation Measure0 Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Construct a public road approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. • 0 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on-site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 0 . DECLARATION OF FEES DUE (California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4) NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 FILING NO. Project Title/File Number: Minor Use Permit, MUP 03-07 ATN: 040-200-013 CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT: 1. NOTICE OF EXEMPTION / STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION ( ) A. Statutorily or Categorically Exempt $36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee B. De Minimis Impact - Certificate of Fee Exemption $36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 2. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION - FEE REQUIRED ( ) A. Negative Declaration $1,250 State Filing Fee $36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee ( ) B. Environmental Impact Report $850 State Filing Fee $36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee 3. ( ) OTHER (Specify) $36.00 Clerk's Documentary Handling Fee PAYMENT / NON-PAYMENT OF FEES: 1PAYMENT: The above fees have been paid. See attached receipt(s): # 20852 2. () NON-PAYMENT: The above fees are required. Not paid. Chief Planning Official By: Yvonne Christopher Title: Director - Development Services Lead Agency: Butte County Department of Development Services Date: December 2, 2003 TWO COPIES OF THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. THREE COPIES OF ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION ARE REQUIRED FOR FILING. ALL APPLICABLE FEES ARE DUE AND PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT WITH THE BUTTE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO THE COUNTY OF BUTTE. 0 • CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME CERTIFICATE OF FILING FEE EXEMPTION De Minimis Impact Finding (Fish and Game Code Sec. 711.4; Section 753.5c, Title 14, California Code of Regulations) Project Title/Butte County Location: MUP 03-07, on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane . Project Description: Minor Use Permit to. establish a large winery Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary): The County of Butte has conducted an Initial Study and prepared a Negative Declaration so as to evaluate the potential of this project for adverse environmental impact: 2. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the County that the project will have potential for an adverse impact on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 3. The County of Butte has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d), of Title 14, California Code of Regulations, if applicable. 4. The project is hereby found to be de minimis in its effect on wildlife and exempt from the State Fish and Game filing fees required by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Certification: I hereby certify that the County of Butte has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and hearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Lead Agency: County of Butte Date: December 2, 2003 COWM, OF BUTTE AUDITOR'S CER-11F1CA , E' AND qF!EASU, RE R'S RECE ORO)ALa E, MA R-EcEavv=D FROM PLANNING BAG * SIG ATR NO 49 025 DATE 1111-504)02 F 'i ND FUN'S DEFT ACCT CASH OE CRIPMON MT E CODE CODE COBE CGDE AIMODU 7 DEPOSIT DATE: 1145 RECEWTS: 2M2 -20M PLANNSHO ADPL FEES GENL MO 41=01 421, 'W 9010011 ENVIRONMENTAL HL iH GEM I-690 Number A --1& 0-1113 S dale MUP 03-07 FIRE FLING APPXL FEE FIRE PROTEC 0M Project Number 0-20OL i 3 S Gale r?+ UP 03-07 NODSNOE CLERA'S FILING FE GEM Colo () Froye$ Number 40MG-200-M E Gale MU 03.07 APPR94ED BY: AUDITOR—COIUNAMOLLER 46949 9099 Amount of Fee 461722M 101col Amount of Fes $43 477-W01 48127319 101MI Amourt of Fee RECEIVED BY: $36 TOTAL 2--1.f wfite=tr--asuner pink--a6.zd5e;DDr canaf=depositor gr:Iden asg 9e / M 14W : 596.00 v Butte County Department ofDevelopment Services PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 53877601 Telephone (530) 538-7785 Facsimile ADMINISTRATION * BUILDING * GIS * PLANNING October 13, 2003 Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Re: Minor Use Permit, MUP 03-07, AP: 040-200-013 Dear Mr. Gale: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held October 9, 2003, your request for a Minor Use Permit to allow a large winery on property zoned, A-5, (Agricultural, 5 -acre parcels) and located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, was approved subject to the conditions listed on the enclosures. Should you desire to appeal any of the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, you must do so in writing, prior to 5:00 p.m., Monday, October 20, 2003 to the: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive Oroville, California, 95965 The appeal fee of $50.00 must be paid at that time. If you do not appeal, and if there are no other appeals within the 10 calendar -day appeal period, the action of the Planning Commission is final. PLANNING FEES Your project required a deposit of funds to begin processing of your application. You will be receiving an invoice detailing the planning charges incurred against that deposit. In the event the charges have exceeded the initial deposit, you will be invoiced for those charges that have exceeded the amount deposited and for additional funds to be deposited for the completion of the project. If your project has been completed and there is a balance remaining of your initial deposit, it may be applied to any applicable additional fees as described below. If there are no additional fees, you will be refunded the balance of your deposit. APPROVAL OF PROJECT SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF ALL APPLICABLE FEES Payment of all applicable fees will be required as a condition of approval for your project. Prompt payment of invoiced amounts will expedite the approval process in satisfying this condition. Please sign both copies of the Use Permit and return them to this Division. You must sign the Use Permit within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the appeal period. Both signed copies must be received, by this Division, within forty (40) days from approval of the permit by the Planning Commission. The Use Permit is deemed granted when the enclosures have been signed by the applicant, with the counter signature of the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and said permit is received by the applicant by certified mail. Pursuant to Section 66020 (d) (2) of the Government Code you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to register a protest challenging any fees, dedications, reservations, or exactions imposed as conditions of approval for this project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Sanders at 7603 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson P lanning/Administrative Support Services Assistant /lr kWetterss/merge letters/APPRDIMUP.dot • L A N D O F NATU RAL WEALTH A N D BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 - FAX: (530) 538-7785 August 28, 2003 Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Re: Minor Use Permit, AP 040-200-013, MUP 03-07 Dear Mr. Gale:: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held August 28, 2003, the public hearing was continued open to October 9, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. to consider your application for a Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Sanders at this office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Services Assistant /lr cc: John C. Anderson k:\formskontinue.5m IF July 21, 2003 0 - Sato L A N D O F N A T U R A L W E A L T H A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785_ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIOP, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will be held on August 14, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, at 9:30 a.m. regarding the following item In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for the following project: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MINOR USE PERIT Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural — 5 acre parcels). The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. APN 040- 200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) The initial study for the project identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Planning Division staff is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project are on file for public review starting, July 24, 2003, through August 13, 2003, at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. All interested persons are invited to review the document. Written comments will be accepted by the Planning Division at the above address. If you challenge either the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this project, please contact Craig Sanders, project planner, at the Butte County Planning Division at (530) 538-7603. YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, July 24, 2003 • ' Planning Commission that a public hearing will • be held' on August 14, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisor's Room County Administration (SPACE FOR FILING S' Center, 25 County Cen- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNL IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE In The Matter Of Notice of Public Hearing. 27356o. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of California SS. County of Butte The undersigned resident of the county of Butte, State of California, says: That I am, and at all time herein mentioned n was a citizen of the United States and not a party to nor interested in the above entitled matter; that I am the principal clerk of the printer and publisher of The Chico Enterprise -Record The Oroville Mercury -Register That said newspaper is one of general circula- tion as defined by Section 6000 Government Code of the State of California, Case No. 26796 by the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Butte; that said newspa- per at all times herein mentioned was printed and published daily in the City of Chico and County of Butte; that the notice of which the annexed is a true printed copy, was published in said newspaper on the following days: July 24, 03. Dated July 24, 2003. at Chico, California. i (ign #ure) No. I iVULM W 11VIVUy ylvell 'by a the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will be held,,on August, 14, 2003,`at 9:30 a.m. in.the Butte_ County Board .of Supervisor's. Room County Administration Center,' 25 County !Cen- ter ;Drive, Oroville, Cali- fomia •; at', 9:30 a.m. regarding the following In accordance"With the prepat6d for the' follow- ing,project: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ ,MINOR USE PERMIT Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on prop- lural•5 acre parcels):The property is located' on the west,side of Stanford Lane,,-7approximately 1,500; -:feet south -'of Durham Dayton 1, High way;.. ;,in 'the' Durham area: APN 040-200-023 the out revisions -in the pro- i jectsplans or proposals; made by or agreed to by the- applicant..- would l avoid the, effects or miti- i datO the effects to a•1 point where clearly no significani effects would occur: Therefore, Plan- ning Division staff is rec- ommending `a Mitigated NPOAiivp DPHArAtlnn. Proposed';;_,. Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project are'on file for public review starting July. 24,> 2003, through August -13. 2003 at the Butte • County:, Planning Divisiom 7 County Cen- .ter Drive,. Qroville, Cali= fornia: All interested per- soriv. are , .invited to review; ,the document. Written_ comments will be accepted t by-, the ter Dnve, Oroville, Cali- fornia; at 9:30 a.m. regarding the following item: In accordance with the California Environmental i Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been; prepared for the follow- ing project. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/ MINOR USE PERMIT Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on prop- erty zoned A-5, (Agricul- tural. 5 acre parcels. The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lanett approximately 1,500 feet. south of Durham Dayton. High- way, . in. the Durham area. APN 040.200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) The initial study for the project identifies poten- tially significant effects, but revisions in the pro- ject plans or proposals made by or. agreed to. by the - applicant . would avoid the effects or miti- gate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Plan- ning Division staff is rec- ommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The.`fnitial,Study and Proposed Mitigated . Negative Declaration for this project are on file for public .,review starting July 24, 2003, through August -13,:2003, at the Butte.. County Planning Division; 7 County Cen- ter Drive; Oroville, Cali- fornia: All interested per- sons are: invited ..to review.. the. document. Written comments will be -accepted by ' the Planning Division at the above address. I If you challenge either the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Use Permit in court, youmay be limited to raising only triose issues you or someone else raised at the ` public '. hearing described in this notice, orin. written correspon- dence delivered to the Planning Division at, or priot to, the public hear-, ing. , . For further information regarding this project, please, contact Craig Sanders, project plan- ner,.at the Butte County Planning, Division at (530) 538-7603.: YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LIJJVV ---- Publish: July 24, 2003 AUG -27-03 WED 4:32 PM Carter Law. Office TO: COMPANY: FAX: RE: FROM: DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: COMMENTS: FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. I FACSIMILE COVER LETTER Date: August 27, 2003 Time: Craig Sanders, AICP Planning Division, Dept. of Dev. Services 538-7785 File No. MVP 03.07, Applicant Stephen Vale John Jeffery Carter Letter TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL X ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL If you have any questions concerning the information you have received, please contact Toni at the address or telephone noted below. If you experience any problems with this transmission, please telephone us Immediately. This transmission Is Intended for the sole use of the individual and entityto whom It Is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone other tian the intended addressee or Its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify this firm Immediately by collect call and send the original transmission to us by return mail at the below address. 329 FLUME STREET • P.O. BOX 3606 • CHICO, CA 95927-3606 • 530 342 6196 • FAX: 530 342 6195 AUG -27-03 WED 4:33 PM Carter Law Office FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 2 JOHN J EFFERY CARTER ' LAW OF F I C E August 27, 2003 JOHN tEFRRV CARTTR SARA M KNC!WW. } IEFFNUCA0.TERLAW,COM SARM)�CARYtRLAM.COM. . VIA FACSIMILE = 538-7785 AND E-MAIL. -- csanders@buttecounty.net Craig Sanders, ACCP Senior Planer Planning Division Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Orovillc, CA 95965-3397 Re: File No. MUP 03-07, Applicant Stephen Gate Dear Craig: This letter is in furtherance of our telephone conversation earlier this oftmoon wherein we discussed the application of Stephen Gale for a minor use permit to allow a large winery, the continued hearing for which is scheduled tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. Yesterday Steve and I received and were able to review and I to dismiss Nvitit I: ILH Wannem achcr of County Counsel's office the staff report for the hearing and the revised god inew conditions discussed therein. Revised conditions - 3. and 16, require construction of a pressurized community water system if processing of wine on site is to occur or if the wine tasting structure is to excood 24 feet by 24 feet. This requirement is derived, according to County Counsel, from the County's Improvement Standards, excerpts of which were attached to the staff report. Steve has numerous questions from a practical standpoint as to whether such a system is practical and I from a legal standpoint as to whether the improvement standards are applicable to the projcet. We need additional time to explore these concerns and in the context of my ookcrns, to discuss them with County Counsel io hopes of coming to a !meeting of the minds as to the applicability of the Improvement Standards. For this reason, I respectfully request on behalf of the applicant Stephen Gale a continuance of tomorrow's bearing, thus allowing Steve and me time to resolve our ooncems. Due to prior legal proceedings scheduled on September l i tmd September 25, 2003, I would. respectfully request that the hearing be continued until October 9, 2003 at 9:00'.a.m. If, hotl-tWr, the Commission fools that such continuance is too great a time, my second preference would be September 11, 2003, for that is the legal proceeding over which I have the most flexibility. 329 F1L1ME STREET. P.O. DOx.1606. CHICO. CALIFORNIA 9$927.)606 • 530342 4196 • FAx:5103Q 093 w AUG -27-03 WED 4:34 PM Carter Law Office Craig Sanders Re: File No. MUP 03-07, Applicant Stcphen Gale August 27, 2003 Page 2 On bebalf of Steve Gale, 1 thank you and the for grant of the oontinuanee. MC: tm cc: Steve Gale Felix Wanncnmacher, County Counsel FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 3 issio your co 'deration and tlr. hoped Sinccrel JO FERY CAhi'1'ER V BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT - AUGUST 28, 2003 Applicant: Stephen Gale File #: MUP 03-07 Request: Minor Use Permit to allow a large winery G.P.: Agricultural Residential Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural 5 -acre minimum parcel size) APN: 040-200-013 SUMMARY: Location: On west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, Durham Parcel Size: 5.43 acres Zone Date: 02/28/92 Project Craig Sanders Planner: Senior Planner — 538-7603 Supervisor 4 District: Attachments: A. Excerpt from Improvement Standards Handbook Staff recommends approval of the Minor Use Permit with findings and conditions. STAFF COMMENTS: This project was continued from the August 14, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting to clarify the Fire Department project condition requiring a pressurized water system. Planning staff contacted Butte County Fire/CDF to discuss the requirement for a pressurized water system with hydrants. The Butte County Fire/CDF indicated that. the requirement was derived from the County's Improvement Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps, and Site Improvements Handbook, Section 13. Attached are the applicable pages from the Handbook. County staff has reviewed the requirement for a pressurized water system and has the. following condition revisions with the changes in italics: Existing Condition 3 - The processing of wine on the site is limited to the amount of grapes grown on the property. No more than 500 gallons of wine processing wastewater may be generated per day unless approval is received from the Butte County Environmental Health,.. Division. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 1 ■ Revised Condition 3 - The processing of wine on the site is limited to the amount of grapes grown on the property. No processing of wine on the site may begin until a pressurized community water system, as set forth in condition 16, is installed. No more than 500 gallons of wine processing wastewater may be generated per day unless approval is received from the Butte County Environmental Health Division. Existing Condition 16 - A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant spacing is 300 feet, hydrant size is 6 inches, and residual fire flow 2000 gallons per minute. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of the facilities. Revised condition 16 — Aside from the existing buildings, the applicant states that he intends to construct only one new structure with the dimensions of 24 feet by 24 feet for the purpose of wine tasting and retail sales. If any additional new structures are built or the dimensions of the new structure the applicant intends to build exceeds 24 feet by 24 feet, a pressurized community water system for fire protection will be required. The specific locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire. Warden. veragerequ' ng is 300 feet, hydrant size is 6 inches, and residual fire flow 2000 gallons per minute. ubmit plans to the Fire Department for review and app oval prior to construction of the facil' ies. ac WvO New condition 18 (renumber existing 18 to 19) - Although this minor- use permit is consistent with holding special events, an additional minor use permit must be applied for and be granted as set forth in Butte County Code §24-263(F)(2)(d) before any such events may be held on the property. Such events include, but are not limited to, weddings, assemblies, and craft fairs. Even though such events may have been held previously on this property, they cannot be held once this minor use permit is granted until the separate minor use permit for special events is granted. Condition 19 - If this entire matter or any finding, action or condition of this matter is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, the applicant or any other developer/operator other than the applicant agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss related to the approval of this project in any subsequent action or forum and agrees to sign an indemnification agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, this condition is deemed satisfied. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 2 ■ AUG -27-03 WED 4:32 PM Carter Law Office TO: COMPANY: FAX: RE: FROM: DOCUMFNT DESCRIPTION: COMMENTS: FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 1 e st► �_ i i FACSIMILE COVER LETTER Date: August 27, 2003 Time: t • h Craig Sanders, AICP Planning Division, Dept, of Dev. Services 538-7785 File No. MUP 03.07, Applicant Stephen Gate John Jeffery Cartier Letter TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL X ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL It you have any questions concerning the information you have received, please contact Toni at the address or telephone noted below. If you experience any problems with this transmission, please telephone us Immediately. This transmission is Intended for the sole use of the individual and entiyto whom It Is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicabl'a law. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this trensrnission by someone other Man the intended addressee or Its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this transmission is in error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call and send the original transmission to us by return mail at the below address. 329 FLUMS STREET • P.O. BOX 3606 • CHICO, CA 95927-3606 • 530 342 6196 • tkX 530 342 6195 AUG -27-03 WED 4:33 PM Carter Law Office FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 2 JOHN J EFFERY CARTER ' ��- LAW OFFICE August 27, 2003 )014N rEFFLRV CARTER SAM K KNOWYS, 1 LFF0•pcA,01;LLAWCOM SARAQ )uA7tYtR1.AMt.COM. . VIA FACSIMILE — 538-7785 AND E-MAIL. -- csanders@buttecounty,net Craig Sanders, ACCP Senior Planner Planning Division Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Re: File No. MUP 03-07, Applicant Stephen Gale Dear Craig: This letter is in furtherance of our telephone. conversation earlier this afternoon wherein *1 discussed the application of Stephen Gale for a minor use permit to allow a large winery, the contiriucdl hearing for which is scheduled tomorrow morning at 9:00 am, Yesterday Steve and I received and were able to review and I to dismiss witli 170ix. Wannenmacher of County Counsel's office the staff report for the hearing and the revised and new conditions discussed therein. Revised conditions 3. and 16, require construction of a pressuriod community water system if prooessing of wine on site is to occur or if the wine tasting structure is to excood 24 feet by 24 feet. This requirement is derived, according to County Counsel, frons the County's Improvement Standards, excerpts of which were attached to the staff report. Steve has numerous questions from a practical standpoint as to whotlter such a system is practical and I from a legal standpoint as to whether the improvement standards are applicable to the project. We need additional time to explore these concerns and in the context of my coAcerns, to discuss them with County Counsel io hopes of coming to a meeting of the minds as to the applicability of the Improvement Standards. For this reason, I respectfully request on behalf of the applicant Stephen Gale a continuance of tomorrow's hearing, thus allowing Steve and me time to resolve our concerns. Due to prior legal proceedings scheduled on September I1 zutd September 25, 2003, I would respectfully request that the hearing be continued until October 9, 2003 at 9:00- a.m. If, hou-cvcr, tha Commission feels that such continuance is too great a time, my second preference would be September 11, 2003, for that is the legal proceeding over which i have the most flexibility. 129 FLUME STREET. P.O. DOx 9606. CHICO. CALIFORNIA 95927.3406 • 530 342 6176 • FAX: 53034? u193 AUG -27-03 WED 4:34 PM Carter Law Office Craig Sanders Re: File No. MUP 03-07, Applicant Stephen Gate August 27, 2003 Page 2 On bebalf of Steve Gale. J thank you and the for grant of the continuance. MC: tm cc: Steve Gale Felix Wannenmacher, County Counsel FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 3 issio your co ,deration and die hoped Sinccrel / JO FERY CAKER ;i. AUG -27-03 WED 4;32 PM Carter Law Office FAX NO. 530 342 6195 JQ TN RFFF�t2Y CA TFR LAW OFFICE TO: FACSIMILE COVER LETTER Date: August 27, 2003 Time: 1-t,, ;5C3TV,, Craig Sanders, AICP COMPANY: Planning Division, Dept, of Dev. Services FAX: 538-7785 RE: ' File No. 1NUP 03.07, Applicant Stephen Cale FROM: John Jeffery Cartier DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter COMMENTS: P. 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 3 ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL X ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW BY MAIL it you have any questions concerning the information you have received, please contact Toni at the address or telephone noted below. It you experience any problems with this transmission, please telephone us Immediately. This transmission is Intended for the sole use of the individual and entityto whom It Is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. You are hereby notified, that any dissemination, distribution or duplication of this transmission by someone otherthan the intended addressee or its designated agent is strictly prohibited. If your receipt of this transmission is in. error, please notify this firm immediately by collect call and send the original transmission to us by return mail at the below address. 329 FLUKE STREET • P.O. BOX 3606 • CMCO, CA 95927-3606 • 530 342 6196 • FAX: 530 342 6195 AUG -27-03 WED 4:33 PM Carter Law Office FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 2 ' 4 JOHN J EFFERY CARTER L A w OFFICE ' August 27, 2003 I J014M IFFFCFLY CARTER SAM M: KNOWY, L SAXUJ;dA3fTft).AW.COM.. ICFFI"IIUR'rEFt1wW.COM ' i, VIA FACSIMILE — 538-7785 AND E-MAIL -- csanders®buttecounty.net Craig Sanders, AICP Senior Planer Planning Division Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Re: File No. MUP 03-07, Applicant Stephen Gale Dear Craig: This letter is in furtherance of our telephone conversation earlier this afternoon wherein we discussed the application of Stephen Gale for a minor use permit to allow a large winert', the continued hearing for which is scheduled tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m, Yesterday Steve and I received and were able to review and I to discuss widt Felix WanneFunacher of County Counsel's office the staff report for the hearing and the revised and new conditions discussed therein. Revised conditions 3. and 16. require construction of a prossutized community water system if processing of wine on site is to occur or if the wine tas6ug structure is to exceed 24 feet by 24 feet. This requirement is derived, according to County Counsel, front the County's improvement Standards, excerpts of which were attached to the staff report. Steve has numerous questions from a practical standpoint as to whether such a system is practical and I from a legal standpoint as to whether the improvement standards are applicable to the project. We need additional time to explore these concerns and in the context of my oollccrns, to discuss them with County Counsel io hopes of coming to a meeting of the minds as to the applicability of the improvement Standards. For this reason, I respectfully request on behalf of the applicant Stephen Gale a continuance of tomorrow's hearing, tbUs allowing Steve and me time to resolve our concerns. Due to prior legal proceedings scheduled on September ll 44d Scptcmber 25, 2003, I would - respectfully request that the hearing be continued until October 9, 2003 at 9:00't►.m. If, hoti�cver, the Commission fools that such continuance is too great a time, my secatd preference would be Septe+ubcr 11, 2003, for that is the legal proceeding over which I have the most flexibility. 129 FLUME STREET. P.O. DOx 3606. CHICO. CALIFoRNIA 95927.3(4)6 • 330 342 4IV6 • FAX! 530:42 0191 AUG -27-03 WED 4;34 PM Carter Law Office 0 Craig Sandcr6 Re: File No. MUP 0307, Applicant Stephen Gale August 27, 2003 Page 2 On bebalf of Steve Gale, I thank you and the for grant of the continuance. MC: tm cc: Steve Gale helix Wanncnmachcr, County Counsel FAX NO. 530 342 6195 P. 3 Pyour co domtion and the Doped Sinccrel / JO FERY CARTER DEPARTMENT OF DEVELO PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 IE OOU�� \va \ U�TUPEO BUTTE COUNTY AUG 2 9 2003 DF,VFi.nPMVWrr TO: Agricultural Commission FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do'not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: Planning Manager F� Development Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to ,establish a large winery -- PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identi f ied as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): By: �-� �1 . Date: 01 �.Z AD, r -A August 14, 2003 Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 M ut�`e Count L A N D O F NATURAL W E A L T H A N D BEAUTY PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 Re: Minor Use Permit, AP 040-200-013, MUP 03-07 Dear Mr. Gale: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Planning Commission held August 14, 2003, the public hearing was continued open to August 28, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. to consider your application for a Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Sanders at this office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Services Assistant /lr cc: John C. Anderson k:\forms\confinue.frm • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT - AUGUST 28, 2003 Applicant: Stephen Gale File #: MUP 03-07 Request: Minor Use Permit to allow a large winery G.P.: Agricultural Residential Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural 5 -acre minimum parcel size) APN: 040-200-013 SUMMARY: Location: On west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, Durham Parcel Size: - 5.43 acres, Zone Date: 02/28/92 Project Craig Sanders Planner: Senior Planner — 538-7603 Supervisor 4 District: Attachments: A. Excerpt from Improvement Standards Handbook Staff recommends approval of the Minor Use Permit with findings and conditions. STAFF COMMENTS: This project was continued from the August 14, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting to clarify the Fire Department project condition requiring a pressurized water system. Planning staff contacted Butte County Fire/CDF to discuss the. requirement for a pressurized water system with hydrants. The Butte County Fire/CDF indicated that the requirement was derived from the County's Improvement Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps, and Site Improvements Handbook, Section 13. Attached are the applicable pages from the Handbook. