Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-TPM14-0005_PC_Report_2016-03-24
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT – March 24, 2016 Applicant: Brian Airehart Location: The project site is located north of the intersection of Bell Road and Alamo Avenue, approximately ¼ mile west from the City of Chico city limits Owner: Robert and Leeanne Kromer File #: TPM14-0005 Parcel Size: 12.69± acres Request: A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Supervisor District: 2 Planner: Rowland Hickel Senior Planner Attachments A: Resolution No. PC16-__ with Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) B: Tentative Parcel Map G.P.:VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) C: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Zoning: VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential – 2.5 acre minimum parcel size) D: E: Agency and Public Comments November 13, 2014 PC Meeting Minutes Audio Recording APN: 042-770-032 F: November 13, 2014 PC Agenda Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2. Approve Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005, subject to the conditions and findings recommended by staff. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Parcel Map application to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots of 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Domestic water to the resultant parcels would be provided by on-site domestic wells. Wastewater disposal for future development would be provided by individual on-site septic systems. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 1 1 Access to the proposed lots would be provided by a new private road off Bell Road along the westerly side of the subject property. The access road will be constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII Standard, which will include two, 10-foot wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Road surfacing will include a 4-inch aggregate base overlaid with a single layer of sealcoat. The total length of the road from Bell Road to its terminus is 1,319 feet, and will include a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac at its terminus. Road approach improvements will be constructed to S-18B standard, pursuant to the 2006 Butte County Improvement Standards. Subdivision of the project site would create four developable lots situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone district. BACKGROUND On November 13, 2014, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to receive public testimony for the application. Public comments noted potential issues with agricultural soils, agricultural uses, noise, traffic, water quality and water supply. Commenters also noted the project’s inconsistencies with policies in the Butte County General Plan for the protection of agricultural lands; particularly the proposed Tentative Parcel Map’s inconsistency with General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 which required a buffer of 300 feet (or as adjusted to address unusual circumstances) on property proposed for residential development to protect existing agricultural uses. The Tentative Parcel Map was continued off-calendar with direction to staff to follow through on the issues raised in public comment. On January 12, 2016 the Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to Policy AG-P5.3 and related amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment to Policy AG-P5.3 applies the County’s 300-foot agricultural buffer requirement to all lands zoned Agriculture and to lands in other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones. Policy AG-P5.3.2 requires a minimum 25 foot setback in residential zones from lands that are used for orchards or vineyards. Policy AG-P5.3.1 allows animal grazing and crop cultivation as an interim use on parcels at least 1-acre in size in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. As a result of the adopted amendments, the 300-foot agricultural buffer requirement continues to apply to areas where a residential zone and an agricultural zone are adjacent to each other. The amendment to Policy AG-P5.3 clarifies that the agricultural buffer is applicable on all lands zoned agriculture and other zones within 300 feet of lands zoned Agriculture. In residential zones, Policy AG-P5.3.2 provides for a setback from a new residence and an existing orchard or vineyard “as far away as practicable, taking into account adjacent agricultural uses and practices, provided it does not limit the allowed residential density permitted by the residential zone, and in no case less than 25 feet.” This setback requirement has also been codified as §24-56.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Upon approval of the amendments, Planning staff revised the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) that was previously prepared and circulated for public comment, but not yet adopted. These revisions focused on addressing the changes required under the January 12, 2016 General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, as well as to supply additional information about the project in response to the previously received comments. The revised IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment for a 30-day period starting February 22, 2016 through March 23, 2016. Notices were also mailed to landowners within 300-feet of the project site, to past commenters, and was published in the Chico Enterprise Record. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 2 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Proposed Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Parcel 1), 2.5 acres (Parcel 2), 2.5 acres (Parcel 3), and 2.5 acres (Parcel 4) in size. • Domestic water to the project site would be provided by groundwater wells. • Wastewater disposal to the project site would be provided by individual on-site septic systems. • Access to each parcel would be provided by a new private road, 1,319 feet in length, and constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII standard. This standard includes two 10-foot wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Surfacing includes a 4-inch aggregate base with a single layer of sealcoat. • Establishment of a 60-foot wide right-of-way along the westerly property line. The new access road will be sited on the western side of the right-of-way, with the travel lanes and shoulders situated 8-feet from the western property line. • A 40-foot radius cul-de-sac will be constructed at the terminus of the new road. • Proposed road connection constructed to the County’s S-18B standard. • A 300-foot Building Setback will be established from the northwesterly property line, pursuant to §24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. • A 50-foot setback will be established from the western property line of the project site, pursuant to §24-56.1 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. SITE CHARACTERISTICS • The project site encompasses 12.69 acres of fallow agricultural lands situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone. Existing property improvements include a groundwater well and an unconnected/unmetered power pole. • Elevation of the project site ranges between 163 to 168 feet above mean sea level. Topography of the site is level with 0 to 1 percent slopes. • The Butte County General Plan, and land cover data provided by the Butte County Association of Governments, prepared for the Butte County Regional Conservation Plan, identify the project site as Agriculture. Existing vegetative cover is primarily native and non-native forbs and grasses, with a scattering of immature oak trees concentrated near the center of the site. • The Chico Municipal Airport is located 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing a portion of the project site within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. • The area surrounding the project site primarily includes low density single-family residences on one-acre averaged-sized lots to the east and south, single-family residences and agriculture on five- acre average-sized lots to the west, and orchards/agriculture uses to the north. Public rights-of-way in the vicinity of the project site include Bell Road (County) and Alamo Avenue (County) to the south, Jones Avenue (Private), Santiago Court (Private), and Ciulla Lane (Private) to the west. • The project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and is not located near any sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 3 3 ANALYSIS Butte County Code §24-18 E. (Very Low Density Residential) The project site is situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone district. The VLDR zoning designation allows for single- family homes and related uses in residential neighborhoods within the county. Permitted residential uses in the VLDR zones include single-family homes, small residential care homes, second units, animal grazing, on-site agricultural product sales, and private stables. The VLDR zone also conditionally permits non-residential uses compatible with a residential setting, including public and quasi-public uses, golf courses, park and recreational facilities, personal services, animal keeping, large residential care homes, and medical offices and clinics. The proposed parcel sizes include three parcels of 2.5 acres and one parcel 5.19 acres, which are consistent with the minimum parcel size criteria of the VLDR-2.5 zone. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan The Chico Municipal Airport is located 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing the project site within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport is defined as the outer boundary of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 conical zone limits, subjecting lands to reviews to ensure that objects and other land uses do not affect the navigable airspace of the airport. Uses prohibited within Zone D include any hazards to the flight of the aircraft such as physical, visual and electronic forms of interference, and land uses which may cause the attraction of birds to increase. Conditions for development within Zone D include establishment of an avigation easement dedication with acknowledgement of airport proximity and review of objects greater than 100 feet in height. Approval of the proposed project will be subject to implementing the requirements of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure airport operations do not affect persons residing on the project site, or that future land uses on the project site do not adversely affect airport and aircraft operations. Requirements of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan will be executed through conditions of approval. Butte County Code §24-81 (Agricultural Buffers) Article 17 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance establishes a 300-foot buffer between lands zoned agriculture and new residential development. This ordinance applies to parcels where residential structures are to be developed in the following areas of the county: (1) all lands zoned Agriculture; (2) in other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones; (3) areas inside and within 300 feet of sphere of influence boundaries for incorporated cities, where the boundary abuts parcels zoned Agriculture; and, (4) areas within 300 feet of a Williamson Act Contract. Exceptions to the 300-foot agricultural buffer setback requirement may be requested by the project applicant through an Unusual Circumstances Review application process. A 300-foot agricultural buffer will be established from the northwestern property line, pursuant to §24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. A building setback will be established to provide a buffer from adjacent agricultural uses currently in operation on adjacent lands zoned Agriculture. The buffer would restrict all future residential development adjacent to any agricultural operations within agricultural zoning designations, and would minimize potential conflicts between the two uses. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 4 4 Butte County Code §24-56.1 - Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards On January 12, 2016, the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to establish a setback requirement for new residential development adjacent to existing orchards and vineyards located in residential zones. Butte County Code (BCC) §24- 56.1 provides as follows: 24-56.1 Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards A setback is established for residential development from existing orchards and vineyards that are located in residential zones in order to reduce interference and conflict with preexisting agricultural operations, while providing for the development potential allowed by residential zones. The residential setback from orchards and vineyards is subject to the following requirements (Refer to Article 17. Agricultural Buffers, for agricultural buffer setbacks required where a developing residentially zoned parcel is adjacent to a parcel zoned Agriculture): A. A setback between a new residence and an existing active orchard or vineyard shall be established as far away from the orchard or vineyard as practicable, taking into account adjacent agricultural uses and practices, provided it does not limit the allowed residential density permitted by the residential zone, and in no case is less than 25 feet. B. Any proposed land division adjacent to an existing active orchard or vineyard use shall apply for a Residential Setback Recommendation with the Development Services Department in accordance with this section. The Residential Setback Recommendation shall be reviewed by the Agricultural Commissioner, in consultation with Development Services to determine an appropriate setback width (pursuant to Subsection A.). The Residential Setback Recommendation shall become part of the application and reviewed by the hearing body. Public noticing shall include reference to the Residential Setback Recommendation and the residential setback’s recommended width. C. All building permits for residential development adjacent to existing orchards or vineyards shall be reviewed for compliance with the required residential setback. If no residential setback is shown on an applicable recorded parcel map or subdivision map, a review by the Zoning Administrator at a noticed public hearing shall be conducted to determine the appropriate setback pursuant to Subsection A. D. The residential setback shall be imposed from the property line (s) on the developing parcel and shown on the recorded parcel map or subdivision map or building permit site plan. E. The setback shall not apply to residential development adjacent to row crops or greenhouses and wholesale nurseries primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, vines or trees and their seeds. F. The setback shall not apply to backyard gardens and fruit and nut trees accessory to a residential use. G. The setback shall not apply to accessory structures as defined under §24‐156 (Accessory Uses and Structures) excepting guest houses, which must comply with the setback. H. The setback shall not apply to orchard or vineyard uses that start operations after a building permit is approved (this does not apply to an existing orchard or vineyard that is removed and replaced). Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 5 5 I. If the orchard or vineyard use is discontinued (i.e., the land is developed with residential uses) the setback shall no longer be applicable. A 50-foot setback will be established from the western property line of the project site, pursuant to §24- 56.1 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed residential setback is established from the existing agricultural uses and practices located on the adjacent property, and would apply to any future residential dwellings constructed on the resultant parcels, including guest houses. The proposed setback was reviewed by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office on February 3, 2016, and is recommended for approval by the Butte County Planning Commission. Upon approval, the residential setback will be shown on the recorded parcel map. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY General Plan goals and policies were evaluated in the context of the proposed project. Eighteen goals and 33 policies were identified as being applicable to the project. The following table identifies each applicable goal and policy, and a review of the project’s consistency with each policy. General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review LAND USE ELEMENT GOAL LU-G13. Plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico area through the Chico Area Greenline. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. LU-P13.4. Allow residential land uses on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline only within those areas designated for Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) and Rural Residential (RR) use on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map shown in Figure LU-7. Consistent. The project site is situated on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline and zoned Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). LU-P13.7. Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline. Consistent. The project applicant is proposing to establish a 300-foot Agricultural Buffer along the northerly property line of the project site, in accordance with Butte County Code §24-81 et seq., and the Residential Setbacks, in accordance with BCC §24-56.1. Together these setbacks would all future residential development adjacent to the current agricultural operations and agricultural zoning designations, minimizing potential conflicts between residential and agricultural uses, and promoting the conservation and protection of agricultural uses from premature conversion to non-agricultural uses. AGRICULTURE ELEMENT GOAL AG-5. Reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and between habitat mitigation banking and agricultural uses. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 6 6 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review AG-P5.3. The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect lands designated Agriculture by the General Plan and zoned Agriculture under the Zoning Ordinance from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.* Consistent. A 300-foot Agricultural Buffer will be established from adjacent property zoned Agriculture, pursuant to Butte County Code §24-81 et seq. AG-P5.3.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require a setback between a new residence and an existing active orchard or vineyard that locates the residence as far away from the orchard or vineyard as practicable, taking into account adjacent agricultural uses and practices, provided it does not limit the density permitted by the residential zone, and in no case is less than 25 feet. The setback shall be imposed on the parcel developing with residences and shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner as to width. The setback shall be subject to a public hearing. Consistent. A 50-foot residential setback will be established from the western property line of the project site, pursuant to §24-56.1 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. The 50-foot residential setback is proposed along the portion of the western property line that does not include the proposed 60-foot right-of-way for a private access road. The right-of-way is 1,319 feet in length with an additional 40-foot at the end of the road to be established for a vehicle turn-around. Future residential dwellings constructed on the resultant parcels (along the right-of-way) would be setback an additional 20-feet, pursuant to Table 24-20-2 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, making the total setback from the western property line a minimum of 80 feet. WATER RESOURCE ELEMENT GOAL W-1. Maintain and enhance water quality. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. W-P1.1. County planning and programs shall be integrated with other watershed planning efforts, including best management practices, guidelines and policies of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consistent. The proposed project will include BMPs as necessary during construction activities. BMPs may include silt fences, stakes straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins, temporary revegetation, and any other appropriate measures. W-P1.4. Where appropriate, new development shall be Low Impact Development (LID) that minimizes impervious area, minimizes runoff and pollution and incorporates best management practices. Consistent. The proposed project will include BMPs as necessary during construction activities. BMPs may include silt fences, stakes straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins, temporary revegetation, and any other appropriate measures. W-P1.8. The County supports conversion from septic systems to public sewer service, where feasible. Consistent. The nearest sewer lines to the project site is approximately 1,500 feet, and located in the City of Chico. Conversion from septic systems to sewer would not be feasible. GOAL W-2. Ensure an abundant and sustainable water supply to support all uses in Butte County. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 7 7 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review W-P2.8. The County supports Area of Origin water rights, the existing water right priority system and the authority to make water management decisions locally to meet the county's current and future needs, thereby protecting Butte County's communities, economy and environment. Consistent. Future beneficial land uses will utilize established vested rights to underlying groundwater resources to meet water needs. W-P2.9. Applicants for new major development projects, as determined by the Department of Development Services, shall demonstrate adequate water supply to meet the needs of the project, including an evaluation of potential cumulative impacts to surrounding groundwater users and the environment.* Consistent. The availability of water resources to serve future development on the project site would be evaluated by Butte County Environmental Health upon application for a new well, and certification from a professional hydrologist. GOAL W-3. Effectively manage groundwater resources to ensure a long-term water supply for Butte County. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. W-P3.3. The County shall protect groundwater recharge and groundwater quality when considering new development projects.* Consistent. Future development would result in only a minor increase in impervious surfaces from the construction of concrete foundations and access roads. Thus, the proposed project would not cause a measureable reduction in surface infiltration or a decrease in deep percolation to the underlying aquifers. At the time of development, proposed improvements will be evaluated to ensure that stormwater runoff is appropriately retained on-site to adequately allow for groundwater recharge and improved water quality. GOAL W-4. Promote water conservati9on as an important part of a long-term and sustainable water supply. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. W-P4.6. New development projects shall adopt best management practices for water use efficiency and demonstrate specific water conservation measures.* Consistent. Future development would be subject to California Green Building Standards Code, which contains specific measures for water conservation of residential and non-residential buildings. GOAL W-5. Protect water quality through effective stormwater management. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 8 8 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review W-P5.2. New development projects shall identify and adequately mitigate their water quality impacts from stormwater runoff.* Consistent. Drainage plans and calculations will be submitted to the County Public Works Department as a condition of project approval. Engineering plans will detail existing drainage conditions and specify how stormwater runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly-maintained facility. Engineering calculations will show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. W-P5.4. Temporary facilities shall be installed as necessary during construction activities in order to adequately treat stormwater runoff from construction sites.* Consistent. Access road construction to the resultant parcel would be designed in accordance with the 2006 Butte County Improvement Standards, which would include the construction of appropriate stormwater collection systems with the construction of road improvements. W-P5.5. Stormwater collection systems shall be installed concurrently with construction of new roadways to maximize efficiency and minimize disturbance due to construction activity. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT GOAL COS-1. Reduce greenhouse emissions 10 1990 levels by 2010. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. COS-P1.1. Greenhouse gas emission impacts from proposed development projects shall be evaluated as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Consistent. The Initial Study, prepared pursuant to the CEQA, evaluated whether the proposed project would cause an adverse impact from greenhouse gas emissions, and whether the project is consistent with the Butte County CAP. COS-P1.2. New development projects shall mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on-site or as close to the site as possible. Consistent. Cal Green development measures will be applied in the design of the future development, the use alternative fuels for construction equipment, and limiting construction equipment idling times applied during construction. GOAL COS-2. Promote green building, planning and business. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. COS-P2.2. New development shall comply with Green Building Standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission at the time of building permit application, including requirements about low- or no- toxicity building materials. Consistent. Cal Green development measures will be applied in the design of future development, at the time of the building permit application. GOAL COS-5. Minimize air pollutant emissions. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 9 9 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review COS-P5.2. Developers shall implement best management practices to reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of development projects.* Consistent. The project includes an air quality mitigation measure that contains best management practices in the suppression of dust and other air pollution emissions during construction activities. GOAL COS-9. Protect identified special- status plant and animal species. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. COS-P9.1. A biological resources assessment shall be required for any proposed development project where special- status species or critical habitat may be present. Assessments shall be carried out under the direction of Butte County. Additional focused surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate season if necessary. Upon adoption of the Butte Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), assessment requirements of the HCP/NCCP shall be implemented for development projects within the HCP/NCCP area.* Consistent. Preconstruction biological resource surveys for potential special-status species identified in the project area have been incorporated into the proposed project. Surveys shall be performed pursuant to adopted protocols established by applicable federal, State and regional agencies. GOAL COS-15. Ensure that new development does not adversely impact cultural resources. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. COS-P15.1. Areas found during construction to contain significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts shall be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or historian for appropriate protection and preservation. Historic or prehistoric artifacts found during construction shall be examined by a qualified consulting archaeologist or historian to determine their significance and develop appropriate protection and preservation measures.* Consistent. Mitigation measures have been included that address the recovery of cultural resources, and identification of human remains, should any be discovered through future grading activities on the resultant parcels. COS-P15.2. Any archaeological or paleontological resources on a development project site shall be either preserved in their sites or adequately documented as a condition of removal. When a development project has sufficient flexibility, avoidance and preservation of the resource shall be the primary mitigation measure.* GOAL COS-16. Respect Native American culture and planning concerns. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 10 10 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review COS-P16.4. If human remains are located during any ground disturbing activity, work shall stop until the County Coroner has been contacted and, if the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the NAHC and most likely descendant have been consulted.* Consistent. Mitigation measures have been included that address the recovery of cultural resources, and identification of human remains, should any be discovered through future grading activities on the resultant parcels. GOAL COS-17. Maintain and enhance the quality of Butte County's scenic and visual resources. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. COS-P17.1. Views of Butte County's scenic resources, including water features, unique geologic features and wildlife habitat areas, shall be maintained.* Consistent. No scenic resources were identified within the project area that would be adversely impacted by the proposed project, including any substantial water features, unique geological features, or wildlife habitat areas. HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT GOAL HS-1. Maintain an acceptable noise environment in all areas of the county. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. HS-P1.1. New development projects proposed in areas that exceed the land use compatibility standards in Tables HS-2 and HS-3 shall require mitigation of noise impacts.* Consistent. No significant transportation or non-transportation noise sources have been identified in the project area. HS-P1.2. Noise from transportation sources shall not exceed land use compatibility standards in Table HS-2.* Consistent. No significant transportation noise sources have been identified within the project area. HS-P1.4. New noise-sensitive land uses shall not be located within the 60 Ldn contour of the Chico Municipal Airport.* Consistent. The Chico Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, and is situated within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D for the airport. At this distance, the project site is located outside the 55 dB CNEL noise level established for the airport. HS-P1.9. The following standard construction noise control measures shall be required at construction sites in order to minimize construction noise impacts: (a.) Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. (b.) Locate stationary noise- generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. (c.) Utilize quiet air compressors and other stationary noise-generating equipment where appropriate technology exists and is feasible.* Consistent. Noise generated by construction activities associated with the project are temporary, intermittent and separated from noise sensitive receptors. Noise control measures are standard in the construction industry and are commonly used to minimize noise impacts to surrounding uses. Additionally, construction activities would be consistent with the County's Noise Control Ordinance. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 11 11 General Plan 2030 Goals and Policies Consistency Review GOAL HS-3. Prevent and reduce flooding. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. HS-P3.2. Applicants for new development projects shall provide plans detailing existing drainage conditions and specifying how runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility and shall provide that there shall be no increase in the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility.* Consistent. The applicant will submit drainage plans and calculations to the County Public Works Department, as a condition of project approval. Engineering plans will detail existing drainage conditions and specify how stormwater runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly-maintained facility. Engineering calculations will show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. HS-P3.3. All development projects shall include stormwater control measures and site design features that prevent any increase in the peak flow runoff to existing drainage facilities.* GOAL HS-11. Reduce risks from wildland and urban fire. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. HS-P11.1. Fire hazards shall be considered in all land use and zoning decisions, environmental review, subdivisions review and the provision of public services. Consistent. The project is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a State Responsibility Area, and therefore, would not be exposed to a significant wildland fire risk. HS-P11.4. New development projects shall meet current fire safe ordinance standards for adequate emergency water flow, emergency vehicle access, signage, evacuation routes, fuel management, defensible space, fire safe building construction and wildfire preparedness. Consistent. The project is subject to the California Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291, which require that new development projects have adequate water storage, access, defensible space, building construction, and other fire protection standards. GOAL PUB-13. Plan adequate wastewater infrastructure to serve new development. Consistent. This goal is more specifically reviewed in the discussion of the policies below. PUB-P13.3. New development projects shall demonstrate the availability of a safe, sanitary and environmentally sound wastewater system. Consistent. A pre-application review was performed by Butte County Department of Environmental Health, in accordance with Chapter 19 of Butte County Code (On-Site Wastewater Systems). The review identified initial septic locations on the resultant parcels that have adequate soil conditions to allow for future development of an on-site wastewater system. Future development is required to receive an On-Site Wastewater System Construction Permit from Butte County Environmental Health Division. The Construction Permit will include detailed plans of the proposed wastewater system, prepared by a Certified Installer or Certified Designer, which will demonstrate compliance with County regulations and the County’s On-Site Wastewater Manual, and to ensure a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system. PUB-P13.2. For development projects that will rely on on-site wastewater systems, applicants shall provide detailed plans demonstrating that the system will be adequate to serve the project. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 12 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS The County had received five public comment letters (see attached) when the application was originally circulated for reviewed in 2014. Each letter has been reviewed to identify the specific issues raised about the proposed project and the draft IS/MND. In those instances when the identified issues were applicable to the IS/MND, for purposes of CEQA and public disclosure, the IS/MND was revised. Each comment in each letter is numbered. Responses are numbered to correspond to the appropriate comment in each letter. Copies of all written comments received during the public review are included as Attachment D. A link to the audio recording of the November 13, 2014 meeting is available as Attachment E. Emmitt and Pat Jones [October 16, 2014] JONES-1: At full build-out of the proposed development, it is anticipated that one well will be constructed on each resultant parcel. However, it is possible for property owners to share a single well or construct more than one well to service the beneficial water needs of the overlying properties. Ultimately, water usage on the resultant parcels will be determined by the uses that are established. This is consistent of surrounding properties that also rely on individual wells for groundwater supply. Carol Berg and Stafford Thomas [October 21, 2014] BERG-1: The Chico Area Greenline is located along Bell Road and Jones Avenue, placing the project site and properties to the west and to the north on the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline. The project site and properties to the west are zoned VLDR-2.5 (2½ acre minimum parcel size). Zoning is consistent with the land use designations permitted on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline. The development and adoption of Butte County General Plan 2030 update occurred from 2006 through 2010, with the Zoning Ordinance update occurring from 2010 through 2012. During this time Butte County conducted an extensive outreach process to notify property owners and solicit public input regarding the land use changes being proposed. Over 90 public meetings were held as part of this process. Methods to notify property owners included numerous newspaper display advertisements, on-air radio advertisements, press releases, direct mailings of meeting notices to property owners, direct mailings of the General Plan 2030 Newsletter, a dedicated website to the General Plan 2030 update, and email listserve notifications. In any event, the requirements of Government Code §65090 and §65091 were satisfied. BERG-2: The project site and surrounding properties are located within the Vina Groundwater Inventory Unit. Based on the 2001 Butte County Water Inventory and Analysis, a normal year’s groundwater demand for the Vina Unit is 138.2 thousand acre-feet. Of the total water usage in the Vina Unit, agriculture is the largest water user with 71 percent of the total demand. Urban demands use the least amount of the water of any other sector with only 4 percent. According to the California Water Service Company 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Chico-Hamilton City District, annual water usage per single-family household is approximately 0.5 acre-feet. Therefore, annual water usage for the future single-family Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 13 13 residences on the four new lots would be approximately 2 acre-feet. This overall increase in groundwater withdraw is small in comparison to overall usage of the groundwater in the area. As a result, the creation of four new wells is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact to water supplies. BERG-3: Potential impacts of the proposed project have been reviewed and a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended because the environmental impacts associated with the project will be mitigated to a less than significant level. The CEQA document is negative because Planning staff has determined the proposed project does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report. BERG-4: A copy of the parcel map showing Jones Avenue as being abandoned was not provided by the commenter for planning staff to review and provide a response. Nevertheless, records show that the Jones Avenue easement (60-feet wide) was originally established in 1895. A 10-foot wide strip along the westerly side of the Jones Avenue easement was abandoned in 1911, bringing that portion of the easement on the project site to 20-feet in width. Available records indicate that, with this easement in place, current and future property owners of the project site currently have legal entitlements to use Jones Avenue for ingress and egress to their property. The commenter is correct in that Jones Avenue is a private road, with maintenance of the road being paid by the property owners who use the road. In the event current or future property owners of the project site choose to use Jones Avenue, they are required to contribute their fair share to the maintenance of the road, in accordance with California Civil Code §845. Condition #5 is recommended, which would place a notation on the recorded parcel map notifying future property owners of their legal responsibility in maintaining privately-maintained access roads serving their properties. Though property owners of the resultant parcels have legal entitlements to use Jones Avenue, a new access road to serve the resultant parcels is proposed to be constructed along the westerly line of the subject property. It is anticipated that future property owners will use the new road as their primary access to their property. Erik and Stephanie Roos [October 17, 2014] ROOS-1: There are no current plans by the County or the project applicant to extend Jones Avenue to Churchill Drive. ROOS-2: Lot 1 of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is 5.19 acres, with the other three lots proposed to have sizes of 2.5 acres. Future development on Lot 1 is anticipated to be more constrained due to the 300-foot agricultural buffer proposed to be established. The larger parcel size would provide more area for future residential development. The size of Lot 1 and the minimum parcel size in the VLDR – 2.5 zone would allow for a one-time future subdivision of the parcel. Any future subdivision of Lot 1 would be subject to review and approval by the County. Minasian, Meith, Soares, Sexton & Cooper, LLP. [November 5, 2014] Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 14 14 M-1 The project site is zoned Very Low Density Residential-2.5 acres, which allows for both residential and agricultural land uses. The proposal would subdivide the 12-acre property into parcels consistent with the designated minimum parcel size. However, there is no proposal to “convert” the property into a “residential subdivision” because the property is already zoned residential. Further, subdivision of the property does not in itself distinguish between residential and agricultural uses, as both are permitted in the zone. With the adoption of the General Plan Amendment to Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3, an agricultural buffer of 300-feet is not required from adjacent residentially-zoned property that may contain agricultural uses. Rather, AG-P5.3.2, requires a minimum 25-foot residential setback from agricultural uses located on residentially-zoned property. M-2 Planning staff requested project comments from the Agricultural Commissioner on June 24, 2014. The Agricultural Commissioner provided comments for the project on July 10, 2014. Additional email correspondence regarding the project was made by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office on September 8, 2014. Finally, a Residential Setback meeting between the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and the Planning Division was held February 2, 2016. M-3 The Board of Supervisors adopted an amendment to Butte County General Plan 2030 and related amendments to the Zoning Ordinance on January 12, 2016. The amendment is to Policy AG-P5.3 (Agricultural Buffer) of the Agriculture Element of the Butte County General Plan and related Zoning Ordinance amendments regarding agricultural uses in non-agricultural zones. These amendments continue to apply the County’s 300-foot agricultural buffer requirement to all lands zoned Agriculture and other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones. The amendments require a minimum 25 foot setback in residential zones from lands that are used for orchards or vineyards. The amendments also allow animal grazing and crop cultivation as an interim use on parcels at least 1-acre in size in all residential, commercial, and industrial zones. The 300 foot agricultural buffer requirement has not been altered for areas where a residential zone and an agricultural zone are adjacent to each other. The 300-foot agricultural buffer continues to be fully enforced at these locations. The amendment to Policy AG-P5.3 clarifies that the agricultural buffer is applicable on all lands zoned agriculture and other zones within 300 feet of lands zoned Agriculture. In residential zones, the amendments provide for the maximum practicable setback width, but in no case less than a 25 foot residential setback from existing orchards or vineyards. The previously heard Tentative Parcel Map application was revised and resubmitted by the applicant on February 4, 2016. Proposed revisions were made to ensure consistency with BCC §24-56.1 (Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards) and included a 50-foot residential setback from the western property line to address adjacent agricultural uses. Because a new tentative parcel map was submitted, the application was re-evaluated. Planning staff revised the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration previously prepared and circulated for the project. M-4 Potential impacts to adjacent agricultural uses were evaluated in the IS/MND. The proposed project includes an agricultural buffer of 300-feet from agricultural-zoned lands Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 15 15 to the north, and a 50-foot residential setback from agricultural uses on residentially-zoned lands to the west. Implementation of agricultural buffers and residential setbacks would ensure potentially incompatible residential and agricultural uses are less than significant; thereby ensuring consistency with General Plan Policy LU-P13.7. M-5 See response M-3 and M-4. The added proposal to establish a 60-feet wide right-of-way along the western property line would function as a setback of residential structures from adjacent agricultural uses. In addition to the right-of-way width, 20-foot front-yard setbacks from the proposed right-of-way would be imposed on any future structure. M-6 The IS/MND was revised to provide a more detailed analysis of potential impacts to the conversion of farmlands. With the implementation of proposed residential setbacks and agricultural buffer areas, it was found that the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland. This analysis was further evaluated and supported in the Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2015042004) prepared for the 2016 General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance amendments. M-7 The IS/MND was revised to provide a more detailed analysis of drainage impacts potentially caused by the project. The analysis ultimately concluded that adherence to existing development standards and recommended conditions of approval would ensure impacts are less than significant. M-8 Residential land uses in the VLDR and RR zones are allowed on the agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline, as stated in General Plan Policy LU-P13.4. This policy is intended, in part, to achieve the stated goal of LU-G13, which is to plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico are through the Chico Area Greenline. This goal is also achieved with the implementation of the proposed project’s agricultural setbacks, which is consistent with policy LU-P13.7, to conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline. M-9 The IS/MND was revised to address potential impacts from the proposed project to adjacent agricultural uses. The revised IS/MND found that no potential impacts would occur, and that the project is consistent with the General Plan. M-10 As a condition of approval, the applicant will submit drainage plans and calculations to the County Public Works Department. Engineering plans will detail existing drainage conditions and specify how stormwater runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly-maintained facility. Engineering calculations will show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. Further, all improvements associated with the proposed project will be made in accordance with the Butte County Improvement Standards and reviewed by the Butte County Public Works Department. Implementation of this condition, together with the application of existing County and State regulations and policies, would ensure that the anticipated minor increase in runoff would not exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage systems or substantially increase polluted runoff. M-11 The project site is located in an area known to have high levels of nitrates in groundwater. Future septic systems installed on the site, including the underlying soil profiles, will be Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 16 16 evaluated by Butte County Environmental Health to ensure compliance with current regulations for the installation of such systems. M-12 New wells are reviewed by the Butte County Environmental Health to determine if new wells would have adequate capacity and are of adequate quality to serve the intended use. It is the current policy of Environmental Health to increase the depth of well casings in this nitrate area from 20-feet to 80-feet. Environmental Health will also require testing of nitrates. M-13 The proposed project to subdivide the property into 4 lots of 2.5+ acres are consistent with the zoning designated for the property. The increase in density established when the property was rezoned in 2012 was evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report. Suzanne Clark Morlock [October 23, 2014] MOR-1: See response BERG-1. MOR-2: The soils on the project site are described by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, as an Almendra Loam, which has a Land Capability Classification of I (if irrigated) and IIIc (if not irrigated). These capability classifications show the general suitability of the soils for agricultural use, with the risk of soil damage or limitations in its use becoming progressively greater from class I to class VIII. Both, class I and class IIIc soils, are generally described as being capable of producing the most types of plants under good management practices. Thus, would be considered good soils for agricultural uses. The VLDR-2.5 zone allows for agricultural uses, including crop cultivation and animal grazing. MOR-3: See response BERG-2. Butte County and the California Department of Water Resources have been monitoring groundwater levels at locations throughout the County. Information on the County area groundwater monitoring efforts can be located at: http://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation/GroundwaterLevels.aspx MOR-4: Construction of the access road could result in temporary, short-term, dust and noise impacts to surrounding property owners. Dust impacts have been evaluated and Mitigation Measure #1 is recommended to address these potential impacts. This measure would require construction personnel to use best management practices identified in the mitigation measure to reduce dust emissions. Construction activities are also anticipated to generate noise levels that may be perceived by adjoining property owners. Construction activities would be temporary and short-term, ultimately ceasing upon the completion of the construction work. Construction activities would also be limited to day-time hours (see Butte County Code §41A-9 (F.)), which would reduce potential noise impacts to surrounding property owners. A minor increase in the amount of traffic is anticipated upon the full build-out of the proposed project. Traffic generated by the project is anticipated to occur on the new access road to be constructed as part of the project. The proposed road will be chip sealed, which Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 17 17 would reduce potential noise and dust impacts associated with the increase in traffic. Though traffic would be generated, the amount of traffic would be minimal in comparison to the existing traffic currently using Jones Avenue or Bell Road. MOR-5: See response BERG-4. It’s anticipated that future property owners will use the new road as the primary access to their property. In the event that property owners elect to use Jones Avenue as their primary road, only a minimal amount of traffic would be added to the overall traffic use of the road. This minor increase is not expected to cause any substantial negative impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/CEQA ISSUES In compliance with Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), application, and reference documents for this project were placed on file for public review and comment for a 30-day period starting February 22, 2016 through March 23, 2016. Notice of the 30-day review period was mailed to landowners within 300-feet of the project site, and was published in the Chico Enterprise Record. The Initial Study prepared for this project determined there may be potential environmental impacts to the following areas: • Air Quality; • Biological Resources; • Cultural Resources; and • Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached to this agenda report, recommended four mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a Notice of Determination for the project, unless the project proponent provides verification from the California Department of Fish and Game that the project is exempt from the fee requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project, the project will not be operative, vested or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid (Section 711.4 (c) (3)). Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 18 18 RESOLUTION NO. PC-______ A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TPM14-0005 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 for Brian Airehart (Kromer), in accordance with Chapter 20; Subdivisions, of the Butte County Code on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 042-770-032; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, said map was referred to various affected public and private agencies, County departments, and referral agencies for review and comments; and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were held on November 13, 2014 and March 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered public comments and a report from the Planning Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of Butte County hereby finds and declares the following: I. Adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following findings: A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with CEQA. Said Study identified significant environmental effects and included mitigation measures that would mitigate such effects below significant levels; B. The Planning Commission has considered the 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 Tentative Parcel Map for Brian Airehart, Planning Division File No. TPM14-0005, with conditions and mitigations here attached, would have a significant effect on the environment. D. The custodian of the record is the Land Development Division of the Public Works Department. The location of the record is 7 County Center Drive, Oroville CA 95965. E. The Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the County, which is the Lead Agency. II. Finds that collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a Notice of Determination for the project, unless the project proponent provides verification from the California Department of Fish and Game that the project is exempt from the fee requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project, the project will not be operative, vested or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid (Section 711.4 (c)(3)). III. Approves Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 for Brian Airehart (Kromer), subject to the conditions found in Exhibit “A” and the following findings: Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 19 19 A. The proposed map is consistent with the VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential, 2.5- acre minimum) zone. B. Sizes of the proposed parcels are 2.5 acres, with Parcel 1 being 5.19 acres, which are consistent with the minimum parcel size requirements for the VLDR-2.5 zone. C. The project is substantially consistent with applicable Goals and Policies of the Butte County General Plan identified in the General Plan Consistency Review contained in the Staff Report. D. The design and improvements of the proposed parcel map are consistent with County standards and policies, provided all conditions of project approval are complied with. E. The project site is physically suitable for the use and density of the proposed development. F. The design and improvements of the project will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed parcel map provided the attached conditions are met. G. Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, provided the required conditions and mitigation measures are complied with. H. The roads in the project area have the capacity to handle the increase in vehicular traffic generated by the project. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th Day of March, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Mary Kennedy, Chair Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California ATTEST: _____________________________ Kim McMillan, Secretary Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 20 20 EXHIBIT A Tentative Parcel Map for Brian Airehart (Kromer) on APN 042-770-032; File # TPM14-0005: An application for a Tentative Parcel Map to divide two existing parcels totaling 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). I. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Mitigation Measure #1 (Construction Air Emissions) The following best practice measures to reduce impacts to air quality shall be incorporated by the project applicant, subject property owners, or third-party contractors during construction activities on the project site. These measures are intended to reduce criteria air pollutants that may originate from the site during the course of land clearing and other construction operations. Diesel PM Exhaust from Construction Equipment and Commercial On-Road Vehicles Greater than 10,000 Pounds • All on- and off-road equipment shall not idle for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and/or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the five minute idling limit. • Idling, staging and queuing of diesel equipment within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is prohibited. • All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before the start of work. • Install diesel particulate filters or implement other CARB-verified diesel emission control strategies. • Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted areas. • To the extent feasible, truck trips shall be scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce perk hour emissions. Operational TAC Emissions • All mobile and stationary Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) sources shall comply with applicable Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) promulgated by the CARB throughout the life of the project (see http:www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/atcm.htm). • Stationary sources shall comply with applicable District rules and regulations. Fugitive Dust Construction activities can generate fugitive dust that can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses near a construction site. Dust complaints could result in a violation of the District’s “Nuisance” and “Fugitive Dust” Rules 200 and 205, respectively. The following is a list of measures that may be required throughout the duration of the construction activities: • Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. • Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply source must be identified. Increased watering frequency would Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 21 21 be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. • All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a District approved alternative method will be used. • Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. • Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. • All disturbed soil areas not subject to re-vegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the Butte County Air Quality Management District. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with local regulations. • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. • Post a sign in prominent location visible to the public with the telephone numbers of the contractor and the Butte County Air Quality Management District - (530) 332-9400 for any questions or concerns about dust from the project. All fugitive dust mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend period when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. Please note that violations of District Regulations are enforceable under the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 42400, which provides for civil or criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 22 22 Mitigation Measure #2 (Migratory Birds-Western Burrowing Owl) If project construction activities occur during the nesting season for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department Fish & Game Code (CDFC) (approximately March 1 – August 31), the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction surveys for nesting bird species. Surveys to identify active bird nests shall be conducted within and 250 feet around the footprint of proposed construction. At least two surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. Each survey shall be separated by 5 days. In the event that nesting raptors or birds protected by CDFC and MBTA are found in or within the footprint of proposed construction, the project proponent shall: 1. Locate and map the location of the nest site; 2. Establish a 250 feet no-disturbance buffer around all active nests; in the event bald eagles are found nesting in the survey area, a 1,000 foot no disturbance buffer shall be established; 3. Within 2 working days of the surveys, prepare a report and submit to the County. The report will include the results of surveys, location(s) of nests, and location of no disturbance buffers; 4. On-going weekly surveys shall be conducted to ensure that the no disturbance buffer is maintained; 5. Construction can resume when a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. Plan Requirements: Perform protocol-level surveys for migratory birds protected by the California Department Fish & Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This measure shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to prior to and during construction activities planned to occur during nesting seasons for CDFC and MBTA species (between March 1 and August 31). Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Department of Development Services shall ensure the condition is met at the time of construction activities. Mitigation Measure #3 (Cultural Resources) Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map or on an additional map sheet that states: “Should grading activities reveal the presence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner ((530) 538-6579). Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains.” The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site preparation and construction activities. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and/or Public Works Department shall ensure the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 23 23 authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions): Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: To the extent feasible, the developer shall implement the following measures at the time of development to offset the anticipated contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from residential development: Support expansion of renewable energy systems • Prewire all new residential development to support photovoltaic system installation. Support efficiency in vehicles and landscaping equipment • Install electrical vehicle outlets on external walls or in garages in all new residential development. Improve fuel efficiency of equipment during construction-related activities • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minute. • Use clean or alternative fuel equipment Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Shall be implemented prior to issuance of building permits for residential development. Construction-related measures shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Planning Division will ensure that future residential development includes the applicable measures during Building Permit review. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Planning Division, Department of Development Services 1. The collection of fees pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 is required, prior to filing a CEQA Notice of Determination for the project, unless the project proponent provides verification from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife that the project is exempt from the fee requirement. If a required fee is not paid for a project, the project will not be operative, vested or final and any local permits issued for the project will be invalid (Section 711.4 (c) (3)). 2. All exterior lighting on the project site shall comply with Chapter 24, Section 67 of the Butte County Code, Outdoor Lighting Standards. Exterior lighting shall be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that no direct light falls outside the property line, or into the public right-of-way. Flashing, flickering, or other lighting that is distracting or may be confused with traffic or emergency signals shall be prohibited. 3. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, pay any outstanding project-related processing fees. 4. The property owner shall record an Avigation Easement/Notice of Proximity of Airport, associated with the Chico Municipal Airport. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 24 24 5. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, the property owner shall record a declaration acknowledging the right to farm, pursuant to Chapter 35 of the Butte County Code (Agricultural Statement of Acknowledgement). 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the parcel map or on an additional map sheet that states: “A Declaration of Acknowledgement Right to Farm (Agricultural Statement of Acknowledgement) has been recorded on the parcels.” 7. Place a note on the Parcel Map or additional map sheet stating: “Residential dwelling setbacks from adjacent active orchards shall be 50 feet along the westerly property line on Lot 1. If the existing agricultural use (orchards) have been removed permanently, the residential dwelling setback shall be consistent with current zoning.” Land Development Division, Department of Public Works 8. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement for all non-publicly maintained access roads on the county approved form. A note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map stating: “In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the road as shown hereon shall be shared by those properties with a legal interest in it.” 9. All access rights shall be reserved by deed per county ordinance, offered for dedication, and depicted on the parcel map. Place the following note on the parcel map: “approved road name is a non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress, road and public services purposes, to be reserved in deeds and is hereby offered for dedication to the County of Butte.” 10. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, deed to Butte County in fee simple 30 feet of right-of-way from the physical centerline of Bell Road along the entire property frontage. The right-of-way shall be sufficient for the installation of county improvement standard S-5 at all street intersections. 11. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide street name signs per requirements of the Department of Public Works. Street names shall be reviewed by the County Address Coordinator and one name for each new street shall be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval prior to recordation of the parcel map. A minimum of five alternate names for each new street shall be submitted. 12. Prior to final road inspection, install all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs. For all non-publicly maintained access roads, a note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map stating: “No public entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of the traffic safety signs including stop signs, in accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the traffic safety signs shall be shared by those properties with a legal interest in them.” 13. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, submit road and drainage improvement plans to the Land Development Division for the installation of a standard S-18B road approach in accordance with county improvement standards. Obtain an encroachment permit and construct the road approach prior to recordation of the parcel map. Adequate sight distance at the intersection of access road and shall be provided. Right-of-way required for construction of road approach and roadside drainage shall be provided. 14. Provide a cul-de-sac designed and constructed as specified in the county improvement standards. The parcel map shall show the cul-de-sac. 15. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide approved access to each parcel being created. Construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of interior road in conformance with county improvement standard RS-8 LDIII, 20-feet wide with 4” of CL II Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 25 25 aggregate base and single sealcoat. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for plan checking and approval prior to construction. 16. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, drainage plans and calculation shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. Engineering plans shall detail existing drainage conditions and specify how storm water runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly maintained facility. Engineering calculations shall show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. If storm drainage facilities serve new public roads, the developer must complete the formation of a county service area (CSA), zone of benefit within a permanent road division (PRD), or other Department of Public Works approved entity prior to recordation of the parcel map. The formation process will require the developer to fund the service until the beginning of the first fiscal year in which service charges can be collected and agree to an annual maximum service charge to ensure continued operation of the facilities. 17. Prior to final improvement inspection by the Department of Public Works, all new drain inlets shall be labeled with the county approved drain marker per county standard S-40. Improvement plans shall show and/or note the requirements for labeling inlets pursuant to county standard S-40. 18. Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water Resources Control Board if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing, excavation, filling, and grading) of one or more acres. The permit must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to construction. If a construction storm water permit is required, place a note on an additional map sheet that states: “The development of this parcel map requires a construction storm water permit. Construction activities that result in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which are part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit. Development of individual lots may require an additional permit(s).” 19. Show all easements of record on the Parcel Map. 20. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, pay in full any and all delinquent, current and estimated taxes and assessments as specified in Article 8 of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of Title 7, of the California Government Code commencing with Section 66492. 21. Pay the recording fees in effect at the time the Parcel Map and related documents are recorded. Butte County Fire Department/Cal Fire 22. Construction, installation or development of buildings and/or roads, driveways, gates and bridges on parcels/lots shall comply with the latest California Fire Safe Regulations – Public Resources Code 4290, 4291 and current Butte County Improvement Standards, whichever is stricter. 23. Prior to building construction, provide an all-weather access of at least 10 feet wide for residential, and 20 feet wide for commercial, and vertical clearance of 15 feet that will allow for ingress and egress and accommodate a 40,000-pound fire apparatus to within 150 feet of all structures. 24. Place a note on a separate document, which is to be recorded concurrently with the Parcel map, or on an additional map sheet stating, “Building identification and/or addresses shall be installed in conformance with Public Resources Code 4290 and shall be posted at the time of permit issuance and maintained continuously thereafter.” 25. At the time of development, the developer will 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 system in one and two family dwellings and mobile homes (NFPA Standard 13D). Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 26 26 Environmental Health Division, Public Health Department: 26. The applicant shall record a note on the Parcel Map or on an additional map sheet stating: “Reports that may have been conditions of approval on the tentative map and a list of current county requirements for building site are on file and available for review in the Butte County Department of Development Service and Butte County Public Health Department Environmental Health Division files.” II. NOTATION A. 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. Butte County Department of Development Services March 24, 2016 Agenda Report – Brian Airehart (Kromer) TPM14-0005 Page 27 27 2 8 Department of Development Services Tim Snellings, Director Pete Calarco, Assistant Director 7 County Center Drive T: 530.538.7601 Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.7785 buttecounty.net/dds BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Butte County has prepared an Initial Study and is considering the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project listed below at a public hearing before the Butte County Planning Commission to be held on March 24, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. in the Butte County Board of Supervisors’ Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA Project: Robert and Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map (TPM14-0005) Location: The project site is located at the intersection of Bell Road and Alamo Avenue, approximately ¼ mile west from the City of Chico city limits APN: 042-770-032 Proposal: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). The General Plan land use designation of the project site is VLDR (Very Low Density Residential). The project site is zoned VLDR-2.5. Pursuant to the requirements of Butte County Code §24-56.1 (Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards), the Department of Development Services in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office is recommending a residential dwelling setback from adjacent active orchards of 50 feet from the western property line. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and reference documents for these projects are on file for public review and comment starting February 23, 2016 through March 23, 2016, at the Butte County Planning Division, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. The IS/MND is also available for review on the County website at http://www.buttecounty.net/dds/Planning/CEQA.aspx. All persons are invited to review the documents. Comments may be submitted at the above address to the Planning Division in writing at any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above, or as may be continued to a later date. If you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, or prior to the public hearing. The above mentioned application is on file and available for public viewing at the office of the, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. For information call or send an email to Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner, Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division at (530) 538- 7150 or rhickel@buttecounty.net. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 29 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUTTE COUNTY INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TSM 14-0002 (Kromer) 30 This page left intentionally blank. 31 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 1 of 49 ■ COUNTY OF BUTTE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TPM14-0005 (Kromer) This Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was originally circulated for public review from October 4 through October 23, 2014. The document has been revised and is being recirculated to address the Butte County Board of Supervisors’ January 12, 2016 adoption of amendments to the Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to establish a setback requirement for new residential development adjacent to existing orchards and vineyards located in residential zones. 1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Owner: Brian Airehart (Applicant) / Robert and Leeanne Kromer (Owners) B. Staff Contact: Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner; (530) 538-7150, rhickel@buttecounty.net C. Project Name: TPM14-0005; Kromer, Robert and Leeanne Tentative Parcel Map D. Project Location: The project site is located at the intersection of Bell Road and Alamo Avenue, approximately ¼ mile west from the City of Chico city limits; Rancho Arroyo Chico Land Grant; MDB&M. E. Type of Application: Tentative Parcel Map F. Assessor Parcel Number: 042-770-032 G. Project Site Size: 12.69± acres H. Current Zoning: VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential – 2.5 acre density) I. General Plan Designation: VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) J. Environmental Setting: The project site encompasses 12.69 acres of fallow agricultural lands located ¼ mile west from the City of Chico city limits. Historic use of the property for agricultural purposes resulted in the disturbance of soils and the removal of native vegetation. Vegetation now consists primarily of non-native forbs and grasses, with a scattering of immature oak trees concentrated near the center of the site. The property is improved with an existing groundwater well and unconnected/unmetered power pole. Bell Road fronts the project site, with Jones Avenue bordering the eastern property line for approximately 1,300 feet. Elevation of the project site ranges between 163 to 168 feet above mean sea level. Topography of the site is level with 0 to 1 percent slopes. The project site is situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone district. The Very Low Density Residential zoning designation allows for single-family homes and related uses in residential neighborhoods within the county. Permitted residential uses in the VLDR zones include single-family homes, small residential care homes, second units, animal grazing, on-site agricultural product sales, and private stables. The VLDR zone also conditionally permits non-residential uses compatible with a residential setting, including public and quasi-public uses, golf courses, park and recreational facilities, personal services, animal keeping, large residential care homes, and medical offices and clinics. The minimum permitted parcel size for this zone is 2.5 acres. Both the Butte County General Plan, and from land cover data provided by the Butte County Association of Governments, in preparation of the upcoming Butte County Regional Conservation Plan identify this property as Agriculture. The agricultural natural community is comprised of several land cover types including orchards and vineyards, rice, irrigated cropland, irrigated pasture, and non-native woodland. Agriculture occurs where the soils and topography are most suitable for production, which are generally the flat and well-drained areas located in the valley region of the County. Conversion of lands to an agricultural use has resulted in the removal of most of the historical native habitat. Agriculture natural community areas generally don’t support the wildlife compared with most native habitats; however, these areas continue to 32 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 2 of 49 ■ support abundant wildlife and provide essential breeding, foraging and roosting habitat for many resident and migrant wildlife species. The Chico Municipal Airport is located 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing a portions of the project site within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport is defined as the outer boundary of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 conical zone limits, subjecting lands to reviews to ensure that objects and other land uses do not affect the navigable airspace of the airport. The project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and is not located near any sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. K. Surrounding Land Uses: The area surrounding the project site primarily includes low density single-family residences on one-acre averaged-sized lots to the east and south, single-family residences and agricultural uses on five-acre sized lots to the west, and orchards/agriculture uses to the north. Public rights-of-way in the vicinity of the project site include Bell Road (County) and Alamo Avenue (County) to the south, Jones Avenue (Private), Santiago Court (Private), and Ciulla Lane (Private) to the west. Direction General Plan Designation Zoning Existing Land Use(s) North Agriculture AG-80 Agricultural/Orchards South Very Low Density Residential VLDR Residential East Very Low Density Residential VLDR-2.5 Residential West Very Low Density Residential VLDR Residential L. Project Description: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Domestic water for future development on the resultant parcels would be provided by the on-site domestic wells. Waste water disposal for future development would be provided by individual on- site septic systems. Access to the proposed lots would be provided by a new private road within a 60-foot wide easement off Bell Road. The access road will be constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII Standard, which will include two, 10-foot wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Road surfacing will include a 4-inch aggregate base overlaid with a single layer of sealcoat. The total length of the road from Bell Road to it terminus is 1,319 feet, and will include a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac at its terminus. Road approach improvements will be constructed to S-18B standard, pursuant to the 2006 Butte County Improvement Standards. Butte County Code §24-81 et seq. (Agricultural Buffers) A 300-foot agricultural buffer will be established from the northwestern property line, pursuant to Section 24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. A building setback will be established to provide a buffer from adjacent agricultural uses currently in operation on adjacent lands zoned Agriculture. The buffer would restrict all future residential development adjacent to current agricultural operations and agricultural zoning designations, and would minimize potential conflicts between the two uses. Butte County Code §24-56.1 (Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards) A 50-foot setback will be established from the western property line of the project site, pursuant to Section 24-56.1 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed residential setback is established from the existing agricultural uses and practices located on the adjacent property, and would apply to any future residential dwellings constructed on the resultant parcels, including guest houses. The proposed setback was reviewed by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office on February 3, 2016, and is recommended for approval by the Butte County Planning Commission. Upon approval, the residential setback will be shown on the recorded parcel map. M. Public Agency Approvals: Butte County Department of Development Services Butte County Public Works Department 33 Chico ¬«32 ¬«99 ¬«99 Es p l a n a d e W Eaton Rd W East A v e E Eato n R d Nord Hwy Holly Ave Hensh a w A v e W L i n d o A v e Al a m o A v e C u s s i c k A v e DeGa r m o D r W Sha s t a A v e W 12th A v e W Las s e n A v e C a l i s t o g a D r Windham Way Dena l i D r Weymouth Way Carm a c k D r D i x o n S t Legac y L n Catherine Ct Southbury Ln Silver L a k e D r Vail D r Crate r L a k e D r J o n e s A v e Mill C r e e k D r Churc h i l l D r Cava l i e r W a y Yellow s t o n e D r F e r n A v e Tonea W a y W i l l o w B e n d D r Le o W a y Comm e r c i a l A v e Al o h a L n A b b e y D r E Sh a s t a A v e Burnt R a n c h W a y Cl a r k W a y Ila h e e L n Ab b o t C i r A u r o r a G l e n D r G u y n n A v e Ind i g o L n Bradf o r d C t L o s s e W a y Yal e W a y Ra s h L n Rebe c c a C t C h a n t e l W a y E w i n g D r Carpe r s C t Royal G l e n L n R o x b u r y C t S h a d y g r o v e C t B e l l E s t a t e s D r Ambe r G r o v e D r Walnu t s h i r e L n Inns b r o o k W a y Lowe l l D r D a l l a s C t Tandy C t S u r r e y L n Marshall Ct Crims o n C t C h a n d e s e L n Dead E n d C t W e s t g r o v e C t Mesa V e r d e C t Middl e C r e e k C t Reg e n t L n Jord a n s P l La B o n i t a C t Lost D u t c h m a n D r Bell Rd Mu i r A v e N o r d A v e B a y A v e Rod e o A v e Kennedy Ave G u y n n A v e Nord Hwy Sil v e r b e l l R d Al a m o A v e West E a s t A v e St. C l a i r D r Meier D r Quista D r Franc e s D r Hensh a w A v e Garde n s i d e C t Kennedy Ave TPM14-0005APN:042-770-032 Robert andLeeanne Kromer 1:17,500 0 1,100 2,200 3,300550FeetLakes Legend Roads Railroad Streams Project Location ®VICINITY MAP 34 This page left intentionally blank. 