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 1 ■ 13.0 FIRE STANDARDS • 13.01 Application r The type and size of the project dictates the fire department requirements for water. The following matrix will lead the planner/interested party to the specific requirement: (0 WITHIN 1000 FEET OF SUPPLY* 4 OR LESS RESIDENTIAL FAMILY, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL REQUIREMENT #2 REQUIREMENT #3 1 REQUIREMENT #1 * A pressurized water system is defined as any public. mutual locally formed or private water service jurisdiction having water capable of adequately supplying fire hydrants. 38 MORE THAN . 1000 FEET FROM SUPPLY* 2.99 ACRES OR LESS NUMBER OF LOTS CREATED ' � SINGLE I 5 OR FAMILY LOT MORE REQUIREMENT #2 RESIDENCE SIZE 3 ACRES WATER OR MORE REQUIREMENT #1 SUPPLY REQUIREMENT #3 1 REQUIREMENT #1 * A pressurized water system is defined as any public. mutual locally formed or private water service jurisdiction having water capable of adequately supplying fire hydrants. 38 13.01-1 Requirement Class 1 Except for those areas designated as "high and very high" hazards on the hazard severity index map, a pressurized water supply for fire protection will not be required. The developer will: Pay into the appropriate fire department Water Tender Fund. The amount paid is based on the number of parcels created. Calculated at a rate of $200.00 per created parcel. OR 2. Install an automatic fire sprinkler system in all new residential structures in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association standard for the installation of sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings and mobile homes, NFPA Standard 13D. Subdivisions in those areas designated as "high and very high" hazards on the fire hazard severity index where the lot size is less than 10 acres will require a pressurized community water system. 13.01-2 Requirement Class 2 .A pressurized community water system is required. See the general requirement section for the hydrant spacing, hydrant size and fire flow requirements. The specific location of the fire hydrants will be made by the fire department in consultation with the developer. 13.01-3 Requirement Class 3 Pressurized water for fire protection is available within 1,000 feet of the created parcels. In lieu of bearing the cost of installing a fire hydrant(s), the developer may pay into the fire department hydrant fund. The amount paid is based on the length of the street frontage of the created parcels. The amount paid is established at $1.72 per frontage foot. 13.02 Timing and Financial Responsibility: These requirements must be met prior to construction of any building on the created parcels. The condition need not be met prior to the filing of the final map. If this is the case, the developer must show proof of a performance bond or other financial arrangement to cover the cost of these requirements. 13 39 Minor Use Permit.. 38suo'. • • irchltect jotin an#gson e��; ce..9ss2s ' 630:891:4242.: Tom Nickell California Highway Patrol 879-1999 Per Tom Nickell on August 11,2003 ---- Accidents on Durham Dayton Highway and Stanford Lane from 1999 through 2003 1999 No Accidents July -00 1Accident July -01 1 Accident July -02 1 Accident August -03 1 Accident E Stanford Lane Stanford Lane West Bound East Bound Turning West on Turning East on Durham Dayton HWY Date Time Durham Dayton HWY Durham Dayton HWY Durham Dayton HWY Durham Dayton HWY Turning onto Stanford Lane 8/8/2003 Friday 7-9a.m. 142 153 47 29 23 8/9/2003 Saturday 7-9a.m. 72 54 9 13 10 8/9/2003 Saturday 8:30-10:30p.m. 64 84 10 4 19 8/11/2003 Monday 7-9 a.m. 159 154 46 23 33 8/11/2003 Monday 4-6p.m. 211 220 40 21 55 Stanford Lane Stanford Lane West Bound East Bound Turning West on Turning East on Durham Dayton HWY Date Time Durham Dayton HWY Durham Dayton HWY. Durham Dayton HWY IDurham Dayton HWY Turning onto Stanford Lane 8/8/2003 Friday 7-9a.m. 142 153 47 29 23 8/9/2003 Saturday 7-9a.m. 72 54 9 13 10 8/9/2003 Saturday 8:30-10:30p.m. 64 84 10 4 18 8/11/2003 Monday 7-9 a.m. 159 154 46 23 33 8/11/2003 Monday 4-6p.m. 211 220 40 21 55 9 0 8/04/03 To Whom It May Concern My property and personnel residence at 9309 Stanford Lane Durham, Ca. is adjacent to Stephen Gale's property located at 9345 Stanford Lane Durham, Ca., better known as Stanford Oaks. In distance I am one of the closest neighbors and probably have more land bordering his than any other neighbor. I have lived at.this location for over twenty years and have never had a problem with the special events that have taken place at the Gale's residence. I feel that they do a very good job of trying to eliminate such things as the noise level, dust, traffic and etc. As a matter of fact my wife and 1 enjoy the excitement that these -events bring to our small community. Because of these events and the nice setting at Stanford Oaks I feel that. many people are seeing Durham for the first time and seeing it in a very positive way. I feel Stanford Oaks is an asset to Durham. As a matter of fact, I have recommended Stanford Oaks to many of my friends for special occasions. I have seen that the Gale's have taken special precautions to eliminate any problems that might arise from these special events. Things such as the music is off by 10:00 p.m., the parking lot was graveled to eliminate dust, the amount of guests is limited to 200 and etc. As anybody who has ever attended a wedding knows that all guests arrive and depart at different times, so therefore traffic has never been a problem. I think they should be commended for these efforts. I also feel that the grape vineyard and winery is only a positive addition to this community. This is a farming community, so turning a bare piece of soil into a productive piece of land only enhances the entire area. In conclusion, based on the efforts that have been made by the Gale's, I feel that Stanford Oaks should be allowed to have their winery and their special events. Sincerely, Dale Dalrymple 9309 Stanford Lane Durham, Ca. 95938 Eutte Count L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D B E A U T Y PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530)538-7785 August 7, 2003 Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Re: Minor Use Permit, AP 040-200-013, MUP 03-07 Dear Mr. Gale: Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report concerning your application for a Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane. Should you have any concerns with the report or conditions of approval, please contact us in advance of the meeting so that we may work together to resolve your concerns. A public hearing has been set for August 14, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. The Planning Commission recommends that the applicant or their authorized representative be present at the hearing to respond to any questions the Commission may have. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Craig Sanders of this office at 538-7601, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Lynn Richardson Planning/Administrative Support Services Assistant Enc. cc: John C. Anderson j:\wpdocs\pc1ts\schedu1e.n1rg 0 • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT - AUGUST 14, 2003 Applicant: Stephen Gale Location: On west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, Durham File #: MUP 03-07 Parcel Size: 5.43 acres Request: Minor Use Permit to allow a Zone Date: 02/28/92 large winery G.P.: Agricultural Residential Project Craig Sanders Senior Planner — Planner: 538-7603, Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural 5 -acre Supervisor 4 minimum parcel size) District: APN: 040-200-013 Attachments: A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan/Zoning Map C. Public Works Memo 7/17/03 D. Initial Study E. Site Plan SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the Minor Use Permit with findings and conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to establish a large commercial winery (up to 15,000 cases annually) on a 5.43 acre parcel. The winery will consist of a 576 square foot processing building with an attached covered patio approximately 480 square feet in size for wine tasting, an uncovered patio adjacent to the edge of the garden area that is approximately 400 square feet in size, a 220 square foot work room with toilet facilities, and a small tasting kiosk approximately 150 square feet in size. The Applicant proposes planting up to 1 acre of grapes which would produce approximately 300 cases of wine at maturity. Only the grapes grown on-site will be processed on the property. The remainder of the potential 15,000 cases would be produced from grapes grown elsewhere and crushed and bottled at a "custom crush" facility in Napa County. A large commercial winery can include wine tasting and may with a separate Minor Use Permit, conduct accessory events such as wedding, dances, and craft fairs up to 12 times per year. The applicant has stated an interest in having these events, particularly weddings. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 1 ■ • a SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The project site is developed with the following structures: 1) A main house with septic system 2) A duplex with septic system 3) An additional dwelling called the "tree house" with septic system 4) A "cabana" which is a small rental unit with septic system - no building or septic permits, potential violation 5) A separate small structure that contains bathroom facilities with septic system — No building or septic permits, potential violation 6) A private well for domestic water A large garden/landscaped area occupies the area between the main house and the proposed winery location. The grapes will be planted in the southwest corner of the property. The project site is almost level with a slope of less than 2% and contains class H agricultural soil. This soil is typically suited for a variety of agricultural crops and is generally deep and well drained. In the immediate vicinity agricultural operations include almond and walnut orchards as well as small scale vegetable operations. Elevations on-site range from 155 feet a.s.l. at the southwest corner to approximately 160 feet a.s.l. near the northeast corner of the site. The project site is located in a rural residential area with parcel sizes ranging from 0.30 to over 100 acres. Land uses on adjacent parcels are generally rural residential land uses with a mixture of agricultural operations, primarily orchards. All surrounding parcels are zoned A-5. The site is approximately one mile from the intersection of the Midway and Durham Dayton Highway in the center of Durham. ANALYSIS: Section 24-263 of the Butte County Code contains the policies, procedures, and standards relating to establishing wineries in the County. A large winery — commercial facility is defined as a commercial winery producing between 7,501 and 14,999 cases of wine annually. Large commercial wineries can be considered with a Minor Use Permit in the County's Agricultural Zones provided the site is at least 3 acres in size. The facility must.be licensed by the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control as a winegrower: The operator of the winery must submit copies of it State/Federal wine production reports to the Department of Development Services in order for production amounts to be monitored. The code allows for the following uses: 1) Growing, harvesting, processing and bottling of up to 14,999 cases of wine. The code provides that the grapes do not have to be grown on the premises but may be grown elsewhere and wine be produced and sold from the site. 2) The sale of wine and wine/winery related merchandise. 3) Wine tasting subject to the following restrictions: Outdoor amplified music is prohibited; sanitary facilities and domestic water supply must meet environmental health standards; a ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 2 ■ minimum of 4 and a maximum of 20 parking spaces shall be required and all parking shall be off-street; Bus and van parking is permitted subject to area and turn -around requirements. 4) Sit-down restaurant facilities require a separate Use Permit. 5) Special events such as weddings, dances, assemblies, and craft fairs (including the sale of non -wine related items) provided: Special events shall not be allowed on lands designated Orchard and Field Crops; Special events shall require a separate Minor Use Permit for the first event and individual Administrative Permits for each subsequent events. Special events are limited to no more than 12 such events per calendar year with a maximum of 200 people per event. Specific hours shall be listed in each Administrative Permit with a limit of 12 hours per event. This request meets the above conditions and requirements with the exception of the parking requirements and wine production amounts in order to have special events. The applicant's site plan exceeds the maximum of 20 spaces (plus required disabled parking). Eighty parking spaces (two disabled) are shown on the site plan. The parking lot is proposed to be a gravel surface and will not have striped or marked spaces. The parking space dimensions shown on the site plan do not meet County standards for space depth or aisle width. All spaces must be 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep with a 25 foot aisle width for 90 degree parking. Given these facts, the parking lot shown on the site plan can probably accommodate only 50-55 vehicles rather than what is shown. This still exceeds the parking allowed for the winery. Prior to issuance of the permit, the applicant will have to submit a final site plan showing a maximum of 20 parking spaces. With regard to annual production, the County Code clearly defines a large commercial winery as having to produce at least 7,500 cases of wine. Until this production figure is met the special events associated with a large commercial winery should not be permitted. Butte County Code Section 24-41 — Minor Use Permits contains specific findings needed to grant the permit as follows: (1) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of this Ordinance, the purpose of the zone in which the site is located, the Butte County General Plan, and the development policies and standards of the County. The proposed use is listed as being compatible with the A-5 zone by Butte County Code Section 24-263. The Agricultural Residential Land Use designation lists agriculture as a primary use and the definition of Agriculture in the Butte County zoning code includes the processing of agricultural products. (2) That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: a. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; b. The availability of public facilities, services and utilities; C. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 3 ■ d. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; e. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; f. Any other relevant impact of the proposed use. The site is physically suitable for processing a limited amount of grapes as proposed by the applicant. The site would not be capable of handling the production and processing of 15,000 cases of wine on-site. The waste water disposal requirements would be unmanageable on a parcel of this size and could not be disposed of through a septic tank and leachfield system. As discussed in the project description, the applicant is only proposing to process approximately 300 cases of wine on-site. This is the amount expected from the 1 acre of grapes that will be planted on the property. The applicant has provided information that the waste water generated would not exceed 500 gallons in any 24 hour period. The size of the proposed structures fit with the scale of the existing development on-site and in the area. The proposed structures are relatively small, covering approximately 0.8% of the site. The project will not affect the limited public facilities that serve the area (sheriff, fire, roads) because the winery and wine tasting will not generate significant concentrations of people. The proposed facility is small in terms of wineries. While wine tasting could be conducted 7 days a week, the limited wine production and size of the improvements would tend to indicate that wine tasting will be conducted primarily on the weekends. In terms of traffic generation, no trip generation rates could be easily found. In addition, trip generation rates from areas such as the Napa Valley would not be applicable to local wineries because of the high profile of the Napa Valley. Information gathered from a local award winning winery that has a tasting room located on Highway 32 in Forest Ranch revealed that they get between 0 and 10 people stopping to taste wine on a weekend day. The tasting room is not open on the weekdays due to a lack of business. This vineyard produces 10,000 cases of wine a year. The tasting room is located along a highway that carries an average of 3,000 trips per day in front of the facility. To attract customers they put out a sign -board along the road and sell local craft items in the shop. Based on this information, it is unlikely that the proposed will generate more than 10 visitors per weekend day and will probably not generate any visitors on the weekdays. The issue of special events and traffic is discussed below and it is significant. As this Minor Use Permit is only authorizing the winery use and not any special events, no significant traffic impact is anticipated from the winery or wine tasting activities. (3) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 4 ■ Adherence to the conditions of this permit will address public heath and safety issues such as water supply, sewage disposal, site access off of a public road and building codes. (4) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Chapter, except for an approved Minor Variance. The project would meet the existing County Codes for the proposed use once all attached conditions are met. The project is in an A-5 zoning district which is a conditionally consistent zone with the Agricultural Residential land use designation of the General Plan Land Use Element. The Agricultural Residential Designation contains 5 criteria to which development needs to be evaluated for General Plan consistency. The 5 criteria are: 1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities. Agricultural uses in the project area consist primarily of almond orchards and small scale seasonal crops. Adjoining property is zoned A-5. The Agricultural Commissioner's office has reviewed the project and does not have any agricultural compatibility issues with the growing of grapes or wine production and associated wine tasting. 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and did not have any objections to the proposed use of septic systems, or individual wells, provided the necessary permits are obtained. Groundwater is generally plentiful in the area as evidenced by the wells that serve the orchards. 3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities. The site is approximately 1.25 miles from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is considered adequate to serve the proposed development. 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service area. The site abuts a paved, County -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle approximately 10 additional weekend trips represented by the wine tasting use (10 people per weekend day/2 people per car/5trips in -5 trips out). S. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools. Commercial services and schools are located between 1 and 1.5 miles from the property. This is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed project. Based on the above criteria, the project is consistent with the Butte County General Plan. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 5 ■ The Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and has no objections to the winery use provided that the limitations on wine production, as previously discussed, are imposed. They also determined that at least two septic systems have been installed on the property without proper County permits. Concerns still remain over whether or not the existing septic systems can handle the wastes generated by special events. This issue will have to be fully addressed in the Minor Use Permit for the first special event. One option that the applicant may want to explore is the use of portable toilet facilities for the larger events. It appears that the cabana shown on the site plan was constructed without building permits. This will have to be corrected prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit for the winery. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the project and has no objection to the winery and associated wine tasting activities. They raised significant traffic safety concerns related to special events being held on the property. See the attached memo from the Department of Public Works. The concerns raise would not affect the approval of the winery facility, but would affect a future Minor Use Permit request to hold special events on the site. CEOA DETERMINATION This application is subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was performed for the project and six mitigation measures were proposed and accepted by the applicant. The initial study anticipated and evaluated a project which included up to 12 special events, even though those events will not be allowed under this Minor Use Permit. Some of the mitigation measures would not be applicable to the use of the property solely as a winery. The mitigation measures have been incorporated as conditions and reflect potential impacts from outdoor lighting, noise, drainage, archaeological resources and traffic safety. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: I. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Said study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; a Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. B. The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Mitigated 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 Minor Use Permit for Stephen Gale, Planning Division File No. MUP TPM 03- 07, would have a significant effect on the environment. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 6 ■ D. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. E. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts, with Mitigation Measures 1 through 6, as referenced in the Agenda Report dated August 8, 2003. H. The design of the .proposed project improvements will not cause significant environmental damage to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and a "de minimis" exemption regarding impact to fish and wildlife or their habitat is recommended. The project site does not contain any streams, riparian vegetation, or blue oak habitat. The project site is located within a deer herd Designated Development Zone and is not within a critical winter deer herd area. The project site is not known to contain any rare, threatened, or endangered plant, insect, or animal species and does not contain any vernal pools or wetlands. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and 14 CCR 753.5. is not required III. Recommend that the Planning Commission find that: (1) That the proposed location, size, design,, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is consistent with Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code, in particular the A-5 zoning district and the provisions of Section 24-263 (F) addressing the specific requirements for large wineries - commercial facilities. (2) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use is consistent with the Butte County General Plan, including the Agricultural Residential designation of the Land Use Element which identifies agricultural uses and outdoor recreation uses as being consistent and the conditional zoning and development criteria below: 1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities. Agricultural uses in the project area consist primarily of almond orchards and small scale seasonal crops. Adjoining property is zoned A-5. The Agricultural Commissioner's office has reviewed the project and does not have any agricultural compatibility issues with the growing of grapes or wine production and associated wine tasting. 2. Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has reviewed the project and did not have any objections to the proposed use of septic systems, or individual wells, provided the necessary permits are obtained. Groundwater is generally plentiful in the area as evidenced by the wells that serve the orchards. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 7 ■ 3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities. The site is approximately 1.25 miles from Butte County Fire Station 45 which is manned all year. This is considered adequate to serve the proposed development. 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with sufficient capacity to service area. The site abuts a paved, County -maintained road that carries little traffic and has the capacity to handle approximately 10 additional weekend trips represented by the wine tasting use (10 people per weekend day/2 people per car/5trips in -5 trips out). 5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and schools. Commercial services and schools are located between 1 and 1.5 miles from the property. This is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed project. (3) That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to adjacent uses, residents, buildings, structures, or natural resources, with consideration given to: a. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; The size of the proposed structures fit with the scale of the existing development on-site and in the area. The proposed structures are relatively small, covering approximately 0.8% of the site. b. The availability of public facilities, services and utilities; The project will not affect the limited public facilities that serve the area (sheriff, fire, roads) because the winery and wine tasting will not generate significant concentrations of people. C. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; The desirable neighborhood character would not be affected because the limited wine production and wine tasting will be conducted within the interior confines of a 5+ acre parcel and will not generate noise or other undesirable effects that would conflict with the character of the neighborhood. d. The generation of traffic and the capacity and physical character of surrounding streets; ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 8 ■ Grape growing and the limited amount of wine processing on-site will not generate any significant traffic. The tasting activities will generate some additional traffic to the area. This will generally be on the weekends during daylight hours. Without the support of a significant number of wineries in the area, wine tasting as a tourist attraction will be limited. The suitability of the site for the type and intensity of use or development which is proposed; At 5.43 acres, the site is suitable for the limited growing and production of wine as proposed by the applicant. Up to 300 cases of wine may be processed on the premises. f. Any other relevant impact of the proposed use. The site is physically suitable for processing a limited amount of grapes as proposed by the applicant. (3) That the proposed location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Adherence to the conditions of this permit will address public heath and safety issues such as water supply, sewage disposal, site access off of a public road and building codes. (4) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Chapter, except for an approved Minor Variance. The project would meet the existing County Codes for the proposed use once all attached conditions are met. IV. Recommend approval of Minor Use Permit 03-07 for Stephen Gale to allow a winery — Large commercial facility on APN 040-200-013 subject to conditions in exhibit "A". K:\Planning\PROJECTS\MINOR USE PERMIT\GALE\Gale Agenda Report.doc ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 9 ■ EXHIBIT A MINOR USE PERMIT BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: (Certified Mail Rec.) MUP 03-07 PERMIT NO. 040-200-013 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. Pursuant to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Butte and the special conditions set forth below: Stephen Gale is hereby granted a Minor Use Permit in accordance with application filed: Minor Use Permit to allow a Winery — Large Commercial Facility on a 5.43 acre parcel zoned A-5. 1. Failure to comply with the conditions specified herein as the basis for approval of application and issuance of Permit, constitutes cause for the revocation of said permit in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, including Butte County Code Sec. 24-41. 2. Unless otherwise provided for in a special condition to this Minor Use Permit, all conditions must be completed prior to or concurrently with the establishment of the granted use. The use granted by this permit must be established within 12 months of the delivery of the countersigned permit to the Permittee. 3. Minor changes may be approved administratively by the Directors of Development Services, Environmental Health, or Public Works upon receipt of a substantiated written request by the applicant, or their respective designee. Prior to such approval, verification shall be made by each Department or Division that the modification is consistent with the application, fees paid, and environmental determination as conditionally approved. Changes deemed to be major or significant in nature shall require a formal application for amendment. 