35 3 6 This page left intentionally blank. 37 Chico Green Line Chico G r e e n L i n e Bell Rd No r d A v e G u y n n A v e Cu s s i c k A v e W Shas t a A v e B a y A v e N o r d A v e Al a m o A v e C a r m a c k D r Hens h a w A v e Rod e o A v e Catherine Ct Silver L a k e D r Dena l i D r J o n e s A v e Mill C r e e k D r Churc h i l l D r Newp o r t D r C a l i s t o g a D r Crate r L a k e D r Bell Ct Legac y L n Sand y C o v e D r W i l l o w B e n d D r Ciulla L n Al o h a L n Hi d d e n C r e e k D r Hastin g s S t S h e l t e r i n g O ak C t Rebe c c a C t Carpe r s C t S h a d y g r o v e C t B e l l E s t a t e s D r Lelan d C t Walnu t s h i r e L n Tandy C t Shady A c r e s C t C r i m so n C t Lang e l C t La F o r c e C t Dead E n d C t Mesa V e r d e C t Middl e C r e e k C t Santi a g o C t Cl e a r L a k e D r Brean n a L n L ak e M e a d Ct A l m o n d G r oveCt G r a y e a g l e C t Bucki n g h a m P l AG-80 VLDR VLDR-2.5 City of Chico P File:TPM14-0005042-770-032Assessor Parcel No: SupervisorialDistrict #2Request: ¬ A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Hearing Date:Zoning:Very Low Density Residential, 2.5 Acre DensityApplicant/Owner:Brian Airehart (Applicant) / Robert and Leeanne Kromer (Owners) BUTTE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 550 0 550 1,100 1,650 2,200275 Feet Project location 38 This page left intentionally blank. 39 40 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 4 of 49 ■ Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) 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 significance 41 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 5 of 49 ■ 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Aesthetic/Visual Resources: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Setting: The project area is characterized as open pasture and agricultural lands situated in the rural valley region of Butte County, northwest from the City of Chico, approximately ¼ mile west from the city limits. Several low density single-family residential parcels with one-acre lot sizes are located to the south and east of the project site. Single-family residential lots and agricultural uses with five-acre lot sizes are located to the east, and large agricultural lots presently used as orchards are located to the north. The topography of the project area is gentle and flat, with elevations ranging from 163 feet to 168 feet above sea level. The level topography of the valley region contributes to an open and uniform visual character surrounded by orchards, small farmsteads, and residential uses. No natural waterways and canals are located within immediate vicinity. Natural vegetation in the area consists of annual grasslands and orchards. Conservation and Open Space Element Policies. COS-P17.1. Views of Butte County’s scenic resources, including water features, unique geologic features and wildlife habitat areas, shall be maintained. COS-P17.2. Ridgeline development near scenic resources shall be limited via the adoption of specific development guidelines in order to minimize visual impacts. COS-P18.1. The County shall designate scenic corridors based on careful consideration of the following factors: a. Relationship to the scenic highway system, including proximity to urban population centers, gateways, integration with other highways and scenic highways and access to major recreation areas. b. Safety characteristics, including road surface and alignment, shoulder width, traffic levels, number of intersections, access points, turnouts and rest areas. c. Scenic characteristics, including vista points, geologic resources, native plant and animal species, waterways, historic resources and agricultural, timber and recreation uses. d. Government policies, including public lands, eligibility for State scenic highway designation, and consistency with other Butte County General Plan 2030 elements. e. Economic impacts on properties affected by a scenic highway designation. COS-P18.2. To enhance safety on scenic highways, the County shall limit access, using existing access where feasible, and limit encroachment permits. COS-P18.3. The County shall require utility companies to choose the least conspicuous locations for distribution lines, so as to avoid impacts to scenic corridors where there is reasonable choice. 42 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 6 of 49 ■ Butte County Zoning Code. Article 14 (Outdoor Lighting) sets minimum requirements for outdoor lighting in residential areas to reduce light trespass and glare, and to protect the health, property, and well-being of Butte County residents and visitors. All outdoor lighting shall be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that no direct light falls outside the property line, or into the public right-of-way. Lighting must be shielded in accordance with Dark Sky Society standards, and light sources must not be directly visible outside the property’s perimeter. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Future development of the resultant parcels may include permitted and conditionally-permitted uses allowed within the VLDR-2.5 zoning designation, which may be visible from various vantage points from the valley and foothill regions. Permitted development on the resultant parcels would be consistent with the established visual character and density of the surrounding area. Due to the low-density of the project, as well as visual compatibility of permitted development with the surrounding area, placement of additional residences or the establishment of agricultural uses on the project site will not significantly interfere with the views of scenic vistas from adjacent residences and public right-of-ways. Therefore, the project would not significantly affect a scenic vista nor have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. b.) Less than significant impact. No scenic resources have been identified to be on the project site, or in the surrounding area. Additionally, the project site is not located adjacent to a state-designated or county- designated scenic highway. As a result, proposed improvements would not result in the damage or degradation to any scenic features on or near the project site. And, subsequent development of the resultant parcels is anticipated to be consistent with the character of the project site and surrounding area. c.) Less than significant impact. The residential uses and the proposed density of the resultant parcels would be consistent with the residential character and quality of the project site and surrounding area. d.) Less than significant impact. Outdoor lighting for safety and security could potentially be added to future structures on the resultant parcels. The proposed 2.5 acre lot sizes would help minimize ordinary nighttime lighting impacts to adjacent areas. Additionally, Article 14 of Butte County Zoning Code requires that all outdoor lighting in residential areas be located, adequately shielded, and directed such that no direct light falls outside the property perimeter, or into the public right-of-way. As a result, the proposed project would not create new sources of substantial lighting or glare that would generate a significant impact. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.2 Agriculture Resources: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Contract? c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 43 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 7 of 49 ■ Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Setting: The project site is vacant land situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone district. The Land Use Element Map of the Butte County General Plan designates the project site as Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). This land use designation is primarily for single-family homes on lots sizes with a minimum parcel size of 2.5 acres. The VLDR zone also allows for limited agricultural uses including crop cultivation, animal grazing, private stables, animal services, as well as roadside stands for the sale of agricultural products grown on the property. Important Farmland To characterize the environmental baseline for agricultural resources, Important Farmland Maps produced by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) were reviewed. Important Farmland maps show categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance (if adopted by the county), Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land, Other Land, and Water. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance map categories are based on qualifying soil types, as determined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), as well as current land use. These map categories are defined by the Department of Conservation’s FMMP as follows: Prime Farmland: Land which has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to current farming methods. Farmland of Statewide Importance: Land that is similar to Prime Farmland but with minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to hold and store moisture. Unique Farmland: Land of lesser quality soils used for the production of specific high economic value crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to current farming methods. It is usually irrigated, but may include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Examples of crops include oranges, olives, avocados, rice, grapes, and cut flowers. Farmland of Local Importance: Land of importance to the local agricultural economy, as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and local advisory committees. Examples include dairies, dryland farming, aquaculture, and uncultivated areas with soils qualifying for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Butte County has not adopted a definition of Farmland of Local Importance. Grazing Land: Land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock. Urban and Built-up Land: Land used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administrative purpose, railroad yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other development purposes. Highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities are also included in this category. Other Land: Land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than forty acres. 44 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 8 of 49 ■ Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. Water: Water areas with an extent of at least 40 acres. Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, was established based on numerous State legislative findings regarding the importance of agricultural lands in an urbanizing society. Policies emanating from those findings include those that discourage premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and discourage discontinuous urban development patterns, which unnecessarily increase the costs of community services to community residents. The Williamson Act authorizes each County to establish an agricultural preserve. Land that is within the agricultural preserve is eligible to be placed under a contract between the property owner and County that would restrict the use of the land to agriculture in exchange for a tax assessment that is based on the yearly production yield. The contracts have a 9-year term that is automatically renewed each year, unless the property owner or county requests a non-renewal or the contract is cancelled. The project site and surrounding areas are not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Butte County Code Section 24-12 (Agriculture Zones) Article 4 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance describes land uses and development standards for lands zoned Agriculture (AG) and Agriculture Services (AS). The AG zone is intended “to support, protect, and maintain a viable, long-term agricultural sector in Butte County.” The AS zone is intended “to protect, maintain, promote, and enhance agriculture as a viable, long-term economic sector by accommodating agricultural uses or compatible commercial and light industrial uses that directly support agricultural activities within the county.” Article 4 also requires an Agricultural Maintenance Plan for any non-agricultural use requiring a Conditional Use Permit or Minor Use Permit on a parcel with existing agricultural operations; the Agricultural Maintenance Plan must identify specific measures to ensure that the proposed use does not adversely impact agricultural activities on the parcel. Butte County Code Section 24-81 (Agricultural Buffers) Article 17 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance establishes a 300-foot buffer between lands zoned agriculture and new residential development. This ordinance applies to parcels where residential structures are to be developed in the following areas of the county: (1) all lands zoned Agriculture; (2) in other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones; (3) areas inside and within 300 feet of sphere of influence boundaries for incorporated cities, where the boundary abuts parcels zoned Agriculture; and, (4) areas within 300 feet of a Williamson Act Contract. Exceptions to the 300-foot agricultural buffer setback requirement may be requested by the project applicant through an Unusual Circumstances Review application process. Butte County Resolution #08-166, as amended (Agricultural Buffer Guidelines) The Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Section 24-81 et seq.) requires a 300-foot buffer between agricultural and non-agricultural uses on agriculturally zoned lands. To implement this requirement, and to provide guidance regarding requests for a determination of unusual circumstances to modify the 300-foot agricultural buffer requirement, Butte County has prepared Agricultural/Residential Buffer Implementation Guidelines. The buffer must physically separate agricultural and residential uses to help minimize potential conflicts. The County may make a determination of unusual circumstances based on criteria outlined in the Guidelines, in which case the buffer may take other forms or be of a lesser distance. As shown on the Tentative Parcel Map, the proposed project includes a 300-foot agricultural buffer that will be established from the northwestern property line, pursuant to Section 24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. Butte County Code (BCC) §24-56.1 - Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards On January 12, 2016, the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted amendments to the Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to establish a setback requirement for new residential development adjacent to existing orchards and vineyards located in residential zones. Butte County Code (BCC) §24-56.1 provides as follows: 24-56.1 Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards A setback is established for residential development from existing orchards and vineyards that are located in residential zones in order to reduce interference and conflict with preexisting agricultural operations, while 45 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 9 of 49 ■ providing for the development potential allowed by residential zones. The residential setback from orchards and vineyards is subject to the following requirements (Refer to Article 17. Agricultural Buffers, for agricultural buffer setbacks required where a developing residentially zoned parcel is adjacent to a parcel zoned Agriculture): A. A setback between a new residence and an existing active orchard or vineyard shall be established as far away from the orchard or vineyard as practicable, taking into account adjacent agricultural uses and practices, provided it does not limit the allowed residential density permitted by the residential zone, and in no case is less than 25 feet. B. Any proposed land division adjacent to an existing active orchard or vineyard use shall apply for a Residential Setback Recommendation with the Development Services Department in accordance with this section. The Residential Setback Recommendation shall be reviewed by the Agricultural Commissioner, in consultation with Development Services to determine an appropriate setback width (pursuant to Subsection A.). The Residential Setback Recommendation shall become part of the application and reviewed by the hearing body. Public noticing shall include reference to the Residential Setback Recommendation and the residential setback’s recommended width. C. All building permits for residential development adjacent to existing orchards or vineyards shall be reviewed for compliance with the required residential setback. If no residential setback is shown on an applicable recorded parcel map or subdivision map, a review by the Zoning Administrator at a noticed public hearing shall be conducted to determine the appropriate setback pursuant to Subsection A. D. The residential setback shall be imposed from the property line (s) on the developing parcel and shown on the recorded parcel map or subdivision map or building permit site plan. E. The setback shall not apply to residential development adjacent to row crops or greenhouses and wholesale nurseries primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, vines or trees and their seeds. F. The setback shall not apply to backyard gardens and fruit and nut trees accessory to a residential use. G. The setback shall not apply to accessory structures as defined under Section 24‐156 (Accessory Uses and Structures) excepting guest houses, which must comply with the setback. H. The setback shall not apply to orchard or vineyard uses that start operations after a building permit is approved (this does not apply to an existing orchard or vineyard that is removed and replaced). I. If the orchard or vineyard use is discontinued (i.e., the land is developed with residential uses) the setback shall no longer be applicable. The Department of Development Services in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office is recommending a residential dwelling setback from the adjacent active orchard of 50-foot residential setback from the southwestern property line of the project site. If the project is approved, the Residential Setback Recommendation will be required to be shown of the recorded subdivision map. Butte County Right to Farm Ordinance Chapter 35 of the Butte County Municipal Code, also referred to as the Butte County Right to Farm Ordinance (Ord. No. 4092, 02-24-15), serves as a notification to owners, purchasers, residents, and users of property adjacent to agricultural operations of potential issues at the agriculture-urban interface. The Right to Farm Ordinance declares that properly conducted agricultural operations on agricultural land are not subject to nuisance claims, assuming the operation was not already on record as a nuisance when the operation began. Information about the Right to Farm Ordinance is provided by the County to residents with an annual tax bill and when an application is submitted for development on or adjacent to agricultural land. The Right to Farm Ordinance serves as a protection for agricultural uses that are located in nonagricultural General Plan land use designations and zoning districts. Impact Discussion: a.) No Impact. The project site is identified as containing lands classified as Other Land by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Areas surrounding the project site have been designated as Prime Farmland to the north, and Urban and Built-up Land to the east. The project site is not designated as Important Farmland in the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 46 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 10 of 49 ■ Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland to a non-agricultural use. b.) No impact. The project site is zoned primarily for residential uses. The VLDR zone also allows for agricultural uses including crop cultivation, animal grazing, private stables, and other, limited, agricultural- type uses. The proposed project would not result in a change to the current zoning designation of the property, and the project site would continue to allow for limited agricultural uses. The project site is not restricted by a Williamson Act contract. c.) No impact. The project site is not located in a timber resource zoning category such as Timber Mountain (TM), Timber Production (TPZ), or Resource Conservation (RC). The project site is also not classified as forest land, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), because the project site cannot support 10 percent native tree cover. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with, or cause the rezoning of, a timber resource zoning designation. d.) No impact. The project site is not classified as forest land, and therefore, the proposed project would not result in loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. e.) No impact. The project site is identified as containing lands classified as Other Land by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Areas surrounding the project site have been designated as Prime Farmland to the north, Other Land to the west, and Urban and Built-up Land to the east. The GPEIR includes a programmatic analysis of agricultural land being converted to non-agricultural uses (GPEIR, page 4.2-9). It also contains a programmatic analysis of “other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location, or nature, could result in the conversion of farmlands of concern under CEQA to non-agricultural use.” The GPEIR recognizes that re-designation of land by the GP land use map (including the VLDR designation on the subject parcel) “could result in incompatible land uses next to farm uses or ranches, creating circumstances that impair the productivity of agricultural operation, and could eventually lead farmers to take their land out of production (GPEIR, page 4.2-15).” The premature conversion of adjacent farmlands could potentially occur from the increase in the number of residential dwellings developed in close proximately to existing agricultural uses. This close proximity may cause potential conflicts due to its incompatibility, causing restrictions on farming operations, restrictions on pesticide usage, increased risk of theft and vandalism, complaints, introduction of pests, litter, and pets from residential uses. General Plan 2030 includes a number of goals, policies, and actions to reduce conflicts between agricultural operations and urban uses that may potentially result in farmland conversion. Agriculture Element Policy AG-P5.3 requires a standard 300-foot buffer between residential development and lands zoned Agriculture; Policy AG-P5.3.2 requires a setback between residential development and existing active orchards or vineyards; Policy AG-P5.3.3 requires a standard buffer between residential development and lands encumbered by existing Williamson Act contracts; and, Policy AG-5.4 prohibits land divisions that separate a farmer’s home from the agricultural land. There are also a number of regulations to reduce conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. These regulations include Butte County Code Section 24-81 (Agricultural Buffers), Butte County Code Section 24-56.1 (Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards), and the County’s Right to Farm Ordinance. The proposed project includes a 300-foot agricultural buffer that will be established from the northwestern property line, pursuant to Section 24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, and a 50-foot residential setback will be established from the western property line of the project site, pursuant to Section 24-56.1 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. The 50-foot residential setback is proposed along the portion of the western property line that does not include the proposed 60-foot right-of-way for a private access road. The right-of-way is 1,319 feet in length with an additional 40-foot at the end of the road to be established for a vehicle turn-around. Future residential dwellings constructed on the resultant parcels (along the right-of-way) would be setback an additional 20-feet, pursuant to Table 24-20-2 of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance, making the total setback from the western property line a minimum of 80 feet. 47 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 11 of 49 ■ Implementation of the agricultural buffer, residential setbacks, proposed access road right-of-way, and implementation of existing Butte County policies and regulations identified above, would ensure that potential impacts to adjacent agricultural lands are less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.3 Air Quality: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Setting: Butte County is located within the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB). Summer conditions in the NSVAB are typically characterized by high temperatures and low humidity, with temperatures averaging from approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit during the day and 50 degrees Fahrenheit at night. During the summer months, the prevailing winds are typically from the south. Winter conditions are characterized by occasional rainstorms interspersed with stagnant and sometimes foggy weather. The daytime average temperatures is in the low 50soF and nighttime temperatures average in the upper 30soF. During winter, winds predominate from the south, but north winds frequently occur. Rainfall occurs mainly from late October to early May, with an average of 17.2 inches per year, but this amount can vary significantly each year. Dispersion of local pollutant emissions are predominately affected by the prevailing wind patterns and inversions that often occur in the NSVAB. Within the NSVAB, two types of inversions can occur. During the summer months, sinking air forms a “lid” over the region and confines pollution to a shallow layer near the ground, which can contribute to photochemical smog problems. During winter nights, air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, which can cause localized air pollution “hot spots” near emission sources (Butte County General Plan EIR; BCAQMD, 2014). Current Ambient Air Quality Federal and state standards have been established for six criteria pollutants, including ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 microns and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in Butte County. The BCAQMD operates a network of ambient air monitoring stations throughout Butte County. Depending on whether the standards for a particular criteria air pollutant has been met or exceeded, the local air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Based on the most recent monitoring data, Butte County is a nonattainment area for both state and federal ozone standards, the state and federal PM2.5 standards, and the state PM10 standards. Butte County is in attainment for the state and federal standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide (BCAQMD, 2014). 48 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 12 of 49 ■ Air Quality Planning The California Clean Air Act requires air districts to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for criteria pollutants for which the District is in nonattainment. The BCAQMD’s Air Quality Attainment Plan was first adopted in 1991 and updated in 1994, 1997, 2000 and 2003. In 2006, the District collaborated with other air pollution control districts in the NSVAB to prepare a joint Air Quality Attainment Plan. That joint plan has been updated in 2006, 2009 and 2012 as the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan. The attainment plan is the basis for an air district’s functional strategy to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards. The BCAQMD, in its role of insuring that projects are properly evaluated for consistency with ambient air quality standards and the Northern Sacramento Valley Planning Area Triennial Air Quality Attainment Plan, have prepared guidelines to assist applicants and lead agencies in evaluating potential air quality and greenhouse impacts that may occur with a proposed project. Established with these guidelines are screening criteria to determine whether or not additional modeling for criteria air pollutants is necessary for a project. The screening criteria listed in Table 4.3-2 were created using CalEEMod version 2013.2.2 for the given land use types. To determine whether or not a proposed project meets the screening criteria, the size and metric for the land use type (units or square footage) should be compared with that of the proposed project. If a project meets the applicable screening criteria, then further quantification of criteria air pollutants is not necessary, and it may be assumed that the project would have a less than significant impact for criteria air pollutants. If a project exceeds the size provided by the screening criteria for a given land use type then additional modeling and quantification of criteria air pollutants should be performed (BCAQMD, 2014). Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in the applicable air quality plan, which, in turn, would generate emission not accounted for in the applicable air quality plan emissions budget. Therefore, proposed projects need to be evaluated to determine whether they would generate Table 4.3-1 Butte County - State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status POLLUTANT STATE DESIGNATION FEDERAL DESIGNATION 1-hour ozone Nonattainment - 8-hour ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment 24-Hour PM10 Nonattainment Attainment 24-Hour PM2.5 No Standard Nonattainment Annual PM10 Attainment No Standard Annual PM2.5 Nonattainment Attainment Source: Butte County AQMD, 2014 Table 4.3-2 Screening Criteria for Criteria Air Pollutants LAND USE TYPE MAXIMUM SCREENING LEVELS FOR PROJECTS Single Family Unit Residential 30 units Multi-Family (Low Rise) Residential 75 units Commercial 15,000 square feet Educational 24,000 square feet Industrial 59,000 square feet Recreational 5,500 square feet Retail 11,000 square feet Source: Butte County AQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 2014 49 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 13 of 49 ■ population and employment growth and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates included in the relevant air plans. The proposed project could result in minor population growth in the County with build-out. However, the proposed development density is consistent with the established zoning, and population growth to the area has already been anticipated for under Butte County General Plan 2030. Additionally, the total number of single-family residential units generated by the project is below the maximum screening criteria established in Table 4.3-2. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to regional air quality, or otherwise conflict with the basin’s air quality management plan, provided that best management practices for the control of fugitive dust during construction activities are employed. b.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project has the potential to impact air quality primarily in two ways: (1) the project would generate mobile source emissions associated with future development on the resultant parcels, and (2) fugitive dust (particulate/PM10) and construction exhaust emissions would be generated during construction activities associated with proposed road improvements and future development on the resultant parcels. Mobile source emissions are produced from motor vehicles, and include tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Energy use associated with development may be caused by heating and cooling systems, lighting, applicant, water use and wastewater. No development is proposed with this project; however, future development of the resultant parcels has the potential to generate these direct and indirect emissions. Emissions generated during at build-out of the resultant parcels are not expected to be substantial, and would not significantly violate existing air quality standards, because only a limited amount development would occur over the project site. The limited amount of development to occur with the proposed project was compared to the screening criteria of Table 4.3-2, and deemed to have a less than significant impact to the environment. Construction-related emissions are generally created throughout the course of project implementation and parcel development, and would originate from construction equipment exhaust, employee vehicle exhaust, dust from grading the land, exposed soil eroded by wind, and ROGs from architectural coating and asphalt paving. Construction-related emissions would vary substantially depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, number of personnel, wind and precipitation conditions, and soil moisture content. Despite this variability in project site conditions, there are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to meaningfully reduce construction-related emissions to a less than significant level. These measures as well as other common air pollution control measures are recommended in Appendix C of BCAQMD’s CEQA Handbook (2014), and are to be implemented as Mitigation Measure #1, listed below. c.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Based on the information provided in section b.), above, the proposed project would not result in the violation of any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, except for potential fugitive dust emission during construction activities. Fugitive dust emissions generated during construction has the potential to contribute cumulatively to the region’s non-attainment of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure #1 would reduce potential cumulative fugitive dust emission impacts to a less than significant level. d.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Several homes are located within ¼ mile of the project site. Construction activities would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. These emissions could expose nearby sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. Implementation of Mitigation Measure #1 would reduce impacts of construction-related fugitive dust emissions. Additionally, because impacts related to equipment exhaust emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds recommended by BCAPMD, and because construction activities of future development would likely be short in duration, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e.) Less than significant impact. Future permitted uses on the resultant parcels would not create objectionable odors. However, future construction activities could include objectionable odors from tailpipe diesel emissions and from solvents in adhesives, paints, caulking materials, and new asphalt. Since odor impacts would be temporary and limited to the area adjacent to the construction operations, and because the project 50 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 14 of 49 ■ site is located in a rural area of the county, odors would not impact a substantial number of people for an extended period of time. Mitigation Measure #1 (Construction Air Emissions) The following best practice measures to reduce impacts to air quality shall be incorporated by the project applicant, subject property owners, or third-party contractors during construction activities on the project site. These measures are intended to reduce criteria air pollutants that may originate from the site during the course of land clearing and other construction operations. Diesel PM Exhaust from Construction Equipment and Commercial On-Road Vehicles Greater than 10,000 Pounds All on- and off-road equipment shall not idle for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and/or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the five minute idling limit. Idling, staging and queuing of diesel equipment within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is prohibited. All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before the start of work. Install diesel particulate filters or implement other CARB-verified diesel emission control strategies. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted areas. To the extent feasible, truck trips shall be scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce perk hour emissions. Operational TAC Emissions All mobile and stationary Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) sources shall comply with applicable Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) promulgated by the CARB throughout the life of the project (see http:www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/atcm.htm). Stationary sources shall comply with applicable District rules and regulations. Fugitive Dust Construction activities can generate fugitive dust that can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses near a construction site. Dust complaints could result in a violation of the District’s “Nuisance” and “Fugitive Dust” Rules 200 and 205, respectively. The following is a list of measures that may be required throughout the duration of the construction activities: Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply source must be identified. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a District approved alternative method will be used. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to re-vegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the Butte County Air Quality Management District. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with local regulations. 