4. If any use for which a Minor Use Permit has been granted is not established within one year of the date of receipt of the countersigned permit by the Permittee, the permit shall become null and void and reapplication and a new permit shall be required to establish the use. The terms and conditions of this permit shall run with the land and shall be binding upon and be to the benefit of the heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns of the Permittee. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 10 ■ Conditions of Approval: Planning Division If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. (Mitigation Measure) Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. 2 Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. 3. The processing of wine on the site is limited to the amount of grapes grown on the property. No more than 500 gallons of wine- processing wastewater may be generated per day unless approval is received from the Butte County Environmental Health Division. Public Works 4. Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing in the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. (Mitigation Measure0 Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Construct a public road approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. (Mitigation Measure) ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 11 ■ Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on-site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. (Mitigation Measure) Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 7. Provide all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs. 8. Deed to Butte County, in fee simple, 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Stanford Lane along the entire frontage of the property. Environmental Health 9. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for on-site sewage disposal. 10. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for the provision of drinking water. 11. Sewage System and drinking water systems must be installed under County permit. 12. Meet all applicable requirements of the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. 13. Meet all applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Fire Department/CDF 14. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 12 ■ 15. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed in a manner acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 16. A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific locations and. fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant spacing is 300 feet, hydrant size is 6 inches, and residual fire flow 2000 gallons per minute. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of the facilities. 17. Provide an all-weather access that is at least 10 feet wide with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus. County Counsel 18. If this entire matter or any finding, action or condition of this matter is appealed to the Board of Supervisors, the applicant or any other developer/operator other than the applicant agrees to indemnify the County of Butte from liability or loss related to the approval of this project and agrees to sign an indemnification agreement in a form approved by County Counsel before the Board's appeal hearing. If the application is not appealed, this condition is deemed satisfied. Other 19. Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations. NOTE: Issuance of this Minor Use Permit does not waive requirement of obtaining Building and Health Department permits before starting construction, nor does it waive any other requirements. Butte County Planning Commission Chairman CC: Land Development Division Building Division Environmental Health Division Butte County Fire Department/CDF Assessors Office ■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER AGENDA REPORT ■ PAGE 13 ■ ,t Vicinity Map �� ® ch.Roa �" • . CIO t_ o ' ! Cummin Project Location Durham Dayton Hwy urham ±` CD , Durham-Pen't f. a ".. f Hamlin Rpa j U' Aif - it isp Ave l i p r: f m D 3 Nut Rtiggy Ln 't f` MUP 03-07 040-200-013 K", { • � r 1 1 � i Al, = rx ,c � _ rs�.�.�....�..��r � sc yws. m.�'•, w�.t.n►c _ _ s�a.,.mee` +�-,.:� �-.c., i 1� ; f, :lttr \ lil�ix d n lsil n 'GA t 1 `.u_ ++! tet. '!ftf7t:7H Jjr"e'tt (r;rii'�! U. f'•ridtj-•, 11tt1r r `d + tr ,'iv :tr9Ud131i '-If l-f►11'' •ow at.* tro•tt:9 •f+f..ei,�rt, _ �_. — _r ____ .�_ � — Project: Stephen Gale Minor Use P•t, File # MUP03-07 • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR MUP 03-07, Stephen Gale .h Project Name: Stephen Gale,ZGlinor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 • COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY FOR MUP 03-07, Stephen Gale 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Stephen Gale B. Engineer: None C. Staff Contact: Craig Sanders (530) 538-7603 D. Project Name: N/A E. Project Location: On the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. F. Type of Application(s): Minor Use Permit G. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 040-200-013 H. Project Site Size: 5.43 acres I. Current Zoning: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 -acre minimum parcel size) J. General Plan Designation: Agricultural Residential K. Environmental Setting: The area is a mixture of rural residential development and orchard agricultural operations. The site is currently used primarily for residential purposes and some seasonal agricultural crop use on approximately 1.5 acres. The property is characterized by four residential units and an extensive landscaped area. The site is level with good agricultural soils. The elevations on-site range from 155 feet a.s.l. at the southwest corner to approximately 160 feet a.s.l. near the northeast corner of the site. L. Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site is adjacent to 5 -acre residential development on the north and east sides. Butte Community College is located to the west and community commercial lands and grazing uses are to the south. M. Proiect Description: This is a request to allow the development of a large commercial winery with related tasting facilities and accessory uses such as wedding, dances, and craft fairs up to 12 times per year. A large commercial winery may produce up to 15,000 cases of wine per year and requires that the property have some on-site grape production. The Applicant proposes planting 1 acre of grapes which would produce approximately 300 cases of wine at maturity. Only the grapes grown on-site will be processed on the property. The remainder of the potential 15,000 cases will be produced from grapes grown elsewhere and crushed and bottled at a "custom crush" facility in Santa Rosa California. With this process, the applicant states that not more than 500 gallons of waste water will be produced during any 24-hour period. The 500 gallon figure can easily be disposed of on-site through a traditional septic tank and leachfield system. No discharge requirements would be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. In addition, the facility will have the potential to have up to 12 "special Events" a year. These special events may be weddings , craft fairs, or other gatherings. These events could generate up to 200 participants/guests. The site plan submitted shows parking for up to approximately 75 vehicles. N. Public Agency Approvals: None. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 1 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale. inor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 2.0 DETERNUNATION [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will NOT be a significant effect in this case because revisions have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared by: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Date Reviewed by: Joe Baker, Principal Planner Date 3.0 POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS CHECKLIST SETTING A. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below could be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [X] 4.1 Aesthetics [ ] 4.2 Agriculture Resources [ ] 4.3 Air Quality [ ] 4.4 Biological Resources [X] 4.5 Cultural Resources [ ] 4.6 Geologic Processes [ ] 4.7 Hazards/Hazardous Material [X] 4.8 Hydrology/Water Quality [ J 4.9 Land Use [ J 4.10 Mineral Resources [X] 4.11 Noise [ ] 4.12 Housing [ ] 4.13 Public Services [ ] 4.14 Recreation [X] 4.15 Transportation/Traffic [ ] 4.16 Utilities/Service Systems [X] 4.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance B. 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.) ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 2 ■ Project Name: Stephen Galeor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 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) "Reviewed Under Previous Document." 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. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 4.1 AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? i i i i X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 3 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale,ZGtinor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? X X c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ua ity of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the X area? Impact Discussion: The project would result a the planting of approximately 1 acre of grapes and the development of a 1 acre parking lot and an 1,100 square foot wine processing and tasting facility. The site does not have any significant aesthe3tic properties. The site can only be viewed from a public road in two places and vegetation blocks much of the view. Stanford lane does not carry a significant number of vehicles and mainly serves the people that live on the street. No permanent outdoor lighting is shown on the site plan. If the applicant wishes to install outdoor lighting, a lighting plan must be presented to the Department of Development Services. - Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. Mitigation Measure #1: . If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to installation. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services.the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. 4.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and X Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act Contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 4 ■ • i Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Impact Discussion: The proposed use would take approximately 2 acres of little used farmland and plant one acre in grapes and use the other acre for a parking lot and wine tasting facility. The loss of the one acre to a parking lot represents an insignificant impact to available farmland. The 2 acres of usable farmland on this site is not economically viable for most commercial farm operations. The winery with only 1 acre of grapes would also not be economically viable and would represent more of a hobby use. The project would put some land that is not currently producing an annual crop to some productive use. The parcel is not in the Williamson Act. No significant change would occur to the environment that would induce other property to stop agricultural production. Surrounding agricultural uses are primarily small orchards that may are not economically viable and do not contribute significantly to the agricultural industry of the County. The property is designated in the Butte County General Plan Land Use Element as Agricultural Residential. This designation lists agricultural and residential uses as primary uses and animal husbandry, forestry, intense animal uses, home occupations, mining, outdoor recreation facilities, environmental preservation activities, airports, utilities, public and quasi -public uses, group quarters, care homes and transient lodging as secondary uses. The proposed use would be a combination of agricultural use (grape production and wine making) and outdoor commercial recreation use (weddings and wine tasting). Theses uses would be compatible with the Agricultural residential designation. Mitigation Measure: None Required 4.3 AIR QUALITY: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated 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 X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? Impact Discussion: The project is located within the Sacramento Valley Air District. According to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD), Butte County and all northern Sacramento Valley Air Districts have been designated as "moderate" non -attainment areas for the state standards for ozone (03) and fine particulate matter (PM,o). Currently, Butte County is in attainment for all the federal (less stringent) air quality standards. This project would not generate a significant increase in dust because the parking area will be required by County Code to be treated with a dust palliative treatment. Additional vehicles will be visiting the site but the increase is not expected to be ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 5 ■ i • Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 significant due to the small size of the winery and limitation in the code that special events can only be held 12 times a year. The proce3ssing of wine has the potential to generate significant odors when waste water is held and treated on-site. The applicant proposes to only process a limited amount of grapes on the site and will dispose of waste water in a conventional septic tank and leachfield system as opposed to holding ponds. No significant odors are expected from this process. Mititlation Measure: None Required 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated 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 X regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 or the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, X etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means)? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy X ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservationplan? g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened, X or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or X invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for X foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 6 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human X presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the X normal activities of wildlife? X Impact Discussion: The project site is not located in an area identified as having significant biological resources. There are four dwellings on the site and residential activities are the primary use of the property. Approximately 2 acres of the site is an extensive residential garden with a large number of introduced species.. No native habitat remains on the property. A review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Maps on file in the Department of Development Services shows no wetlands and no vernal pool habitat present on the subject property. The California Department of Fish and Game "Area of Special Biological Importance" maps do not indicate the presence of any rare, threatened, or endangered species on the site. No riparian vegetation exists on the property and no water courses are present. The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposal would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 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 Impact Discussion: Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic period archaeological sites; historical features, such as rock walls, water ditches and flumes, and cemeteries; and architectural features. Cultural resources consist of any human -made site, object (i.e., artifact), or feature that defines and illuminates our past. No such structures are present on this site. The site is about 500 feet from Butte Creek. This proximity to a creek gives this site a high potential for archeological sensitivity. Indigenous tribes often made villages near water courses. Native American occupation of Butte County ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 7 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 may have begun as many as 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. Sites of this extreme age located in the western part of the county are probably deeply covered by on-going alluvial processes and may not be visible on the soil surface. As discussed above, potential sites may be several feet below the surface. The surface of this property has been extensively disturbed by agricultural operations and no significant prehistoric sites have been found. The potential for site disturbance associated with this project is limited to the planting of grapes and the construction of a winery facility. Neither activity would result in deep excavations on the site. Based on this information, no additional archaeological reconnaissance is recommended at this time. However, since the site is in a high sensitivity zone, future excavations may reveal prehistoric artifacts. If any cultural resources are revealed, State and Federal law requires that construction activities cease until the find can be evaluated by a qualified professional. Mitigation Measure #2: Place a note on a separate condition on the Minor Use Permit stating: "Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that the note is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. 4.6 GEOLOGIC PROCESSES: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault X Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X 3. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 4. Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 8 ■ Project Name: Stephen Galeinor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 • Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial X risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal or waste X water? Impact Discussion: The Seismic Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that all of Butte County is in Moderate Earthquake Intensity Zone VIII. The site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault zone. The nearest active fault, the Cleveland Hill fault, is located approximately 25 miles to the southeast of the site. The Butte County GIS Fault Lines diagram shows that an inferred fault is located approximately 4 miles to the east of the site. The intensity of ground shaking at any specific site depends on the characteristics of the earthquake, the distance from the earthquake, and on the local geologic soils and conditions. At present, there is insufficient data to predict accurately the expected ground motions at various locations in Butte County. However, strong seismic ground shaking is closely related to the proximity of active fault lines. With the site being approximately 25 miles from the only known active fault in the County, ground shaking and resultant building damage would not be a significant concern because the Uniform Building Code contains standards to address this seismic potential Seismic risk is not limited to faults which have been currently identified. Some earthquakes originate from unknown sources sometimes characterized as "background seismicity" or "floating earthquakes". The Butte County Master Environmental Assessment indicates that it is reasonable to assume that background seismicity could produce earthquakes as large as Richter magnitude (modified Mercalli intensity scale) 6.5 virtually anywhere in Butte County. There is no current evidence that an earthquake larger than magnitude 6.5 would occur at this location. Earthquakes at this magnitude are generally felt by all persons, but damage is generally slight to minor, with fallen chimneys and cracked plaster the most prominent damage. Richter magnitude 6.5 is not subjectively characterized on the intensity scale, but a magnitude 7 is generally characterized by negligible damage, especially in buildings of good design and construction. Considerable damage can occur in poorly built or badly designed structures. However, the impact would be less than significant. The Butte County Seismic Safety Element's Liquefaction Potential Map indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction. The impact would be less than significant. The Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that there is no potential for landslides in this area. The Conservation Element's Expansive Soils Map indicates that the project site has a low expansive soil potential. No significant impact would be anticipated. The Erosion Potential Map of the Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan indicates that the soil erosion potential for the project site is low. The absence of any significant slope over most of the site, natural vegetation cover and low rainfall intensity (24 to 26 inches/year) alleviate concerns for significant erosion. The Butte County Environmental Health Department does not object to the use of septic systems on the property. The soils on site are generally suitable for sewage disposal with a septic tank and leachfield. Five septic systems exist on the site at this time and an additional system would be proposed for the winery. Not all of the existing systems were installed with a permit from the County and this fact needs to be corrected before the winery is established. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 9 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Mitigation Measure: None required 4.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal X of hazardous materials? 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 X the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed schools? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a X significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? L For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Impact Discussion: The project site is not located on or near any sources of hazardous materials and would not create any hazardous materials. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact is anticipated. The property is not located within the vicinity of an airport, airport land -use plan, or private airstrip, and does not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impact would occur. The project is not located within a State Response Area for wildland fires. The area is classified as having a unclassified fire hazard potential. Future development will have to meet the fire protection standards of the Butte ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 10 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 County Fire Department and the Uniform Building Code Public Resources Code 4290. As a condition of approval, a fore hydrant will have to be installed within 300 feet of the site and water made available to provide a fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute. This is a requirement of the County Code and will be applied to the project. Mitigation Measure : None required 4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impact Discussion: Significant amounts of wastewater are generated from typical winery operations. Wineries that crush and process their own grapes typically generate between 4 and 6 gallons of wastewater for every gallon of wine they produce. This waste water contains sugars, alcohol, yeast and a variety of chemical residues and cleaning agents. The wastewater is ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated 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 X preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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 X substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Impact Discussion: Significant amounts of wastewater are generated from typical winery operations. Wineries that crush and process their own grapes typically generate between 4 and 6 gallons of wastewater for every gallon of wine they produce. This waste water contains sugars, alcohol, yeast and a variety of chemical residues and cleaning agents. The wastewater is ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 11 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 acidic unless treated and can generate significant odors. Typical raw winery wastewater has the following characteristics: Parameter Units Crush Season Range Non -Crush Season Range pH -- 2.5-9.5 3.5-11 BODS mg/L 500-12000 300-3500 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 0.5-8.5 1.0-10 Settleable Solids mg/L 25-100 2-100 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 40-800 10-400 Total Nitrogen mg/L as N 1-40 1-40 Nitrate mg/L as N 0.5-5 -- Phosphorus mg/L 1 - 10 1-40 Sulfate mg/L 10-75 20-75 Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 80 —2900 80 —2900 Sodium mg/L 35 —200 35-200 Chloride mg/L 3-250 3-250 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Order R3-2002-0084 Must is the liquid obtained when the grapes are pressed. The most important change in organic composition occurs during fermentation from must to wine. Sugars are used by yeasts and bacteria as the main source of carbon dioxide, with a drastic decline in sugar content. Anaerobic conditions give rise to the production of glycerol and ethanol, both of which are important components of wine. Malolactic fermentation of malic to lactic acid occurs naturally in red wine cultivars. With regard to anorganic contents of wine, potassium (in the form of K -H -bitartrate) is the only element which changes during wine production. K -H -bitartrate occurs in both the must and the wine and precipitates against the sides of tanks and equipment during the cold stabilisation process. To dissolve these crystals, alkali products containing the hydroxy ion (OH) are used. The alkali products simultaneously serve as a means of removing red colour pigments. The most commonly used substance for the above is sodium hydroxide diluted to 5% (better known as caustic soda). Other products such as sodium metasilicate and sodium carbonate are also used at times. These chemicals react with water to release hydroxides (OH ions). The amount of OH ions released has a direct influence on the pH of the solution. The higher the pH, the more tartrate is removed. Sodium metasilicate generates more OH ions than sodium carbonate, resulting in pH values of 10-12 and 9-10 respectively. However, the pH of sodium hydroxide (5%) ranges between 12 and 13 and is therefore more effective in removing the tartrate. Once the tartrate has been removed, it is followed by a rinse of 5% citric or tartaric acid to neutralize the alkali. Washing water generated by this process is known as cellar wastewater, and the volumes thus generated, as well as the chemical composition, may result in significant environmental impacts. (Source: WWW.wynboer.co.za/recentarticies/700management.php.3) Under the Butte County winery ordinance, a large commercial winery is classified as producing between 7,501 cases and 15,000 cases of wine per year. This is equivalent to between 17,800 and 35,600 gallons of wine. The water needed to produce one gallon of wine is roughly 4 to 6 time the wine produced, when water saving techniques are used. Thus, a large commercial winery could be expected to generate between 71,200 and 213,600 gallons of wastewater per year. Discharge of this quantity of water would require a permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant however, is not proposing to process significant amounts of grapes on the property. Only the grapes grown on-site will be processed on the property. This amounts to about 300 cases. The remainder of the potential 15,000 cases will be produced from grapes grown elsewhere and crushed and bottled at a "custom crush" facility in Santa Rosa California. With this process, the applicant states that not more than 500 gallons of waste water will be produced during any 24-hour period. The 500 gallon figure can easily be disposed of on-site through a traditional ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 12 ■ 49 Project Name: Stephen Galekor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 septic tank and leachfield system. No discharge requirements would be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater quantity will be increased significantly for the parking lot area and the winery"facility. Additional stormwater runoff has the potential to impact Stanford Lane and surrounding properties. The project will be required to install drainage facilities to attenuate runoff to pre -construction levels with no increase on peak -flow runoff from the site. The design of the drainage facility will be dependant on the amount and type of new surfaces developed on the site. The drainage improvements be designed and submitted at the time of building permit application. Disruption of more than 1 acre of the site would also require stormwater pollution prevention plan from the Regional Water Qua ality Control Board. This is a statutory requirement and no additional mitigation would be required. The entire site is located within a 100 -year flood zone as shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map 06007C -0520C, dated June 8, 1998. The flood zone is designated as "AO" which indicates that sheet flows between 1 and 3 feet could be expected. New structures within the flood plain would have to meet County requirements for building in a floodplain, as set forth in Butte County Code Chapter 26, Article IV "Flood Hazard Prevention," and an elevation certificate from a registered engineer would be required. to establish a floor elevation that is at least one foot above the flood elevation for all structures. The property is protected by a levee from severe flooding associated with the Butte Creek watershed. Failure of the levee could result in significant property damage and potential loss of life. The development of a winery facility will not exacerbate that risk nor would there typically be a higher concentration of people on site during the months when the creek is experiencing flood flows. No significant impact is expected. The site is not located in an area prone to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact would occur with respect to these natural hazards. Mitigation Measure #3: Prior to the to issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 4.9 LAND USE: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. -Physically divide an established community? i i X ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 13 ■ i • Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project X (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the ose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X Impact Discussion: The proposal would allow for the development of a winery facility that could produce between 7,501 and 15,000 cases of wine per year. Associated uses would include wine tasting and sales, special events including weddings and craft fairs up to 12 times a year. The Butte County General Plan Land Use Element designates this property as Agricultural Residential. Primary uses are agricultural uses and single family dwellings at rural densities. Secondary uses include animal husbandry, forestry, intense animal uses, home occupations, mining, outdoor recreation facilities, environmental preservation activities, airports, utilities, public and quasi -public uses, group quarters, care homes and transient lodging. The growing of grapes is consistent with the primary uses. Agricultural processing and sale, wine sales and the special events such as wedding and craft fairs do not appear to be consistent with consistent with either the primary or secondary uses listed. This is a policy issue to be determined by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. The project site is not subject to any adopted habitat conservation plan at this time. Mitigation Measure: None required 4.10 MINERAL RESOURCES: Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are no known mineral resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed Would the proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the X residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X plan, specific plan, or other land useplan? Impact Discussion: The proposed project would not use or extract any mineral or energy resources and would not restrict access to known mineral resource areas. The project is located within an area where there are no known mineral resources. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 14 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 • Mitigation Measure: None required 4.11 NOISE: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than significant Less Than significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground bome noise levels? X c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X X project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? 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 X expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in X the project area to excessive noise levels? Impact Discussion: The project site is not subject to any continuous noise generators. Periodic noises associated with agricultural operations occur in the vicinity. The introduction of a winery and associated outdoor events such as wine tasting and weddings will increase the noise on the subject property. Wine tasting activities aren't expected to raise noise levels significantly. Amplified music is prohibited by the County Code as it relates to wine tasting events. Most of the noise will come from the additional vehicle trips visiting the site. Wine tasting will generally occur on the weekends during the hours of 11:00 am and 5:00 pm. Due to the small size of the winery and wine tasting facility large volumes of people are not expected and noise generation from these activities would not be significant. Pursuant to the Butte County Zoning Code, a large commercial winery can have up to 12 accessory events per calendar year. The applicant has expressed interest in having outdoor weddings on the subject property as an ancillary function to the winery. Up to 175 people may be present at such events. These events have the potential to introduce significant, albeit limited, noise to the area. Amplified music is permitted at these. events. Music along with noise from guests will be able to be heard on adjacent properties. Only one or two homes will be most affected, these would be homes nearest the southern property line where the parking and wine tasting facility are located. Weddings will generally occur during the warmer months on weekends in the afternoon or early evening. Area residents are likely to be outside or have their windows open. To ensure that amplified music does not conflict with area residential uses, the music should be curtailed by no later than 10:00p.rr According to the Butte County Noise Element, noise levels up to 65 dB CNEL are acceptable on a limited basis in residential areas. Amplified music at wedding events is not as loud ad concert events but may still be in the range of 80 to 85 dB close to the source. Since the CNEL scale is a 24 hour average, the introduction of amplified music even at 80dB would not result in the average being exceeded. The project is not located in the vicinity of an airstrip or within an airport land use plan. No impact would occur. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 15 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Mitigation Measure #4: Amplified music shall only be allowed during the 12 special events permitted by the Butte County Code. Amplified music may not commence before 8 a.m. and shall cease by 10 p.m. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition is included in the Minor Use Permit for this project. Timing: Initially, as a condition of he project and ongoing at each future special event. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall respond to all noise complaints arising from amplified music. If solution cannot be found the project may be returned to the Planning Commission for amendments to the conditions. 4.12 HOUSING: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of X roads or other infrastructure? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Impact Discussion: Butte County population has grown at a rate at or below all official population projections for the past 10 years. Projected population for 2000 was 207,159, while the actual census population was 203,171. The percentage increase in population for Butte County between the 1990 and 2000 was 11.6 percent, an equivalent of 1.1% of annual compounded growth rate. The proposed project does not include housing and will not create a significant demand for new housing. The winery will employ less than 5 people. The project will not remove any housing fro the marketplace as no existing homes would be removed. Mitigation Measure: None required. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 16 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 4.13 PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which X could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? b. Fireprotection? X c. Police Protection? X d. Schools? X e. Parks? X f. Other public services? X Impact Discussion: The project site is located in an area that has not been designated as to fire hazard and is not in a State Response Area. The wildland fire hazard is generally low due to a lack of natural vegetation and local irrigation practices for orchard cultivation. The introduction of a winery and tasting facility will not create a significant new fire hazard as no open fires or use of inflammables will occur. Due to the impact posed by the project to fire protection services, the Butte County Fire Department is requiring that a pressurized water system with hydrants capable of delivering 2,000 gallons per minute of flow with a hydrant located not more than 300 feet away from the property. The proposal would result in an incremental increase in demand for police protection services. The cumulative impacts of increased development in rural areas impacts the ability of the Sheriffs Department to adequately provide police services to outlying areas. Sheriffs facilities fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits for any dwelling units placed on the project site; this would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. This would be made a condition of any future development project. The project site is located in the Durham Unified School District and would not result in any increase in demand for school facilities in the area because the project would not result in any increase in population for the site or area. The project would result in the potential development of twenty-five residences and would not create significant impacts to area parks and facilities. Durham Recreation District has fees adopted to address incremental impacts to recreation services. Those fees are paid at the time of building permit application A less than significant impact is anticipated to other public services. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.14 RECREATION: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 17 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No Reviewed proposal: Significant Significant Significant Impact Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation Incorporated a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial X physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be X accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X X adverse physical effect on the environment? Impact Discussion: The project site is located within the Durham Recreation and Park District. The project would increase population and would therefore not contribute to a need for increased recreation facilities. Mitigation Measure: None required 4.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of X vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patters, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with accepted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicycle racks)? Impact Discussion: The project has the potential to generate an increase in traffic on local roads. Stanford Lane is a County maintained road with a paved surface. The pavement is fairly narrow, 15 feet or less in most locations. The road does not carry a high volume of traffic. Most traffic is generated from homes located on the road and not much pass through traffic occurs. The existing traffic volume on the street is not at a level that warrants the Butte County Department of Public ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 18 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Works to maintain traffic counts. The peak traffic generation will occur during the 12 special events that will be allowed each year. These events will generally take place on weekends and will not conflict with the normal weekday peak hour traffic. Wine tasting will also generally take place on weekends. No significant increase in traffic is expected during weekdays. During peak hour, which will vary depending on what time of day the special even is held. Since, according to the applicant, most special events will be weddings, the peak hour traffic would be at the start of the event. Based on a maximum of 175 guests and an average of 3 people per vehicle, the number of vehicles would be approximately 58. The arrival of 58 vehicles over a period of an hour or even a half hour period would not generate congestion on Stanford Lane. Access to the site off of Stanford Lane does not meet County standards. The proposed entrance to the parking lot is located near a curve in Stanford Lane and site distance is somewhat impaired. Existing vegetation also hinders the site distance. Improvements will be needed to provide adequate site distance including construction of a public road approach at the entrance to the parking lot and removal of vegetation in the right-of-way to ensure adequate site distance. The applicant is proposing an 80 space parking lot. Based on the expected 58 vehicles for a wedding event, the parking would appear to be adequate and provide some excess if needed.. This proposal would not conflict with accepted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Mitigation Measure #5: Construct a public road approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Mitigation Measure #6: Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 4.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 19 ■ • • Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity X to accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and X regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: Sewage disposal for all proposed uses as well as the existing residential uses on the property would be handled by individual on-site septic systems. The Butte County Division of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and has concerns that the existing facilities may not be able to handle the generated sewage and wastewater. New septic systems may be required in order to meet health requirements. There are at least two septic systems on the property that have not been installed under permit from the County and the property owner will have to obtain the necessary permits before this Use Permit will become effective. Soils in the area are generally good though there may be elevated groundwater in the winter due to the proximity to Butte Creek. Fortunately all high wastewater generating uses will take place in the summer and fall, during times when the soils are not normally saturated. The highest amount of wastewater generated in any 24 hour period related to wine process would be approximately 500 gallons. This volume would occur infrequently during the harvest season. Higher volumes of waste water can be anticipated during special events where up to 175 people may be on site for up to 6 hours. The wastewater generated should be able to be handled by septic systems which are adequately sized. These events will be limited to no more than 12 per year. The project would not have a significant impact on any public wastewater treatment facilities as none serve the property. Water for the project will be obtained from a private well that is already on the property. The well has been tested and produces 60 gallons per minute. This is adequate to serve all the needs of the proposed use. The aquifer in this region is known to have a plentiful supply of water. No additional storm water facilities, other that a possible detention basin to mitigate peak flow, would be necessary as a result of this project due to the extremely low density of the project and minimal amount of new impervious surfaces. The project would slightly increase the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill by a minor amount. According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018. The project would not have a significant impact on solid waste disposal. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 20 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 No impact would occur with respect to federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure: None required 4.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (Section 15065): Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Less Than Significant No Impact Reviewed Under Impact with Impact Previous Mitigation Document Incorporated a. Have the potential to substantially 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 X 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? b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X 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)? C. Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? Impact Discussion: The project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to Initial Study Checklist Items 4.1 Aesthetics withrespect to light pollution. Cumulative impact to this area would be mitigated due to the inclusion of Mitigation Measure # 1 as itemized under Section 5 — Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: Mitigation Measure #1: . If outdoor lighting is proposed, submit a lighting plan to the Department of Development Services prior to installation. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded and located so that direct lighting is confined to the property and does not affect adjoining residential uses. Plan Requirements: Submit to the Department of Development Services the type of exterior lighting fixtures to be used and lighting locations prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Timing: At the time of issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Monitoring: Lighting fixtures will be reviewed prior to the issuance of the Minor Use Permit. Mitigation Measure #2: Place a note on a separate condition on the Minor Use Permit stating: "Should any archaeological artifacts be discovered during construction or excavation, the Planning Division shall be notified ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 21 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 immediately, and all work shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has examined the artifacts and the site and submitted his or her findings to the Planning Division, and recommended clearance to continue. Recommencement of construction shall be upon the approval of the Planning Division." Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that the note is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Ongoing throughout the earthwork phase of the development of the site. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. State Law requires the reporting of any human remains or artifacts. Mitigation Measure #3: Prior to the to issuance of building permits a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. The required improvements must be installed and completed prior to final building permit inspection and before conducting the use on-site. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Mitigation Measure #4: Amplified music shall only be allowed during the 12 special events permitted by the Butte County Code. Amplified music may not commence before 8 a.m. and shall cease by 10 p.m. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition is included in the Minor Use Permit for this project. Timing: Initially, as a condition of he project and ongoing at each future special event. Monitoring: Department of Development Services shall respond to all noise complaints arising from amplified music. If solution cannot be found the project may be returned to the Planning Commission for amendments to the conditions. Mitigation Measure #5: Construct a public road approach to County standards at the new driveway entrance off of Stanford Lane. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 22 ■ 0 Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. Mitigation Measure #6: Ensure that site distance for vehicles leaving the property is not impaired by vegetation growing the right-of-way by removing existing vegetation that causes an obstruction and maintaining a clear site distance. Plan Requirements: The Department of Development Services shall ensure that a condition to this effect is placed on the Minor Use Permit. Timing: Concurrent with site development. Monitoring: Department of Public Works shall check plans prior to approval and shall spot check in the field. Additional monitoring shall be on an incident basis. 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL: 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activi!y Map 11-1, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2, Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1, Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill, 1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV -1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977, 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Man. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13. National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Mans. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989 and 2000. 14. USGS Quad Maps. 15. Soil Map, Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico ,1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map. Butte County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. 18. WWW.Mnboer.co.za/recentat-ticles/700management.phi).3 19. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Order R3-2002-0084 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 23 ■ Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 7.0 CONSULTED AGENCIES: [X] Environmental Health [X] Public Works [ ] Building Manager [ ] BCAG [ ] ALUC [X] LAFCo [X] Air Qual. Management Dist. [ ] City of Chico [ ] City of Biggs [ ] City of Gridley [ ] City of Oroville [ ] Town of Paradise [X] CA Department of Forestry [X] CalTrans (Traffic) [ ] Central Reg. Water Quality [ J Department of Conservation [X] CA Dept. of Fish and Game [X] Highway Patrol [ ] Army Corps of Engineers [ ] US Fish & Wldlife Service [X] Agricultural Commissioner [X] Butte Co. Farm Bureau [X] Durham Unified School [ ] Feather River Rec. Dist. Dist. [ ] El Medio Fire Dept. [ ] OWID [ ] LOAPUD [X] PG&E [X] Pacific Bell [X] [ J [X] County Assessor K:\PROJECTS\GPA\GUNN\gunn Initial Study.doe ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 24 ■ 0 • Project Name: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit File # MUP03-07 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION INTO PROPOSED PROJECT: I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Clayton Gunn Tentative Parcel Map application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. Me hereby modify the application on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. ; 1 - Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ Planning Division ■ Page 25 ■ July 21, 2003 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will be held on August 14, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, at 9:30 a.m. regarding the following item In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for the following project: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MINOR USE PERIT Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural — 5 acre parcels). The property is located on the west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham Dayton Highway, in the Durham area. APN 040- 200-023 (CS) (MUP 03-07) The initial study for the project identifies potentially significant effects, but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Therefore, Planning Division staff is recommending a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project are on file for public review starting, July 24, 2003, through August 13, 2003, at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. All interested persons are invited to review the document. Written comments will be accepted by the. Planning Division at the above address. If you challenge either the Mitigated Negative Declaration or the Use Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Division at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this project, please contact Craig Sanders, project planner, at the Butte County Planning Division at (530) 538-7603. YVONNE CHRISTOPHER, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, July 24, 2003 o�U7'TFo . o 0 INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM ° 0 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT oo�,N�y ,ow,cwoy �t�'� TO: CRAIG SANDERS FROM: STUART EDELL, MANAGER, LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION .-x6r PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: STANFORD OAKS WINERY, AP 040-200-013, MUP 03-07 DATE: JULY 17, 2003 We have been reviewing the above referenced project and have some concerns with respect to potential 200 person events and traffic safety, especially at the intersection of Durham Dayton Highway and Stanford Lane. Event traffic normally is more concentrated than local traffic and has less knowledge of neighborhood traffic patterns. The 85th percentile speed for Durham Dayton Highway is 51.3 mph based upon our 2002 traffic study east of this intersection. The safe stopping sight distance at this unlit intersection, is constrained by the vertical curve of the bridge over Butte Creek to the east and the horizontal curve to the west and is not adequate for the current 85th percentile speeds. Minimum improvements for traffic safety, related to these events, would be as follows: 1. Dedicated left turn pockets be constructed on Durham Dayton Highway and Stanford Lane. It appears, however that the bridge section of Durham Dayton Highway is inadequate for construction of a left turn pocket and still provide for pedestrian and traffic safety. 2. Installation of a street light; with a requirement that payment for energy and maintenance cost be part of the Use Permit, at the intersection of Durham Dayton Highway and Stanford Lane. 3. Special event signs and appropriate traffic control individuals be posted, during the events, by the applicant, noting turning and stopped vehicle warnings. 4. The applicant shall also assure that safe stopping sight distance be provided for the driveway entrance since the occurrence of special events will have the driveway entrance functioning as a roadway intersection. Based upon the inability to meet the traffic safety requirements of condition 1 above, we cannot recommend approval of this project. cc: Mike Crump, Director of Public Works (File 300) 4W DEPARTMENT OF ' VELOPMENT SERVICES .PLANNING DIVISION Envir&M*iHealfh 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 DEC 012002 7 County Center brise Orovige, Cs DEC 0 4 1, TO: Environmental Health BUT E FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division COU TY SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application JUL t 2003 APPLICANT,,�Sfe'phen Gule, Minor Use Permit - M 03=07 DATE: December 2, 2002 REVEL®'MENT The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002.,_please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: F] Planning Manager F-1 Development Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area atti9345 "A" Stanford Lane/Identified as AP -040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM BUTTE COUNTY TO: Development Services, Planning Division FROM: Clifford Bottenfield, Jr., Supervisor, Environmental Health SUBJECT: Minor Use Permit Conditions DATE: July 15, 2003 APPLICANT: Stephen Gale DATE: 12-2-02 AGENT: John C. Anderson APN: 040-200-013 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery Items below are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS 1. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for onsite sewage disposal. 2. Meet Butte County Environmental Health Department requirements for the provision of drinking water. 3. - Sewage System and drinking water systems must be installed under county permit. 4. Meet all applicable requirements of the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. 5. Meet all applicable requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. TUgl/planningcomments/gatemup03O7 3 , May 30 03 09:27a Dev Svcs & Env Health 530 538-7785 p.l 2-2 rv. - LETTER AND MEMORANDUM To: Craig Sanders, Butte County Department of Development Services -Planning Division From: Tom LousWne, Butte County Environmental Health Subject: Information Needed in Order to Condition Project Date: April 8, 2003 Project Description: Minor Use Permit MUP 03-07, Stanford Lane Applicant: Stephan Gale AP# 040-200-013 The above application was received and reviewed. A request for additional information was requested in a Letter and Memorandum dated December 16, 2002. There still remains insufficient information to determine appropriate conditions with respect to codes and standards that are the responsibility of Environmental Health. Please incorporate the following requested information into the letter to the applicant regarding incomplete application: 1. Our records indicate a permitted septic system for the main house only, and a building clearance for the pool. Unpetmitted development includes (no records of clearance or septic permits for) the indicated duplex, cabana, workroom, and structure titled "tree house", which are shown on the site plan as having septic systems. 2. In order to assess and subsequently process the Minor Use Permit application, we will need the following: /a. Scale floor plans for the winery sbvcWres. The plan should show areas for processing, public occupancy, tasting rooms and rest rooms. b. A schematic layout of the wine processing areas, complete with equipment designation and appurtenant plumbing fixtures. c. A detailed description of the grape processing and wine production including bottling, packaging, and proposed onsite consumption by the public. d. Estimated waste flow from the wine production including waste from the rendering and product processing, bottle washing, equipment and process cleaning, and any other waste -water creating activity. e. The number of employees and estimated number of visitorstday. number of days/mo. f. A report of the well yield, and the potability of the water for the existing well, which is indicated as the water source toe the winery. The applicant or representative is encouraged to contact the Environmental Health Division to provide the above information. Recommended Conditions of Approval or other recommendations will be completed when the application is complete. Please direct inquiries or project information to me at the Chico office Cc: Land Development • • To: Tom Loushine, Butte County Environmental Health Craig Sanders, Butte County Department of Development Services -Planning Division From: Stephen Gale AP# 040-200-013 Subject: Information Needed in Order to Condition Project Date: June 26, 2003 Project Description: Minor Use Permit MUP 03-07, Stanford Lane Applicant: Stephen Gale AP# 040-200-013 Listed below are the answers to the questions in the Letter and Memorandum from Tom Loushine on April 8, 2003. FA All existing structures (duplex, cabana, workroom, and tree house) were in place when I bought the property in 1982. a. The attached scale floor plans for the winery structures show the areas for processing, public occupancy, tasting rooms and rest rooms. b. The attached plans show the schematic layout of the wine processing areas, complete with equipment designation and appurtenant plumbing fixtures. c. Please see the attached "Description of Winery Practices". d. Please see Exhibit A for estimated waste flow from the wine production. e. There will be no employees and the estimated number of visitors per day is ten and number of days per month is twelve or three days per week per instructions in the Ordinance No. 3815 f. Please -see attached report from Durham Pump. Sincerely, h, Stephen Gale 9345A Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 530-891-1264 4 14 COVERED WINE TAST114G PATIO SCALE 1/8'=1' TO HANDICAPPED PARKING AS SHOWN itl. < ON ARCHITECTS PLANS o4 0 A Iy FERMENTATI TANK 500 4A GALLONS GI VANE AGING IN WOODEN BARRELS (50KCALLONS) GRAPE SETTLING CRUSHER TANK 500 L GALLONS INE G SIDEWALK TO CONNECT ----W TO EXISTING PATIO PRODUCTION & VISITING AREA �—SINKS BOTTLING 6 MACHINE A. I` 4 4 4 WASTES TO FLOW TO 1500 GALLON DOSING TANK W/ EXPOSED TRAFFIC RATED LIDS, FOR FACILITIES TO USE EASY PUMPING AND REMOVAL (WASTE EXISTING REST ROOMS WATER TO BE USED AS IRRIGATION WATER (SEE ARCHITECT'S FOR THE VINEYARD AND PUMPED WHEN PLANS) IRRIGATION IS NOT FEASIBLE) STEVE EVE GALE BUILDING LAYOUT STANFORD LANE STANFORD OAKS WINERY DURHAM, CALIFORNIA 'Job Mr nbwScabTDote.: 6-23-M MOM -L Of -L Stanford Oaks Winery Description of winery practices From the crusher to the bottle we embrace "old world" styles of winemaking. All steps taken use very little water, a maximum of 500 gallons of wastewater per 24 hours. Below is a step-by-step list of our practices used to process grapes to wine. 1) After reaching optimum sugar and acid levels the grapes are harvested and crushed/stemmed into open top tanks and left for up to 10 days. 2) After primary fermentation is complete juice/pulp is pressed and aged in oak barrels for up to six months. 