51 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 15 of 49 ■ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Post a sign in prominent location visible to the public with the telephone numbers of the contractor and the Butte County Air Quality Management District - (530) 332-9400 for any questions or concerns about dust from the project. All fugitive dust mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend period when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. Please note that violations of District Regulations are enforceable under the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 42400, which provides for civil or criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. 4.4 Biological Resources: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or 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, 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 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 ordinance? 52 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 16 of 49 ■ Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)? i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)? j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals) which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife? Setting: The project site is located in the valley region, situated west of the City of Chico. Both the Butte County General Plan, and from land cover data provided by the Butte County Association of Governments, in preparation of the upcoming Butte County Regional Conservation Plan identify this property as Agriculture. Agriculture The agricultural natural community is comprised of several land cover types including orchards and vineyards, rice, irrigated cropland, irrigated pasture, and non-native woodland. Agriculture occurs where the soils and topography are most suitable for production, which are generally the flat and well-drained areas located in the valley region of the County. Conversion of lands to an agricultural use has resulted in the removal of most of the historical native habitat. Agriculture natural community areas generally don’t support the wildlife compared with most native habitats; however, these areas continue to support abundant wildlife and provide essential breeding, foraging and roosting habitat for many resident and migrant wildlife species. Jurisdictional Waters of the United States, including Wetlands Waters of the United States (U.S.), including wetlands, are broadly defined to include navigable waterways, and tributaries of navigable waterways, and adjacent wetlands. Although definitions vary to some degree, wetlands are generally considered to be areas that are periodically or permanently inundated by surface water or groundwater, supporting vegetation adapted to life in saturated soil. Jurisdictional wetlands are vegetated areas that meet specific vegetation, soil, and hydrologic criteria defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE holds sole authority to determine the jurisdictional status of waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S. include, but are not limited to, perennial and intermittent creeks and drainages, lakes, seeps, and springs; emergent marshes; riparian wetlands; and seasonal wetlands. Wetland and waters of the U.S. provide critical habitat components, such as nest sites and reliable source of water for a wide variety of wildlife species. No aquatic features on the project site were identified. No formal delineation of jurisdictional waters was performed for the project site; and any potential aquatic features of the project site are not expected to meet USACE jurisdictional criteria due to the limited inputs of water, and the project’s site distance from area waterways designated as Waters of the United States. Special-Status Species Many species of plants and animals within the State of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the 53 CNNDB Occurances 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.20.15 Miles adobe-lily pallid bat hoary bat silver-haired bat least Bell's vireo big-scale balsamroot steelhead - Central Valley DPS valley elderberry longhorn beetle adobe-lily vernal pool tadpole shrimp Butte County meadowfoam California linderiella burrowing owl burrowing owl Butte County meadowfoam Butte County meadowfoam City of Chico Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Map created by:Butte CountyDevelopment Services Department7 County Center Drive, Oroville, Ca. 95965 TPM14-0005 (Airehart/Kromer)® Project Site 2 Mile Buffer 54 This page left intentionally blank. 55 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 17 of 49 ■ habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. A sizable number of native species and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under State and Federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “Candidates” for such listing and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) have designated others as “Species of Special Concern”. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own lists of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.” Various direct and indirect impacts to biological resources may result from the small amount of development enabled by the project, including the loss and/or alteration of existing undeveloped open space that may serve as habitat. Increased vehicle trips to and from the project site can result in wildlife mortality and disruption of movement patterns within and through the project vicinity. Disturbances such as predation by pets (e.g., cats and dogs) and human residents may also occur at the human/open space interface, while conversion of land from lower to higher density residential use can lead to a predominance of various urban-adapted wildlife species (e.g., coyotes, raccoons, ravens and blackbirds) that have been observed to displace more sensitive species. California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15065 requires a mandatory finding of significance for projects that have the potential to substantially degrade or reduce the habitat of a threatened or endangered species, and to fully disclose and mitigate impacts to special status resources. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the California Environmental Quality Act (Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code) defines mitigation as measure(s) that: Avoids the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. Minimizes impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. Rectifies the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. Reduces or eliminates the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the project. Compensates for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was reviewed to determine if any special-status species have the potential to occur on the project site or its vicinity. Table 4.4-2 lists the regulatory status and habitat requirements for each special-status species identified within a two-mile radius of the project site. A map of all identified CNNDB special-status specie occurrences within a two-mile radius of the project site is provided in Figure __. Based on review of the CNNDB, a total of 7 special-status species are known to inhabit areas within the vicinity of the project site. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact with mitigations incorporated. Review of the CNNDB database identified seven special-status species within two-miles of the project site. Of the seven total species, only the Western Burrowing owl has potential habitat within boundaries of the project site. Western Burrowing owl Table 4.4-1 Federal and State-Listed Species in the vicinity of the Project Site Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status State Status CNPS/DFG List Habitat Fritillaria pluriflora adobe-lily None None 1B.2 Chaparral, Woodland, Foothill Grasslands w/ clay or serpentine soils. Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Californica Butte County meadowfoam Endangered Endangered 1B.1 Grassland, Grassland w/ Vernal Pool Swale Complexes, Wetlands Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle Threatened None Riparian w/ elderberry plants Linderiella occidentalis California fairy shrimp SSC Grassland w/ Vernal Pool Complexes, Vernal Pool, Altered Vernal Pool Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp Endangered None Grassland w/ Vernal Pool Complexes, Vernal Pool, Altered Vernal Pool Athene cunicularia western burrowing owl None None SSC Varied Oncorhynchus Mykiss Central Valley Steelhead Threatened None Aquatic PLANTS INVERTEBRATES Source: California Natural Diversity Database Version 3.1.0 / Butte Regional Conservation Plan, December 2015 Draft BIRDS FISH 56 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 18 of 49 ■ The western burrowing owl is listed as a species of special concern in the state of California. They are distributed throughout the western United States from Minnesota to the Pacifica Coast, and into Canada and Mexico. In California, burrowing owls are distributed along the south and southeastern desert areas, throughout the Central Valley, patchy areas around the Bay Area and southern coast lines in to the north eastern high desert areas. The western burrowing owls is a small, slender owl with long tarsi, no ear tufts and has a light to chocolate brown coloration with variable white spots. Suitable habitat includes open plains, grasslands, desert scrub and mima mound topography. Burrowing owls primarily nest in previously made mammal burrows, but will also use rock crevices and other dry natural and man-made cavities that provide cover from predators. Current threats facing the western burrowing owl include habitat loss and fragmentation, decline in burrowing rodents, and the spread of invasive plant species. The agriculture habitat on the project site provides suitable habitat for a variety of ground nesting bird species, including the western burrowing owl. No western burrowing owls were observed within the project site during field surveys. However, protocol level burrowing owl surveys were not performed. Due to the potential for ground nesting bird species protected under the MBTA to occur within the project site, any future proposed vegetation removal or ground disturbance should be conducted between September 1 and February 28 (i.e. the non-breeding season), or after all nestlings have fledged from active nests. If vegetation removal or ground disturbance occurs during the breeding season (i.e. March 1 to August 31) for bird species protected by the MBTA and CFGC or for the western burrowing owl, then a qualified biologist should conduct a survey to locate any nests of these protected bird species in the project site and establish a no disturbance buffer zone around the nest. b.) No impact. The project site is not identified as containing riparian or other sensitive natural communities. c.) No impact. No aquatic features, including wetlands, have been identified within, or in the vicinity of the project site. d.) No impact. Wildlife movement corridors are routes frequently utilized by wildlife that provide shelter and sufficient food supplies to support wildlife species during migration. Movement corridors generally consist of riparian, woodlands, or forested habitats that span contiguous acres of undisturbed habitat. Wildlife movement corridors are an important element of resident species home ranges, including deer and coyote. The project site is not located within the Butte County migratory deer corridors. Further, no major migratory routes or corridors have been designated through the project site, and the existing developed components of the project area (i.e. roads, fenced parcels, and dense residential development) preclude use of the area as a migratory wildlife corridor for large mammals. Absent official designation of wildlife migratory routes or corridors, the site may still be capable of facilitating home range and dispersal movement of resident wildlife species, including birds, small mammals and other wildlife. e.) Less than significant impact. A limited amount of trees are located on the project site. Oak trees located on the project site are generally found to be immature, and less than 5 inches in diameter. Future development on the resultant parcels may necessitate removal of some trees. However, due to the limited number of trees on the project site, and the young age of oak trees, future development would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f.) No impact. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is a joint Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/National Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that is currently being prepared for the western half of the Butte County, and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. The project site is located within the proposed plan area of the BRCP. After the BRCP is adopted, individual projects that occur in the BRCP planning area would need to be coordinated with the Butte County Association of Governments to ensure that the project does not conflict with the BRCP. As the plan has not been adopted, the proposed project will not conflict, nor interfere with, the attainment of the goals of the proposed plan. Regardless, the small scale of development generated by the proposed project would not be expected to have significant impacts upon sensitive biological resources that would require mitigation under the future habitat conservation plan. g.) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.4(a) – Biological Resources. Due to the limited development potential of the proposed project, as well as the minor amount of disturbance associated with the placement of a new development, less than significant impacts to critical habitats on the project site are anticipated. h.) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.4(a) – Biological Resources. 57 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 19 of 49 ■ i.) Less than significant impact. The project site does not contain native waterways containing fish and wildlife habitat. Potential development of the resultant parcels are not expected to result in a significant deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat or introduce barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species because of its small scale. j.) Less than significant impact. Introduction of new lighting, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals are not expected to hinder the normal activities of wildlife living in and passing through the project site due to the relative low density of the resulting project parcels and the proximate low-density and undeveloped open space in the vicinity of the project. k.) Less than significant impact. This project could result in the development of residential units that would introduce additional factors such as lighting, noise, human presence and domestic animals. The project site, and the surrounding area, already includes these factors in a low-density setting. The proposed project is consistent with the land use and density established for this area, and the addition of new single-family residences are not anticipated to significantly hinder normal activities of wildlife. Mitigation Measure #2 (Migratory Birds-Western Burrowing Owl) If project construction activities occur during the nesting season for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department Fish & Game Code (CDFC) (approximately March 1 – August 31), the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction surveys for nesting bird species. Surveys to identify active bird nests shall be conducted within and 250 feet around the footprint of proposed construction. At least two surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. Each survey shall be separated by 5 days. In the event that nesting raptors or birds protected by CDFC and MBTA are found in or within the footprint of proposed construction, the project proponent shall: 1. Locate and map the location of the nest site; 2. Establish a 250 feet no-disturbance buffer around all active nests; in the event bald eagles are found nesting in the survey area, a 1,000 foot no disturbance buffer shall be established; 3. Within 2 working days of the surveys, prepare a report and submit to the County. The report will include the results of surveys, location(s) of nests, and location of no disturbance buffers; 4. On-going weekly surveys shall be conducted to ensure that the no disturbance buffer is maintained; 5. Construction can resume when a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. Plan Requirements: Perform protocol-level surveys for migratory birds protected by the California Department Fish & Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This measure shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to prior to and during construction activities planned to occur during nesting seasons for CDFC and MBTA species (between March 1 and August 31). Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Department of Development Services shall ensure the condition is met at the time of construction activities. 4.5 Cultural Resources: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 58 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 20 of 49 ■ Setting: 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. Often such sites are found in foothill areas, areas with high bluffs, rock outcroppings, areas overlooking deer migratory corridors, or near bodies of water. Although this area is not located within one of these areas, there is still the chance that cultural resources could be located on site. A record search for existing archeological sites and surveys on the project site, and within one mile, was conducted through the Northeast Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System in July 2014. The search did not reveal the existence of any prehistoric or historic resources on the project site. But, it was noted that there is one prehistoric site located within one-mile of the project site. The identified prehistoric site consisted of human bones, graves, mortars, and pestles that may have been utilized by the Konkow Maidu populations, which were known to be located in the region. Records indicate that a portion of the project area has been previously surveyed by a professional archaeologist in 1977. Impact Discussion: a-d.) Less than significant impact with mitigations incorporated. Historic use of the project site for agriculture has resulted in ground-disturbing activities that likely destroyed any cultural resources that may have been located on the surface. Future grading and other soil disturbance activities resulting from the development of the project site has the potential to uncover historic or prehistoric cultural resources located below the surface. To prevent impacts to the resources that may be uncovered during development activities on the project site, Mitigation Measure #3, below, is recommended. Mitigation Measure #3 (Cultural Resources) Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map or on an additional map sheet that states: “Should grading activities reveal the presence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner ((530) 538-6579). Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains.” The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site preparation and construction activities. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and/or Public Works Department shall ensure the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. 59 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 21 of 49 ■ 4.6 Geologic Processes: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document 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 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? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial 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 water? Setting: Geologic Hazards Expansive Soils Expansive soils possess a “shrink-swell” behavior. Shrink-swell is the cyclic change in volume (expansion and contraction) that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments from the process of wetting and drying. Structural damage may occur over a long period of time, usually the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. The Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan identifies the project site as having a “Low” potential of expansive soils. Soil Erosion Erosion is the wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as wind and precipitation runoff. Soils containing high amounts of silt or clay can be easily erodible, while sandy soils are less susceptible. Excessive soil erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations and roadways. Typically, soil erosion potential is reduced once the soil is graded and covered with gravel, concrete, structures, asphalt, or a vegetative cover. The Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan identifies the project site as having a “Slight” potential for soil erosion. Landslides 60 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 22 of 49 ■ A landslide is the sliding of a mass of loosened rock and/or soil down a hillside or slope. Some of the natural causes of this instability are earthquakes, weak soils, erosion, heavy rainfall and fire. Human activities such as poor grading that undercuts steep slopes or overloads them will fill; excessive irrigation and removal of vegetation can also contribute to landslides. Most landslides in Butte County occur on slopes greater than 15 percent, and most new landslides occur in areas that have experience previous landslides. The areas of highest landslide potential are in the mountainous central area of the county where well-developed soils overlay impervious bedrock on steep slopes. The remaining areas of Butte County has moderate to low landslide potential. The areas of lowest landslide potential are the flat lands of the Sacramento Valley. The Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan identifies the project site as having “Low” to “No” landslide potential. Seismic Hazards Surface Fault Rupture Seismically induced ground rupture is defined as the physical displacement of surface deposits in response to movement on the fault place. The magnitude, sense, and nature of fault rupture can vary for different faults or event along different strands of the same fault. Ground rupture is considered more likely along active faults. The Cleveland Hills fault is the only fault located within Butte County that has been identified as an active fault pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones Act. This fault was responsible for the 1975 Oroville earthquake, which had a Richter magnitude of 5.7 and produced surface displacement along approximately 2.2 miles of the fault. Other active and potentially active faults are located in the region. However, because there are no known active faults underlying or adjacent to the project site, the likelihood of surface fault rupture is very low and would not be a design consideration. Ground Shaking Ground shaking at the project site could occur due to earthquakes on the regions active faults. However, ground motions attenuate with distance from the causative fault, as well as the local geologic and soil conditions. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Program of the California Geological Survey categorizes all of Butte County as a “seismic hazard zone” since the entire County is subject to earthquakes of Modified Mercalli Intensity scale VIII. The Oroville earthquake of 1975 is the only earthquake of this intensity recorded in Butte County. This earthquake resulted in structural damage, partial destruction of some buildings, fires and numerous injuries. Though, it is accepted that earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 or 6.5 are possible anywhere in Butte County, the county is generally considered to be an area of low seismic activity. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon whereby unconsolidated and/or near saturated soils lose cohesion and are converted to a fluid state as a result of sever vibratory motion. The relatively rapid loss of soil shear strength during strong earthquake shaking results in the temporary fluid-like behavior of the soil. Soil liquefaction causes ground failure that can damage roads, pipelines, underground cables, and building with shallow foundations. Liquefaction can occur in areas characterized by water-saturated, cohesionless, granular materials at depths less than 50 feet. Due to the relatively low potential for strong ground motions and a general lack of significant deposits of saturated loose soils, such as alluvium, the liquefaction potential, if any, can be addressed in the design of future structures during the building permit review process. Seiches A seiche is a periodic oscillation of a body of water such as a reservoir, river, lake, harbor, or bay resulting from seismic shaking or other causes such as landslides into a body of water. The period of the oscillation varies depending on the side of the body of water and may be several minutes to several hours. Depending on the magnitude of the oscillations, seiches can cause considerable damage to dams, levees and shoreline facilities. Seiches have not been recorded in any of the reservoirs in Butte County that are within the jurisdiction of the California Division of Dam Safety. However, the potential for seiches does exist in Butte County, either from landslides or from stronger earthquakes that have been experienced in historical times. Impact Discussion: a1.) Less than significant impact. There are no known active faults underlying, or adjacent to, the project site. The Cleveland Hill fault is located approximately 30± miles southeast of the project site. Because the nearest active fault is located a considerable distance from the project site, the likelihood of a surface rupture at the project site is very low, and would not be a design consideration. a2.) Less than significant impact. Ground shaking at the project site could occur due to the earthquake potential of the regions active faults. However, active faults are relatively distant from the project site. As a result, 61 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 23 of 49 ■ ground shaking due to seismic events is expected to have low to moderate intensities at the project site. Future residential development on the resultant parcels would be subject to the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC would provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare by regulating the controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of buildings and structures within Butte County. Among the provisions of the CBC are building design criteria for earthquake conditions in Butte County. Adherence to the CBC during building construction would ensure that potential impacts are less than significant. a3.) Less than significant impact. The project site is identified as being located within an area considered “Generally Moderate” in respect to liquefaction potential. The California Building Code (CBC) regulates the construction of structures, which may be constructed with approval of the proposed project. Adherence to CBC standards at the time of development of the resultant parcels would ensure that any impacts from an unstable geologic unit or soil are less than significant. a4.) Less than significant impact. The project area is primarily level with 0-2% slopes. As a result, the landslide potential for the project site and surrounding area is low. Though, the potential for landslides are generally low, shallow slope failures can occur in virtually any sloping terrain during construction activities. Avoidance of potentially sensitive slopes and/or implementation of appropriate engineering and construction measures at the time of development would avoid or reduce potential impacts of landslides to a less than significant level. b.) Less than significant impact. Surface soil erosion and loss of topsoil has the potential to occur from disturbances associated with the construction-related activities. Construction activities could also result in soil compaction and wind erosion effects that could adversely affect soils and reduce the revegetation potential at the construction site and staging areas. During construction-related activities, specific erosion control and surface water protection methods for each construction activity would be implemented on the project site. The type and number of measures implemented would be based upon location-specific attributes (i.e., slope, soil type, weather conditions). These control and protection measures, or BMPs, are standard in the construction industry and are commonly used to minimize soil erosion and water quality degradation. Additionally, future construction activities may be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Storm Water permit program if one acre or more of land is disturbed. Construction activities that result in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which are part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit. This program requires implementation of erosion control measures during and immediately after construction that are designed to avoid significant erosion during the construction period. In addition, the project operation would be subject to State Water Resources Control Board requirements for the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control pollution in stormwater runoff from the project site, including excessive erosion and sedimentation. The SWPPP, if required, must be obtained prior to any soil disturbance activities. Implementation of standard erosion control BMP’s during future construction-related activities, together with adherence to State requirements regarding grading activities, would ensure that potential erosion impacts are less than significant. c.) Less than significant impact. Destabilization of natural or constructed slopes could occur as a result of future construction activities. Excavations, grading, and fill operations associated with providing access to the resultant parcels and during development could alter existing slope profiles making them unstable as a result of over-excavation of slope material, steepening of the slope, or increased loading. Standard engineering design features and construction procedures would be implemented to maintain stable slopes and excavations during construction, reducing impacts of unstable slopes to a less than significant level. d.) Less than significant impact. Expansive soils can cause structural damage particularly when concrete structures are in direct contact with the soils. Appropriate design features to address expansive soils may include excavation of potentially problematic soils during construction and replacement with engineered backfill, ground-treatment processes, direction of surface water and drainage away from foundation soils, and the use of deep foundations such as piers or piles. Implementation of these standard engineering methods would ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils would remain less than significant. 62 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 24 of 49 ■ e.) Less than significant impact. Wastewater disposal on the project site would be handled by new, individual, on-site septic systems. General Plan 2030 includes a number of policies in the Water Resources Element and the Public Facilities Services Element both to address existing septic systems in areas with poor soils and to ensure the safety of future septic systems. To ensure the safety of new septic systems, Policy PUB-P13.2 requires new development to demonstrate the availability of a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system. Similarly, Policy PUB-P13.3 requires applicants of projects that will rely on on-site wastewater systems to provide detailed plans demonstrating that the system will be adequate to serve the project. Lastly, Policy PUB-P12.2 requires on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the Chico area to continue to be regulated according to requirements in the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Butte County General Plan 2030 EIR). The applicant completed a pre-application review with Butte County Department of Environmental Health, in accordance with Chapter 19 of Butte County Code (On-Site Wastewater Systems). As part of the review, an initial septic location on the resultant parcels were evaluated and determined to have adequate soil conditions to allow for future development of an on-site wastewater system. Future development requiring wastewater disposal is required to receive an On-Site Wastewater System Construction Permit from Butte County Environmental Health Division. Application for a Construction Permit will include detailed plans of the proposed wastewater system, prepared by a Certified Installer or Certified Designer, which will demonstrate compliance with County regulations and the County’s On-Site Wastewater Manual, and to ensure a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Setting: The earth’s atmosphere naturally contains a number of gases, including (but not limited to) carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), which are collectively referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs). GHG emissions are generally numerically depicted (when applicable) as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). CO2e represents CO2 plus the additional warming potential from CH4 and N2O. The common unit of measurement for carbon dioxide equivalents is in metric tons (MTCO2e). These gases trap some amount of solar radiation and the earth’s own radiation, preventing it from passing through earth’s atmosphere and into space. GHG are vital to life on earth; without them, earth would be an icy planet. For example, CO2 is an element that is essential to the cycle of life. In general, CH4 and N2O have 21 and 310 times the warming potential of CO2, respectively. Human-made emissions of GHG occur through the combustion of fuels, as well as a variety of other sources. Increasing GHG concentrations are believed to be warming the planet. As the average temperature of the earth increase, weather may be affected, including changes in precipitation patterns, accumulation of snow pack, and intensity and duration of spring snowmelt. Climate zones may change, affecting the ecology and biological resources of a region. There may also be changes in fire hazards due to the changes in precipitation and climate zones. While scientists have established a connection between increasing GHG concentrations and increasing average temperatures, important scientific questions remain about how much warming would occur, how fast it would occur, and how the warming would affect the rest of the climate system. At this point, scientific efforts are unable to quantify the degree to which human activity impacts climate change. The phenomenon is worldwide, yet it is expected that there would 63 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 25 of 49 ■ be substantial regional and local variability in climate changes. It is not possible with today’s science to determine the effects of global climate change in a specific locale, or whether the effect of one aspect of climate change may be counteracted by another aspect of climate change, or exacerbated by it. Section 15183.5(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations states that a GHG Reduction Plan, or a Climate Action Plan, may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation provided that the CAP does the following: A. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; B. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; C. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area; D. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; E. Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and F. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review. A 2006 baseline GHG emission inventory was prepared for unincorporated Butte County. The inventory identified the sources and the amount of GHG emissions produced in the county. Within Butte County, the leading contributors of GHG emissions are agriculture (43%), transportation (29%), and residential energy (17%). A Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted by Butte County on February 25, 2014. The CAP provides a framework for the County to reduce GHG emissions while simplifying the review process for new development. Measures and actions identified in the CAP lay the groundwork to achieve the adopted General Plan goals related to climate change, including reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In an effort to implement the measures of the CAP, a development checklist was created to evaluate a new projects consistency with the CAP, and to identify which GHG emission reduction measures would be implemented with project approval. The CAP development checklist identified three reduction measures applicable to the proposed project. These measures include expansion of renewable energy systems for new residential development by prewiring future development for photovoltaic systems; reduction of construction equipment idling time; and, installation of electric vehicle charging outlets in the garage or the exterior of the home (See Attachment A). Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. The proposed project is a minor subdivision that would contribute to the existing greenhouse gas inventory for Butte County through the creation of parcels for future residential development. Residential development would generate direct emissions through the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and propane, as well as from fuel usage for landscaping equipment. Development would also generate additional vehicle trips to and from the residence. Additionally, construction activities of future development would also create greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the use of heavy equipment. To reduce the anticipated increase in of GHG emissions that would ultimately be created by the proposed project, GHG reduction measures from the Butte County Climate Action Plan were identified through CAP development checklist review. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the project’s consistency with the CAP and that impacts from GHG emissions are less than significant. b.) No Impact. The Butte County General Plan and Butte County Climate Action Plan establish numerous policies relative to greenhouse gases. The proposed subdivision would not generate greenhouse gas emissions; however, future development of the resultant parcels would increase GHG emissions, although on a limited scale. Due to the limited development potential of the project site, the anticipated increase in emissions would not conflict with the applicable with policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 64 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 26 of 49 ■ Mitigation Measure #4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions): Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: To the extent feasible, the developer shall implement the following measures at the time of development to offset the anticipated contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from residential development: Support expansion of renewable energy systems o Prewire all new residential development to support photovoltaic system installation. Support efficiency in vehicles and landscaping equipment o Install electrical vehicle outlets on external walls or in garages in all new residential development. Improve fuel efficiency of equipment during construction-related activities o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minute. o Use clean or alternative fuel equipment Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Shall be implemented prior to issuance of building permits for residential development. Construction-related measures shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Planning Division will ensure that future residential development includes the applicable measures during Building Permit review. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmental through the routine transport use, or disposal 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 the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed 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 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 65 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 27 of 49 ■ Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Settings Airports Air transportation in Butte County is served by a number of private and public airfields and heliports serving general aviation and agricultural users. There are four major aviation facilities in Butte County that serve the general public. The Chico Municipal Airport is the nearest general aviation airport to the project site. The airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing the project site within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D for the airport. The airport is publicly owned and operated. Facilities include a 6,724 foot long and 150 foot wide runway, and a separate 3,005 long runway, both of which handle nearly 70,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings each year. The airport has an airport traffic control tower and a limited commuter airline services. The airport is also a major fire attack aircraft base during area wildfires. Wildland Fire Conditions The combination of highly flammable fuel, long dry summers and steep slopes creates a natural hazard of wildland fires in many areas of Butte County. Wildland fires can result in death, injury, economic losses, and a large public investment in firefighting efforts. Woodland and other natural vegetation can also be destroyed during wildfires, resulting in the loss of timber, wildlife habitat, scenic quality, and recreation. Areas in the county that are particularly susceptible to wildland fires largely contain dense vegetation and steep slopes, which aide in the spread of fire. These areas have been designated as Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), and generally include the foothill and mountainous regions of Butte County. Fire protection services for unincorporated Butte County are generally provided by the Butte County Fire Department (BCFD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), with CalFire having fiscal responsibility for preventing and suppressing wildfires. Due to the heightened risk of wildfires and the increased potential for damage or loss in certain areas of the county, CalFire has designated these areas as State Responsibility Areas (SRA). Development within SRAs must comply with special building requirements, and are also regulated by Public Resources Code 4290 and 4291, which establish requirements for maintenance of defensible space and vegetation management. According to the Health and Safety Element of the Butte County General Plan, the project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone due to the project site consisting of level slopes and grassland. The project site is also not located in the SRA area. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, etc. would be used to maintain vehicles and motorized equipment during construction-related activities. Accidental spill of any of these substances could impact water and/or groundwater quality. Depending on the relative hazard of the material, if a spill were to occur of significant quantity, the accidental release could pose a hazard to construction workers, the public, as well as the environment. Construction personal who are experienced in containing accidental releases of hazardous materials will likely be present to contain and treat affected areas in the event a spill occurs. If a larger spill were to occur, construction personal would generally be on-hand to contact the appropriate agencies. 66 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 28 of 49 ■ It is not anticipated that large quantities of hazardous materials would be permanently stored or used within the project site. However, if large quantities are stored at the project site, the owner would be required to obtain a Hazardous Materials Business Plan. It is more likely that only small quantities of publicly-available hazardous materials (e.g., paint, maintenance supplies) may be routinely used within the project site for residential or agricultural maintenance and cleaning. However, these materials would not be used in sufficient strength or quantity to create a substantial risk of fire or explosion, or otherwise pose a substantial risk to human or environmental health. b.) Less than significant impact. It’s not anticipated that construction or operation of future residential or agricultural development would create a significant hazard to the environment or to the public due to the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment. Accidental release of hazardous materials routinely used during construction activities are addressed in section a.), above. c.) No impact. No existing or proposed schools have been identified within one-quarter mile of the project site. d.) No impact. A review of regulatory agency databases, which included lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5, did not identify contamination site as being located within, or in the vicinity of, the project site. e.) Less than significant impact. The Chico Municipal Airport is located 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing the project site within the Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport is defined as the outer boundary of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 conical zone limits, subjecting lands to reviews to ensure that objects and other land uses do not affect the navigable airspace of the airport. Uses prohibited within Zone D include any hazards to the flight of the aircraft such as physical, visual and electronic forms of interference, and land uses which may cause the attraction of birds to increase. Conditions to development within Zone D include establishment of an avigation easement dedication with acknowledgement of airport proximity and review of objects greater than 100 feet in height. Approval of the proposed project will be subject to implementing the requirements of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure airport operations due not affect persons residing on the project site, or that future land uses on the project site do not adversely affect airport and aircraft operations. f.) No impact. No known private airstrips have been identified within two miles of the project site. As a result, no safety hazards associated with airport operations are anticipated to affect people working or residing within the project site. g.) No impact. The proposed project does not include any actions that physically interfere with any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. Development of the resultant parcels would add a small amount of trips onto the area roadways; however, area roadways and intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. In the event future construction activities require work to be performed in the roadway, appropriate traffic control plans would be prepared in conjunction with a Butte County Encroachment Permit. h.) Less than significant impact. The project site is not located in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or a State Responsibility Area. As a result, existing and subsequent development on the resultant parcels, as well as its residents, would not be exposed to a significant wildland fire risk. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 67 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 29 of 49 ■ Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document 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 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner 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 systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by Federal Flood Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 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 result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Setting: Groundwater Basin The project site is located in the Vina Subbasin. The Vina Subbasin encompasses approximately 88,100 acres in the northern valley area of Butte County and comprises the portion of the Sacramento Valley groundwater basin bounded on the west by the Sacramento River, on the north by Deer Creek, on the east by the foothills and on the south by Big Chico Creek. The aquifer system is comprised of continental deposits of Tertiary to later Quaternary age. The Quaternary deposits include Holocene stream channel deposits and Pleistocene Modesto Formation deposits, located along most stream and river channels, and alluvial fan deposits. The Tertiary deposits include the Tuscan Formation (CDWR, February 2004). Groundwater level monitoring in the Sacramento Valley portion of Butte County is currently being conducted by a number of different private and public agencies. Historically, the DWR has maintained the most comprehensive, long-term groundwater level monitoring grid, with from 50 to 180 different wells monitored over the last 50 years in the Sacramento Valley portion of Butte County. Since 1997, Butte County and DWR have coordinated water level monitoring efforts. As part of a groundwater inventory analysis prepared for Butte County, the portion of the Vina Subbasin located within Butte County was evaluated for seasonal and long-term changes in groundwater levels for unconfined and confined aquifer 68 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 30 of 49 ■ systems. Long-term comparisons of spring to spring groundwater levels in the northern part of Butte County shows a decline as a result of the 1976-77 and 1987-94 droughts, followed by a recovery of groundwater levels to pre-drought conditions (Butte County, 2001). Evaluation of groundwater level data at the northern edge of the California Water Service area (just north of Chico) shows an average seasonal fluctuation in groundwater levels of approximately 10 feet during years of normal precipitation. Long-term comparison of spring to spring groundwater levels shows a decline in levels associated with the above drought periods with recovery to pre-drought conditions of the early 1970’s. Further long-term comparison of spring to spring groundwater levels indicates a 10- to 15- foot decline in groundwater levels since the 1950’s. Areas unaffected by municipal water use reflect the natural groundwater table distribution and direction of movement. Year-round extraction of groundwater for municipal use in the Chico area causes several small groundwater depressions that tend to alter the natural southwesterly movement of groundwater in the area. In the Chico area, groundwater levels in the unconfined portion of the aquifer system is about 5- to 7-feet during normal precipitation and up to approximately 16 feet during periods of drought. Annual fluctuation in the confined or semi confined portion of the aquifer system is approximately 15- to 25-feet during normal years and up to approximately 30 feet during periods of drought. Long-term comparison of spring to spring groundwater levels for confined or semi-confined portions of the aquifer system indicates a 10 to 15-foot decline in groundwater levels since the 1950s (DWR 2001). Stormwater Management Program Butte County operates under a Small Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer Systems (Small MS4) permit as required by Phase II of the NPDES, and which currently covers the urbanized area around the City of Chico. In order to fulfill the requirements of the permit, Butte County development and implemented a Stormwater Management Program in 2003. The program is managed at the State Level by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under permit from the EPA. The program includes public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, illicit discharge detection and elimination, construction site stormwater runoff control, post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment, and pollution prevention for County operations and facilities. The program also includes descriptions of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address specific activities identified in the regulations, such as illicit discharge. The Department of Public Works and Development Services Department are responsible for planning, inspection, enforcement, and permit clearances for construction projects in the county. The Department of Public Works is responsible for the County’s stormwater drainage system. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance Chapter 50 of the Butte County Code provides the County with the legal authority necessary to implement and otherwise comply with the requirements of the County’s Stormwater Management Program. Approved by the County in 2003, the Stormwater Management Program requires the County to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from the State Board’s defined boundaries of the County’s MS4 Stormwater Permit area in the County storm drain system. Butte County Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance Chapter 26, Article IV of the Butte County Code requires the Department of Development Services to review all applications for new construction or subdivisions within flood hazard areas, and requires that the lowest floor of any new construction or substantial improvements within Flood Zones A, AE, AH, and shaded Zone X be elevated 1-foot or more above the regulatory flood elevation. Applications must also show that development within the flood plain will not raise the existing flood level in a manner that adversely affects any neighboring property. Butte County Improvement Standards The Butte County Improvement Standards contain the County’s requirements for design of sewer storm drainage systems, Section 12.0 contains requirements for water supplies; Section 11.0 contains requirements for sewage disposal; Section 10.0 contains requirements for storm drainage. Section 11.01-1 identifies requirements for the design of sewer systems in new subdivisions, and Section 10.01-1 identifies requirements for the design of storm drain systems in new subdivisions. Sewerage and storm drainage plans are subject to approval by the Butte County Department of Public Works. Section 11.01-1 of the County’s Improvement Standard requires that the design of stormwater systems… “…shall be such that water accumulating within the project will be carried away from the project without injury to any adjacent improvements, residential sites, or residence to be installed on site within the project, or to adjoining areas. 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.” 69 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 31 of 49 ■ Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Future development associated with the proposed project would require grading, excavation and general site preparation activities that could result in erosion of on-site soils and sedimentation during storm or high wind events. Erosion of on-site soils would temporarily impact surface water quality and water quality within nearby waterways. Downstream impacts from erosion include increased turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations. Eroded soils also contains nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients, that when deposited in water bodies, can trigger algal blooms that reduce water clarity, deplete oxygen, and create odors. Eroded sediments may blanket fauna, and the increased cloudiness from suspended sediments may also reduce photosynthesis that produces food supply and natural aquatic habitat (Butte County General Plan 2030). As discussed in Section 4.6 – Geologic Processes, the physical characteristics of the soil at the project site indicate that susceptibility to erosion is slight. During construction-related activities, specific erosion control and surface water protection methods for each construction activity would be implemented on the project site. The type and number of measures implemented would be based upon location-specific attributes (i.e., slope, soil type, weather conditions). These control and protection measures, or BMPs, are standard in the construction industry and are commonly used to minimize soil erosion and water quality degradation. Additionally, future construction activities may be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activities Storm Water permit program if one acre or more of land is disturbed. Construction activities that result in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which are part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit. This program requires implementation of erosion control measures during and immediately after construction that are designed to avoid significant erosion during the construction period. Project operations that are under a NPDES permit would also be subject to State Water Resources Control Board requirements for the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control pollution in stormwater runoff from the project site. A condition of approval reflecting the requirement of the applicant to obtain a NPDES permit, prior to grading activities, will be included with project approval. Groundwater Quality Future development on the resultant parcels also has the potential to contribute pollutants to area groundwater. Nitrate contamination of groundwater is one of the most widespread pollutants and may impact area residents who utilize groundwater as their main source of drinking water. High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater are primarily caused by human activities, including fertilizer application (synthetic and manure), animal operations, industrial sources (wastewater treatment and food processing facilities), and septic system. Nitrate contamination poses a health risk to many rural areas where drinking water is obtained from wells that are often shallow and vulnerable to contamination. The California Department of Public Health set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 45 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for nitrates in drinking water. Levels of nitrate that exceed safe drinking water standards can interfere with the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the tissues of the body producing a condition called methemoglobinemia. The groups with the greatest risk of becoming ill through ingesting nitrate are infants under 6 months and pregnant women. Groups with the lowest risk of becoming ill are healthy children and adults (CDPH). Wastewater disposal on the project site would be handled by new, individual, on-site septic systems. General Plan 2030 includes a number of policies in the Water Resources Element and the Public Facilities Services Element both to address existing septic systems in areas with poor soils and to ensure the safety of future septic systems. To ensure the safety of new septic systems, Policy PUB-P13.2 requires new development to demonstrate the availability of a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system. Similarly, Policy PUB-P13.3 requires applicants of projects that will rely on on-site wastewater systems to provide detailed plans demonstrating that the system will be adequate to serve the project. Lastly, Policy PUB-P12.2 requires on-site wastewater treatment and disposal systems in the Chico area to continue to be regulated according to requirements in the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Butte County General Plan 2030). The applicant completed a pre-application review with Butte County Department of Environmental Health, in accordance with Chapter 19 of Butte County Code (On-Site Wastewater Systems). As part of the review, an initial septic location on the resultant parcels were evaluated and determined to have adequate soil conditions to allow for future development of an on-site wastewater system. Future development requiring wastewater disposal is required to receive an On-Site Wastewater System Construction Permit from Butte County Environmental Health Division. Application for a Construction Permit will include detailed plans of the proposed wastewater system, prepared by a Certified Installer or Certified Designer, which will demonstrate compliance with County 70 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 32 of 49 ■ regulations and the County’s On-Site Wastewater Manual, and to ensure a safe, sanitary, and environmentally sound wastewater system. b.) Less than significant impact. Domestic water to existing and planned uses on the resultant parcels would be provided by groundwater extraction. No limitations or entitlements are required for the extraction and use of the underlying groundwater, provided the water is used to serve a beneficial use on the property. Pursuant to Butte County Improvement Standards 12.03, resultant parcels less than 20 acres and proposing to utilize an individual water supply system must verify that water is available in sufficient quantities, as detailed under Standard 12.02-2(1). Additionally, well yields for new wells must meet the minimum acceptable standards detailed in the Butte County Environmental Health Division – Potable Water Adequacy Policies and Procedures. The proposed project has the potential to result in a net increase in impervious surfaces on the project site from the development of new residences or other structures. Future development would result in only a minor increase in impervious surfaces from the construction of concrete foundations and access road surfacing. Thus, the proposed project would not cause a measureable reduction in surface infiltration or a decrease in deep percolation to the underlying aquifers. c.) Less than significant impact. Ground disturbance during construction activities associated with the build- out of the resultant parcels may alter existing drainage pathways, expose surface soils to become more susceptible to erosive forces (i.e., overland flow) and/or generate enough increased runoff through removal/clearing of existing vegetation to increase surface erosion. General Plan 2030 includes policies that address water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Specifically, Policy W-P1.11 requires enforcement of grading and construction regulations to minimize erosion and urban stormwater runoff pollution; Policy W-P5.2 requires than new development identify and adequately mitigate its water quality impacts from stormwater runoff; and, Policy W-P5.4 requires that temporary facilities be installed as necessary during construction activities in order to adequately treat stormwater runoff from construction sites. These policies discuss above, in conjunction with the Butte County Stormwater Management Program, Butte County Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, and the application of other State regulations discussed in Section A, above, would reduce water quality impacts to a less than significant level. d.) Less than significant impact. Construction activities associated with build-out of the resultant parcels would not substantially alter drainage patterns such that they would cause on- or off-site flooding. Minimal vegetation removal and soil disturbance would occur during clearing of building sites and for the access road (less than one acre), resulting in the potential for increased stormwater runoff. Application of BMPs administrated through the construction process would minimize the potential for surface runoff and further reduce the potential for flooding. The minor increase in impervious surface area from build-out of the resultant parcels is not anticipated to be enough to alter existing drainage patterns or cause offsite flooding. While some increase in stormwater runoff may be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created from new impervious surfaces on the site, such as from structures, driveways, and hardscape (walkways, patios), future development would be reviewed by the Butte County Public Works Department to ensure any potential drainage concerns are addressed, and to ensure no net increase in stormwater runoff leaves the project site. e.) Less than significant impact. When precipitation falls onto the ground surface, it naturally infiltrates into the ground, and when the ground is saturated, it runs off as surface flow. Stormwater in Butte County is currently conveyed through a system of ditches, culverts and underground storm sewers to regional waterways. Stormwater that falls on impervious surfaces such as roads, driveways and parking lots picks up residual pollution such as oil, sediment, and trash. These materials are then washed into waterways and pollute the rivers and reservoirs of Butte County and other downstream receiving waters. In addition, stormwater runs off impervious surfaces at a faster rate than off of soil or natural surfaces. Increase rates stormwater runoff can result in hydromodification of downstream waterways through eroded streambanks and deeply cut creek channels (Butte County General Plan 2030). The proposed project is likely to generate a minor increase in runoff from the future development of the resultant parcels, such as with the construction of new residences or access roads. These improvements are relatively small and conveyed through a system of ditches and culverts to area waterways. 71 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 33 of 49 ■ General Plan 2030 Water Resource Element contains policies that address stormwater runoff capacity. Policy W-P1.4 encourages Low Impact Development, which minimizes impervious areas, minimizes runoff and pollution, and incorporates best management practices. Policy W-P5.3 allows and encourages pervious pavements. Policy W-P5.5 requires that stormwater collection systems be installed concurrently with construction of new roadways to maximize efficiency and minimize disturbance due to construction activity. Policy HS-P3.2 requires that applicants for new development provide plans detailing existing drainage conditions and specifying how runoff will be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest drainage facility, without increasing the peak flow runoff to said channel or facility. Policy HS-P3.3 requires that all development include stormwater control measures and site design features that prevent any increase in the peak flow runoff to existing drainage facilities. As a condition of approval to the project, the applicant shall submit drainage plans and calculations to the County Public Works Department. Engineering plans will detail existing drainage conditions and specify how stormwater runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly-maintained facility. Engineering calculations will show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. All improvements associated with the proposed project will be made in accordance with the Butte County Improvement Standards. Implementation of these conditions of approval, together with the application of existing County and State regulations and policies would ensure that the anticipated minor increase in runoff would not exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage systems or substantially increase polluted runoff. f.) No impact. The proposed project would not result in potential surface water pollution beyond the issues discussed in section a.), above. Therefore, the proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality beyond the issues previously addressed. g.) No impact. According to floodplain mapping of the project area, the project site is located within the X zone. The X zone is defined by FEMA as areas of minimal flood hazard from the principal source of flood in the area and determined to be outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. As a result, proposed improvements and future development on the resultant parcels would not be subject to the County’s Flood Hazard Prevention Ordinance. h.) No impact. See discussion 4.19(g) – Hydrology and Water Quality. i.) No impact. The project site is not identified as being located in a flood hazard zone or an inundation zone for any dams regulated by the California Dam Safety Act. j.) No impact. Although located within a seismically-active region, the project site is not located in an area that would be impacted by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.10 Land Use: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Setting: 72 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 34 of 49 ■ Butte County General Plan The General Plan represents the basic community values, ideals and aspirations with respect to land use, development, transportation, public services, and conservation policy that will govern Butte County through 2030. The land use element of the general plan designates the land use of areas within the county, and includes a description of the characteristics and intensity of each land use category. The land use designation for the project site is Very Low Density Residential. Butte County Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance implements the goals and policies of the Butte County General Plan by regulating the uses of the land and structures within the County. The zoning designation of the project site and their intended use are as follows: Very Low Density Residential - 2.5 (VLDR-2.5) The purpose of the VLDR zone is to allow for single-family homes and related uses in residential neighborhoods within the county. Standard for the VLDR zone are intended to preserve and protect the character of existing neighborhoods and to ensure that new residential neighborhoods provide an appropriate transition from rural to more developed areas. Permitted residential uses in the VLDR zones include single-family homes, small residential care homes, second units, animal grazing, on-site agricultural product sales, and private stables. The VLDR zone also conditionally permits non-residential uses compatible with a residential setting, including public and quasi-public uses, golf courses, park and recreational facilities, personal services, animal keeping, large residential care homes, and medical offices and clinics. The minimum permitted parcel size in the VLDR-2.5 zone is 2.5 acres. Impact Discussion: a.) No impact. The project site is located on vacant land and is not part of an established community. As a result, the proposed project will not physically divide an established community. b.) No impact. The proposed project does not include an amendment to the existing land use designation, or a change to the existing land uses occurring on the project site. The proposed project would subdivide the property into additional parcels, with each parcel meeting the minimum parcel size requirement designated by zoning. c.) No impact. The Butte Regional Conservation Plan (BRCP) is a joint Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)/National Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) that is currently being prepared for the western half of the Butte County, and is scheduled to be completed in 2015. The project site is located within the proposed plan area of the BRCP. However, as the plan has not been adopted, the proposed project will not conflict, nor interfere with, the attainment of the goals of the proposed plan. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.11 Mineral Resources: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Impact Discussion: 73 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 35 of 49 ■ a.) Less than significant impact. There are no known economically viable sources of rock materials in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No mining operations have occurred on the project site or surrounding area and the project would not preclude future extraction of available mineral resources. Mineral resource extraction is not proposed with this project. However, future development on the resultant parcels would use mineral resources in the construction of structures and access roads. The amount of resources used for the anticipated development on the resultant parcels is minor and would not result in the loss of its availability. b.) No impact. The project site is not located in an area currently used for, or known to have, locally-important mineral resources. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.12 Noise: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Setting: Table HS-2 of the Butte County General Plan identifies the maximum allowable noise exposure to a variety of land uses from transportation sources, including from roadways, rail and airports. Table HS-3 identifies the maximum allowable noise exposure from non-transportation sources. In the case of transportation noise sources, exterior noise level standards for residential outdoor activity areas are 60 dB (Ldn/CNEL). However, where it is not possible to reduce noise in an outdoor activity area to 60 dB Ldn /CNEL or less using a practical application of the best-available noise-reduction measures, an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB may be allowed, provided that available exterior noise-level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with applicable standards. The maximum allowable interior noise level standards for residential uses is 45 dB Ldn/CNEL, which is designed for sleep and speech protection. The typical structural attenuation of a residence from an exterior noise is 15 dBA when windows facing the noise source is open. When windows in good condition are closed, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling. 74 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 36 of 49 ■ The Butte County Noise Control Ordinance provides the County with a means of assessing complaints of alleged noise violations and to address noise level violations from stationary sources. The ordinance includes a list of activities that are exempt from the provisions of the ordinance. Construction-related noise within 1,000 feet of residential uses are included among the exempted activities, provided construction activities do not take place: From sunset to sunrise on weekends and non-holidays; Fridays commencing at 6:00 pm through and including 8:00 am on Saturday; Before 8:00 am on holidays; Saturday commencing at 6:00 pm through and including 10:00 am on Sunday; and Sunday after 6:00 pm. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Noise levels contributed by the proposed project would include construction noise during future build-out of the resultant parcels, occupancy of the single-family residences, and from agricultural-related activities. Construction noises associated with development of the resultant parcel would primarily be from the use of heavy equipment, generators, and power tools. Typical noises contributed by residential and agricultural uses include landscaping equipment, automobile traffic, power tools, domestic animals, farm machinery, heating and cooling systems. Much of the noise generated by these activities would be intermittent and separated from noise sensitive receptors; and therefore, is unlikely to exceed County standards. Additionally, construction-related noise from on-site development would be temporary and intermittent, and would not result in long-term noise impacts. Compliance with Butte County Code provisions regarding construction noise would ensure construction activities occur during hours exempt from County noise standards, making potential impacts less than significant. b.) Less than significant impact. The use of blasting and/or pile drivers during construction activities would not be included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would involve temporary sources of groundborne vibration and groundborne noise during construction from the operation of heavy equipment. Operation of heavy equipment would generate localized groundborne vibration and groundborne noise that could be perceptible at residences or other sensitive uses in the immediate vicinity of the construction site. However, since the duration of impact would be infrequent and would occur during less sensitive daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.), the impact from construction-related groundborne vibration and groundborne noise would be less than significant. c.) Less than significant impact. The primary contributors to the existing noise environment surrounding the project site include motor vehicle traffic along area roadways and sounds emanating from residential and agricultural uses. Permanent noise sources that would be introduced to the existing noise environment by the proposed project would primarily come from motor vehicles generated at full build-out of the resultant parcels, and to a lesser extent, from residential and agricultural uses. Noise introduced to area roadways by the project 75 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 37 of 49 ■ would not cause a substantial increase to existing noise levels due to minimal development anticipated with the proposed project. Further, due to the low ambient noise levels in the surrounding environment, and the projected density of the resultant parcels and surrounding area, the minimal increase in ambient noise levels contributed by the project would not be substantial. d.) Less than significant impact. The only temporary or periodic noise sources that would be introduced to the existing noise environment by the proposed project would be noises associated with construction activities. Construction activities would require a variety of equipment. During the construction period, noise levels generated by project construction would vary depending on the particular type, number, and duration of use of the various types of construction equipment. Though noises generated by heavy equipment would periodically generate noise levels in excess of exterior noise standards identified in the General Plan, given the minimal development anticipated to build-out the resultant parcels, the infrequent use of heavy equipment during construction, and that construction activities would occur during less sensitive daytime hours, temporary noise impacts are not considered significant. e.) No impact. The Chico Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, and is situated within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D for the airport. At this distance, the project site is located outside the 55 dB CNEL noise level established for the airport. As a result, operational noises from the airport would not affect residents located on the project site. f.) No impact. No known private airstrips have been identified within the vicinity of the project site. As a result, no noise impacts associated with the airport operations are anticipated to affect people working or residing within the project site. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.13 Population and Housing: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Setting: The population for Butte County was estimated to be 220,024 in 2010 and 203,446 in 2000, resulting in a total population growth of 16,578 during this 10-year period (US Census). The annual average population growth rate in the county during this period was 0.79 percent. Total housing units in Butte County was approximately 95,835 in 2010, with approximately 8.6 percent of these housing units considered vacant. The proposed project would result in the creation of four additional parcels that could potentially be developed with a single-family residence. According to the United States Census Bureau, the average household size of an owner-occupied housing unit for Butte County is 2.43. Based on the average household size within the county, and the potential number of housing units that could be constructed on the parcel, the proposed project could add 8 to 12 new residents to the local population. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Subdivision of the project site could facilitate the potential addition of single- family residential units, which would directly result in growth in available housing and, if occupied, to the 76 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 38 of 49 ■ local population. However, housing and population growth with this project are consistent with planned future land uses and would be minor in scale. Construction activities associated with development of the residential units would not result in any direct or indirect growth-inducing impacts to the county because construction activities would be temporary, and construction workers would likely be drawn from the local and regional work force. Growth in the project area resulting from the project is planned, and is consistent with the applicable planning policies and zoning ordinance. b.) No impact. See discussion 4.13(a) – Population and Housing. The project site is vacant land, and no residences would be removed or displaced by the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people or housing. c.) No impact. See discussion 4.13(a) – Population and Housing. The proposed project would not cause the displacement of the local population. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.14 Public Services: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other public services? Impact Discussion: a1.) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.8 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Butte County Code requires the payment of fire protection impact fees to help offset the impacts that new residential development has on the fire protection services. Fire protection impact fees would be paid at the time of building permit issuance for a dwelling unit. a2.) Less than significant impact. The Butte County Sheriff’s Office provides law enforcement service to the site. Implementation of the proposed project could increase service calls if additional residential structures are built. Increased development in rural areas impacts the ability of the Sheriff's Department to adequately provide services to outlying areas. Although police protection services may need to be increased as a result of the project, it is anticipated that project implementation would not require any new law enforcement facilities or the alteration of existing facilities to maintain acceptable performance objectives. The project’s increase in demand for law enforcement services would be offset through project-related impact fees. a3.) Less than significant impact. Residential development at the site would result in an incremental demand for school facilities in the area. The project site is located in the Chico Unified School District. A development 77 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 39 of 49 ■ impact fee for school facilities will be assessed at the time of residential development on the resultant parcels to offset any potential impact to area school facilities. a4.) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.15 – Recreation. a5.) Less than significant impact. The project would result in added need for County services, such as law enforcement, fire protection, general services, libraries, and roads. Butte County collects various types of development impact fees to offset the cost and impacts associated with new residential units. These fees vary depending on the dwelling type, and are collected at the time of development. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.15 Recreation: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Setting The project site is located within the Chico Recreation and Park District (CARD). The district covers an area of approximately 208 square miles, and includes the City of Chico, as well as the unincorporated community of Nord. The district operates and maintains approximately 214 acres of developed parkland and facilities to serve a population of approximately 104,367 residents. This translates into a level of service of 1.85 acres of parklands for every 1,000 residents. The total park facilities operated by the district do not include Bidwell Park and parks operated by State and Federal agencies. No park facilities are located in the vicinity of the project site; however, it’s anticipated that future residents of the project site would likely use facilities located in the City of Chico, as well as nearby State-operated facilities, to meet their recreational needs. Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact. Increase in the demand for recreational facilities is typically associated with substantial increases in population. As discussed in Section 4.13 - Population and Housing, the proposed project may generate growth in the local population if residential units are constructed on the resultant parcels. Because housing and population growth in the project area would be minor, the project would not result in a substantial increase in demand for recreational facilities or adversely affect Butte County park/population standards. b.) No impact. The proposed project does not include plans for additional recreational facilities nor would it require expansion of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any adverse physical effects on the environment from construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Mitigation Measure: None required. 78 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 40 of 49 ■ 4.16 Transportation/Traffic: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities Setting: Roadway Network Access to the resultant parcels would be provided by a new private access road constructed within a 60-foot wide easement off Bell Road. The access road will be constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII Standard, which will include two, 10-foot wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Road surfacing will include a 4-inch aggregate base overlaid with a single layer of sealcoat. The total length of the road from Bell Road to it terminus is 1,319 feet, and will include a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac at its terminus. Road approach improvements will be constructed to S-18B standard, pursuant to the 2006 Butte County Improvement Standards. Local access roads surrounding the project site is provided by Bell Road (County), Jones Avenue (Private), Santiago Court (Private) and Ciulla Lane (Private). Bell Road is an urban collector, County-maintained roadway. Bell Road provides East-West access between Cussick Avenue and Hamilton-Nord-Cana Highway. The road is approximately 20 to 24 feet in width, with an asphalt surface. Paved shoulders widths of one-foot are located on both sides of the road. Jones Avenue is a cul-de-sac (dead end) urban local road, approximately 1,220 feet in length from Bell Road. The road is privately maintained. The road width is approximately 20 to 22 feet, with no paved shoulders. However, several feet of clearance is located along the western side of the road. The road surface is paved with asphalt from Bell Road to Ciulla Lane. From Ciulla Lane to Santiago Court, the road surface is chip-sealed. No designated turnaround is located at the terminus of the road. However, sufficient area for maneuvering is available. 79 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 41 of 49 ■ Santiago Court is a cul-de-sac (dead end) urban local road, approximately 350 feet in length from Jones Avenue. The road is privately maintained. The road has two travel lanes separated by a landscaped median. Each travel lane is approximately 10 feet in width, with an asphalt surface. A 50-foot diameter turnaround is located at the terminus of the road. No signage was identified. Ciulla Lane is a cul-de-sac (dead end), privately-maintained, local road, approximately 500 feet in length from Jones Avenue. The road width is approximately 12 to 14 feet, with no paved shoulders. However, several feet of clearance are available on both sides. The road has an asphalt surface. No turnaround is located at the terminus of the road. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Bicycle facilities include bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike routes (Class III). Class I Bike paths provide a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians within minimal cross flows by motorists. Caltrans standards call for Class I two-way bike paths to have 8 feet of pavement width with 2 foot wide graded shoulders on either side, for a total right-of-way width of 12 feet. Designated one-way bike paths are allowed 5 feet of minimum pavement width. Class I bike paths must also be at least 5 feet from the edge of a paved roadway, 8 feet from an obstruction, and meet specified minimum horizontal and vertical curve requirements for the speeds anticipated. Class II Bike lanes provides restricted on-street right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted. Caltrans standards generally require a minimum 4 foot bike lane with 6-inch white strip separating the roadway from the bike lane. Where raised curbs without permitted parking or designated marked parking exists, a minimum 5 foot bike lane adjacent to the traffic lane is required. Where parking is permitted, but unmarked, the 6-inch white stripe separating the traffic lane from the bike lane must be a minimum of 12 feet from the raised curb. Class III Bike routes provides a preferred shared route with motorists on the street, or to a more restricted extent, with pedestrians on sidewalks where designated by signs or permanent markings. The main purpose of designated bike routes is to provide continuity to the bikeway network by connecting discontinuous segments of Class I and II bikeways and may also be used to direct bicyclists to a route of higher degree of service or use. Roadways designated as Class III bike routes should have sufficient width to accommodate motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Other than a street sign, there are no special markings required for a Class III bike route. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and paved shoulders adjacent to rural roads. The County of Butte’s Development Standards typically require proposed residential and commercial developments located in the County’s urban areas to construct curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements within the County roadways fronting development. Residential developments located within the Chico Urban Area that have lot sizes greater than one acre come under a separate rural standard that presently does not require curb, gutter, and sidewalks to be constructed. Elsewhere sidewalks are presently constructed to County Public Works Standards with a four-foot wide sidewalk in residential areas and a five-foot wide sidewalk within commercial areas (Butte County Bicycle Plan, 2011). There are no designated pedestrian or bicycle transportation facilities located near the project site, nor are such facilities proposed for the project area. Given the lack of existing facilities, pedestrian and bicycle traffic generally will use the unpaved and paved roadway shoulders, or the paved travel lanes. Airport Air transportation in Butte County is served by a number of private and public airfields and heliports serving general aviation and agricultural users. There are four major aviation facilities in Butte County that serve the general public. The Chico Municipal Airport is the nearest general aviation airport to the project site. The airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing the project site within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D for the airport. The airport is publicly owned and operated. Facilities include a 6,724 foot long and 150 foot wide runway, and a separate 3,005 long runway, both of which handle nearly 70,000 aircraft takeoffs and landings each year. The airport has an airport traffic control tower and a limited commuter airline services. The airport is also a major fire attack aircraft base during area wildfires. Impact Discussion: 80 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 42 of 49 ■ a) Less than significant impact. The proposed project has the potential to introduce (4) four single-family residences, as well as accessory uses to the planned and existing residences, which would generate long-term changes in traffic volumes. Vehicle traffic for a single-family residence is estimated to be approximately 10 vehicle trips per day (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1997). Because the scope of the proposed project is relatively minor and would not result in construction of a substantial amount of residential units, the increase in traffic levels would not create substantial impacts to operating conditions of the area road network. Construction activities associated the future development of the resultant parcels has the potential to generate short-term changes to traffic volumes on the area road network. Daily vehicle trips would be generated with the arrival and departure of construction workers. Heavy truck trips would be required for hauling equipment and materials to and from the construction site. Any future construction activities would be small-scale and of short-duration. As a result, the proposed project would not cause long-term degradation in, or create substantial impacts to, the operating conditions or level of service on any of the roadways in the project area. b) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.16(a) - Transportation/Traffic. c.) No impact. The Chico Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, and is situated within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D for the airport. Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport is defined as the outer boundary of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 conical zone limits, subjecting lands to reviews to ensure that objects and other land uses do not affect the navigable airspace of the airport. Uses prohibited within Zone D include any hazards to the flight of the aircraft such as physical, visual and electronic forms of interference, and land uses which may cause the attraction of birds to increase. Conditions to development within Zone D include establishment of an avigation easement dedication with acknowledgement of airport proximity and review of objects greater than 100 feet in height. Approval of the proposed project will be subject to implementing the requirements of the Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to ensure the project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns or aircraft safety hazards. d.) Less than significant impact. The proposed project would not change the configuration (alignment) of area roadways, and would not introduce types of vehicles that are not already traveling on area roads. However, construction of access roads or driveways to the resultant parcels may require encroachment improvements to the frontage road. Future encroachments to a county roadway would be designed in accordance with a Butte County Public Works Encroachment Permit, which would ensure that any potential safety and compatibility issues are addressed. e.) Less than significant impact. Resultant parcels would access Bell Road via a privately-maintained road to be constructed with approval of the proposed project. The proposed access road would be designed and constructed to meet all applicable State and local development standards, ensuring that access is adequate to provide emergency ingress and egress. f.) Less than significant impact. No existing or proposed bicycle or pedestrians facilities are located on, or in the vicinity of, the project site. Future development on the resultant parcels would have minor long-term impacts on alternative transportation facilities due to the limited population growth to the project area. Construction activities associated with future development may generate short-term disruption to area roadways from an anticipated increase in traffic levels that may affect alternative transportation uses. However, construction activities associated with the proposed project would be temporary, and in compliance with a Butte County Encroachment Permit, which would require traffic control implementation, if needed. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 81 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 43 of 49 ■ Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are 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 adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes, and regulations related to solid waste? Impact Discussion: a.) No impact. Wastewater disposal for the proposed project would be provided by private, on-site septic systems. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has performed a preliminary review of the proposed project, and has indicated that future placement of an on-site septic system for the proposed parcel would be possible. At the time of development, the proposed septic system would be evaluated, and compliance with wastewater disposal standards would be insured. As a result, no wastewater treatment requirements by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board would be required. b.) No impact. See discussion 4.17(a) – Utilities and Service Systems. c.) Less than significant impact. No existing on-site storm water drainage facilities are located on the project site. Prior to recording of the parcel map, a drainage analysis will be performed for the project site that will detail existing drainage conditions and provide measures that will ensure that no net increase in peak flow runoff leaves the property. Runoff generated on the property may either be detained or retained on-site and/or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly maintained facility. Any proposed storm runoff facilities would be construction to the County’s improvement standards, which will ensure that impacts created with the creation of new facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, would not cause significant adverse effects to the environment. d.) Less than significant impact. Domestic water to existing and planned uses on the resultant parcels would be provided by groundwater extraction. No limitations or entitlements are required for the extraction and use of the underlying groundwater, provided the water is used to serve a beneficial use on the property. Pursuant to Butte County Improvement Standards 12.03, resultant parcels less than 20 acres and proposing to utilize an individual water supply system must verify that water is available in sufficient quantities, as detailed under Standard 12.02-2(1). Additionally, well yields for new wells must meet the minimum acceptable standards detailed in the Butte County Environmental Health Division – Potable Water Adequacy Policies and Procedures. e.) No impact. See discussion 4.17(a) – Utilities and Service Systems. 82 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 44 of 49 ■ f.) Less than significant impact. Future development of the resultant parcels would result in a minor increase in the stream of waste being deposited in the Neal Road Landfill. The California Integrated Waste Management Board estimates that a typical residential household generate 10 to 12 pounds of waste per day (1.8 to 2.2 tons per year). According to the Butte County Public Works Department, the Neal Road Landfill is expected to reach maximum holding capacity by the year 2018, and is currently seeking a permit to expand the landfill so that it can accommodate solid waste to the year 2034. Based on this information, and because the proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations as they relate to solid waste, adequate permitted landfill capacity exists to accommodate the proposed project. g.) Less than significant impact. See discussion 4.17(f) – Utilities and Service Systems. Mitigation Measure: None required. 4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance: Would the proposal: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Reviewed Under Previous Document 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 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 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 will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact Discussion: a.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. With the implementation of mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment; result in an adverse impact on fish, wildlife, or plant species including special status species, or prehistoric or historic cultural resources. Prehistoric or historic cultural resources would not be adversely affected because no archeological or historic resources are known to exist in the project area and project implementation includes following appropriate procedures for avoiding or preserving artifacts or human remains should they be uncovered during project excavation. b.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. This project has the potential to contribute impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable with respect to Air Quality, Biological, Cultural Resources, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Cumulative impacts to these areas would be mitigated due to the inclusion of the Mitigation Measures listed below, as itemized under Section 5 – Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements. Past, current, and probable future projects in the vicinity of the project site were reviewed to determine if any additional cumulative impacts may occur with the approval of this project. A two mile radius was used in determining cumulative impacts. No additional cumulative impacts were discovered. 83 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 45 of 49 ■ c.) Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. There have been no impacts discovered through the review of this application demonstrating that there would be substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. However, the proposed project has the potential to cause both temporary and future impacts to the area by project-related impacts relating to air, biological, and cultural resources. With implementation of mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, these impacts would be effectively mitigated to a less than significant level. 5.0 Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Requirements Mitigation Measure #1 (Construction Air Emissions) The following best practice measures to reduce impacts to air quality shall be incorporated by the project applicant, subject property owners, or third-party contractors during construction activities on the project site. These measures are intended to reduce criteria air pollutants that may originate from the site during the course of land clearing and other construction operations. Diesel PM Exhaust from Construction Equipment and Commercial On-Road Vehicles Greater than 10,000 Pounds All on- and off-road equipment shall not idle for more than five minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and/or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the five minute idling limit. Idling, staging and queuing of diesel equipment within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is prohibited. All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper tune according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before the start of work. Install diesel particulate filters or implement other CARB-verified diesel emission control strategies. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted areas. To the extent feasible, truck trips shall be scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce perk hour emissions. Operational TAC Emissions All mobile and stationary Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) sources shall comply with applicable Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs) promulgated by the CARB throughout the life of the project (see http:www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/atcm.htm). Stationary sources shall comply with applicable District rules and regulations. Fugitive Dust Construction activities can generate fugitive dust that can be a nuisance to local residents and businesses near a construction site. Dust complaints could result in a violation of the District’s “Nuisance” and “Fugitive Dust” Rules 200 and 205, respectively. The following is a list of measures that may be required throughout the duration of the construction activities: Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply source must be identified. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a District approved alternative method will be used. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. All disturbed soil areas not subject to re-vegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the Butte County Air Quality Management District. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 84 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 46 of 49 ■ Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with local regulations. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Post a sign in prominent location visible to the public with the telephone numbers of the contractor and the Butte County Air Quality Management District - (530) 332-9400 for any questions or concerns about dust from the project. All fugitive dust mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend period when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the District prior to land use clearance for map recordation and finished grading of the area. Please note that violations of District Regulations are enforceable under the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 42400, which provides for civil or criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. Butte County Air Pollution Control District inspectors shall respond to nuisance complaints. Mitigation Measure #2 (Migratory Birds-Western Burrowing Owl) If project construction activities occur during the nesting season for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department Fish & Game Code (CDFC) (approximately March 1 – August 31), the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to perform preconstruction surveys for nesting bird species. Surveys to identify active bird nests shall be conducted within and 250 feet around the footprint of proposed construction. At least two surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. Each survey shall be separated by 5 days. In the event that nesting raptors or birds protected by CDFC and MBTA are found in or within the footprint of proposed construction, the project proponent shall: 1. Locate and map the location of the nest site; 2. Establish a 250 feet no-disturbance buffer around all active nests; in the event bald eagles are found nesting in the survey area, a 1,000 foot no disturbance buffer shall be established; 3. Within 2 working days of the surveys, prepare a report and submit to the County. The report will include the results of surveys, location(s) of nests, and location of no disturbance buffers; 4. On-going weekly surveys shall be conducted to ensure that the no disturbance buffer is maintained; 5. Construction can resume when a qualified biologist has confirmed that the nest is no longer active. Plan Requirements: Perform protocol-level surveys for migratory birds protected by the California Department Fish & Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This measure shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Timing: Requirements of the condition shall be adhered to prior to and during construction activities planned to occur during nesting seasons for CDFC and MBTA species (between March 1 and August 31). Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Department of Development Services shall ensure the condition is met at the time of construction activities. 85 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 47 of 49 ■ Mitigation Measure #3 (Cultural Resources) Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the Parcel Map or on an additional map sheet that states: “Should grading activities reveal the presence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources (i.e. artifact concentrations, including arrowheads and other stone tools or chipping debris, cans glass, etc.; structural remains; human skeletal remains) work within 50 feet of the find shall immediately cease until a qualified professional archaeologist can be consulted to evaluate the find and implement appropriate mitigation procedures. Should human skeletal remains be encountered, State law requires immediate notification of the County Coroner ((530) 538-6579). Should the County Coroner determine that the remains are in an archaeological context, the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento shall be notified immediately, pursuant to State Law, to arrange for Native American participation in determining the disposition of such remains.” The provisions of this note shall be followed during construction of all subdivision improvements, including land clearing, road construction, utility installation, and building site development. Plan Requirements: This note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet and shall be shown on all site development and building plans. Timing: This measure shall be implemented during all site preparation and construction activities. Monitoring: The Department of Development Services and/or Public Works Department shall ensure the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Should cultural resources be discovered, the landowner shall notify the Planning Division and a professional archaeologist. The Planning Division shall coordinate with the developer and appropriate authorities to avoid damage to cultural resources and determine appropriate action. State law requires the reporting of any human remains. Mitigation Measure #4 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions): Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet that states: To the extent feasible, the developer shall implement the following measures at the time of development to offset the anticipated contribution of greenhouse gas emissions from residential development: Support expansion of renewable energy systems o Prewire all new residential development to support photovoltaic system installation. Support efficiency in vehicles and landscaping equipment o Install electrical vehicle outlets on external walls or in garages in all new residential development. Improve fuel efficiency of equipment during construction-related activities o Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than 3 minute. o Use clean or alternative fuel equipment Plan Requirements: The note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. This note shall also be placed on all building and site development plans. Timing: Shall be implemented prior to issuance of building permits for residential development. Construction-related measures shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. Monitoring: The Butte County Department of Development Services and the Public Works Department shall ensure that the note is placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet. Planning Division will ensure that future residential development includes the applicable measures during Building Permit review. Building inspectors shall spot check and shall ensure compliance on-site. 6.0 Environmental Reference Material 1. Butte County Association of Governments. Butte Regional Conservation Plan, First Administrative Draft. Accessed December 27, 2013. (available at http://www.buttehcp.com/BRCP-Documents/1st-Admin-Draft-BRCP/index.html) 86 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 48 of 49 ■ 2. Butte County. Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Butte County Airport Land Use Commission. December 20, 2000. 3. Butte County. Butte County Bicycle Plan. June 14, 2011. 4. Butte County. Butte County Climate Action Plan. February 25, 2014. 5. Butte County. Butte County General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report. April 8, 2010. Available at http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/products/2010-08-30_FEIR/default.asp. 6. Butte County. Butte County General Plan 2030. October 26, 2010. Available at http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/products/2010-10-26_GP2030/Butte_County_General_Plan.pdf 7. Butte County. Butte County General Plan 2030 and Zoning Ordinance Amendments – Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. June 17, 2015. 8. Butte County. Butte County General Plan 2030 Setting and Trends Report Public Draft. August 2, 2007. Available at http://www.buttegeneralplan.net/products/SettingandTrends/default.asp. 9. Butte County. Butte County Code of Ordinances, Chapters 19, 20, 24 & 41A. Accessed February 2015. Available at https://www.municode.com/library/ca/butte_county/codes/code_of_ordinances/ 10. Butte County. Butte County Department of Development Services GIS Data. March 2015. 11. Butte County. Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan – Program Report & Proposed Implementation Plan for Groundwater Nitrate Compliance in the Chico Urban Area. 2000. 12. Butte County Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook – Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. October 23, 2014. 13. Butte Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Chico Recreation and Park District Municipal Service Review. April 2, 2009. 14. California Department of Conservation. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Altquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Special Publication 42. Interim Revision. 2007. 15. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. A Guide to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2004. 16. California Department of Public Health. Nitrate Fact Sheet. May 2014. 17. California Department of Toxic Substance Control. 2009. Envirostor Database. Accessed on February 2015. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public. 18. California Department of Water Resources. Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Vina Subbasin. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118. February 27, 2004. 19. CalRecycle. California’s 2013 Per Capita Disposal Rate. Accessed March 2015. 20. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition – Volume 1 of 3. 1997. 21. U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population – 2012 Population Estimates for Butte County, California. March 5, 2013. 22. U.S. Census Bureau. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics – 2010. Butte County, California. March 5, 2013. 87 Project Name: Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map, File # TPM14-0005 ■ Butte County Department of Development Services ■ ■ Initial Study – TPM14-0005 (Kromer) ■ Page 49 of 49 ■ 7.0 Consulted Agencies Environmental Health Public Works Building Manager BCAG County Counsel LAFCo Assessor Development Services Durham Unified School District Air Quality Management District City of Chico Sheriff City of Gridley City of Oroville Town of Paradise CalFire Caltrans (Traffic) CA Central Reg. Water Quality Department of Conservation CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Highway Patrol Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Agricultural Commissioner Butte Co. Farm Bureau Paradise Unified School Dist. Feather River Recreation Dist. El Medio Fire Department NEIC LOAPUD PG&E Pacific Bell Palermo Union School District NOAA Fisheries City of Biggs 8.0 Project Sponsor(s) Incorporation of Mitigation into Proposed Project I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM14-0005) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby modify the applications on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. ____________________________________ ___________________ Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date ____________________________________ ___________________ Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date 88 8.0 Project Sponsor(s) Incorporation of Mitigation into Proposed Project I/We have reviewed the Initial Study for Tentative Parcel Map (TPM14-0005) application and particularly the mitigation measures identified herein. I/We hereby modify the applications on file with the Butte County Planning Department to include and incorporate all mitigations set forth in this Initial Study. ____________________________________ ___________________ Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date ____________________________________ ___________________ Project Sponsor/Project Agent Date DocuSign Envelope ID: C878606D-135E-40E0-89D2-3708F139F98E 2/19/2016 2/19/2016 89 90 1 Hickel, Rowland From:Lightell, Sue Sent:Tuesday, July 08, 2014 8:26 AM To:Hickel, Rowland Subject:RE: Project Application Review - TPM14-0005 (Kromer/Airehart) Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Assessor’s office is good to go with this project. Sue Lightell Assessor Mapping Dept. From: Hickel, Rowland Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:30 PM To: Blixt, Thomas; Lightell, Sue; McKillop, Kristen; Damon, Matt; Hill, Rob Subject: Project Application Review - TPM14-0005 (Kromer/Airehart) Hello everyone, Please review and provide any comments, conditions, or concerns for a new Tentative Parcel Map application. Information is attached, and can be found in Trakit. Reviews have been set-up in Trakit, with the review period to end on July 9th. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Rowland Hickel Senior Planner - Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538‐7150 – Phone (530) 538‐7785 – Fax rhickel@buttecounty.net http://usharebuttecounty.net/filedrop/rhickel@buttecounty.net 91 1 Hickel, Rowland From:Marr, Jenny@Wildlife <Jenny.Marr@wildlife.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, July 03, 2014 2:55 PM To:Hickel, Rowland Subject:TPM 14-0005 Hi Rowland, Just a note to let you know I reviewed TPM 14‐0005 to subdivide 12.69 acres into 4 parcels various sizes. The Department does not have any comments or concerns with this project proceeding. Sincerely, Jenny Jenny C. Marr Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) California Department of Fish and Wildlife 629 Entler Avenue Suite 12 Chico, California 95928 (530) 895‐4267 Jenny.Marr@wildlife.ca.gov 92 (6/17/2014 9:03 AM TML) June 16, 2014 Brian Airehart 9873 Esquon Road Durham, CA 95938 RE: Pre‐Application for TPM, Bell Road and Jones Avenue, Chico, AP# 042‐770‐032, Dear Mr. Airehart: This office has reviewed your application as indicated above. The following is an analysis of that review. Project: The proposal is to divide the existing 12.69‐acre parcel into three parcels of 2.5 acres each and one parcel of 5.19 acres. An on‐site wastewater system will receive wastewater from each site. Domestic water is to be provided by a well for each parcel. Location: North of Bell Road and West of Jones Avenue, Chico, CA Applicant: Brian Airehart Engineer: Feeney Engineering Report of Findings: The parcel is flat and lies within a flood zone X. All four parcels are undeveloped. Soil profiles were conducted on all parcels on June 9, 2014 by Jan Hill, certified designer, and by Tom Loushine from Environmental Health. In summary, the soil profiles indicated effective soil depth in 93 excess of 60”. Soils were consistently loam and sandy loam with no restrictive layer noted. Additionally, there was no indication of ground water within the profile holes. All parcels meet the required Minimal Useable Wastewater Area of 12,000 square feet and are suitable for on site wastewater system with gravity distribution with an application rate of .8 gallons/square‐foot/day. Each new on site wastewater system and each new well will require a permit issued by Butte County Environmental Health. An existing well on parcel 2 must be destroyed under a permit issued by Butte County Environmental Health. Recommended Conditions of Approval: If you were to submit a map which is substantially as the map received in this pre‐application, you could expect this Department’s support, subject to the following recommended conditions: 1) Place a note on the final map or additional map sheet stating: “Reports that may have been conditions of approval on the tentative map and a list of current county requirements for building site are on file and available for review in the Butte County Department of Development Service and Butte County Public Health Department Environmental Health Division files.” This review should not be construed as a blanket approval of your project since participation in the County Subdivision Map process may require revisions to the project or conditions of approval in response to other agency requirements, public comments or additional information received. When you do apply for your map at the Planning Division, the remainder of your fee for Environmental Health services will be $1262.00. ($2524.00 for four parcels with individual wastewater systems and individual wells minus $1262.00 paid on May 29, 2014). Please note that you should have your Pre‐Application Review receipt available at the time you make application. This letter concludes this Department’s review of your pre‐application. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Oroville office at 538‐5319, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 94 Sincerely, Tom Loushine, R.E.H.S. Division of Environmental Health cc: Feeney Engineering Planning Division REVISION 1 (8/28/2014 11:22 AM TML) August 28, 2014 Brian Airehart 9873 Esquon Road Durham, CA 95938 RE: Pre‐Application for TPM, Bell Road and Jones Avenue, Chico, AP# 042‐770‐032, Revision 1 Dear Mr. Airehart: This office has reviewed your application as indicated above. The following is an analysis of that review. 95 Project: The revised proposal is to divide the existing 12.69‐acre parcel into four parcels of 2.5 acres each and one parcel of 2.69 acres. An on‐site wastewater system will receive wastewater from each site. Domestic water is to be provided by a well for each parcel. Location: North of Bell Road and West of Jones Avenue, Chico, CA Applicant: Brian Airehart Engineer: Feeney Engineering Report of Findings: The parcel is flat and lies within a flood zone X. All four parcels are undeveloped. Soil profiles were conducted on all parcels on June 9, 2014 by Jan Hill, certified designer, and by Tom Loushine from Environmental Health. In summary, the soil profiles indicated effective soil depth in excess of 60”. Soils were consistently loam and sandy loam with no restrictive layer noted. Additionally, there was no indication of ground water within the profile holes. All parcels meet the required Minimal Useable Wastewater Area of 12,000 square feet and are suitable for on site wastewater system with gravity distribution with an application rate of .8 gallons/square‐foot/day. Each new on site wastewater system and each new well will require a permit issued by Butte County Environmental Health. An existing well on parcel 2 must be destroyed under a permit issued by Butte County Environmental Health. Recommended Conditions of Approval: If you were to submit a map which is substantially as the map received in this pre‐application, you could expect this Department’s support, subject to the following recommended conditions: 96 1) Place a note on the final map or additional map sheet stating: “Reports that may have been conditions of approval on the tentative map and a list of current county requirements for building site are on file and available for review in the Butte County Department of Development Service and Butte County Public Health Department Environmental Health Division files.” This review should not be construed as a blanket approval of your project since participation in the County Subdivision Map process may require revisions to the project or conditions of approval in response to other agency requirements, public comments or additional information received. When you do apply for your map at the Planning Division, the remainder of your fee for Environmental Health services will be $1735.00. ($2997.00 for five parcels with individual wastewater systems and individual wells minus $1262.00 paid on May 29, 2014). Please note that you should have your Pre‐Application Review receipt available at the time you make application. This letter concludes this Department’s review of your pre‐application. If you have any questions, please contact me at the Oroville office at 538‐5319, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Tom Loushine, R.E.H.S. Division of Environmental Health cc: Feeney Engineering Planning Division 97 BUTTE COUNTY STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP OWNER: Kromer DATE:6/30/14 AGENT: Airehart APN: 042-770-032 FILE#: TPM14-0005 PLANNER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Those items checked are conditions of approval. PLEASE CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHECKED CONDITIONS: A. STREETS 1. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement for all non-publicly maintained access roads on the county approved form. A note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map stating: "In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the road as shown hereon shall be shared by those properties with a legal interest in it." 2. All access rights shall be reserved by deed per county ordinance, offered for dedication, and depicted on the parcel map. Place the following note on the parcel map: “approved road name is a non- exclusive easement for ingress, egress, road and public services purposes, to be reserved in deeds and is hereby offered for dedication to the County of Butte.” 3. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, demonstrate to the Department of Public Works that there is approved access conforming to county code to each parcel from a publicly maintained road. 4. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, deed to Butte County in fee simple 30 feet of right-of-way from the physical centerline of Bell Road along the entire property frontage. The right-of-way shall be sufficient for the installation of county improvement standard S-5 at all street intersections. 5. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, relinquish abutter's rights of access to Butte County along the frontage of parcel except at approved access points. 6. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide street name signs per requirements of the Department of Public Works. Street names shall be reviewed by the county address coordinator and one name for each new street shall be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval prior to recordation of the parcel map. A minimum of five alternate names for each new street shall be submitted. 7. Prior to final road inspection, install all necessary traffic safety signs including stop signs. For all non-publicly maintained access roads, a note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map stating: "No public entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of the traffic safety signs including stop signs. In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the traffic safety signs shall be shared by those properties with a legal interest in them." 8. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, obtain an encroachment permit and improve all new and existing driveway approaches to publicly maintained roads as specified in the county improvement standards and the terms of the encroachment permit. 9. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, submit road and drainage improvement plans to the Land Development Division for the installation of a standard S-18B road approach in accordance with county improvement standards. Obtain an encroachment permit and construct the road approach prior to recordation of the parcel map. Adequate sight distance at the intersection of access road and shall be provided. Right-of-way required for construction of road approach and roadside drainage shall be provided. 98 10. Provide a cul-de-sac designed and constructed as specified in the county improvement standards. The parcel map shall show the cul-de-sac. 11. Prior to recordation of the final map, construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of street frontage improvements on . Construct a ½+ 12’ street section along the entire parcel frontage in conformance with county improvement standard RS- , including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, ″ AC, ″ AB, prime coat, fog seal and 95 % relative compaction. Submit design to the Land Development Division for approval prior to construction. “R” value determination and other data may be required to support the section design. 12. Prior to recordation of the final map, construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of interior streets in conformance with county improvement standard RS- , including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, ″ AC, ″ AB, prime coat, fog seal and 95 % relative compaction. Submit design to the Land Development Division for approval prior to construction. “R” value determination and other data may be required to support the section design. Form a zone of benefit or other approved maintenance entity within the county’s permanent road division for operation and maintenance of interior streets and storm drain facilities. 13. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of street frontage improvements on . Construct a ½+ 12’ street section along the entire parcel frontage in conformance with county improvement standard RS- , including curb, gutter, and sidewalk, ″ AC, ″ AB, prime coat, fog seal and 95 % relative compaction. Submit design to the Land Development Division for approval prior to construction. “R” value determination and other data may be required to support the section design. 14. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide approved access to parcel from a county maintained road or from a state highway. Construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of improvements to access road in conformance with county improvement standard RS-8 LD- , feet wide with ″ of CL II aggregate base and sealcoat. 15. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, provide approved access to each parcel being created. Construct or provide a performance, labor and material bond for construction of interior road in conformance with county improvement standard RS-8 LD-III, 20 feet wide with 4″ of CL II aggregate base and single sealcoat. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for plan checking and approval prior to construction. 16. Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of Pacific Gas & Electric Company. Where the County has determined that it is not detrimental to health and safety, the developer may choose to only install electrical outlets for streetlights. If streetlights are to be installed, the annual energy costs shall be funded through a county service area (CSA), zone of benefit within a permanent road division (PRD), or other entity as approved by the public works director. The developer must complete the formation of the CSA, zone of benefit within a PRD, or other approved entity prior to recordation of the final map. The formation process will require the developer to fund the service until the beginning of the first fiscal year in which service charges can be collected and to agree to an annual maximum service charge to ensure continued operation of the facilities. 17. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, construct access to lot per Butte County Code 20-136. Submit design to the Department of Public Works for review and approval prior to construction. Provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement for all non-publicly maintained access roads on the county approved form. A note shall be placed on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map stating: "In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the access road as shown hereon shall be shared by those properties with a legal interest in it." 99 18. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, construct or provide a performance bond and labor and material bond for the construction of a landscaping strip within the public right-of-way adjacent to parcel . Submit design to the Land Development Division for approval prior to construction. The developer must complete the formation of a county service area (CSA), zone of benefit within a permanent road division (PRD), or other Department of Public Works approved maintenance entity for landscaping prior to recordation of the final map. The formation process will require the developer to fund the service until the beginning of the first fiscal year in which service charges can be collected for the maintenance entity and agree to an annual maximum service charge to ensure continued maintenance of the facilities. B. DRAINAGE 1. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, drainage plans and calculations shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. Engineering plans shall detail existing drainage conditions and specify how storm water runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/ or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly maintained facility. Engineering calculations shall show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. If storm drainage facilities serve new public roads, the developer must complete the formation of a county service area (CSA), zone of benefit within a permanent road division (PRD), or other Department of Public Works approved entity prior to recordation of the parcel map. The formation process will require the developer to fund the service until the beginning of the first fiscal year in which service charges can be collected and agree to an annual maximum service charge to ensure continued operation of the facilities. 2. Prior to final improvement inspection by the Department of Public Works, all new drain inlets shall be labeled with the county approved drain marker per county standard S-40. Improvement plans shall show and/or note the requirements for labeling inlets pursuant to county standard S-40. 3. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the parcel map or on an additional map sheet stating: "After adoption of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan by the Central Valley Flood Protection Board pursuant to Section 9612 of the Water Code and after the amendments of the Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance required by Sections 65302.9 and 65860.1 of the Government Code have become effective, Butte County will be prohibited from approving any discretionary permit or entitlement or any ministerial permit that would result in the construction of a new residence on any lot or parcel depicted on this map unless the county makes one of the findings required by Section 65962 of the Government Code regarding flood protection. Such findings must be based on substantial evidence. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of the lot or parcel, or the agent of the owner, to provide any and all information requested by the County in order for the County to be able to make the required findings." 4. Prior to recordation of the parcel map in accordance with Butte County Code Section 26-25 either: a. Show or note the existing regulatory flood plain on the map; or b. Establish the regulatory flood plain and then show it on the map. 5. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, pay drainage impact fees per Article XI, Chapter 3 of Butte County Code. 6. Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water Resources Control Board if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing, excavation, filling, and grading) of one or more acres. The permit must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to construction. If a construction storm water permit is required, place a note on an additional map sheet that states: “The development of this parcel map required a construction storm water permit. Construction activities that result in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which are part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit. Development of individual lots may require an additional permit(s).” C. PARCEL MAP 1. Show all easements of record on the parcel map. 2. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, pay in full any and all delinquent, current and estimated taxes 100 and assessments as specified in Article 8 of Chapter 4 of Division 2 of Title 7, of the California Government Code commencing with Section 66492. 3. Pay the recording fees in effect at the time the parcel map and related documents are recorded. 4. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, pay North Chico Specific Plan Area development impact fees per Article XVII, Chapter 3 of Butte County Code. 5. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, pay all applicable assessments established by affected assessment districts, in full. 6. Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the parcel map regarding . 7. Prior to recordation of the final map, a preliminary soils report prepared by a registered design professional and based upon adequate testing shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works Land Development Division and Department of Development Services Building Division for review and approval. 101 Emmett J. Jones 3265 Sheltering Oak Ct. Chico, Calif. 95973 Regards: Project TPM14-0005, APN :042-770-032 Robert & Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map BUTTE COl'NTY OCl 16 2014 D r\'1.: U )[>\,II. NT Sf:RVICLS We challenge the above project based on the drought conditions that are familiar to all people of Butte county and California. Our well went down 16 feet in less than 2 months. We have-heard of other parcels in the area who's wells have completely gone dry. Originally the land parcels in this area were zoned five (5) acre minimum. This would allow one well per parcel. The new zoning doubles the wells allowed in the area. In order to sell the new 2 1 /2 acre parcels and for the new owners to have water to their new homes requires a well on each parcel. .. double the number needed on the 5 acre previous zoned parcels. Given the drought situation this new zoning should be delayed until the situation improves. It seems to me this is the only move Butte county planning commission should make on this application. This property should not be subdivided at this time. '·- •• ,.~.. ' ! 102 October 2 1, 20 14 Butte County Zoning Administrator Butte County Development Services Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA We live at 780 Santiago Court, Chico, CA 95973. We are responding to the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Project TPM 14-0005 Tentative Parcel Map. We oppose the proposed development. I) We contest the designation that this parcel is now zoned for 2-1 /2 acres lots. This is Green Line, and we learned recently that that property was allowed to be re-zoned for 2-12 acres (rather than 5 acres lots, ·vvhich is «!lowed unJer th~ Green Lin~). No one in our neighborhood, which is adjacent to the subject property, was informed by the county of the planned re-zoning. 2) The negative im pact on the water table for the area will be severe. New wells will have to be dug or existing wells will have to be extended. Thi s will impose a huge negative environmental impact to every existing home in the area. 3) Why is this considered a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project? Why is it "negative?" 4) We also contest the indication on the tentative parcel map that Jones Avenue extends north of Santiago Court. We have a parcel map that shows that Jones Avenue was abandoned. In fact, we talked to the county planning department official who personally made the designation to "abandon" Jones Avenue based on county planning priorities. Jones Avenue is now a private road. It does not belong to the county. In fact, residents of Jones Avenue and Santiago Court have regularly "maintained" the road, i.e., privately paid to have it repaved and regularly maintain it. (If the project is allowed to go through, the only place for a proposed new road is along the west side of the parcel as indicated on the tentative map.) We ask that development on this parcel be denied. BUTTE COUNTY ocr .2 1 2o14 OEVCLOPME:NJ SBf{ VICES 103 10/17/14 TO: BUTIE COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ATIN: PLANNING QVISION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILE, CA 95965 FROM: ERIK & STEPHANIE ROOS 784 CHURCHILL DR. CHICO, CA 95973 RE: Project TPM14-0005, APN: 042:770:032 To Whom It May Concern, With regards to your recent letter announcing a public hearing pertaining to the above project number, I am writing this letter representing my family located at the above address. As I will be unable to attend the meeting scheduled for November 5, I wanted to address two primary concerns that I have with regards to the applicant's proposal. First, as it clearly shows on the Butte County Assessor's Map, (Book 42, page 77, PTN. SEC 17 T.22.N R.13. M.D.B. & M), our p(operty is indicated as parcel #30. After review, you will notice that our parcel actually includes a section of Churchill Dr. This information can also be verified in the Title of our home. Consequently, since our property and associated piece of Churchill Dr. is considered private, I am very concerned that the County will pursue the connection of Churchill Dr. with Jones Ave. Currently, Jones Ave. ends at Santiago Ct. and should remain that way. Secondly, I am curious as to why one of the proposed parcels is considerably larger than the other 3 parcels. What are the intentions of the applicant with regards to the largest parcel? I would greatly appreciate a response to the above two concerns. I am pleased that the applicant is attempting to keep t parcels similar in size to the adjacent existing parcels. roosdds@hotmail.com (530) 521-9618 BUTTE COlli'<JY OCT 2 0 114 DF\ ELOP.\lENT ~ERVJCES ! ( 104 SUZANNE CLARK MORLOCK ATTORNEY AT LAW-MEDIATOR 795 CHURCHILL DRIVE TELEPHONE (530) 514-9544 CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95973 FACSIMILE (530) 343-1806 E-mail morlock795@comcast.net October 23, 2014 Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 RE: Proposed Kromer Development Project TPM14-0005 To Whom it may concern: This letter is in response to the notice received regarding the proposed project. This is the second proposal made by the Kromers to subdivide this property. They put forth a proposal to divide the property into two parcels in 2004, which was subsequently denied by the county. It seemed to defy logic and common sense that if the two parcel proposal was denied, a four parcel split should now be proposed. As our neighbors discussed this newest proposal, we were shocked and dismayed to discover that what was once the green line, that boundary between the Kromer’s property and the parcels to the east, no longer seemed to exist. We who are directly affected, if this is true, were never notified that the five acre minimum requirement for lot sizes in the Bell Muir area was being reconsidered or that the VLDR-2.5 acre was being adopted. We are collectively furious about this and will pursue our objections to the dismantling of the green line through the board of supervisors or any other means at our disposal. Having said that, we believe that the requested development proposal be denied for the following reasons: 1. The report is correct in designating this as agricultural land. It borders a working walnut orchard and at one time it too was planted in walnut trees. The previous owner allowed it to become fallow and the current owners allowed it to be taken over by non-native invasive plant species, notably star thistle, which grew unchecked and unmown for many years, despite complaints to the fire department that 6' high stands of dense and dry star thistle created a potential fire hazard. Now that the Kromers are again seeking to subdivide this parcel for development, the fields have finally been mowed. One only needs to dig a little beneath the weed cover to find excellent agricultural soil, part of a rich alluvial fan in this area. It’s primary use should remain agricultural. 2. Water is mentioned in the report only to the extent that each proposed parcel will be supplied 105 by a well. The entire area surrounding this parcel is served by wells. Water levels in these wells has dropped significantly in the past two years. Adding a minimum of 4 new wells may very well force entire neighborhoods to deepen their wells if the current drought persists. Has Butte County been monitoring the condition of wells in the area? Many farmers, ranchers and residential homeowners are facing dry wells in this county. 3. We are concerned that the noise of construction, disturbance of wildlife, and inevitable increased traffic will have a negative impact on the established quality of life in this neighborhood. There is a proposal to create a roadway or driveway which will support the four proposed parcels along the western boundary of the Kromer’s parcel. No doubt this will have an impact on the adjacent property owners in terms of traffic, dust and noise. 4. Neighbors on the eastern side of the parcel are concerned about a potential alternate or additional use of the private road (Jones Avenue). For years these owners have shared the expense of maintaining this road. They too are concerned about the potential additional use of the existing road and the negative impact this will have. The 47 page report on file with the county skirts some of the environmental concerns by assessing “minimal negative impact” resulting the division and subsequent development. We disagree with the report in it’s assessment of agricultural use, water use and disturbance of habitat. Very truly yours, Suzanne Clark Morlock Mark J. Morlock 795 Churchill Drive Chico CA, 95973 106 1 Hickel, Rowland From:Berg, Carol <CBerg@csuchico.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:35 PM To:Hickel, Rowland Subject:FW: Bell Road and Alamo Avenue property (Bob Kromer) I am writing to support the Dept. of Development Services recommendation of a residential dwelling setback from adjacent active orchards of 50 feet from the western property line. The 300 foot setback is my choice. If that is not possible, I will support the 50 foot setback. This is in conjunction with APN 042‐770‐032. Carol Berg 780 Santiago Court Chico, CA 95973 107 MINASIAN, MEITH, SOARES, SEXTON & COOPER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1681 BIRD STREET P.O. BOX 1679 OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-1679 Writer's e-mail: arncclure@minasianlaw.com Planning Commission PAUL R. MINASIAN, INC. JEFFREY A. MEITH M. ANTHONY SOARES DUSTIN C. COOPER EMILY E. LaMOE PETER C. HARMAN ANDREW J. McCLURE WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, Retired MICHAEL V. SEXTON, Retired November 5, 2014 Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 95965 TELEPHONE: (530) 533-2885 FACSIMILE: (530) 533-0197 Re: Proposed Project TPM 14-0005-Robert and Leeanne Kromer Tentative Parcel Map. Ladies and Gentlemen: We provide the following comments to Proposed Project TPM 14-0005 as follows: I. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT COMMENTS 1. Proposed Project TPM · 14-0005 Must be Denied or Conditioned on the Imposition of a 300 Foot Agricultural Buffer Along the Western Border of the Proposed Subdivision. Butte County has long recognized the value of preserving the economies and heritage of agriculture, and has taken definite steps to protect those rights. More than hollow endorsement, the County has adopted specific initiatives in its General Plan and the Ordinances implementing that Plan to ensure the continued agricultural character of lands devoted to agriculture and the avoidance of conflicts between agricultural and residential uses of property where the two intersect. Four prime examples of Butte County's commitment to agriculture are set forth in the following General Plan Goals: Goal AG-2: Protect Butte County's agricultural lands from conversion to non-agricultural uses. 108 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Goal AG -5: Reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and between habitat mitigation banking and agricultural uses. Goal LU-1: Continue to uphold and respect the planning principles on which the County's land use map is based. Goal LU -13: Plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico area through the Chico Area Greenline. Page2 But, notwithstanding these stated goals, Project TPM14-0005, would subdivide an agriculturally viable 12-acre parcel, located on the "agriculture" side of the Chico Area Greenline and convert the property to a residential subdivision. Moreover, the project includes no buffer zone to protect the agricultural uses occurring on the property located along the western boundary line of the proposed subdivision. Approving the project in its current form would render the County's stated General Plan Goals and the policies and ordinances adopted to implement those goals wholly illusory. In this regard, the proposed Tentative Parcel Map must either be denied or conditioned on the imposition of a 300-foot buffer zone along the western border of the proposed subdivision. To be clear, the obligation to deny the proposed Tentative Parcel Map unless adequate mitigation measures are imposed is not discretionary. Rather, the County's mandate to deny the requested approvals is dictated by Sections 66474 and 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, which provide that: "[A] legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map ... if it makes any of the following findings: (a) that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans." (Government Code § 66474). "No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map ... unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan. . . . A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan." (Government Code § 66473.5). 109 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 3 As stated by the Butte County Director of Development Services, the County cannot find that the subdivision proposed in Project TMP14-0005 is consistent with the County's existing General Plan. Mr. Snellings accurately described the inconsistency in a May 6, 2014 Memorandum to the Butte County Board of Supervisors, wherein he stated: "The Bell Muir area currently has four Tentative Parcel Maps and one Tentative Subdivision Map applications in the VLDR zone under County review that potentially involve the application of Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5 and are awaiting a determination by your Board before they can proceed (or not). Existing agricultural uses (on residentially zoned land) are located adjacent to each of the parcels proposed for residential land division. The locations of the pending applications in the Bell Muir area are shown in Figure 6. Put simply, these parcels cannot be subdivided consistent with the residential zoning and the 300-foot buffer required by Policy AG- P5.3." (At p. 2)( Exhibit 1 )(Emphasis in original). There can be no doubt that the "existing agricultural uses (on residentially zoned land)" includes the property along the western border of the Project TPM14-0005 -the agricultural property to the north of the proposed subdivision is zoned agriculture. Nor is there any doubt that the "parcels" about which Mr. Snellings is concerned include the "Kromer" property which is the subject of this proceeding-as that property is clearly shown on the referenced 'Figure 6.' ( See Exhibit 1 -Map depicting 'Pending Land Division Applications and General Plan Designations in the Bell/Muir Area'). Further undermining the notion that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Butte County General Plan is the fact the Butte County Office of the Agricultural Commissioner was apparently not even consulted on Project TPM14-0005, and has not had an opportunity to comment regarding potential impacts to agriculture. Deputy Agricultural Commissioner Robert Hill advised in a phone conference on October 31, 2014 that to his knowledge~ the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner had not been asked to comment on the project, and no comments from the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner are contained in the project materials published on the Butte County Development Services Trakit System, or produced in response to a Public Records Act Request regarding Project TPM14-0005 propounded by this office. Thus, no "Unusual Circumstance Review" necessary for an adjustment to the 300 foot buffer zone requirement has been finalized. (See Butte County Code, Zoning Ordinance Ch. 24-84 (D)). 110 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page4 And to be clear, Project TPM14-0005must be approved or denied based on the Butte County General Plan and Policies and Ordinances as they existed when the project was deemed complete on July 16, 2014. Under Government Code Section 66474.2: "In determining whether to approve or disapprove an application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code." [Applications are deemed complete within 30 days of a request for development permit]. Because the application for TPM14-0005 was submitted on June 16, 2014, the Commission must apply the General Plan in effect when that application was deemed complete, on July 16,2014. Therefore, notwithstanding any current proposed amendments to the General Plan which may affect implementation of the 300 foot agricultural buffer zone, the Commission must evaluate this project for consistency with the General Plan as it existed on July 16, 2014 (an alternative interpretation is discussed in Section II below). The proposed subdivision is abhorrent to the "objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs" specified in the Butte County General Plan, and the proposed subdivision must either be rejected, or brought into compliance with the General Plan by imposing a 300 foot agricultural buffer to protect the agricultural uses occurring on the property to the west of the proposed subdivision. 2. The Proposed Subdivision is Inconsistent with General Plan Goal AG-5 (Reduce Conflicts Between Urban and Agrit~ultural Uses) and Policy AG-P5.3 (300 Foot Buffer Zone). Goal AG-5 of the Butte County General Plan is to 'Reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and between habitat mitigation banking and agricultural uses.' In order the implement that goal, General Plan Policy AG-P5.3 provides: "The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances." While the 300-foot buffer requirement has been observed for the agricultural zone property to the north of the proposed subdivision, no setback has been imposed to protect 111 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 5 the "existing agricultural uses" on the property bordering the proposed subdivision to the west. And to be clear-the property along the western boundary of the proposed subdivision is and has been dedicated to "existing agricultural uses" for some time. A. The Peterson Propertv is Dedicated to "Existing Agricultural Use" The Planning Commission itself has previously acknowledged the "agricultural use" of APN 042-770-037, a roughly 8 acre parcel immediately west of the proposed subdivision (the "Peterson property"). The minutes of the July 14, 2005 Planning Commission meeting regarding a previous, unsuccessful attempt to subdivide the property at issue here include the following statements from former Commissioner Leland: " ... the Peterson property is agricultural property and should be protected." "Commissioner Leland asked what they do with the 300-foot buffer to protect the Peterson's property. He said to be consistent with they would have to say the property is not agricultural. He said he would have a problem with that because it is agricultural and is being farmed." (Minutes attached hereto as Exhibit 2). The Planning Commission agreed with these sentiments, and denied the previous application to subdivide the Kromer property based in part on its conclusion that subdivision of the property would be inconsistent with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan: "The conversion would be detrimental to existing agricultural operations. The proposed parcel map would impact agricultural operations on adjacent properties to the north and west." (Italics in original, balding added). The parcel map the Planning Commission rejected in 2005 was a plan to subdivide APN 042-770-032 into two parcels. There is no basis for concluding that the current proposal to subdivide the property into four .parcels would have less of an impact on those same agricultural uses that warranted the previous denial. Attached hereto is a declaration of Peter D. Peterson verifying that the property immediately west of the property proposed for subdivision has not changed in character since 2005, and remains dedicated to agriculture. (Exhibit 3 ). 112 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 6 B. The Absence of a 300 Foot Bu(fer to Protect the Agricultural Uses ofthe Peterson Propertv is Inconsistent with the General Plan. The failure to impose the 300 foot agricultural buffer zone along the western border of the property proposed for subdivision is indefensible. As stated previously, Butte County's own Director of Development Services has stated that pursuant to the criteria by which the proposed subdivision must be judged: "Put simply, these parcels cannot be subdivided consistent with the residential zoning and 300-foot buffer required by Policy AG-P5.3." Permitting residential subdivision to occur immediately adjacent to properties currently and historically devoted to agricultural uses -with no buffer or setback -is antagonistic to General Plan Goal AG-5 ("[ r ]educe conflicts between urban and agricultural uses") and General Plan Policy AG -P5.3 (300-foot buffer requirement). (Exhibit 4) (Excerpts of Butte County General Plan 2030). And make no mistake, the fact that conflicts between the residential uses in the proposed subdivision and the agricultural uses on the property along its western border will occur, is not speculative or hypothetical. Rather, as stated by Butte County' own current "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance: "Where nonagricultural land uses, 1>articularly residential and commercial development, extend onto agricultural land or exist side by side with agricultural operations, agricultural operations are frequently the subject of nuisance complaints. As a result, some agricultural operations are forced to cease or curtail their operations and many others are discouraged from making investments in improvements to their operations, all to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability of the county's agricultural industry as a whole. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to reduce the loss to the county of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which properly conducted agricultural operations on agricultural land may be considered a· nuisance." (Butte County Code, Ch. 35 -2 ("Right-to-Farm" Ordinance)(Exhibit 5). In summary, the Commission cannot make the finding required under Government Code§ 66473.5 that the proposed subdivision is "compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the [general plan]" unless approval ofthe Parcel 113 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 7 Map is conditioned on the imposition of a 300-foot buffer zone between the proposed subdivision and the agricultural uses currently existing on the property along its western boundary. We briefly note that any apparent inconsistency between the General Plan mandate that a 300-foot buffer be established to protect "existing agricultural uses" ( Policy AG - P5.3) and the Zoning Ordinance implementing that policy is immaterial. A misguided argument may focus on the fact that while Zoning Ordinance 24-81 accurately captures the "Purpose" of the agricultural buffer zone (''. . . buffers between residential development and agricultural uses ... protect agricultural uses from residential encroachment conflicts . . . clear delineation between long-term agricultural production lands and residential areas"), Ordinance 24-82 "Applicability" fails to capture the purpose of the General Plan. That section inappropriately limits the buffer to lands zoned agriculture. But that limitation is inconsistent with the General Plan Policy AG-P5.3 to "protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts," and in any event is legally irrelevant, as the Subdivision Map Act requires consistency with the Butte County General Plan (not ordinances). Moreover, Butte County Code Ch. 24-3 entitled "Relationship to the General Plan" states that in the case of inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, the General Plan governs: "The Zoning Ordinance implements the goals and policies of the Butte County General Plan by regulating the uses of land and structures within the county. The Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan shall be consistent with one another. lfthere are inconsistencies between the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, the General Plan governs." ( Exhibit 6) (Buttf' County Code, Zoning Ordinance)(emphasis added). Based on the Planning Commission's previous findings, and the evidence submitted herewith, the Peterson Pr"operty is devoted to "agricultural uses." As such, that property must be protected by imposition of the 300~foot buffer. 3. The Proposed Subdivision is Inconsistent with General Plan Goals LU-13 (Chico Area Greenline) and LU -1 (Uphold Plannint: Principles Upon Which General Plan is Based), and Policies LU-P133, LU-P13.7, LU P-13.8 and LU Pl.l. To respect agriculture and provide for its continued existence in the Chico area, this County long ago enacted the "Chico Area Greenline." The stated Goal of the Chico Area Greenline is to "Plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico area through the Chico 114 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 8 Area Greenline," and consistent with that goal, the General Plan Land Use Policies associated with implementing the "Chico Area Greenline" provide the following protections: LU-P13.3: "Recognize the Chico Area Greenline as the boundary between the "Urban side of the Chico Area Greenline and the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline." LU-P13.7: "Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline." LU-Pl3.8: "Accommodate future urban and suburban growth that occurs in the Chico area of Butte County on lands situated in the Urban side of Chico Area Greenline." A. The Proposed Subdivision is on the "Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline" There can be no dispute that the land proposed for subdivision is on the "Agricultural side of the Greenline." And yet, if approved, the propose Tentative Parcel Map would divide what the project environmental document refers to as "12.69 acres of fallow agricultural lands," into one 5 acre parcel and a series of 2.5 acre parcels only marginally suitable for agricultural uses. That action would directly conflict with Policy L U-P 13.7 ("conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline."), and with the Commission's prior rulings on this precise Issue. In 2005 the Planning Commission denied a request to divide the property at issue here into two parcels on the ground that: The parcel was zoned A-5 on October 7, 1975, several years prior to the adoption of the Greenline policy. Although it did not have to be rezoned when the Greenline policy was adopted, there is nothing in the Greenline policy to indicate that a property can be subdivided to the parcel minimums in order to advance residential development. Instead, the Greenline policy seeks to preserve the agricultural nature of properties on the agricultural side of the Greenline. (Minutes of July 14, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting)(Exhibit 2). While the 2012 amendments to the Greenline Policy may have loosened the technical restrictions on building on the Agricultural side of the Greenline (allowing residential 115 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 9 development in newly designated VLDR zoning designations)-the baseline Policies recited above, including preserving and protecting for agricultural use the lands near Chico that are on the Agricultural side of the Greenline, and recognizing the Greenline as a boundary between the urban side of the Greenline and the Agricultural side of the Greenline, would be violated by approving the proposed Tentative Parcel Map. In evaluating these impacts, it is important to recognize that the proposed subdivision will not only result in the direct loss of 12 agriculturally viable acres, but may also indirectly cause the loss of agricultural uses of the land bordering the proposed subdivision to the west. Again, as stated by the County's own Right-to-Farm Act, the introduction of residential development adjacent to agricultural operations often undermines the continued existence of those agricultural operations: "Where nonagricultural land uses, particularly residential and commercial development, extend onto agricultural land or exist side by side with agricultural operations, agricultural operations are frequently the subject of nuisance complaints. As a result, some agricultural operations are forced to cease or curtail their operations and many others are discouraged from making investments in improvements to their operations, all to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability of the county's agricultural industry as a whole." (Exhibit 5)(Right-to-Farm Ordinance, Butte County Code Ch.35-2(b)). In other words, the disruption to agriculture caused by the proposed subdivision has a high likelihood of spilling into and negatively affecting the existing agricultural uses of the property on the proposed subdivision's western border. In this regard, the project is a growth inducement because it would establish a precedent whereby the Planning Commission indicates to developers that agricultural uses are no longer protected by the 300 foot buffer. This precedent setting action would make it easier for future residential projects to gain approval, notwithstanding that those subdivisions may be located adjacent to existing agricultural uses. Approving the proposed subdivision would not only violate the Chico Area Greenline Goal and Policies, but also General Plan Goal LU - 1 "Continue to uphold and respect the planning principles on which the County's land use map is based," and Policy LU-Pl.1 ("The County shall protect and conserve land that is used for agricultural purposes, including cropland and grazing land."). In summary, the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan Goals and Policies and must either be rejected, or conditioned on the imposition 116 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 10 of a 300 foot buffer zone to protect existing agricultural uses occurring on the property located west of the proposed subdivision. 