3) Upon completion of fermentation barrels are racked to complete filtration via gravity. 4) And of course the final step is bottling and completing the ageing process for up to one year before consuming. Apr 23 03 10:47a Chad L. Wemple 899097 p,1 Exhibit' A I mono With a target of 2A,889 cases in sales annually facility in Santa Rosa. The production of crushing a site will e limited to 300 crush Year for the purposes of demonstration. All other cases per off the premises and out of the coon grapes will be crushed and processed Purpose of this is to decrease the total amount of ed m for, aging and marketing. The generated by the p y wastewater. The maximum wastewater winery o erations in an 24-hour period would not exceed 500 gallons. The reason for this o that we want to maintain a Negotioant boutique winery look and in doing so need to avoid an unsightly settling pond needed for large production. • P.O. Box 60 2313 Durham -Dayton Highway Durham, California 95938 530-891-4821 tel 530-8910613 fax SOLD TO: GALE, STEVE 9345A STANFORD LANE DURHAM CONFIRM TO: ** *** INVOICE ******- PAGE: I INVOICE NUMBER: 007036,E—IN INVOICE DATE: 04/17/03 ORDER NUMBER: ORDER DATE: SALESPERSON: KEVIN O' 4..,iHEA CUSTOMER NO: 09-0012975 SHIP TO: GALE, STEVE CA 95938 9345A STANFORD LANE DURHAM CA 95938 JOD NAME: .USTOME R P.O. SHIP VIA TERMS NET 10TH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B/O ORD SHIP ITEM NO. PRICE AMOUNT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04-09-03—SERVICE CALL—PERFORM A GPM TEST ON THE CUSTOMER'S RUMP SYSTEM. FOUND THE SYSTEM DELIVERS 60 GALLONS PER MINUTE OPEN FLOW. SERVICE LABOR—NO CHARGE .00 /SERV I!= NET INVOICE: TAXABLE: NON—TAXABLE: .000/ DISCOUNT: TAXABLE FRGHT: SALES TAX: INVOICE TOTAL: i BUTTE COUNTY APR 1 12003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LETTER AND MEMORANDUM To: Craig Sanders, Butte County Department of Development Services -Planning Division From: Tom Loushine, Butte County Environmental Health Subject: Information Needed in Order to Condition Project Date: April 8, 2003 Project Description: Minor Use Permit MUP 03-07, Stanford Lane Applicant: Stephan Gale AP# 040-200-013 The above application was received and reviewed. A request for additional information was requested in a Letter and Memorandum dated December 16, 2002. There still remains insufficient information to determine appropriate conditions with respect to codes and standards that are the responsibility of Environmental Health. Please incorporate the following requested information into the letter to the applicant regarding incomplete application: 1. Our records indicate a permitted septic system for the main house only, and a building clearance for the pool. Unpermitted development includes (no records of clearance or septic permits for) the indicated duplex, cabana, workroom, and structure titled "tree house", which are shown on the site plan as having septic systems. 2. In order to assess and, subsequently process the Minor Use Permit application, we will need the following: a. Scale floor plans for the winery structures. The plan should show areas for processing, public occupancy, tasting rooms and rest rooms. b. A schematic layout of the wine processing areas, complete with equipment designation and appurtenant plumbing fixtures. c. A detailed description of the grape processing and wine production including bottling, packaging, and proposed onsite consumption by the public. d. Estimated waste flow from the wine production including waste from the rendering and product processing, bottle washing, equipment and process cleaning, and any other waste -water creating activity.. e. The number of employees and estimated number of visitors/day, number of days/mo. f.. A report of the well yield, and the potability of the water for the existing well, which is indicated as the water source toe the winery. The applicant or representative is encouraged to contact the Environmental Health Division -to provide the above information. Recommended Conditions of Approval or other recommendations will be completed when the application is complete. . Please direct inquiries or project information to me at the Chico office Cc: Land Development 5/6/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 2:01 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Selection Criteria Applicant (hand sel Include: MUP 03-07 Billable Nickname MUP 03-07 11981 Full Name Stephen Gale Address 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham CA 95938 Phone 1 (530) 891-1264 Phone 2 Phone 3 Phone 4 In Ref To Fees Arrg. By billing value on each slip Expense Arrg. By billing value on each slip Tax Profile Exempt Last bill 11/14/2002 Last charge 4/8/2003 Last payment 11/14/2002 Amount $36.00 Date Employee ID Task 12/2/2002 Diane L. 41620 C Clerical TS 12/2/2002 Roni Thornton 41640 C Clerical Set up 12/5/2002 Larry P. 41638 P Processing 1/15/2003 Craig S. 42098 P CIRCULATION 1/17/2003 Craig S. 42126 203 Site visit 1/28/2003 Craig S. 42198 P file Comments bb�µGSd Rate Hours Markup % DNB Time 34.00 0.25 0.25 34.00 2.00 59.00 1.25 59.00 0.25 59.00 1.00 59.00 0.25 Page 1 Amount Total DNB Amt 8.50 No Charge 8.50 68.00 Billable 73.75 Billable 14.75 Billable 59.00 Billable 14.75 Billable Total of billable expense slips $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $746.50 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $746.50 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $746.50 Accounts Receivables DatelID Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Deposit - Receipt #20852 ($350.00) 1996 5/6/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 2:01 PM Pre -bill Worksheet Page 2 MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) Date Employee Rate Hours Amount Total ID Task Markup % DNB Time DNB Amt 1/31/2003 Craig S. 59.00 5.00 295.00 Billable 42240 104 Type initial study 2/5/2003 Craig S. 59.00 2.75 162.25 Billable 42274 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 3/26/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.25 14.75 Billable 42788 CEQA Initial studies, mitigations, negative declarations and EIRs-includes analysis 4/8/2003 Craig S. 59.00 0.75 44.25 Billable 42903 Meetings Arranging and attending meetings (does not incl. public hearings) TOTAL Billable Fees 13.50 $746.50 No Charge 0.25 $8.50 Total of billable expense slips $0.00 Calculation of Fees and Costs Amount Total Fees Bill Arrangement: Slips By billing value on each slip. Total of billable time slips $746.50 Total of Fees (Time Charges) $746.50 Total of Costs (Expense Charges) $0.00 Total new charges $746.50 Accounts Receivables DatelID Type Description 11/14/2002 CRED Deposit - Receipt #20852 ($350.00) 1996 5/6/2003 Butte County Department of Development Services 2:01 PM Pre -bill Worksheet MUP 03-07:Stephen Gale (continued) 11/14/2002 INV Payment-NOD/NOE Filing Fee 2316 Receipt 20852 11/14/2002 PAY . Payment 2317 Total Accounts Receivable New Balance Current Unapplied Total New Balance Page 3 Amount Total $36.00 ($36.00) ($350.00) $746.50 ($350.00) $396.50 �S Butte County DeparanenlfDevelopment Services Administration - AR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538.7601 Telephone Minor Use;Permit Applicant: Stephen Gale 9345 "A" Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 Deposit Date: - November 14..2002 - Receipt: 20852 Payment: November 14, 2002 Receipt: 20852 . DEVELOPMENT SERVICES - PLANNING Deposit NOD/NOE Filing Fee File: MUP'03-07 APN: Date: May 6;2003 $ 350:00 $ 36.00 I N V 0 1 C E MUP 03.07 Planning charges are captured in arrears. At the date of this invoice, the following charges had been recorded and entered into our billing program. There may be additional charges in the processing of your application that have not yet been entered into the billing program, and are not reflected on this invoice. Charges entered after this invoice date will be reflected on subsequent billings. At the time all charges are entered and billed, you will receive a FINAL INVOICE. The following charges have been applied to the processing of your application: Professional Planner $604.75> Mapping 73.75 Clerical - 68.00` TOTAL $ 746.50 The costs thus far In processing your application have exceeded the deposited or paid amount by: $ 396.50 Additional Deposit Required to continue processing $ 350.00 Butte County Code 3-44 Hourly fees; deposits; billing procedures. County code requires when the initial deposited funds are depleted to an amount equal to 25% of the original deposit, no processing of the application will occur until the applicant deposits sufficient funds to restore a balance equal to the amount of the initial deposit, or a lesser amount as determined by the Director of Development Services. In the event the applicant does not provide sufficient funds to continue processing an application, the application will be denied. Make checks payable to: Butte County Treasurer and send it to us at the above address. Should you have any questions, please call Accounts Receivable from 8:00 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. AMOUNT DUE ANDPAYABLE BY , $ 746 50 Ma : 20 2003 Biller. CS_. �: ,r Y s. K TISCAL ADMIN\BILLING LETTERS\SENT BILLINGS\050603 Inv Gale MUP 03-07.xls j I ORDINANCE NO. 3815 1 I ANT ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE i 2 3 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, under 4 and pursuant to Section 24.25.40 of the Butte County Code of said County, ORDAINS, as 5 follows: 6 Section 1. Section 24-263 of the Butte County Code is hereby added in its ? entirety to read as follows: 8 9 §24-263 WINERIES 10 A. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this section is to establish policies, procedures, and standards applicable to the development and operation of wineries. The goals 11 of this section are to: (i) encourage the establishment of wineries as a viable 12 economic activity in Butte County; (ii) encourage the activities associated with wineries throughout the state that have enabled wineries to prosper, including 13 ' providing wine tasting for visitors and special events on site; (iii) encourage the i tourism industry in Butte County by providing an additional destination activity; 14 j (iv) establish standards for the operation of wineries that will protect neighboring properties and the environment in general, and are appropriate based on the size 15 and character of the winery operation under review; and (v) encourage agricultural 16 activities associated with the wine industry. 17 I B. applicability: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all facilities operated for the purpose of production of wine from grape or other products, including 18 facilities providing space and accommodation for wine tasting and special events. 19 20 C. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply in connection with the interpretation and application of this Section: 21! (1) Small winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing 7,500 22 or fewer cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. 23 (2) Large winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing less 24 than 15,000 cases, and more than 7,500 cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. 25 26 1 0 I- ! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (3) Very large winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing 15,000 or more cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. (4) Winery -industrial: A winery located on a parcel that has no active on-site wine grape production. D. Permitting, Requirements: All wineries are subject to the following land use permitting requirements in - specified zone districts, in addition to all applicable requirements of this Chapter. Zone District Small Winery- Large Winery- Very Large Winery - Minimum Commercial Commercial Winery- Industrial acreage is 3 Less than Less than Commercial acres except for 7,501 cases per 15,000 cases Unlimited cases Industrial year per year per year A-5 to A-160 AP MUP. UP UP AR to AR -10 AP MUP UP UP FR -1 to FR -160 AP MUP UP UP MR AP MUP UP UP SR to SR -5 AP MUP UP UP TM -1 to TM -160 AP MUP UP UP SH AP MUP UP UP U AP MUP UP UP AP=Admuustrative Permit MUY=Minor use rermit Ur=USU raiiiut E. Small Winery -Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section .E-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section E-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. (1) Requirements: (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) The parcel shall be licensed by State of California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, license Type 02 "Winegrower." (c) The premises shall have a minimum parcel size of 3 acres. (d) If the winery is accessed only via a private road, an Administrative Permit is required, and shall require the applicant to pay its fair share of the road maintenance costs. i 1 (e) Landowner shall provide the Department of Development Services with copies of its wine production reports submitted to the Bureau of 2 ol, Tobacco and Firearms or other similar agency. 3 (2) Alloxved U 4 a Growing and harvesting grapes and other products suitable for wine processing and bottling of grapes and grape products produced on 5 the premises up to 7,500 cases per year. (b) Processing and bottling of grapes and grape productsrp oduced off 6 the winery premises up to 7,500 cases per dear. 7 (c) Sale of wine for consumption off premises whether grown or produced on premises or off. 8 (d) Sale of merchandise related to wine or the winery. (e) Wine tasting involving serving wine to the public for the purpose of 9 sampling the wine, subject to the following restrictions: (i) Wine tasting shall be limited to three days per week. 10 (ii) No buses or tour vans shall be allowed. 11 (iii) Notwithstanding Section 24-240 Parking Regulations a minimum of four and a maximum of 10 paved or unpaved 12 parking areas shall be provided in addition to any required for the handicapped pursuant to Section 11-29B of the 13 California Building Code. Covered and garage parking shall not count towards the total maximum parking. No on -street 14 parking shall be allowed. 15 (iv) Use of outdoor amplified music shall be prohibited. (v) Sanitary facilities and domestic water shall be provided 16 pursuant to the requirements of environmental health department. 17 F. Large Winery -Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the 18 requirements specified in Section F-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses 19 described in Section F-2,. in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. 20 (1) Requirements: 21 (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) Landowner shall comply with all the requirements of Small Winery - 22 Commercial Facilities. 23 (2) qa llowed Uses: 24 uses llowed in the Small Winery -Commercial Facility numbered E-2 (a) through 2 (d). 25 26 3 A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 0. (b) Wine tasting involving serving wine to the public for the purpose of sampling the wine, subject to the following restrictions: (i) Use of outdoor amplified music shall be prohibited. (ii) Sanitary facilities and domestic water shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of environmental health department. (iii) Notwithstanding Section 24-240 Parking Regulations, a minimum of four and a maximum of 20 paved or unpaved parking places are required in addition to any required for the handicapped pursuant to Section 11-29B of the California Building Code. Covered and garage parking spaces do not count towards to the total maximum parking place requirement. One parking place per employee is required. No on -street parking is allowed. (iv) Bus and van access is permitted provided that there shall be a minimum of seven car -sized parking places and adequate access to accommodate bus turning movements. . (c) Sit-down restaurant type food service is permitted with a separate Use Permit. (d) Special events such as weddings, dances, assemblies and craft fairs shall be allowed subject to the following restrictions. At special events the sale of non -wine related goods shall be permitted. (i) No such special events shall be permitted on land designated Orchard or Field Crop by the General Plan. (ii) Any such special event shall require a separate Minor Use Permit for the first event and an Administrative Permit for each subsequent similar event. The permit for the special event shall specify the following: (a) Specific date. (b) Specific hours of operation with a maximum of 12 hours per day. (c) No more than 200 people per event at any one time. (d) No more than 12 special events per calendar year are allowed. (e) Such other restrictions as Butte County may deem prudent. G. Very Large Winery -Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section G-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section G-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. a 4 el 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0' 0 (1) Requirements: (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) Landowner shall comply with all the requirements for a Large Winery -Commercial Facility. (2) Allowed Uses: (a) All uses allowed under the Large Winery -Commercial Facility. (b) Production of wine without quantity limitation. (c) Parking subject to Use Permit conditions. (d) Bus and van access subject to Use Permit conditions. (e) Unlimited number of special events. Such special event shall require a separate Minor Use Permit for the first event and an Administrative Permit for each subsequent similar event. The permit for the special event shall specify the following: (i) Specific date. (ii) Specific hours of operation.with a maximum of 12 hours per day. (iii) No more than 200 people per event at any one time. (iv) No more than 12 special events per calendar year are allowed. H. Winery -Industrial: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section H-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section H-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. (1) Requirements: Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (2) Allowed Uses: a) All uses allowed for the Very Large Winery -Commercial facility. b) Production of wine and grape juice from grapes exclusively produced off premises. I. Si age: (1) Signage in connection with the operation of any winery allowed in this Section shall be subject to review and approval as part of the permit review procedure required for such winery. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • 0 (2) Off-site signs for wineries may be permitted, provided that any such signage shall be permitted only in conjunction with the Administrative Permit, Minor Use Permit, or Use Permit, with appropriate conditions. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, on the 26thday of February , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Dolan, Houx, Yamaguchi and Chair Josiassen NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None UR JOSIASSEN, CHAIR County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: LAWRENCE ODLE, Interim Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By eputy Pursuant to Government Code Section 25124(c): Publication date - March 22, 2002 Effective date - April 21., 2002 LJ DEPARTMENT OF EVELOP PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 vorc. C0& Rp�oi,�ar� k(-2 ��cruaE% TO: Agricultural Commission FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division. SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: Fx� Planning Manager F—lbevelopment Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identified as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): Date: l? 6(a bZ_ DEPARTMENT OF *VELO PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 _ Cf`E. OwT 1 r rF ,ff� .� �-, Wil? i�� L. �_ O .- 0 0 0 _ 0 c - , 9 2002J,0 0 = = 0 O CpU PLANNING ui�fl1014 TO: California Department of Forestry FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. Iff-a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to. respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002. before the: F] Manager F-1 Development Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identified as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be .attached): By: l/1 Date: 12- J_ U 2.--, • BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR MINOR USE PERMIT 4x APPLICANT: Stephen Gale DATE: December 2, 2002 AGENT: John C. Anderson APN: 040-200-013 FILE #: MUP 03-07 PLANNER: Craig Sanders PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PLEASE CONTACT THE BUTTE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: H. FIRE PROTECTION 1. Construction, installation or development of structures or facilities on the parcels/lots shall comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations, (Public Resources Code 4290), and all other applicable State and County codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of application for improvement permits. 2. Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the beginning of building construction and maintained continuously thereafter. y— 3. Fire hydrant identification, reflector or post reflectors shall be installed acceptable to the County Fire Warden. 4. In lieu of a pressurized water system or water storage tank, payment of $200.00 per created parcel into the Battalion _ water tend fund, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. A pressurized community water system for fire protection is required. The specific locations and fire flow requirements shall be in accordance with the Fire Department specifications and to the satisfaction of the County Fire Warden. Average required hydrant spacing366feet, hydrant size 6 inches, and residual fire flow 2.jWWm. Submit plans to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to construction of facilities. 6. In lieu of hydrant installation, payment may be made into the hydrant fund at a cost of $1.72 per lineal foot of street frontage. The estimated fee amount is $ 7. Prior to recordation of the Map or application for a building permit, the applicant shall pay the then current fee for the West Chico Fire Station Fund. N 8. Provide an all weather access of at least 10 foot wide and with a vertical clearance of 15 feet that will accommodate a 40,000 pound fire apparatus to all structures. 7 County Center Drive - Oroville, California 95965 - 5301-538-7601 - FAX 530-538-7785 r' F DEPARTMENT OF RVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION LAFCo 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 DEC ® 5 2002 Oroville, California TO: LAFCo FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: F] Planning Manager F-1 Development Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identified as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): By: LS q0 ?c, IS V r, DEC 1 1 2002 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION -pate:— C 2 .. M' M O O a- Q d W r_ 4-o L } = +- c v o� • N O 72 N $"' o. O - O W O Z Vt a. E p } N N } l7 V1 -a 01 _. u u o>12,} C (V } d ; ^Y 4) rn i N• E 0 d y Q cn v)_ - C U a of O V N V - .. M. O � t o3i N U w 14 O d p at .. M' M O O a- Q d W r_ 4-o a s = +- c Q N H p0O N O 72 N $"' O _ W O Z Vt a. -0 .L �.9' } N o O . i N 1 C. C (hH O u E 4- V) d ; 2- -N 4) rn i `n � 4. -0 Y i.> 0 O y Q a of v1 O O o } v E s fl 14 O en to _ CL O' O O d a� d }O Vf •N O CY d t ? O 0 Q L O } i� L V U go_0 � u_ > > F .. V � Q vdi . V d to N a 4-- II. Ol = O to LU LU - } Z►7 >- z �' L }arc 4-0d Oe d N Fes. a N " -. .' L _°O NC . -- .•` O N0 } b L}L h '- CIA u =� • a1 i V N N > y L O -0 O +- a p L L N i d N O k L U O L 3 +" W O C N O O L ".~ 0" d y t E s y rj N O } O 4-- a O .1--1 ._ L =3 C O' d U O L C N L Ol ;SEA >"'M � QvaMQ ;� 2 E O .c c 00 . L Um O010 �-, cn 0 D_ W O_ M' U U ci O Z - U Q w U CL '0 CL ) O t\i1 O O 1D H M U 7 O _C i x Lu F� m H y> + d 0 0 ¢ O 01 M U °=Y. t°Ci t� Q D H o. o a 1�i A a DoH - - m M' M O O L O Q N 1� o O O 7 O Z Vt a. } O . i N Lc 3 2- -N 4) rn H c s` O XO J a of v1 O O - Oto fl d O en to _ CL O' O O d y O -0 i d Vf •N O CY d t ? O 0 Q L Z d NIL � u_ F V � Q vdi . V d to Ol = to LU LU - } Z►7 >- z 0 0 a 0 Oe O a Q v N m 1� 1 m DEPARTMENT OFDEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 TO: Public Works Director FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. . A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: FX]Planning Manager F� Development Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identified as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): ?v,66,e-, Cis:1444 A,-. rG'.�lC✓3 L. o+ C(C "r�S aL f / f c '. "i 11e_r:,A,_ 1 By.. L.%L>'1� f�v✓_s Cic "�.i:.rn%mss ���r'��1iv^� /�!'.�'�-'/ . BUTTE COIJNW PLA MNG t)l1ASIOA! zee z- G E C 0 2 2002 COUNTY QF BU `FE IANi ° OEVCLOPaArr I,T J)JV • 0 1. Developer shall provide all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs. 2. Deed to Butte County, in fee simple, 30 feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Stanford Lane. 3. J----'> to the recordation of the Final Map, obtain an encroachment permit and construct a standard S -18B road approach, in accordance with County Improvement Standards. Adequate sight distance at the intersection of access road and Stanford Lane shall be provided. 4. Prior to construction (building, parking, etc.) a plan for a permanent solution for drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. The drainage plans shall specify how drainage waters shall be detained on site and or conveyed to the nearest natural or publicly maintained drainage channel or facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. LETTER AND MEMORANDUM TO: Craig Sanders, Butte County Department of Development Services -Planning Division FROM: Tom Loushine, Butte County Environmental Health SUBJECT: More Information Needed in Order to Condition Project DATE: December 16, 2002 r Project Description: Minor Use Permit MUP 03-07, Stanford Lane APPLICANT: Stephan Gale AP# 040-200-013 The above application was received and reviewed. There is insufficient information available to determine appropriate conditions with respect to codes and standards that are the responsibility of Environmental Health. Please incorporate the following requested testing or information into the letter to the applicant regarding incomplete application: Please clarify what aspects of this parcel, with the various indicated structures and septic systems, will be involved in the winery. The applicant or representative is encouraged to contact Environmental Health at their earliest convenience to provide the above information. Recommended Conditions of Approval or other recommendations will be completed when the application is complete. Please direct inquiries or project information to me at the Chico office. TL/dd/land/9345stanford L&M cc: Land Development P.O. Box 60 V 2313Durham-Dayton Highway ~ 'Durham, California 95938 530-891-4821 tel 530-891-0613 fax SOLD TO: GALE,- 9345A STANFORD LANE DURHAM CONFIRM TO: INVO070362—IN lNVOICE DATE: G4/17/03 ORD ER NUMBER: ORDER DATE: SALESPERSON: KEVIN O'SHEA CUSTOMER NO: 09-0012975 SHIP TO: GALE, STEVE CA 95938 9345A STANFORD LANE DURHAM CA 95938 �|unER P.O. SHIP VIA JO8 NAME: NET 10TH B/O ORD SHIP ITEM NO~ ------------------------------- PRICE___ AMOUNT 04-09-03—SERVICE CALL—PERFORM A GPM TEST ON THE � ---------------- CUSTOMER'S PUMP SYSTEM. FOUND THE SYSTEM DELIVERS | 60 GALLONS PER MINUTE OPEN FLOW SERVICE LABOR—NO CHARGE /SERVIC Ar � U__�7 Fv. W NATURE \ NET INVOICE: TAXABLE: NON—TAXABLE- .0007. 1)ISC0UNT: TAXABLE FRGHT: SALES TAX: INVOICE TOTAL: .00 May 06 03 02:48p Rpr 23 03 10:47a Chad L. Wemple •. Exhibit A 8999097 0 With a target of 20,000 cases in sales annually we have elected to use a custom crush facility in Santa Rosa. The production of crushing on site will be limited to 300 cases per year for the purposes of demonstration. All other grapes will be crushed and processed Off the premises and out of the county, then trucked in for, aging and marketing_ The purpose of this is to decrease the total amount of wastewater. The maximum wastewater generated by the winery operations in any 24-hour period would not exceed 500 gallons. The reason for this is that we want to maintain a Negotioant boutique winery look and in doing so need to avoid an unsightly settling pond needed for large production. FROM : BUTTE COLLEGE ATHLETICS FAX NO. : 530 895 2260 Mar. 13 2003 10:11AM P2 Stanford Oaks Winery Description of winery practices From the crusher to the bottle we; urnhracc. `old world" styles of winemaking. All steps taken use very little water, a maxinuutt of SOO gallons of' wastewater per 24 hours. lielow is a step -by -iter list of our practices used to process grapes to wine. I) Alter reaching optimum sugar and acid levels the grapes are harvested and crushed/stemmed into open top tanks and left for up to 10 days. >) After primary Icrtnenta.tion is a)mplete juice/pulp is pressed and agedin oak barrels fibrrup to six Months 3) Upon completion of fermentation barrels are rtu:ked to complete filtration via gravity. 4) And of course the final step is bottling and completing the ageing process 1br up to one-year helbre consuming. Dist of Equipment: used for processing I ) crusher/stem uner 2) Open top tanks 3) Wine/must pump and hose 4) Press 5) Barrels G) Air lock 7) Lab / analyzing equipment 8) Bottler 9) Corker All equipment listed must he washed with high pressure: steamer and sanilirer before and after each use. An average day working in the winery would consume less than 100 gallons with n maximum day using no more than 500 gallons. FROM : BUTTE COLLEGE ATHLETICS FAX NO. 530 895 2260 Mar. 13 2003 10:10AM P1 .C. eAV lei Q- 9 1-� 0W'f win rl✓ % ll,�� rl��,e._.� td��' ►�z �. know�,,� '� �� �� eniave / ��� C,YI all 1i C -`j .-R- K 17 c % n o vJ oh BUTTE COLLEGE PHYSICAL EDUCATION MAKE-UP CARD Students Name: Class Enrolled In: *Instructor's Signature for Enrolled Class: Instructor's Signature for Make -Up Class: *Make -ups are only allowed in various sections of the same course. Instructor, your signature verifies enrollment and that the insurance waiver packet has been completed for your course. 5/14/01 Stanford Oaks Winery Description of winery practices From the crusher to the bottle we embrace "old world" styles of winemaking. All steps taken use very little water, a maximum of 500 gallons of wastewater per 24 hours. Below is a step-by-step list of our practices used to process grapes to wine. 1) After reaching optimum sugar and acid levels the grapes are harvested and crushed/stemmed into open top tanks and left for up to 10 days. 2) After primary fermentation is complete juice/pulp is pressed and aged in oak barrels for up to six months. 3) Upon completion of fermentation barrels are racked to complete filtration via gravity. 4) 'And of course the final step is bottling and completing the ageing process for up to one year before consuming. 2525 Dominic Drive, Suite J Chico, CA 95928 (530)891-2882 (530)891-2878 Fax January 9, 2003 Craig Sanders, Butte County Department of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Minor Use Permit 03-07 - Stephen Gale Dear Mr. Sanders: W. James Wagoner Air Pollution Control Officer Robert McLaughlin Asst. Air Pollution Control Officer The District has reviewed the request for comments for a minor use permit to establish a large winery at 9345 Stanford Lane in. Durham. Based on the information submitted the District recommends incorporating. the following mitigation measures to reduce the projects short-term and long-term operational impact on local and regional air quality. Feasible standard mitigation measures, which may include the following: 1. Use adequate fugitive dust control measures for all construction activities during all phases of construction. 2. Provide Energy-efficient lighting and process systems, such as water heaters, furnaces, and boiler units. 3. Use alternatives to open burning of vegetative material on the project site. 4. Use temporary traffic control as appropriate during all phases of construction. 5. Design streets to maximize pedestrian access to transit stops where feasible. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project. If you have any questions, please contact the District at 891-2882. Sincerely,( Gail Williams Air Quality Planner PECEIVEi File No 3452 JAS! 13 20 BUTM Cou:•-Iy t:\apps_files�eiil upwin-y.doc DMLop\ -F SERVICES :r i. i I �IORDINANCE NO. 3815 1 I AN ORDNANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE i 2 3 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, under 4 and pursuant to Section 24.25.40 of the Butte County Code of said County, ORDAINS, as 5 follows: 6 Section 1. Section 24-263 of the Butte County Code is hereby added in its 7 entirety to read as follows: 8 9 §24-263 WINERIES i 10 A. Purpose and Intent: The purpose of this section is to establish policies, procedures, and standards applicable to the development and operation of wineries. The goals 11 of this section are to: (i) encourage the establishment of wineries as a viable economic activity in Butte County; (ii) encourage the activities associated with 12 i wineries throughout the state that have enabled wineries to prosper, including 13 ' providing wine tasting for visitors and special events on site; (iii) encourage the tourism industry in Butte County by providing an additional destination activity; 14 j (iv) establish standards for the operation of wineries that will protect neighboring properties and the environment in general, and are appropriate based on the size 15 and character of the winery operation under review; and (v) encourage agricultural 16 I activities associated with the wine industry. 17 I B. Applicability: The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all facilities operated for the purpose of production of wine from grape or other products, including 18 facilities providing space and accommodation. for wine tasting and special events. 19 i C. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply in connection with the 20 interpretation and application of this Section: 21� (1) Small winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing 7,500 22 or fewer cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. 23 (2) Large winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing less 24 than 15,000 cases, and more than 7,500 cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. 25 26 1 i E4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 EV -2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (3) Very large winery -commercial facilities: A commercial winery producing 15,000 or more cases of wine per year with on-site wine grape production. (4) Winery -industrial: A winery located on a parcel that has no active on-site wine grape production. D. Permitting Reguuirements: All wineries are subject to the following land use permitting requirements in specified zone districts, in addition to all applicable requirements of this Chapter. Zone District Small Winery- Large Winery- Very Large Winery - Minimum Commercial Commercial Winery- Industrial acreage is 3 Less than Less than Commercial acres except for 7,501 cases per 15,000 cases Unlimited cases Industrial year per year per year A-5 to A-160 AP MUP. UP UP AR to AR -10 AP MUP UP UP FR -1 to FR -160 AP MUP UP UP MR AP MUP UP UP SR to SR -5 AP MUP UP UP TM -1 to TM -160 AP MUP UP UP SH AP MUP UP UP U AP MUP UP UP AP=Administrative Permit MUP=Minor use rermit ur=usu rcriiu► E. Small Winery -.Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section E-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section E-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. (1) Requirements: (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) The parcel shall be licensed by State of California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, license Type 02 "Winegrower." (c) The premises shall have a minimum parcel size of 3 acres. (d) If the winery is accessed only via a private road, an Administrative Permit is required, and shall require the applicant to pay its fair share of the road maintenance costs. 2 ri i 1 (e) Landowner shall provide the Department of Development Services with copies of its wine production reports submitted to the Bureau of 2 Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or other similar agency. 3 (2) Allowed Uses: 4 (a) Growing and harvesting grapes and other products suitable for wine. processing and bottling of grapes and grape products produced on 5 the premises up to 7,500 cases per year. (b) Processing and bottling of grapes and grape products produced off 6 the winery premises up to 7,500 cases per year. 7 (c) Sale of wine for consumption off premises whether grown or produced on premises or off. 8 (d) Sale of merchandise related to wine or -the winery. (e) Wine tasting involving serving wine to the public for the purpose of 9 sampling the wine, subject to the following restrictions: (i) Wine tasting shall be limited to three days per week. 10 (ii) .No buses or tour vans shall be allowed. 11 (iii) Notwithstanding Section 24-240 Parking Regulations a minimum of four and a maximum of 10 paved or unpaved 12 parking areas shall be provided in addition to any required for the handicapped pursuant to Section 11-29B of the 13 California Building Code. Covered and garage parking shall not count towards the total maximum parking. No on -street 14 parking shall be allowed. 15 (iv) Use of outdoor amplified music shall be prohibited. (v) Sanitary facilities and domestic water shall be provided 16 pursuant to the requirements of environmental health department. 17 F. Large Winery -Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the 18 requirements specified in Section F-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses 19 described in Section F-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. 20 (1) Requirements: 21 (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) Landowner shall comply with all the requirements of Small Winery - 22 Commercial Facilities. 23 (2) Allowed Uses: 24 (a) All uses allowed in the Small Winery -Commercial Facility numbered E-2 (a) through 2 (d). 25 26 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (b) Wine tasting involving serving wine to the public for the purpose of sampling the wine, subject to the following restrictions: (i) Use of outdoor amplified music shall be prohibited. (ii) Sanitary facilities and domestic water shall be provided pursuant to the requirements of environmental health department. (iii) Notwithstanding Section 24-240 Parking Regulations, a minimum of four and a maximum of 20 paved or. unpaved parking places are required in addition to any required for the handicapped pursuant to 'Section 11-29B of the California Building Code. Covered and garage parking spaces do not count towards to the total maximum parking place requirement. One parking place per employee is required. No on -street parking is allowed. (iv) Bus and van access is permitted provided that there shall be a minimum of seven car -sized parking places and adequate access to accommodate bus turning movements. (c) Sit-down restaurant type food service is permitted with a separate Use Permit. (d) Special events such as weddings, dances, assemblies and craft fairs shall be allowed subject to the following restrictions. At special events the sale of non -wine related goods shall be permitted. (i) No such special events shall be permitted on land designated Orchard or Field Crop by the General Plan. (ii) Any such special event shall require a separate Minor Use Permit for the first event and an Administrative Permit for each subsequent similar event. The permit for the special event shall specify the following: (a) Specific date. (b) Specific hours of operation with a maximum of 12 hours per day. (c) No more than 200 people per event at any one time. (d) No more than 12 special events per calendar year are allowed. (e) Such other restrictions as Butte County may deem prudent. G. Very Large Winery -Commercial Facilities: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section G-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section G-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel 4 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • • (1) Requirements: (a) Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (b) Landowner shall comply with all the requirements for a Large Winery -Commercial Facility. (2) Allowed Uses: (a) All uses allowed under the Large Winery -Commercial Facility. (b) Production of wine without quantity limitation. (c) Parking subject to Use Permit conditions. (d) Bus and van'access subject to Use Permit conditions. (e) Unlimited number of special events. Such special event shall require a separate Minor Use Permit for the first event and : an Administrative Permit for each subsequent similar event. The permit for the special event shall specify the following: (i) Specific date. (ii) Specific hours of operation with a maximum of 12 hours per day. (iii) No more than 200 people per event at any one time. (iv) No more than 12 special events per calendar year are allowed. H. Winery -Industrial: Provided that a parcel meets the requirements specified in Section H-1 below, the parcel shall be entitled to the uses described in Section H-2, in addition to any other uses allowed under the zoning which applies to the parcel. (1) Requirements: Landowner shall obtain the permit specified in Section D above. (2) Allowed Uses: a) All uses allowed for the Very Large Winery -Commercial facility. b) Production of wine and grape juice from grapes exclusively produced off premises. I. Signage: (1) Signage in connection with the operation of any winery allowed in this Section shall be subject to review and approval as part of the permit review procedure required for such winery. 5 n i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (2) Off-site signs for wineries may be permitted, provided that any such signage shall be permitted only in conjunction with the Administrative Permit, Minor Use Permit, or Use Permit, with appropriate conditions. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Chico Enterprise Record, a newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, on the 26th day of February , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Beeler, Dolan, Houx, Yamaguchi and Chair Josiassen NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None UR JOSIASSEN, CHAIR County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: LAWRENCE ODLE, Interim Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By eputy Pursuant to Government Code Section 25124(c): Publication date - March 22, 2002 Effective date - April 21., 2002 11 Utilisation schemes for winery#idues and reducing pollution from wOwater Page 1 of 2 ss lborne Press InfoIM&M kr the hum6or - Presse info Utilisation schemes for winery residues and reducing pollution from wastewater July/August What should be done with the grape pomace, stillage and other winery and distillery residues? Making wine from grapes uses 70 2002 to 75% of the harvested matter. Researchers at INRA are developing processes for treating residues to reduce their impact In brief on the environment and to reduce the harmful odours. They are investigating utilisation schemes whereby these residues are used as raw material for the extraction and synthesis of constituents with a high added value. A biological reactor to depollute winery waste A biological depollution process has been developed by INRA1 to treat the effluents from wineries. The treatment is carried out on a discontinuous sequential mode (SBR process), whereby effluents are stored then treated in a biological reactor at two periods of the year. A treatment unit was set up in 1994 at the Domaine du Mouton estate, near Narbonne to treat all the wastewater. The SBR process enables an entirely efficient purification of wastewater. Because of its simple automation and limited cost, this process seems well -adapted to depolluting winery wastewater. An expertise licence has-been signed with the Ateliers d'Occitanie in Narbonne which commercialises the SBR process. Limiting odours Eliminating effluents by natural evaporation (evaporation ponds), which is the solution which has been widely adopted in the wine sector (distilleries, wineries), often causes increasingly unpleasant odours, as vineyard zones are very often tourist regions. In response to requests by the wine -making industry, two programmes have been conducted by INRA2 in Pech Rouge to study and control the fermentations which occur during the storage of effluents. Recovering the alcohol and purifying the water Ethanol remains the main component present in wine effluents. It makes up 90% of the polluting load, sometimes with residual sugars. INRA2 has developed a new treatment which consists in transforming the sugars into ethanol by fermentation; then all the, ethanol is extracted and recovered using an original procedure combining distillation and thermal concentration to obtain highly purified water. This process was patented in 1998 by INRA, with an industrial partner. After two years of trials, it has been validated by the professional organisations. Extracting and producing high added value constituents At the same time, INRA2 is studying the potential for putting these residues to optimum use. This involves on the one hand extraction, from by-products and distillery residues, molecules of industrial interest: anthocyanin colourings, polyphenolic compounds, volatile compounds (aromas). Furthermore, the researchers are studying the microbiological processes for the production of molecules of industrial interest (propionic acid, volatile compounds, etc.) from http://www.inra.fr/presse/juilletO2/gb/nb7.htm 1/31/2003 Utilisation schemes for winerywidues and reducing pollution from wWater Page 2 of 2 constituents of stillage and by-products of distilleries. (1) Contact: Michel Torrijos, tel: 04 68 42 51 85, tordios ensam.inra.fr Environmental Biotechnology Research Unit, Microbiology Department and Environment and Agronomy Department, Montpellier Research Centre (2) Contact: Andre Bories, tel: 04-68-49-44-06, bories(a)-ensam.inra.fr Pech Rouge Experimental Unit, Plant Product Processing Department, Montpellier Research Centre pressR�c►trne,, Pe+i:s I>fv; InJux forth; numbe Service de Presse et Relations Publiques 147, rue de I'Universit6 - 75338 Paris cedex 07 T61: 0142 75 9169 Fax: 0142 75 92 05 Mise en ligne : le 30/09/2002 URL: http://www.inra.fr/PRESSE/J*uillet02/gb/nb7.htm Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique Copyright © 2002 Tous droits r6serv6s hq://www.inra.fr/presse/J*uillet02/gb/nb7.htm 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine • • Page 1 of 6 The UNEP Working Group for Cleaner Production in the Food Industry Phone: +61 7 3365 1545 Fax: +61 7 3365 6083 Email_p prasadaDuq edu au Home What is CP About Us CP Case Studies CP Publications CP News & Events CP Key Tips CP Web Links Life Cycle Assessment Fact Sheet 5: Food Manufacturing Series Breweries and Wine Manufactures Cleaner Production is having a major impact on the brewing and wine industry. Today's breweries are looking toward zero discharges. For instance, the Asahi brewery group in Japan has succeeded in.total reuse and recovery of all solids and is working on liquid and air discharges. Beer is produced from malt (dried and germinated barley), hops, yeast and water. Malt is first bruised then mashed with warm water. During the mashing process, starches and protein compounds are converted to soluble sugars and the liquid wort produced is separated from residual insoluble material (grain). Hops are then added and the wort is boiled in kettles. After cooling, yeast is added to commence the fermentation process. After the fermentation process the yeast settles to the bottom of the tanks. The yeast can either be reused back in the process or sold for human food or as an animal feed supplement, due to its high protein content. The final steps in the process are filtration, carbonation and packaging in bottles, cans or casks. The process is depicted below. General Process Flow Diagram for Breweries http://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine • 14la�ot Iiipt Process`Step Mayor 17Vaste S`t earns Malt war Malt•m�illing, Steam BretVirig, ligwor 'Iv1aFt:m ash hQ Tortaep;araiioi Spent. gram Hops. Tortboiling Cazborcdvoxide S;team-&odour: Hip 1 eec.overy„ 1111or Spenthops; F:oit> cl"arfcatioi. lip Thb :Coolingswate r.• NH3.'cQgtir{g !Nort:_chilliiig Air At r.ati-on,.'.&. i.tch ng Trub Yeast Ferm entatrori. Spent:yeast Filter',me drum Fil tr'ati on` Filtei residue St'orag.e Wash waters. F kagifig:materials B'ottle:.&:caskirll ng • Waste -beer Brewery wastes generated include: Page 2 of 6 1. Wastewater - caustic boil -out solutions used for clean-ups in the brew house, and soak.solutions and caustic rinses in the bottling area. 2. Organic loading - spent grain and hops, filter cakes in dry form and accidental losses from operational errors and leaking equipment. 3. Solid waste - organic material residuals from the process including spent grains and hops, trub, sludge, surplus yeast, label sludge, Kieselguhr, powdered carbon and broken glass. The principal winery wastes are pomace, lees, stillage bottle washings, cooling waters, and salt waters from ion- http://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine • • Page 3 of 6 exchange processes. The pomace consists of dewatered grape skins, seeds and pulp. Other solid wastes from these industries include: . A6 glass cullets from the packaging area; paper pulp from the bottle washer; paper, plastic and metal from received auxiliary material (especially packaging materials); and, waste oil and grease. The environmental issues associated with breweries are the discharge of very large quantities of wastewater with very high concentrations of organic matter, carbon dioxide (CO2) emission from the fermentation process and the handling and disposal of solid residues such as spent grains, spent yeast and waste filter medium. Odour can also be a problem for sites located close to residential areas. For the brewing industry, figures for resource consumption (water and energy) and waste generation are generally well described. A summary of the key environmental indicators for breweries is provided below for different levels of technology (UNEP, 1999). The best available technology figures represent the current industry best practice. As a minimum, 4 litres of water are required to make 1 litre of beer, but this figure can be greater than 20 litres for inefficient breweries. Of this 4 litres, only 1 litre is retained in the product. The remaining 3 litres is used for cleaning and other ancillary activities and is ultimately discharged as wastewater. Brewery wastewaters contain beer losses, as well as detergents and sanitising agents. Typical COD concentrations are generally between 2,000-7,000 mg/l, but peaks of higher concentrations may be generated at times (Ruffer, 1984). Most breweries discharge wastewater to municipal sewerage systems after some minor pre-treatment; generally pH adjustment in a balancing tank. Breweries pay charges to discharge effluent to the sewer, based on the volume and total load of COD and suspended solids. Given the high volumes and high COD loads, breweries can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on sewer charges. The cost of water into the plant is also a considerable cost (about 70c/kL) and in some instances, breweries may be charged more than $1/kL since the water is seen to contribute to the company's profits. Reducing water consumption and reducing the loads of pollutants discharged in wastewater are therefore two areas where significant savings can be made. Consumption of hot water in particular is an important Cleaner Production issue from an energy perspective as well. Hot water is produced from cooling the wort and is generally used for mashing. However there is generally an excess of hot water, and if it is not utilised, it represents a valuable loss of energy. An energy balance will be http://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/eme/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Resource consumption / Older technology Average Best available waste generation technology technology (per m3 beer) Water (kL) 20-35 7-15 4 Heat energy (MJ)F 390 250 150 Electricity (kWh)F 20 16 8-12 Wastewater (kL)F 18-28 5.5-12 2.5 BOD in wastewater (kg) 1.8 1.4 1.2 As a minimum, 4 litres of water are required to make 1 litre of beer, but this figure can be greater than 20 litres for inefficient breweries. Of this 4 litres, only 1 litre is retained in the product. The remaining 3 litres is used for cleaning and other ancillary activities and is ultimately discharged as wastewater. Brewery wastewaters contain beer losses, as well as detergents and sanitising agents. Typical COD concentrations are generally between 2,000-7,000 mg/l, but peaks of higher concentrations may be generated at times (Ruffer, 1984). Most breweries discharge wastewater to municipal sewerage systems after some minor pre-treatment; generally pH adjustment in a balancing tank. Breweries pay charges to discharge effluent to the sewer, based on the volume and total load of COD and suspended solids. Given the high volumes and high COD loads, breweries can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on sewer charges. The cost of water into the plant is also a considerable cost (about 70c/kL) and in some instances, breweries may be charged more than $1/kL since the water is seen to contribute to the company's profits. Reducing water consumption and reducing the loads of pollutants discharged in wastewater are therefore two areas where significant savings can be made. Consumption of hot water in particular is an important Cleaner Production issue from an energy perspective as well. Hot water is produced from cooling the wort and is generally used for mashing. However there is generally an excess of hot water, and if it is not utilised, it represents a valuable loss of energy. An energy balance will be http://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/eme/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine • Page 4 of 6 an important part of any Cleaner Production effort to investigate when, where and how much hot water is used and how it can be put to beneficial use (UNEP, 1999). Steam is produced on site using boilers, which are generally fuelled by natural gas. Breweries therefore have the opportunity to reduce energy consumption and combustion -related emissions by improving the efficiency of their boilers. The generation of CO2 from the fermentation process has become an important issue for breweries in light of the national policies and strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is possible to collect and condense CO2 from the kettles and reuse it for carbonation of the finished product. This is a common practice in larger breweries and in fact excess CO2 is often available for sale. Despite this, there are still fugitive losses of CO2 from the process and many of the larger breweries are actively involved in pursuing strategies for reduced CO2 emissions. Use the following checklist to provide some ideas for Cleaner Production in a brewery or winery. Food Manufacturing Checklist Breweries and Wine Manufactures Process Stage Issue11 Opportunity Process II Avoid spillage during product delivery. Improvement Product Process Control / Schedule times and length of crushing. Match volumes that Improvement can be handled in successive stages to minimise storage Preparation Im P times. _ Improve the wort clarifying process (e.g. improved hydro - cyclones etc.). Minimise wastewater generation. dry milling of malted barley in breweries. _ minimisation of transfer of last runnings. 46 use last runnings for mashing. optimise pre -runs and after -runs in the Kieselguhr filter. Reduce residual product after emptying of process tanks (e.g. better pumping techniques, tank design, or cleaning processes). Reduce product rejected in the packaging area due to wrong filling height, quality defects, or incorrect placement of labels. Attempt to stop bottles exploding as a result of poor quality, poor bottle inspection, or lack of temperature control during pasteurisation. Improve brewhouse yield through process changes, mill adjustments, Lauter tun renewal, and/or the installation of alternative processes such as a new mash filter. hq://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Inputs and Modify Inputs Increase the quality of inputs (e.g. grains, grapes) to improve Inventory yield. Process II Avoid spillage during product delivery. Improvement Product Process Control / Schedule times and length of crushing. Match volumes that Improvement can be handled in successive stages to minimise storage Preparation Im P times. _ Improve the wort clarifying process (e.g. improved hydro - cyclones etc.). Minimise wastewater generation. dry milling of malted barley in breweries. _ minimisation of transfer of last runnings. 46 use last runnings for mashing. optimise pre -runs and after -runs in the Kieselguhr filter. Reduce residual product after emptying of process tanks (e.g. better pumping techniques, tank design, or cleaning processes). Reduce product rejected in the packaging area due to wrong filling height, quality defects, or incorrect placement of labels. Attempt to stop bottles exploding as a result of poor quality, poor bottle inspection, or lack of temperature control during pasteurisation. Improve brewhouse yield through process changes, mill adjustments, Lauter tun renewal, and/or the installation of alternative processes such as a new mash filter. hq://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine • • Page 5 of 6 Product Conveyance Reduce Kieselguhr consumption through improved yeast settling (e.g. selecting better quality malt, using flocculant yeast strains, providing longer storage periods etc.). Install more efficient filter presses. Minimise the length of lines to reduce cleaning losses. - Blending Sequence blending operations (white, reds etc.) to avoid flushing between blends. - Bottling Improve bottles forming and conveyance to reduce breaking, damage etc.. Re -use and Reuse Recycling Reuse excess yeast from the fermentation process. - - Collect lees/pressings for alcohol extraction. Segregate wastewaters of different strengths to increase _ recovery options (e.g. cooling water from the wort cooler, fermentors, compressors and refrigeration systems, and final spray water from the bottle washer). _ Change from "once -through" cooling to a recirculating system. Returned trub to the mash kettle or Lauter tun in an effort to recover extract. - - Collect weak wort and use it in the mashing of the next brew. _ Collect high quality residual and either dose directly into the filter line or add to the hot wort. _ Collect oxidised or contaminated residual to be pasteurised and blended in the fermentation tanks. - Maximise the reuse of caustic soda and citric acid cleaning waters. - Install a heat recovery system (e.g. from the boiling wort system). - Recycling Separate trub from the hot wort and return it to the spent grains bin. Install separate storage for spent hops, hot trub and other - - solid proteinaceous materials so they can be combined with spent grains to be sold as animal feed. - - Segregate pith, peels and use for composting or animal feed. Recycle spent grains e.g. as an adsorbent for removing VOC - - emissions or organic material from effluent or to produce fertilizers, bread, animal feed etc.. hq://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 Fact 4 - brew & wine Page 6 of 6 Recycle spent grains (e.g. as an adsorbent for removing VOC - emissions or organic material from effluent or to produce fertilizers, bread, animal feed etc.). - Recover tartaric acid from winery wastewater, for use as an acidulant in food processing or pharmaceutical industries. - - Use reverse osmosis and/or ultrafiltration to reclaim sterile - - alcohol solution from wash water (weak wine or beer contaminated with inorganic chemicals). - Recover tartaric acid from winery wastewater, for use as an acidulant in food processing or pharmaceutical industries. - - Capture CO2 from the fermentation process for sale or use. For smaller winery operations, organise common collection and processing of recyclable material (e.g. lees/pressings). Waste Segregate highly caustic wastewaters (e.g. from ion Treatment and Segregation exchange units and recycled caustic washing) and treat Disposal separately (e.g. divert to small evaporation ponds) Primary Use screen filters and settling to remove solids such as Screening diatomaceous earth and bentonite clay. -Marketing / Modify packaging (e.g. substitute glass bottles with Product recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, light Improvement weighting, improved strength, waterproof labels, reduced glue use). IgBack to the Top Last modified on the 23 August, 2002 Supported by: x Vt UNEPIC - The University of Queensland and The United Nations Environment Programme hq://www.geosp.uq.edu.au/emc/CP/Res/facts/FACT5.HTM 1/31/2003 ;Recent Articles l J 61inRro E A Technical Guide for Wine Producers RECENT ARTICLES I WYNBOER HOME MANAGEMENT OPTIONS TO MINIMISE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AT WINE CELLARS Lourens van Schoor: Environmental Manager, ARC Research Institute for Fruit, Vine and Wine, Tel. 021-809 3158, Fax: 021-809 3002, e-mail: IourensOnietvoor.aoric.za INTRODUCTION Wine production in South Africa has increased over the past w decade and this growth increases pressure on natural resources such as water, soil and vegetation. National legislation. and foreign markets require the - responsible management of potential environmental impacts by means of efficient environmental management systems. The Australian wine industry has already spent thousands of dollars on research to address environmental risks in their wine industry and numerous guidelines have been compiled by Dr Jeanette Chapman and the South Australian Wine and Brandy Industry Association. This article describes the general problems with regard to environmental "risks experienced by cellars world-wide, as well as possible solutions which are being addressed in the light of Australian trends. GENERAL The most important elements at wine cellars which can result in negative impacts on the environment include solid waste such as skins, pips, stems, lees, used filter material and sedimentation substances, as well as wastewater. Pumps, refrigeration mechanisms, compressors and conveyors all entail the risk of noise and air pollution. Solid waste causes bad odours in particular and may contaminate soil and water http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 Page 1 of 10 Wynboe incorpora WineLar magazinE the SA w producer: Subscrib( WineLanc Visit our sister sii 44& 6/ - South Afric wine farm( represent( organisati( SA Wing ] Facts, figu contact de and much 1/31/2003 Recent Articles • • Page 2 of 10 resources, thus having negative effects on vegetation and vegetative performance. Wastewater, on the other hand, can cause salination and eutrofication of water resources such as natural streams, rivers, dams, ground water and wetlands. Furthermore, it can cause soil degradation such as salination, waterlogging, chemical contamination, erosion and destruction of soil structure. These impacts will be accentuated by factors such as electrical or process interruptions, fires, floods, storms, overload ing/underloading of wastewater catchment dams, temporary unavailability of wastewater catchment dams and temporary unavailability of trained operators. To manage these aspects and impacts efficiently and make provision for emergency situations, it is important for cellar managers to know what the potential impacts are, what the source of these impacts is and which management options may be followed to minimise the environmental risks. POSSIBLE NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS General The winemaking process is mainly divided into two periods generating different kinds of waste, namely the vintage period and the non -vintage period. During the harvest period, which ranges from 6 to 20 weeks, grapes'are harvested and pressed while .the juice is fermented into wine. During the non -vintage period other cellar activities take place, such as stabilisation, filtration, maturation, blending and bottling of wine. At larger cellars in particular there is not really a division between these two periods, since the processes associated with the non -vintage period take place throughout the year. Solid waste The various kinds of solid waste generated at a cellar during the harvest period, are skins, stems, pips and yeast. Stems, skins and pips are usually removed from white wine cultivars after pressing. From red wine cultivars they are removed only after fermentation of must to wine, particularly to extract colour pigments. Lees are the residues that remain in tanks once fermentation and removal of unfinished wine have http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 ,Recent Articles • • Page 3 of 10 taken place and consists of a mixture of wine, yeast and bacteria. During the post -vintage period, used sedimentation substances, such as bentonite and used filtration material, are generated and constitute a further source of unwanted solid waste. Usually stems, skins, pips and lees are heaped up and later worked into the vineyards. Australian guidelines require skins, stems, pips and lees to be heaped on an impenetrable layer (such as cement or plastic) and covered against rain, so that organic acids cannot seap out and have a negative effect on soil and soil water before having broken down sufficiently to serve as compost. If no storage space has been provided for this, it should rather be used as animal feed. This waste, as well as used sedimentation substances (e.g. diotomatious earth and bentonite clay) and filtration material, must be stored temporarily before being removed to prevent bad odours in the adjacent vicinity. Used filtration material and bentonite should be made available for the recovery of alcohol or tartaric acid to prevent soil and water pollution (which occurs when these substances are exposed to the soil too quickly). From July to December the waste should be taken to a suitable dumping site (similar to Vissershok in South Africa) to be destroyed. Must, wine and wastewater Chemical composition Grapes from white and red cultivars differ in their chemical composition and the processes for making white and red wine also differ. Must is the liquid obtained when the grapes are pressed. Must composition reflects the composition of the specific cultivar, as well as the seasonal performance of the vines. The most important change in organic composition occurs during fermentation from must to wine. Sugars are used by yeasts and bacteria as the main source of carbon dioxide, with a drastic decline in sugar content. Anaerobic conditions give rise to the production of glycerol and ethanol, both of which are important components of wine. Malolactic fermentation of malic to lactic acid occurs naturally in red wine cultivars. Although this biochemical process may occur http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles • • in some white wine cultivars, malolactic fermentation represents the biggest difference in the production of red and white wines. With regard to anorganic contents of wine, potassium (in the form of K -H -bitartrate) is the only element which changes during wine production. K -H -bitartrate occurs in both the must and the wine and precipitates against the sides of tanks and equipment during the cold stabilisation process. To dissolve these crystals, alkali products containing the hydroxy ion (OH) are used. The alkali products simultaneously serve as a means of removing red colour pigments. The most commonly used substance in South African cellars for the above is sodium hydroxide diluted to 5% (better known as caustic soda). Other products such as sodium metasilicate and sodium carbonate are also used at times. These chemicals react with water to release hydroxides (OH ions). The amount of OH ions released has a direct influence on the pH of the solution. The higher the pH, the more tartrate is removed. Sodium metasilicate generates more OH ions than sodium carbonate, resulting in pH values of 10-12 and 9-10 respectively. However, the pH of sodium hydroxide (5%) ranges between 12 and 13 and is therefore more effective in removing the tartrate. Once the tartrate has been removed, it is followed by a rinse of 5% citric or tartaric acid to neutralise the alkali. Washing water generated by this process is known as cellar wastewater, and the volumes thus generated, as well as the chemical composition, may entail huge environmental risks for nature. The Australian wine industry requires a wastewater audit which prescribes a monitoring programme, a specific sampling method and criteria for analyses. Wastewater audit To determine which environmental risks are posed by a specific cellar, cellars have to know how much wastewater is being produced as well as the pollution load thereof. Dr Chapman mentions that Australian cellars (the same probably applies to South African cellars) generate approximately 2 to 5 kilolitres of wastewater for each ton of grapes pressed. For large cellars, which generate wastewater throughout the entire year, approximately 50% of the wastewater is generated during the harvest period from February to http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 Page.4 of 10 1/31/2003 Recent Articles Page 5 of 10 April. Smaller cellars produce an even higher percentage of the annual volume during the harvest period. This wastewater may be high in organic carbon dioxide, relatively low in nitrogen and phosphor, and relatively high in salts and acids. In Australia, but also in South Africa, legislation requires cellars to follow a wastewater audit procedure. Since most cellars do not have a historic record of wastewater volume or quality, an intensive monitoring programme should be followed during the first 2 or more years. The monitoring programme should calculate, on an annual basis, the volume of wastewater, the normal variation in volume between key periods of wastewater production, the normal variation in chemical composition between key periods of wastewater production, as well as the potential environmental and social impacts of the recycling or disposal activities. Once cellars have followed the initial intensive monitoring programme for 2 or more years, a routine monitoring programme should be followed to confirm the variation in wastewater volume and chemical composition. Furthermore cellars should monitor the impact of wastewater on soil, water resources, vegetation and health. In due course each cellar will then follow its own monitoring programme specific to the locality, associated with the method of purification and disposal. Sampling A successful monitoring programme goes hand in hand with a thorough and representative sampling programme. In Australia cellars are recommended to take samples at the following six key stages: . Pre -harvest period: January to February During this period bottling takes place and tanks are washed with sodium hydroxide. Other equipment is also washed to prepare for the harvest period. . Early harvest period: February to March During this period wastewater generation increases drastically and reaches 40% of the maximum weekly rate measured at peak. White wine production dominates harvest activities. . Peak harvest period: March to May http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles This is when wastewater generation and harvest activities reach peak stadium. • Late harvest period: April to June Wastewater generation decreases dramatically to 40% of the maximum weekly flow (at peak) and red wine production dominates harvest activities. Occasionally distillation of ethanol takes place. • Post-harvest period: May to September During this period pre -fermentation activities come to a close and maximum usage of sodium hydroxide occurs. • No harvest period: June to December Wastewater volume is at its minimum (less than 30% of the maximum weekly flow at peak) and wastewater quality depends on daily activities. Recommended frequency of sampling differs for large (>20ML wastewater/annum) and smaller (<20ML wastewater/annum) cellars. Smaller cellars should take only one sample per period in each period, while large cellars should sample as follows: PERIOD FREQUENCY Pre -harvest period fortnightly Early harvest period weekly Peak harvest period weekly Late harvest period weekly Post-harvest period fortnightly No harvest period every 6 to 8 weeks Sampling procedure for wastewater Most cellars store and/or pre -treat their wastewater to reuse it or to reduce extreme variations in composition prior to disposal. The Australian wine industry recommends the following procedure for taking representative wastewater samples: • Sample the wastewater at the point where it is disposed into a catchment dam or onto grass at the depth where it will flow out. • Take a composite sample (instead of a single sample) composed of equal quantities of at least 5 samples taken before the dam was filled. • At least 1,5L wastewater must be sampled in a Page 6 of 10 http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles • • Page 7 of 10 glass container and stored below 4°C, or as suggested by the chemical laboratory doing the analysis. • Sampling at times when the inflows are very low, or when stormwater has a diluting effect, should be avoided. • Cellar activities at the time when sampling takes place should be noted down, especially when the total volume at the point of collection is dominated by one or two processes only. • Keep records of all action taken. Analysis of wastewater In South Africa and abroad cellars are legally obliged to follow an environmental management programme and analyses have to be done by an accredited laboratory. The chemical composition of wastewater indicates whetherthe water has potential environmental and/or social impacts when it is released into nature.Table 1 indicates the parameters that are important to monitor and which are regarded as the minimum for which analysis should be done in South Africa. Apart from these elements juice, wine and lees, which are also sources of organic carbon dioxide and anorganic components such as salts, acids and solids, may also end up in the waste stream during the harvest period and contaminate it even further. Table 1. The most important parameters and riskc of wactawatPr nnalvcic_ PARAMETER RISK Total and dissolved solids Closing of soil pores Limited aeration of soil Limited flow of water through soil Closing of water purifier Formation of anaerobic sludge in catchment dams Organic carbon dioxide or Reduction in oxygen content of water Bad odours at catchment biological oxygen demand dams (BOD) Nitrogen (N) and phosphate Eutrofication of water (P) pH Acidification of soil Salt content (NaCl, KCI) Salination of soil and water Sodium (Na) Decomposition of soil structure with accompanying poor drainage Waterlogging conditions in soil Limited aeration of soil Compaction and hardening of soil Clogging of soil pores Soil erosion Sulphur (S) Bad odours in catchment dams COD (chemical oxygen Reduction in oxygen content of water Bad odours at catchment demand) dams Water volumes Legislation requires South African cellars to monitor the volume of water used in the cellar, as well as the http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles • • Page 8 of 10 quantity of wastewater, in order to obtain a water balance. Apart from the fact that large volumes of wastewater may result in waterlogging conditions and poor aeration of soil as well as bad odours, it also has other large scale financial implications. In Australia, where water is also a scarce commodity, cellars have to pay for each litre of water used, and if the water consumption in the cellar can be reduced, it will bring about a direct decrease in cost. Apart from this, it will also result in less wastewater being generated, which reduces the handling, storage, purification as well as irrigation cost. Each cellar has to do its own investigation concerning processes where water consumption may be reduced. The following are examples of how to reduce water consumption in the cellar with minimum cost and adjustment to main processes: • Use brooms or pressure mops instead of rinsing floors with water • Use high pressure hoses to reduce water volumes • Separate stormwater from washing water • Recycle stormwater to be used as washing water for cleaning floors Design criteria for wastewater catchment dams Catchment dams for cellar wastewater are usually designed by engineers. To do this efficiently, the engineer requires information about the volume and composition of the wastewater. The cellar management should ensure that the designer at least takes the following into account: • The wastewater must be separated from the stormwater (rain water). • Pipelines for conducting wastewater must be able to handle the maximum volume at any one time and must be made of quality material to prevent leakages. • The catchment dams for wastewater must be able to handle the maximum volume of wastewater at any one time and enough space should be allowed for possible unexpected volumes of wastewater. • Catchment dams should be large enough so that sufficient time may lapse for the solids to be deposited and so that the breaking down of http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles Page 9 of 10 organic matter may take place before the water is released or used for irrigation. . Catchment dams should be situated in such a way that there is no contact with storm water. . Irrigation systems must be designed to prevent leakages. Cleaning of waste catchment dams Wastewater dams, pipes and other equipment should be cleaned annually and large volumes of sludge are thus collected. In Australia, but also in South Africa, this sludge may only be applied to the soil once the chemical composition thereof has been determined, indicating that it may indeed be applied to a specific piece of land. If the sludge contains high concentrations of certain elements, it may influence the soil, water sources and plant peformance. An attempt should be made to conduct the cleaning operation in the summer months, so that breaking down can be more rapid, thus minimising .bad odours. Noise and air pollution Noise from pumps, compressors, cooling apparatus and vehicles may cause distress to neighbours and gas leakages from refrigeration mechanisms may cause air pollution. For this reason Australia requires equipment or vehicle noise of which the noise exceeds 45 dB outside the cellar, to be used between 8am and 8pm only. Roads, trucks, tractors, pumps, compressors, refrigeration mechanisms and other equipment causing noise and/or air pollution should be monitored on a continuous basis and regular maintenance records should be kept. CONCLUSION For cellars, local and international, the most important environmental aspects which may impact negatively on the environment, are mainly wastewater and solid waste. Requirements from international markets. regarding efficient management of these impacts are becoming more and more stringent and the South African wine industry cannot afford to fall behind in this regard. Since South Africa is still in the process of devising specific guidelines for the responsible management of possible environmental risks at wine cellars, it would make sense meanwhile to follow http://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Recent Articles 0 Page 10 of 10 Australia's guidelines, especially those which are applicable to South African conditions. International environmental management systems such as ISO 14001 are expected to become a requirement in the international markets within the next few years. The implementation of such an environmental management system takes months or even years. If this is required of a cellar at short notice, it will be difficult to implement if certain environmental issues have not already been addressed to some extent. It is therefore necessary for South African cellars and in their own interest to institute the required measures, eventually to comply with this system. UP COPYRIGHT (C) 2000 WineLand hq://www.wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/0700management.php3 1/31/2003 Page 1 of 2 Sanders, Craig From: Secheli, Christine [CSECHELI@co.napa.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 2:55 PM To: McDowell, John; 'Sanders, Craig' Subject: RE: Winery wastewater Good Afternoon - Typically wineries generate between 5 and 7 gallons of wastewater for each gallon of wine produced. The peak flow comes during the harvest season which is generally 30 and 60 days,.depending on the size of the facility. For a facility producing 36, 000 gallons (15, 000 cases X 2.4 gallons of wine per case= 36,000 gallons) we would use a crush period of 45 days. It is generally estimated that approximately 30% of the annual wastewater is generated during the harvest months. 30% of 5 gallons is 1.5 gallons. To determine the peak daily flow we would use the formula: 36.000 gallons of wine X 1.5 gallons of wastewater per gallon of wine —= 1,200 gallons per day peak process wastewater flow 45 days harvest period If a facility is not actually crushing on site, the amount of wastewater attributed to that activity would be subtracted out. Determining peak daily flow is then based on the applicants breakdown of activities and wastewater attributed to such activities. In this case the peak may be from racking activities or barrel washing activities. Keep in mind, as noted above, crush accounts for approx. 30% of the total wastewater. The other activities then account for the remaining 70%+/-. To this number you need to add the flow from sanitary sources: employees, visitors, marketing events, kitchens etc. If the facility is proposing a wastewater pond, they should do a water balance (calculated monthly for an entire year) considering rainfall (we use a 10 yr. rainfall event), evaporation, and process wastewater generation and any land disposal proposed, using the 5-7 gallons of wastewater per gallon of wine. Hope this helps. Christine Secheli Napa County Dept. of Environmental Management -----Original Message----- . From: McDowell, John Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:33 PM To: 'Sanders, Craig'; Secheli, Christine Subject: RE: Winery wastewater Sorry Craig; I have no idea on winery waste rates. However, I've forwarded your email to Christine Secheli, who is in County Environmental Management. Hopefully she can answer your question? Thanks - John McDowell -----Original Message ----- From: Sanders, Craig[mailto:CSanders@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:18 PM To: 'JMCDOWELL@co.napa.ca.us' Subject: Winery wastewater 3/17/2003 • Page 1 of 2 Sanders, Craig From: Secheli, Christine (CSECHELI@co.napa.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 2:55 PM To: McDowell, John; 'Sanders, Craig' Subject: RE: Winery wastewater Good Afternoon - Typically wineries generate between 5 and 7 gallons of wastewater for each gallon of wine produced. The peak flow comes during the harvest season which is generally 30 and 60 days, depending on the size of the facility. For a facility producing 36, 000 gallons (15, 000 cases X 2.4 gallons of wine per case= 36,000 gallons) we would use a crush period of 45 days. It is generally estimated that approximately 30% of the annual wastewater is generated during the harvest months. 30% of 5 gallons is 1.5 gallons. To determine the peak daily flow we would use the formula: 36.000 gallons of wine X 1.5 gallons of wastewater per gallon of wine = 1,200 gallons per day peak process wastewater flow 45 days harvest period If a facility is not actually crushing on site, the amount of wastewater attributed to that activity would be subtracted out. Determining peak daily flow is then based on the applicants breakdown of activities and wastewater attributed to such activities. In this case the peak may be from racking activities or barrel washing activities. Keep in mind, as noted above, crush accounts for approx. 30% of the total wastewater. The other activities then account for the remaining 70%+/-. To this number you need to add the flow from sanitary sources: employees, visitors, marketing events, kitchens etc. If the facility is proposing a wastewater pond, they should do a water balance (calculated monthly for an entire year) considering rainfall (we use a 10 yr. rainfall event), evaporation, and process wastewater generation and any land disposal proposed, using the 5-7 gallons of wastewater per gallon of wine. Hope this helps. Christine Secheli Napa County Dept. of Environmental Management -----Original Message----- . From: McDowell, John Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:33 PM To: 'Sanders, Craig'; Secheli, Christine Subject: RE: Winery wastewater Sorry Craig; have no idea on winery waste rates. However, I've forwarded your email to Christine Secheli, who is in County Environmental Management. Hopefully she can answer your question? Thanks - John McDowell -----Original Message ----- From: Sanders, Craig [mailto:CSanders@ButteCounty.net] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 1:18 PM To: 'JMCDOWELL@co.napa.ca.us' Subject: Winery wastewater 3/17/2003 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL COAST REGION 81 Higuera Street, Suite 200 San Luis Obispo, California 9340.1 ORDER NO. R3-2002-0084 GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS for DISCHARGES OF WINERY WASTE The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (hereafter "Regional Board"), finds that: What is Winery Waste? 1. Winery waste is defined as any byproduct of winemaking operations. Winery waste includes, but is not limited to: pomace (e.g., grape skins, stems, and seeds), lees (wine sediment), tankfbarrel/bottle/floor/crush pad wash water (which may contain sterilization and/or preservation chemicals), and water softener waste brine. Typical raw winery wastewater has the following characteristics: Parameter Units Crush Season Ran a Non -Crush Season Range H -- 2.5-9.5 3.5 - 11 BODS m 500- 12000 300 - 3500 Dissolved Oxygen m L 0.5-8.5 1.0-10 Settleable Solids m L 25-100 2-100 Total Suspended Solids m 40-800 10-400 Total Nitrogen m /L as N 1-40 1-40 Nitrate m L as N 0.5-5 Phosphorus m L . 1 - 10 1-40 Sulfate m L 10-75 20-75 Total Dissolved Solids m L 80-2900 80-2900 Sodium m L 35-200 35-200 Chloride m 3-250 3-250 Basis for General Waste Discharge Requirements 2. California Water Code Section 13260 requires any entity discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer system, that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the Regional Board. 3. Whether an individual discharge of winery waste may affect the quality of waters of the State depends on the quantity of waste, the quality of waste, extent of treatment, soil characteristics, distance to surface water, depth to groundwater, and other factors. Wineries range in size from home winemaking operations producing 250 gallons of wine per year to very large commercial winemaking operations producing several million gallons of wine per year. • WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 4. In general, waste discharges from commercial winemaking operations that discharge to other than a community sewer system (hereafter "Discharger" or "Winery") may affect waters of the State and are required to submit a Report of Waste Discharge to the Regional Board. 5. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to Comply with the Terms of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Winery Waste (Attachment B) is equivalent to a Report of Waste Discharge. 6. In accordance with California Water Code Section 13263(i), Wineries covered under these General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Winery Waste (hereafter "General WDRs"); (1) produce waste by similar operations, (2) involve similar types of waste, (3) require similar treatment standards, and (4) are more appropriately regulated under General WDRs. Who Must Apply? And When? Winery with Waiver of WDRs — According to California Water Code Section 13269, all existing Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) expire December 31, 2002. Any Winery covered by a Waiver of WDRs must apply for coverage under these General WDRs by January 1, 2003. 8. Winery without WDRs — Any Winery without WDRs must apply for coverage under these General WDRs. A "Large" Winery must submit an application by May 1, 2003. "Large" is defined as crushing greater than or equal to 1,500 tons of grapes per year, or producing greater than or equal to 100,000 cases or 240,000 gallons of pressed wine per year. All other Wineries without WDRs must submit an application by September 1, 2003. 9. Winery with Individual WDRs — A Winery currently covered by individual WDRs will be considered for coverage under these General If you have any questions about whether or not you must apply for coverage under these General WDRs, you may contact Regional Board staff at (805) 549- 3147. • 2 November 1, 2002 WDRs when the individual WDRs are scheduled for review or renewal. The date of review is specified within the individual WDRs. How Do I Apply? 10. Application Process — The process to apply for coverage under these General WDRs is described in Section A below. 11. Small Winery Waiver — "Small" Wineries with depth to groundwater at their disposal area greater than 100 feet generally pose minimal threat to water quality and May not be required to apply for coverage under these General WDRs. "Small" is defined as crushing less than or equal to 80 tons of grapes per year, or producing less than or equal to 5,000 cases or 13,000 gallons of pressed wine per year. The process to obtain a Small Winery Waiver is described in Section A below. Is a Fee Required? 12. Annual Fee — An annual fee is required for coverage under these General WDRs. The annual fee depends on the discharge's Threat to Water Quality and Complexity Rating, as defined in the fee schedule in California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 9, Section 2200. The Threat to Water Quality and Complexity Rating for discharges covered by these General WDRs is III -B, with a corresponding annual fee of $900. Is Monitoring Required? 13. Monitoring and Reporting — Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R3-2002-0084 (General MRP) is part of this Order and is included as Attachment A. The General MRP requires the Discharger to perform regular monitoring and reporting of water supply, wine production, chemical usage, effluent, septic system(s), disposal area(s), and solid waste disposal. Groundwater and/or disposal area soils monitoring may also be required. The General MRP may be modified by the Executive Officer. WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 Basis of Requirements 14. Basin Plan — The Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan) was adopted by the Regional Board on September 8, 1994. The Basin Plan incorporates State Board plans and policies by reference and contains a strategy for protecting beneficial uses of surface and ground waters throughout the Region. These General WDRs require Dischargers to comply with all applicable provisions of the Basin Plan. 15. This Order establishes minimum standards for discharges of winery waste. The Discharger shall comply with any more stringent relevant standards in the Basin Plan. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Order and the Basin Plan, the more stringent provision prevails. 16. Beneficial Uses — Existing and potential beneficial uses of ground water within the Central Coast Region include municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, and industrial process and service supply. Regulatory Considerations 17. Storm Water — California Water Code Section 13399 requires Wineries that discharge polluted storm water runoff offsite to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Storm Water Permit for Industrial Activities. Wineries should contact Regional Board storm water program staff at (805) 549- 3147 to determine their applicability. 18. This Order does not preempt or supersede the authority of municipalities, flood control agencies, or other local agencies to prohibit, restrict, or control discharges of waste subject to their jurisdiction. 19. California Environmental Quality Act, Existing Wineries — The action to adopt these General WDRs is intended to maintain water quality. Projects authorized under these General WDRs that are existing wineries that have not expanded the amount of waste they discharge are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Public Resources Code • 3 November 1, 2002 sections 2100 et seq.) pursuant to sections 15301, exemption for existing projects and 15308, actions by regulatory agencies for the protection of the environment. 20. California Environmental Quality Act, New and Expanded Wineries — New wineries and expansion of existing wineries may not be covered by these General WDRs until after a government agency has completed the lead agency responsibilities under CEQA. 21. Anti -Degradation — This Order is consistent with the provisions of State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 68-16, "Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California." 22. Public Notification — The Regional Board has notified all known potential Dischargers and all other known interested parties of the intent to adopt these General WDRs. 23. Public Meeting — The Regional Board, in a public meeting on November 1, 2002, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the adoption of these General WDRs. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, a Discharger of winery waste shall comply with the following: A. APPLICATION PROCESS A Discharger seeking authorization to discharge under these General WDRs shall submit a complete Notice of Intent (NOI) to Comply with the Terms of the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Winery Waste and first annual fee (payable to the State Water Resources Control Board) to the Executive Officer. The NOI is included as Attachment B of these General WDRs. The information required with the NOI is equivalent to a Report of Waste Discharge. 2. Coverage under the General WDRs will be extended to a Winery when they receive a letter of approval from the Executive Officer. u WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 5. 6. VI Public notification and/or Regional Board review of the Executive Officer's intent to authorize a discharge under these General WDRs may delay authorization to discharge under these General WDRs. Wineries covered under these General WDRs shall submit an updated NOI to the Executive Officer when there is any change in the information submitted within its original NOI, or any change in activities at the facility, that may affect the quality or quantity of the waste discharge. These General WDRs do not authorize any discharges from facilities that have not submitted a Notice of Intent or that have not received authorization to discharge from the Executive Officer. The Executive Officer may require any Discharger authorized to discharge * under these General WDRs to apply for and obtain individual WDRs. If individual WDRs are issued for a discharge, then the applicability of these General WDRs for the discharge is immediately terminated on the effective date of the alternative individual WDRs. Small Winery Waiver — A "Small" Winery that poses minimal threat to water quality may not be required to apply for coverage under these General WDRs if they satisfy the following: a) Contact Regional Board staff (805/549- 3147) to describe your operation and discuss its applicability; b) Provide adequate proof that depth to groundwater at the disposal area is greater than 100 feet. Depth to groundwater may be reduced to 20 feet if wastewater is incorporated into vineyard irrigation water and applied at reasonable agronomic rates; c) Allow Regional Board staff to visit your facility if deemed necessary by staff, d) Submit written certification under penalty of perjury stating you will voluntarily comply with the Prohibitions, Recommendations, and Specifications of these General WDRs; • 4 November 1, 2002 e) Receive written notification from the Executive Officer that the requirement to apply for WDRs is waived, pursuant to California Water Code Section 13269. This waiver is intended for facilities that pose minimal threat to water quality. 8. Following review of NOI submittal, staff may determine that the waiving of requirements is appropriate. Following waiving of WDRs, changes to the facility may render a waiver inappropriate. As a result, when there is any change in the information submitted within its original NOI, or any change in activities at the facility, that may affect the quality or quantity of the waste discharge, the Discharger shall submit an updated NOI to the Executive Officer. B. PROHIBITIONS 1. The discharge of any waste to surface waters is prohibited. 2. The discharge of waste other than winery wastewater (e.g. domestic wastewater) into a surface treatment and disposal system (e.g. ponds, spreading basins) is prohibited. 3. The discharge of waste classified as "hazardous," or "designated," as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.3 et. seq. and California Water Code Section 13173, respectively, to any part of the wastewater system is prohibited. 4. The discharge or reuse of waste on land that is not under the control of the discharger is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Executive Officer. 5. Bypass or overflow of treated or untreated winery waste from transport, treatment, and disposal facilities are prohibited. 6. Creation of a condition of pollution, contamination, or nuisance, as defined by of California Water Code Section 13050, is prohibited. 7. The discharge of stillage is prohibited. • • WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 5 November 1, 2002 C. RECOMMENDATIONS rate should not exceed a 30 -day average of 100 pounds of Biochemical Oxygen Demand Pollutant Source Control Guidelines (BODS) per acre per day. 1. Water -conserving devices (e.g. pressure washers, trigger -handled spray nozzles, 10. The use of septic systems, particularly automatic barrel cleaners, stainless steel subsurface absorption systems, for winery tanks, and smooth floors) should be used to wastewater is discouraged. However, if minimize wastewater generation. septic systems are used, they shall be designed for the unique characteristics of 2. Use of cleaning chemicals should be winery wastewater. In particular, the minimized. Ozonated washwater is preferred following conditions should be addressed by for cleaning. the septic system design: 3. When using water -softening devices, a. Lees, bentonite, and diatomaceous earth canister -type water softeners or similar may clog and destroy a soil absorption alternatives should be used to prevent the system, therefore should be excluded discharge of salt brine. Where self- from the septic system. regenerating water softeners are used, the number of connections to the water softener b. Winery wastewater flow fluctuates should be minimized. greatly and solids (particularly lees) do not settle easily, therefore a large septic 4. Lees, bentonite, and diatomaceous earth tank(s) and effluent filter(s) are required should be excluded from treatment and to prevent solids from passing into and disposal systems to the extent practicable. degrading the soil absorption system. The hydraulic detention time of septic Design Guidelines tanks should be no less than 48 hours. 5. Large solids should be separated from winery Soil absorption system sizing shall be wastewater through redundant screening and based on the average daily flow 'during removal systems (e.g. with screened floor the peak flow week (generally the peak drains, rotary drum screens, and/or settling harvest week). basins) prior to further treatment and disposal. c. Septic tank(s) contents should be easily accessible to inspect solids levels, pump 6. Winery wastewater treatment and disposal out solids, and clean/replace effluent systems should be designed to accommodate filters. projected future growth in wine production. d. The organic content of winery 7. Winery wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater effluent from septic tanks, as systems should beneficially reuse (e.g. for measured by Biochemical Oxygen vineyard irrigation, frost protection, dust Demand (BODS), is generally much abatement) winery wastewater wherever greater than domestic wastewater. The feasible. organic matter causes excessive slime formation that will clog a soil absorption 8. Where the disposal area's soil buffering system if the soil absorption system is not capacity may be insufficient, winery periodically rested. Dual soil absorption wastewater pH should be neutralized to systems are necessary to allow alternating between 6.0 and 8.5 prior to disposal/reuse. wastewater loading and resting. Otherwise, disposal area soils and/or groundwater monitoring may be required. e. Inspection risers should be installed in soil absorption systems to monitor water 9. To prevent odor nuisance and impacts to levels. groundwater where raw winery wastewater is discharged to land surface, organic loading • WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 11. Winery wastewater treatment and disposal systems should be designed to minimize chemical addition and maintenance. D. SPECIFICATIONS Design Specifications 1. Winery wastewater shall be captured, treated, and disposed separately from domestic wastewater. Combined subsurface disposal may be authorized in writing by the Executive Officer. 2. Winery wastewater treatment and disposal systems shall be designed for the maximum daily flow of wastewater and organic loading generated (generally at the peak of crush season), including flows resulting from precipitation. 3. Wastewater flow rates shall be measured with an accurate flow measurement method or device. 4. Winery wastewater treatment ponds shall be lined with either a relatively impermeable membrane, two feet of soil with a permeability of less than 10-6 centimeters per second, or an engineered alternative approved in writing by the Executive Officer. 5. Winery wastewater treatment ponds shall be designed to contain all wastewater flows and rainfall from any 100 -year, 24-hour storm event. 6. Winery wastewater treatment ponds shall have a foundation or base capable of providing support for the structures, and capable of withstanding hydraulic pressure gradients to prevent failure due to settlement, compression, or uplift and all effects of ground motions resulting from at least the maximum probable earthquake, as certified by a registered civil engineer or certified engineering geologist. 7. Subsurface soil absorption systems shall be designed in accordance with Section VIII.D.3 of the Basin Plan. • November 1, 2002 8. The distance between any soil absorption system's trench bottom and groundwater, including perched groundwater, shall be no less than the following: Percolation Rate minutes / inch Distance feet <1 50 1-4 20 5-29 8 >30 5 9. No part of the disposal system(s) shall extend to a depth where waste may pollute groundwater. 10. New winery wastewater systems with a subsurface disposal area shall reserve sufficient land area for 100 -percent replacement of the disposal area. 11. The wastewater system shall not be located where it will alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, including alteration of the course of a stream or river. Effluent Limitations 12. Winery wastewater flow shall not exceed the design capacity of the treatment and disposal system. 13. Where raw winery wastewater is discharged to land (such as to a spreading basin), organic loading rate shall not exceed 300 pounds of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) per acre per day at any time. Groundwater Limitations 14. The discharge shall not cause a statistically significant increase of mineral constituent concentrations in underlying groundwater. 15. The discharge shall not cause concentrations of chemicals and radionuclides in groundwater to exceed limits set forth in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations or Table 3.8 of the Basin Plan. Operation Specifications 16. At least two feet of freeboard shall be maintained at all times in any pond or spreading basin containing winery wastewater. WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 17. The dissolved oxygen concentration in the upper zone (one foot) of aerated or oxidation pond systems shall not be less than 1.0 mg/L at any time. 18. Where spreading basins are used for treatment and disposal, the spreading basins shall be operated in a regular rotating sequence, with a rotation frequency no less than weekly, or as agreed upon by the Executive Officer. The spreading basin bed slope shall be maintained to ensure even distribution of wastewater and prevent standing water. Wastewater contained in spreading basins shall be no deeper than four (4) inches. 19. Solids accumulation in all septic tanks shall be measured at least annually and cleaned when it appears that either the bottom of the scum layer will be within four (4) inches of the bottom of the outlet device or the sludge level will be within ten (10) inches of the outlet device before the next scheduled inspection. 20. Dual leachfield systems shall be operated in a regular rotating sequence, with a rotation frequency no less than annually. Solids Disposal Specifications 21. Collected screenings and other solids removed from liquid wastes that will not and/or cannot be used agronomically shall be disposed of at a legal point of disposal, and in accordance with Title 27, Division 2 of the California Code of Regulations. 22. In no case shall accumulated sludge from a wastewater pond be used as an agronomic addition to fields without written authorization from the Executive Officer. 23. If accumulated sludge from a wastewater pond will be used as an agronomic addition to fields, a proposal containing, at a minimum, the following information shall be submitted in writing to the Executive Officer before commencement: a. The physical properties of the sludge to be removed from the pond, including the volume and percent solids. • 7 November 1, 2002 A summary of laboratory analytical results for a composite sludge sample. At a minimum, the analyses shall include pH, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and total nitrogen. A leachability test of the sludge may be required if deemed necessary by the Executive Officer. c. Descriptions of the proposed land application areas, including a map denoting watercourses, approximate depth to groundwater, acreage and the crops to be grown thereupon. d. Calculations showing the sludge will be applied at reasonable agronomic rates (based on nutrient uptake of the crop). A project schedule. Sludge application shall be confined to the dry season, between April 15 and October 15 each year. Sludge shall be spread and incorporated into the soil in a manner to prevent erosion, runoff or any nuisance conditions. f. A statement verifying that no hazardous waste or domestic waste has been discharged to the ponds. Wastewater Recycling/Re-Use Specifications 23. Treated winery wastewater shall not be applied to land within 24 hours of a forecasted rain event, during rainfall, 24 hours after a rainfall event, or when soils are saturated. 24. Treated winery wastewater shall be applied in such a manner so as not to exceed vegetative demand. 25. Land application of treated winery wastewater shall be managed to prevent ponding, runoff, and erosion. 26. There shall be no connection between a potable water supply and a treated winery wastewater distribution system. 27. All piping, valves, and outlets shall be marked to differentiate treated winery wastewater from other sources of water. WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 Nonpoint Source Control 28. Management practices shall be implemented to prevent sediments, nutrients, herbicides, pesticides, and other constituents of concern from entering waters of the state. Examples of management practices aimed at sediment reduction include, but are not limited to, out sloping roads, using cover crops, water bars, rolling dips, etcetera. Similar types of management practices exist for reducing nutrients, herbicides, pesticides, and other constituents of concern. 29. Dischargers that own vineyards are encouraged to join the Central Coast Vineyard Team and participate in their self-assessment protocol. The Central Coast Vineyard Team is a non-profit group whose mission is to identify and promote the most environmentally safe, viticulturally effective, and economically sustainable farming methods, while maintaining or improving the quality and flavor of winegrapes. The Central Coast Vineyard Team may be reached online at www.vineyardteam.org, by electronic mail at infoRvineyardteam.org, or by telephone at (805) 434-4848. E. STANDARD PROVISIONS 1. The Discharger shall comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program R3-2002-0084, included as Attachment A of these General WDRs, and any revisions prescribed thereto by the Executive Officer. 2. A copy of these General WDRs shall be kept at the discharge facility for reference by operating personnel. Key operating and site management personnel shall be familiar with its contents. In the event the discharger wishes to terminate authorization under these General WDRs, the Discharger shall submit a Notice of Termination (NOT). A Regional Board staff inspection of the facility may be required prior to' terminating coverage. Termination from coverage will occur on the date specified in the NOT, unless notified otherwise. All discharges shall cease before the date of termination, and any discharges on or after this date shall be considered in violation of these General WDRs unless covered by other WDRs. 8 November 1, 2002 4. In the event of any change in control or ownership of land or waste discharge facilities presently owned or controlled by the Discharger, the Discharger shall notify the succeeding owner or operator of the existence of these General WDRs by letter, a copy of which shall be immediately forwarded to the Executive Officer. 5. The Discharger shall take all reasonable steps to prevent any discharge in violation of these General WDRs. 6. The Discharger shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) to achieve compliance with these General WDRs. Proper operation and maintenance. also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems when necessary to achieve compliance with these General WDRs. The Discharger shall furnish the Regional Board, within a reasonable time, any information that the Board may request to determine compliance with these General WDRs. 8. The Discharger shall allow the Regional Board or its authorized representatives to: a. Enter upon the Discharger's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records pertinent to this permit are kept; b. Inspect and photograph any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations pertinent to these General WDRs; c. Have access to and copy any records pertinent to this permit; and d. Sample or monitor for the purposes of assuring permit compliance. WDR Order No. R3-2002-0084 9. All technical and monitoring reports submitted pursuant to this Order are required pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code. Failure to submit reports in accordance with schedules established by this Order, attachments to this Order, or failure to submit a report of sufficient technical quality to be acceptable to the Executive Officer, may subject the discharger to enforcement action pursuant to Section 13268 of the California Water Code. The Regional Board will base all enforcement actions on the date of Order adoption. 10. All reports, NOI, or other documents required by these General WDRs, and other information requested by the Regional Board shall be signed by a person described below or by a duly authorized representative of that person. a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer such as: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function; (b) any other person who perforans similar policy or decision- making functions for the corporation; or (c) the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor. 9 9 November 1, 2002 11. Any person signing a document under Provision 10 makes the following certification, whether written or implied: " I certify under penalty of law this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." 12. The Discharger shall give notice to the Regional Board as soon as possible of any planned alterations to the permitted facility that may change the nature or concentration of pollutants in the discharge. 13. Violations of this General Permit may result in enforcement actions as authorized under the California Water Code. 14. These General WDRs will be reviewed on or about November 1, 2007, or sooner at the discretion of the Regional Board. A discharger enrolled under these General WDRs will be automatically enrolled under the reissued General WDRs, unless a NOT is submitted to terminate coverage. I, Roger W. Briggs, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region, on November 1, 2002. Roger W. Briggs Executive Officer S:\WB\Winery General WDRAFinal Adopted General WDRs for Wineries\General WDRs for Wineries.doc AP 040-200-013 Stephen Gale M U P ' 03-07 Mailing List Distribution -W V 'o" �,.wo VAN ..yf��am,. ,,r/�.. ��,.c ri }0-4 N AR Location x� A BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER Applicant: Stephen Gale Owner: Same Hearing Date: Existing Zone: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Minor Use Permit to establish a Large Winery. District # 4 Assessor Parcel No: 040-200-013 File:MUP 03-07 00FC. r a A� 0 a .. � : i N.q�;� '0 5.7' 4 0 hs4' ,i`• . .3 ' s� 4. '. " `A 104* -C- :.. :.. , .OF 4.17.. l a�, ; i ' t� U :6f•'' '� ••j1� �' � 1F� '� Y/ IFK, 14.70 z y , BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER Applicant: Stephen Gale Owner: Same Hearing Date: Existing Zone: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Minor Use Permit to establish a Large Winery. District # 4 Assessor Parcel No: 040-200-013 File:MUP 03-07 00FC. r a A� 0 � : i N.q�;� '0 ,. 4 0 hs4' ,i`• . 4 ' ,Hutton ate,}- -------- ---q -Y - '. " 4.. x pry F'"`y.' )9 x 3L W "rW F'.• �S �'S '�4 '�t Smog- l a�, ; i ' t� U :6f•'' '� ••j1� �' � 1F� '� Y/ Q.. Y {.} "il -'� '.f� +C. ,,,,pp xbe�' ,'ate{ 9y. '++{ : S(f•" W 04 1W A 700 0 700 1400 2100 2800 3500 4200 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER Applicant: Stephen Gale Owner: Same Hearing Date: Existing Zone: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Minor Use Permit to establish a Large Winery. District # 4 Assessor Parcel No: 040-200-013 File:MUP 03-07 00FC. r a A� 0 � : i N.q�;� '0 '%stn ff:. F 0 hs4' ,i`• . ,Hutton ate,}- -------- ---q -Y - '. " 4.. x pry F'"`y.' )9 x 3L W "rW F'.• �S �'S '�4 '�t +v � gg �^"4yy ++K{- j � i b23s-- l a�, ; i ' t� U :6f•'' '� ••j1� �' � 1F� '� Y/ Q.. Y {.} "il -'� '.f� +C. ,,,,pp xbe�' ,'ate{ 9y. '++{ : S(f•" 1W A 700 0 700 1400 2100 2800 3500 4200 4900 5600 Feet BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING MANAGER Applicant: Stephen Gale Owner: Same Hearing Date: Existing Zone: A-5 (Agricultural, 5 acre min.) N Supervisorial Request: Minor Use Permit to establish a Large Winery. District # 4 Assessor Parcel No: 040-200-013 File:MUP 03-07 LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: MUP 03-07 AP# 040-200-013 APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Durham, CA 95938 PHONE#: _ (530) 891-1264 OWNER: Stephen Gale REPRESENTATIVE: John C. Anderson, 530 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 REQUEST: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery SIZE: 5.43 acres LOCATION: _west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham -Da, on Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT # 4 EXISTING ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 - acre parcels) ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: _AR (Agricultural -Residential) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: ASSIGNED PLANNER: Craig Sanders Date Application Received 11/15/02 Date Project Assigned 11/18/02 30 Day Complete 12/15/02 Preset Hearing Date 03/13/03 "DRAFT" LEAD IN SHEET FILE NO: lvg (/ld 03-0-7 AP# 01?� 9 - ;4,0- aPl3 syM-[aG 1y APPLICANT: �'T�'Y°�i C�.-� �h �-L Q 34S �A 5 r.r,.r m,3 pro bine-,4,twc �Jyj$ OWNER: �'�-�✓l�f REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSED REQUEST: (to be filled out by person taking in application) Vy6•t�-�`-e_2yr�� d��i/t ,yt� ? r-� � S-��4--6 /c sL, .4 /.•42�i c'y�.-€ �-� FINAL REQUEST: (to be filled out by project planner) OK 0 OvhDve_ SIZE:y`, `f 3 .-c LOCATION: uleas7- s l Ae o,C 3, t -4.v p o e gi L -4,,e -r A4,o L4 !, ceo -r4e I- 4ttd DAyTv / N �� if cv�Q ? I - 70 a Q u.,e /4-4 e14 SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # y EXISTING ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 30 Day.Complete 15' be& ' 61 PLANNERS INITIALS i� COMMENT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: DATE: County Offices and Cities: _ Chief Administrative Officer .-X_ Develop. Services Director`/ X Environmental Health ✓ X Assesor ll( Sheriff X LAFCo'1/ —,ZCAG _Y_ Air Quality Mgmt. _ Biggs _ Gridley Oroville _ Paradise _ Information Systems Dept _ Animal Control Irrigation District: _ US Bureau of Land Management _ Butte Water —Biggs/W. Gridley Water _ OWID _ Paradise Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _California Water Service Co. OWID _Thennalito InigationDistrict Sewer _ Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation Skansen Subdivision (CSA 21) _ L.O.A. PUD Fire Protection X California Department of Forestry _ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts �/� Chico Area Recreation - Durham Area Recreation Paradise Recreation & Park _ Richvale Recreation & Parks Utilities _ PG&E K%4- Chico _ Chambers Cable TV - Oroville _ Viacom Cable TV State Agencies (Tr(Tffic) _ Dept of Water Resources �Aores4s(Ag: Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. ntral Reg. Water Quality Cont _ Caltrans, Aeronautics Program _ Department of Conservation _ Off. of Mining Reclamation Dept.Sodal Services, Comm.Care Licensing Federal Agencies _ US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management _ Army Corps of Engineers _ National Marine Fisheries Sservice Other Districts, Agencles, Committees, etc. Lime Saddle Dist _ Drainage — Reclamation _ Butte Co. Mining Committee _ Paradise Pines Com. Assoc. _ Mosq. Abatement Oroville/Butte Co _ Community Association _ Butte Env.l Council _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Forest Ranch Community Assoc. _ Butte Ck. Watershed Conservancy _Public Works Directook Building Manager AUC ✓Butte Co. Farm Bureau..e _ Chico _ Chico Airport Commission X Agricultural Commissional Dufiam Irrigation's Rlchvale Irrigation _ Other _ Del Oro Water Co. Other Sterling City Sewer Main Feather River Rec. & Park Pacific Bell _ Dept. of Fish and Game _ Highway Patrol _ Off. of Governmental & Env. Relations US Fish & Wildlife Service School Districts K:\PLANNING\FORMS\DISTR.LIS ;0 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 0 PLANNING DIVISION 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 Telephone: (530) 538-7601 FAX: (530) 538-7785 TO: FROM: Craig Sanders, Butte County Planning Division SUBJECT: Request for Comments on a Development/Land Use Application APPLICANT: Stephen Gale, Minor Use Permit - MUP 03-07 DATE: December 2, 2002 The Planning Division has received a project application as described below. This application is being provided to you for review. This is your opportunity to make comments regarding the completeness of this application, and to recommend conditions and/or mitigation measures relevant to your agency's/department's area of expertise and jurisdiction. If a response cannot be submitted prior to December 16, 2002, please call Craig Sanders at (530) 538-7603. You do not have to respond to this request if you have no comments to include. Thank you for your attention to this matter. A hearing on this application has been tentatively scheduled for March 13, 2002 before the: F]Planning Manager F-lbevelopment Review Committee PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Minor Use Permit to establish a large winery PROJECT LOCATION: west side of Stanford Lane, approximately 1,500 feet south of Durham - Dayton Highway in the Durham area at 9345 "A" Stanford Lane, Identified as APN# 040-200-013 County Supervisor District No: 4 ZONING: A-5 (Agricultural -Residential, 5 -acre parcels) COMMENTS: (Please be specific. Letters or additional comments may be attached): By: Date: October 28, 2002 Steve Gayle 9345 Stanford Lane Durham, CA 95938 B E A U T Y DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE • OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (530) 538-7541 FAX: (530) 538-2140 RE: Building Code Violation Location: 9345 Stanford Lane, Durham, CA AP #040-200-013 Dear Steve Gayle: p ECE5 YE Nov 15 2002 W .OuITE COUNTY K ANNING DIVISION This is a courtesy notice to notify you that you are in violation of the Butte County Code, at the above -referenced location, as follows: Failure to obtain the required permits, inspections and approvals from this office for the construction of a pool house building. Since permits and inspections are required for the above work, please submit three (3) complete sets of plans, apply for the required permits, and pay the appropriate fees. All work must stop until these permits are issued and you are authorized by our field inspector to proceed. The field authorization cannot be made until the existing work is inspected and approved. It is the County's goal to obtain voluntary compliance with the Butte County Code. However, you should be advised that Butte County has an active Code Enforcement Program which provides an effective means of enforcement if voluntary compliance is not obtained. Enforcement may be pursued through the issuance of citations, fines and the recording of a Notice of Violation including a description of the action necessary to abate the violation. You have thirty (30) days to voluntarily comply with the above directions or to present an acceptable plan for abatement or corrective actions to be taken by you. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Scott Rutherford or Michael Vieira in this office at the address or telephone number listed above. Sincerely, Scott Rutherford WR (5� LGA C/Re "I S C c rcl t Chief, Building Inspector SR:th cc: Assessor URHA 1068.17 i 354.1 . m 4 A 6 i 2% 2 o!r,3.36AC 6.37AC 400' 5.95 A C (o R r, O RSIIO-70 \ 0tit gs m m �,z Oa, �j l' PM59-17 i 46 EfAc Q 50.92 _ - o + s n 2 Q56. / 22 io. is.ac. a 0 118.004c 535Ac 2 20•8 w� 59!�V- O ! 2 �• PM 115- 33 3 4 ONJ 4 624 •' \ \\�N ` h0. ti 6 7 4 y, ,. 23 �+ 'r r2 -_ 76 I \ \6010 44 4 0.e4Ac \ \ m 338' j 6,92 ,Ij RS`s 6 C O � v' 4 ; �� \ Is \ m 3 633 6 ' \ 89Ac.723 .... _.. .. . CO. of BUTTE 1 4 Io r IA h •�J ' ti 122.10AC /7w . V _ aM.�.v. � 25Ac. SEC. 30 �6 leosa 6/ 5 Q 9 ':r� -- -- -- -- — — — — \ 551• j• SEC. 31 \ ;j PTT'A" X4. 87 1.334 if 191• I� 4 Assessor's Map No. 40-2v t� T T County of Butte Calif.. _ DURHAM STATE LAND S£T TLEMEN 61 O.R. Ok. Q Pgs. /� a /d a MITCHELL TRACT M. O. R. 8k 6 Pg.2 REVISED; 1I- 90 w 15 ION