4. If the Project is Not Denied or Conditioned on the Imposition of a 300-foot· Residential Buffer alon~ its Western Boundary, the General Plan Amendments Proposed for 'Interim A~ricultural Uses' Should be Applied. As previously stated, Butte County has supported agriculture by enacting General Plan Goals and Policies designed to protect agricultural properties and uses. The Planning Commission recently considered, on October 20th of this year, amendments to the General Plan that would establish that the County's right-to-farm protections should be "amended to recognize that, while not exclusively devoted to Agriculture, Residential, Commercial, and Industrial zones may support agriculture as an interim use prior to development."1 Acknowledging the need for buffer zones between such 'interim agricultural uses' and residential development, proposed amendmt~nts to the General Plan would mandate that "the Zoning Ordinance shall require a minimum 25 foot setback between new residences and preexisting active orchard and vineyard operations on adjacent parcels in residential zones."2 These amendments would be a formal legislative recognition of current on-the-ground realities. As stated previously, the property on the western border of the proposed subdivision is devoted to agricultural use ~-and the proposed General Plan amendments would afford some measure of much needed protection to these agricultural uses. The proposed General Plan amendments are set forth below: (Proposed) Policy AG -P5.3.1 "The Zoning Ordinance shall allow agriculture as an interim use in all non- agriculture zones. The Butte County Right-to-Farm Ordinance (Butte County Code Chapter 35) shall be amended to recognize that, while not exclusively devoted to agriculture, Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones may support agriculture as an interim use prior to development." (Proposed) Policy AG -P5.3.2 1Proposed Policy AG-P5.3.1. 2Proposed Policy AG-P5.3.2. 117 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 "The Zoning Ordinance shall require a minimum 25 foot setback between new residences and preexisting active orchard and vineyard operations on adjacent parcels in residential zones. "This setback shall be imposed on the developing parcel by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Agriculture Commissioner and may be larger than 25 feet but shall not limit the allowed residential density and intensity permitted by the residential zone." (Relevant portions of proposed General Plan Amendments )(Exhibit 7). Page 11 Additionally, the County's "Right-to-Farm" ordinance is slated to be amended to extend the protections of the Right-to-Farm Ordinance to interim agricultural uses in lands other than an Agricultural Zone designation. It is clear that these policies are tailor made for the type of development proposed in the Tentative Subdivision Map for Project TPM14-0005. The property west of the parcel slated for development is devoted to existing agricultural operations of the type sought to be preserved and protected by these amendments to the General Plan. Up until the General Plan amendments ofNovember 2012, this entire area had been designated Rural Residential, a designation that included a minimum 5 acre parcel size, and which preserved the agricultural nature ofthe surrounding areas. Moreover, notwithstanding the application of the Very Low Density Residential 2.5 designation to this area nearly two years ago, the agricultural character of the properties to the west of the subject development has been preserved. And yet, inexplicably, the protections afforded to 'interim agricultural uses' that will be memorialized in the General Plan amendments, including the "Right-to-Farm" and the residential set-back requirements have not been imposed as conditions of the proposed subdivision map. While a local agency must generally determine whether to approve or deny a tentative map based on those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time the map application is deemed complete (meaning that the 300 foot agricultural buffer requirement should apply), 3 many counties: condition their approval of tentative maps on compliance with requirements that go into effect at the time of the issuance of building permits, but after the date that the application for the map is deemed complete, or the map is approved.4 This means that if, for any reason, the 300 foot agricultural buffer zone is not 3Government Code Section 66474.2 4See Golden State Homebuilding Assocs. v. City of Modesto, (1994) 26 Cal.App. 4th 601. 118 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 12 imposed to protect the Peterson property, the buffer zone applicable to 'interim agricultural uses' contained in the General Plan amendments can and should be applied. The current 'agricultural uses' existing on the property to the west of the proposed development are exactly the uses which County recognizes require further protection. While the 25 foot minimum setback would not be sufficient to protect the Peterson property, the Planning Commission could work with the Agricultural Commissioner to determine more appropriate setback'interim agricultural use' setback, and to require the recording of"Right- to-Farm" notices on the proposed residential properties to ensure the continued viability of pre-existing agricultural operations on the Peterson property. Under applicable zoning ordinances, any 'interim agricultural setback' between residential uses and the subdivision's western boundary would have to me measured from the easternmost edge of the proposed 60 foot private road right-of-way. "24-56 Road Setbacks "If the property line is located along the centerline of an existing road easement, the building setback line shall be established as the distance equal to one-half the distance of the ultimate right-of-way as designated in the most recently adopted County Improvement Standards, plus the building setback line required by the applicable zone. If a property line is only partially located within an existing road easement, the setback will be equal to the distance from the property line to the edge of the right-of-way, plus the building setback line required by the applicable zone." (Butte County Code CH. 24-56 (Zoning Ordinance )(Exhibit 6). Thus, at a bare minimum, no residential structures in the proposed subdivision should be located within 85 feet of its western property line. II. CEQA COMMENTS The mitigated negative declaration for the proposed subdivision is legally inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Substantial evidence in the record of this project supports a fair argument that the proposed subdivision will have a significant effect on the environment~ and as a result, the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report to further study those impacts and develop alternatives or 119 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 13 mitigationmeasures.5 As illustrated in detail below, many ofthe "No Impact" and "Less than Significant Impact" determinations made in the Initial Study are contradicted and undermined by findings set forth in Butte County's own studies, policies and regulations, as well as the factual materials attached hereto and referenced herein. 1. Section 4.2 -Conversion of Farmland The Initial Study found that the proposed subdivision will have "no impact" with respect to the potential conversion of Farmland: "Section 4.2 (e): Would the Proposal Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ofFarmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? "No Impact. [T]he premature conversion of these farmlands could potentially occur with approval of the project from the increase in the number of residential uses developed in close proximity [sic] to existing agricultural uses, which may cause potential conflicts due to incompatibility. . . To address these incompatible uses and the potential for premature conversion of Important Farmland to non-agricultural use, the County established Agricultural/ Residential Buffers to provide a physical separation between the two uses. Under ... the Butte County zoning Ordinance, a 300ft buffer is required between the two uses. . . The buffer would restrict all future residential development adjacent to current agricultural operations and agricultural zoning designations." However, that finding is rebutted by the Initial Study itself, which states that "the project site encompasses 12.69 acres of fallow agricultural lands located 1/4 mile west from the City of Chico city limits." (Initial Study at p.l). A project that will convert more than 12 acres of"fallow agricultural lands" to residential uses will necessarily result in "conversion of farmland." Additionally, the narrative explanation of the 'No Impact' finding indicates that the County's determination was based on the untenable assumption that the only "Farmland" 5Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. 1: City of Encinitas, (1994) 29 Cal. App. 41h 1597, 1602. 120 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 14 near the proposed subdivision were those "located north ofthe Project Site." This conclusion ignores the fact that the property along the immediate western boundary of the proposed subdivision is and has been devoted to agricultural use ("Peterson Property") (See July 14, 2005 Butte Planning Commission Minutes (Exhibit 2); (Declaration of Peter D. Peterson)(Exhibit 3), which would be jeopardized by the addition of an adjacent residential neighborhood. In fact, in 2005 the Butte County Planning Commission denied a previous subdivision map for the parcel at issue here (APN-042-770-032) based in part on the finding that: "The conversion would be detrimental to existing agricultural operations. The proposed parcel map would impact agricultural operations on adjacent properties to the north and west." The parcel map the Planning Commission rejected in 2005 was a plan to subdivide APN 042-770-032 into two parcels. There is no basis for concluding that the current proposal to subdivide the property into four parcels would have less of an impact on those same agricultural uses that warranted the previous denial. And, as stated in the declaration of Peter D. Peterson attached hereto, the agricultural character of the property along the proposed subdivisions' western border has not changed since 2005. To be clear, the link between converting property to residential use and the loss of farmland adjacent to those subdivisions is not speculative. Butte County's own "Right-to- Farm" protections were enacted in order to address the reality that residential development is incompatible with adjacent agricultural land uses: "Where nonagricultural land uses, particularly residential and commercial development, extend onto agricultural land or exist side by side with agricultural operations, agricultural operations are frequently the subject of nuisance complaints. As a result, some agricultural operations are forced to cease or curtail their operations and many others are discouraged from making investments in improvements to their operations, all to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability of the county's agricultural industry as a whole." (Butte County Code Ch. 35-2(b ))(Exhibit 5 ). Thus, based on the County's analysis of this issue, as a result of the residential development of the proposed subdivision; the agricultural operations existing on the properties along the western boundary of the project could be "forced to cease or curtail their 121 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 15 operations" as a result of being forced to exist side by side with such residential development. The CEQA question in Section 4.2( e) of whether the proposal could result in "the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use" is not limited Farmland of statewide significance or importance, and encompasses lands currently devoted to agriculture, even if they are not so zoned or formally designated. Unlike the property on the northern border of the proposed development, those along the western boundary will not be protected by the 300-foot buffer-notwithstanding that thost~ properties are similarly devoted to agricultural uses-and are similarly vulnerable to being forced to cease or curtail their operations. It is also notable that the Office of the Butte County Agricultural Commissioner apparently was apparently not even contacted to discuss potential agricultural impacts related to this project. The record reflects no comments from the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner regarding the proposed subdivision, and call into question whether the Initial Study's indication (at Section 7.0-Consulted Agencies) that the Agricultural Commissioner had been consulted is accurate. In summary, the "No Impact" finding with respect to significant environmental impacts regarding the conversion of farmland on the property proposed for subdivision and surrounding and adjacent lands (including the Peterson Property) is unsupported by evidence, and therefore deficient under 14 CCR § 15063, which requires that the impact findings in an initial study are supported by some evidence. In this case, no evidence supports the finding that there will be no impact to the property proposed for subdivision or adjacent and surrounding lands, and in fact such impacts were apparently not even considered. The County must fully study these impacts in an Environmental Impact Report. Following the conclusion of such review, mitigation measures should include a 300-foot buffer between the property proposed for development and the Peterson property situated along its western border. Alternatively, the County should impose an 'interim agricultural setback' with input from the Agricultural Commissioner to be measured from the easternmost edge of the proposed subdivision's 60 foot private road right-of-way. 2. Section 4.9 -Drainage Impacts The Initial Study found that the proposed subdivision will have "less than significant impact" with respect to drainage: Section 4.9 (e): Will the proposal, "Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems 122 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?" by stating there will be "Less than Significant Impact -The proposed project is likely to generate a minor increase in runoff from the future development of the resultant parcels, such as with the construction of new residences or access roads. However, these improvements are relatively small and located in an area that does not have managed stormwater drainage systems. Even so, the anticipated minor increase in runoff would likely be nt~gligible in terms of the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage systems." Page 16 These are bare conclusions, unsupported by evidence in the administrative record. To be relied on as the sole support for a negative declaration, an initial study must disclose the data or evidence supporting the study's environmental findings.6 Here, the impact findings regarding drainage do not identify or evaluate the increases in impervious surface area associated with the residential development, describe average rainfall conditions at the project site, or evaluate any special conditions related to the fact that the properties to the west and north of the proposed subdivision are devoted to agricultural uses -a clear violation of the mandate that impact findings be supported by some evidence in the record. As discussed in greater detail below, the assumption that the proposed subdivision will not have a significant environmental impact with respect to drainage is inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan, which requires a comprehensive drainage plan be submitted prior to residential development to ensure that drainage impacts on surrounding agricultural lands are evaluated and mitigated. (Butte County General Plan AG-P5.5). The conclusory finding in the environmental document that the proposed subdivision will have a "less than significant impact" is also inconsistent with the comprehensive review imposed as a "Standard Condition For Tentative Parcel Map" by Butte County. Those requirements mandate that: "Prior to recordation of the parcel map, drainage plans and calculations shall be submitted to an approved by the Department ofPublic Works. Engineering plans shall detail existing drainage conditions and specify how storm water runoff will be either detained or retained onsite and/ or conveyed to the nearest natural drainage channel or publicly maintained facility. Engineering 6 Citizens Ass 'n for Sensible Dev. v. County of Inyo, (1985) 172 Cal. App. 3d 151, 171. 123 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 calculations shall show there is no increase in peak flow runoff leaving the property. If storm drainage facilities serve new public roads, the developer must complete the formation of a county service area (CSA), sone of benefit within a permanent road division (PRD), or other Department ofPublic Works approved entity prior to recordation of the parcel map. The formation process will require the developer to fund the service until the beginning of the first fiscal year in which service charges can be collected and agree to an annual maximum service charge to ensure continued operation of the facilities." "Prior to grading, a construction storm water permit will be required by the State Water Resources Control Board if the project results in a disturbance (including clearing, excavation, filling, and grading) of one or more acres. The permit must be obtained from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to construction. If a construction storm water permit is required, place a note on an additional map sheet that states: "the development of this parcel map required a construction storm water permit. Construction activities that result in a land disturbance of less than one acre, but which are part of a larger common plan of development, also require a permit. Development of individual lots may require an additional permit(s)." (Butte County Public Works Department-Standard Conditions for Tentative Parcel Map). Page 17 However, these mitigation measures are not required, or even addressed by the CEQA document. On the basis of the environmental document alone, there is no"expectation of compliance" with the County's drainage ordinances, rules, and policies, nor is there an indication that such measures would be sufficient for drainage impacts caused by this project. At a bare minimum, compliance with the standard conditions set forth above should be imposed as a "drop-dead" condition under which the project may not proceed if objective environmental standards established by the:County with respect to drainage are not met_? With respect to deficiencies related to drainage, see also Section 3.C. below, identifying inconsistencies between the CEQA document's drainage determination and the County's General Plan requirements. 7Schaeffer Land trust v. San Jose City Council, (1989) 215 Cal. App. 3d 612. 124 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 3. Section 4.10 -Inconsistency With General Plan Requirements Page 18 The Analysis set forth in section 4.10 of the Initial Study entitled "Land Use" is deficient, and substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the proposed project will have a significant environmental impact in this regard, requiring preparation of a full EIR to study those impacts and identify suitable alternatives. The CEQA document, in evaluating the 'Land Use' impacts associated with the proposed project, takes an extremely narrow view of that consideration which fails to consider potentially significant impacts. Section 4.1 O(b ): Will the Proposed project "Conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?" No Impact-The Proposed project does not include an amendment to the existing land use designation, or changes to the existing land uses occurring on the project site. The proposed project would subdivide the property into additional parcels, with each parcel meeting the minimum parcel size requirement designated by zoning. A. Inconsistency with General Plan Chico Area Greenline Butte County adopted the Greenline policy many years ago in an attempt to protect and preserve agricultural property uses on the west side of Chico. Plainly stated, Goal L U -13 of the Butte County General Plan is to "Plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico area through the Chico area Greenline." The current version of that policy includes the following protections: LU-Pl3.3: "Recognize the Chico Area Greenline as the boundary between the "Urban side of the Chico Area Greenline and the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline." LU-Pl3.7: "Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural side of the Chico Area Greenline." 125 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 LU-Pl3.8: "Accommodate future urban and suburban growth that occurs in the Chico area of Butte County on lands situated in the Urban side of Chico Area Greenline." Page 19 Permitting the subdivision of an agriculturally viable 12.19 acre parcel into one 5 acre piece and three 2.5 acre parcels with little or no agricultural utility is inconsistent with the stated goal of the Greenline to "Conserve and protect for agricultural use the lands in the Chico area that are situated on the Agricultural side of the Chico area Greenline." While agricultural land uses are not forbidden in a 2.5 acre residential property zoned VLDR, the economic and functional realities associated with an agricultural operation effectively prohibit meaningful agricultural operations on parcels of that size. Additionally, permitting the subdivision of property to accommodate suburban growth via the addition of 4 new homesites violates the stated policy to "Accommodate future urban and suburban growth that occurs in the Chico area of Butte County on lands situated in the Urban side of the Chico Area Greenline." It should also be noted that the Planning Commission itself determined in 2005 that subdivision of the Kromer Property is inconsistent with the Greenline policy: The parcel was zoned A-5 on October 7, 1975, several years prior to the adoption of the Greenline policy. Although it did not have to be rezoned when the Greenline policy was adopted, there is nothing in the Greenline policy to indicate that a property can be subdivided to the parcel minimums in order to advance residential development. Instead, the Greenline policy seeks to preserve the agricultural nature of properties on the agricultural side of the Greenline. (Minutes of July 14, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting)(Exhibit 2). The subdivision of a currently agriculturally viable parcel located on the agriculture side of the Chico Area Greenline is repugnant to the purpose of the policy. At a bare minimum, the environmental document must evaluate the environmental impact associated with the residential conversion of properties located on the agricultural side ofthe Greenline. The stated "Goal" of the Greenline Policy is to "Plan for growth and protect agriculture in the Chico area through the Chico area Greenline." That goal is not served by the subdivision of property into non-agriculturally viable units. B. Inconsistency with General Plan Agricultural Element The determination that the proposed project will have, "No Impact," on consistency with the General Plan and its Agricultural Element is indefensible. As stated by the Director 126 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 20 of Development Services for Butte County in a memorandum to the Butte County Board of Supervisors dated May 6, 2014: "The Bell Muir area currently has four Tentative Parcel Maps and one Tentative Subdivision Map applications in the VLDR zone under County review that potentially involve the application of Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5 and are awaiting a determination by your Board before they can proceed (or not). Existing agricultural uses (on residentially zoned land) are located adjacent to each of the parcels proposed for residential land division. The locations of the pending applications in the Bell Muir area are shown in Figure 6. Put simply, these parcels cannot be subdivided consistent with the residential zoning and the 300-foot buffer required by Policy AG- P5.3." (Emphasis added.) (Memorandum of Tim Snellings, Director of Department of Development Services to Butte County Board of Supervisors, dated May 6, 2014, at p. 2) (Exhibit 1). An agency must prepare a full EIR in circumstances where the Staff of the City's own documentation and communications identify the significant impact potential. Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal App 4th 1359, 1400; Friends ofB Streetv. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal App 3rd 988, 1000. That is the case here, where the Director of Development Services has identified the inconsistency between the proposed subdivision and the County's General Plan. There are significant environmental impacts associated with introducing residential development adjacent to lands devoted to agricultural uses-that is why Butte County has adopted its 'Right-to-Farm' ordinance, and imposed a 300 foot buffer between residential and agricultural uses of property. At the risk of redundancy, the Right-to-Farm Ordinance exists because residential development adjacent to agricultural property almost invariably causes significant impacts to the agricultural use: "Where nonagricultural land uses, particularly residential and commercial development, extend onto agricultural land or exist side by side with agricultural operations, agricultural operations are frequently the subject of nuisance complaints. As a result, some agricultural operations are forced to cease or curtail their operations and many others are discouraged from making investments in improvements to their operations, all to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability ofthe county's agricultural industry as a whole." (Butte County Code Ch. 35-2(b))( Exhibit 5 ). 127 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 21 To the extent the environmental document failed to consider those impacts, and to mandate that the County's existing mitigation measures be imposed (i.e. the 300-foot buffer, or alternatively, the 25-foot buffer for 'interim agricultural uses'), the document is fatally flawed. C. Inconsistency with General Plan Drainage Requirements. Recognizing the decreased saturation capacity of developed versus undeveloped ground, and the potential for drainage problems associated with the introduction of residential properties into agricultural areas, General Plan Policy AG-P5.5 provides that: "To protect agricultural areas from flooding, all urban/residential development projects shall provide a drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer that, at a minimum, addresses: a. Pre-development drainage conditions for the development site, including peak runoff rates and runoff volumes. b. Post-development drainage conditions, including changes in peak runoff rates and runoff volumes. c. Off-site drainage or flooding impacts and proposed or recommended mitigation measures. d. Mechanisms for maintenance of drainage facilities." However, the Project Application documents include no such drainage plan, and as discussed above, notwithstanding that failure, the CEQA document makes a finding of 'no significant impact.' The glossing over of drainage impacts, with no evidentiary support is a substantial failure in its own right, which is only compounded by the fact that such failures violate General Plan policies specifically adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a potentially significant environmental effect. A full Environmental Impact Report needs to be completed regarding the drainage impacts of the proposed project, and at a bare minimum, the developer must be required to comply with the General Plan drainage requirements as a mitigation measure. 128 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 22 4. Section 4.17 -Utilities and Service Systems I Section 4.9 -Hydrology and Water Quality. Neither the environmental analysis of the 'Utilities and Services Systems' (Section 4.17), nor the 'Hydrology and Water Quality'(Section 4.9) address the exceedingly high levels of nitrates existing in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision, or whether the installation of additional on-site septic systems would compound the environmental impacts associated with that issue. A. Groundwater Nitrate Levels in the Immediate Project Vicinitv Exceed State Standards. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 are four environmental analyses of groundwater pumped from on-site wells located on properties located immediately west of the property proposed for subdivision. The results of those tests show increasing nitrate concentrations over the past 13 years -and the most recent tests show groundwater concentrations already exceed the "Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL )"for nitrate in drinking water of 45 milligrams per Liter (mg/L)-as prescribed in Title 22, California Code ofRegulations Section 63341. The results of the well tests on the property immediately west of the proposed subdivision are summarized below: Monarch Laboratory, Inc.-Test Date 7/09/2001 -Nitrate, Drinking Water 24 mg/L Deerpoint Group, Inc., -Test Date 5/09/2013 -Nitrate, Domestic Well 37.0 ppm as N03 -Nitrate, Landscape Well 43.9 ppm as N03 Deerpoint Group, Inc.,-Test Date 7/17/2013 -Nitrate, Landscape Well 53.1 ppm as N03 FGL Environmental -Test Date 10/30/2013 -Nitrate, Landscape Well 1 04 mg/L 129 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 23 These test results showing Nitrate MCLs exceeding State standards are consistent with the results of testing performed in accordance with the February 25, 2014 "Sampling and Analysis Plan and Update Chico Urban An~a Nitrate Compliance Program." (Exhibit 9). Monitoring Wel125 (MW25) shown in Figure 3 of the "Sampling and Analysis Plan" is less than 1500 feet from the property proposed for subdivision. (Exhibit 9). Page 1-15 of the Sample shows the tests conducted in February 2013 at MW-25 produced Nitrate (N03) levels at 159.36 mg/L, a level more than 3.5 times the MCL standard. To be clear-there is no debate that on-site septic systems contribute to the presence of nitrates in groundwater. The "Nitrate Fact Sheet" produced by the California Department of Public Health(Exhibit 11 ), states: "What are nitrates? Nitrates can be found in drinking water supplies. Their presence in groundwater is generally associated with Septic systems ... " The causal relationship between the existence of nitrates in groundwater and presence of septic systems is also confirmed by the County's own "Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Program." That document was finalized in 2000 and includes the following excerpts: " ... was prepared in response to the contamination of groundwater in the Chico Urban Area by nitrate, and form of nitrogen. . . The source of nitrate contamination to the shallow aquifer beneath the Chico Urban Area is from the use by residents of on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal. (Abstract -Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan)(Bolding Added)(Exhibit 10 ). "Any septic system will cause some degradation of groundwater above background levels." (Nitrate Compliance Plan -Section 4.6, p. 4- 13)(Bolding added)(Exhibit 10). B. The CEQA Document Does not Evaluate the Link Between Septic Svstems and High Nitrate levels. Notwithstanding evidence of exceedingly high nitrate levels in groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision, and the acknowledged fact that the installation of septic systems degrade groundwater quality and specifically cause high groundwater nitrate levels, the CEQA analysis did not consider these impacts at all: 130 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 24 Section 4.9(a): Would the Proposal ·"Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?": "Less than significant impact. Wastewater disposal for the proposed project would be provided by private, on-site septic systems. The Butte County Environmental Health Division has performed a preliminary review of the proposed project, and has indicated that future placement of an on-site septic system for the proposed parcel would be possible. At the time of development, proposed development would be evaluated, and compliance with wastewater disposal standards would be ensured." (Initial Study at P.30). Section 4.9(f)-Would the proposal-"Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?": "No impact. The proposed project would not result in potential surface water pollution beyond the issues discussed in section a) [water quality and waste discharge requirements] above. Therefore, the proposed project would not otherwise degrade water quality beyond the issues previously addressed." In other words, apparently no review of the impact installing additional on-site septic systems would have on the water quality standards of the surrounding area occurred. This finding cannot be sustained. The County MUST find that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and thus MUST prepare an EIR because the project has a environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.8 As stated in the may 2014, "Nitrate Fact Sheet" issued by the California Department ofPublic Health, consumption of nitrates in drinking water can cause severe health concerns: "What's the health concern about nitrate/nitrite in drinking water? "Nitrite can interfere with the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen to the tissues of the body, producing a condition called methemoglobinemia. It is of greatest concern in infants, whose immature stomach environment enables conversion of nitrate to nitrite, which is then absorbed into the blood stream. Clinical effects on infants ingesting nitrite at high levels in foods or from formula made with nitrate-contaminated drinking water are often referred to as the "blue baby syndrome." High nitrate levels may also affect the oxygen- carrying ability of the blood of pregnant women. The groups with the greatest 8Public Resources Code§ 21083(b); 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15065(a)(l). 131 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 risk of becoming ill through ingesting nitrate are infants under 6 months and pregnant women. In general, the groups with the lowest risk of becoming ill are healthy children and adults. (California Department of Public Health-Nitrate Fact Sheet)(Exhibit 11). Page 25 The detrimental health impacts associated with the installation of septic systems in the proposed subdivision are not limited to that property. Rather, the Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan shows the general direction of groundwater flow in the shallow aquifer is east to west, and that "one undeniable characteristic is that nitrate concentrations are highest directly down-gradient (westerly) from the unsewered portions of the Chico Urban Area." (Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan at pp. 3 -7-8)(Exhibit 10). The Peterson property and the other residences located in the vicinity of Sheltering Oak Court and Bell Estates Drive, are located directly in the path of nitrate impacts associated with the installation of new septic systems in the proposed subdivision. The County must perform an environmental review of the project becam;e it has environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Public Resources Code § 21083(b )(2)). Nothing in the "preliminary review" ofthe proposed wastewater disposal associated with the project performed by the Butte County Department of Environmental Health ( Exhibit 12 ) overrides these concerns regarding the environmental impact associated with installing additional septic systems in the area. The Department of Environmental Health's 'review' was extremely cursory, simply indicating the soil profile of the property proposed for subdivision. In fact, there is a legitimate question of whether the Department of Environmental Health evaluated the project that is slated to go forward: A review dated August 28,2014 refers to an evaluation ofafive property subdivision (four parcels of2.5 acres each and one parcel of 2.69 acres), whereas the CEQA Initial Study contemplates subdividing the 12.69 acre parcel into four lots. To the extent the DEH reviewed the wrong project, any analysis is deficient on its face .. C. The CEQA Document does Not Analvze the Impacts of High Nitrate Levels and the Proposal to Serve the Project with On-Site Wells. The failure to analyze groundwater impacts associated with the installation of additional on-site septic systems in an area in which wells show Nitrate levels exceeding state MCL standards is compounded by the fact that the parcels in the proposed subdivision intend to use on-site wells for domestic water purposes: 132 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 26 Section 4.17(d) -Would the proposed project-"Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?": "Less than significant impact. Domestic water services to future residences on the resultant [subdivided] parcels would be provided by a private groundwater well. Well production has been determined to be sufficient for the anticipated uses of the project site by the Butte County Environmental Health Division. New development requiring a domestic water supply would increase groundwater extraction; however, sufficient groundwater resources are available in the project area to serve the potential development." This finding fails to acknowledge that the private groundwater wells proposed to serve the subdivision draw from groundwater that contains nitrate levels that exceed state standards by a multiple of 3.5. Any individual who consumes water from the proposed private groundwater wells that will serve the project is in peril-individuals who may live in the proposed residences, anybody who may visit the proposed residences, and any member of the public who ultimately consumes water produced from the proposed wells is at risk. The county must conduct a full Environmental Impact Report to review these concerns, and prepare alternatives or mitigation measures to alleviate and address them. A full EIR is required to study: 1) the additional significant environmental impacts that will be caused by installing additional on-site septic systems in the proposed subdivision, and 2) the environmental impact of securing safe, clean and reliable water supply. 5. Section 4.13 -Population and Housing Growth The project would have significant growth inducing impacts which were not evaluated or addressed by the Initial Study. Section 4.13 -Would the Proposal ·:-"Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads of other infrastructure)"? Less than significant impact-Subdivision of the project site could facilitate the potential addition of single-family residential units, which would directly result in growth in available housing and, if occupied, to the local population. However, housing and population growth with this project are consistent with planned future land uses and would be minor in scale .... Growth in the project area resulting from 133 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 27 the project is planned, and is consistent with the applicable planning policies and zoning ordinance. This analysis is deficient because it fails to account for the fact that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan, and that the subdivision of property and accompanying population growth adjacent to properties devoted agricultural use is not part of the county's "planned future land uses." If the 300 foot agricultural buffer zone required by the General Plan were imposed on this project-the proposed project and accompanying growth would not occur. Thus, the direct growth that would result from the project is not contemplated by the General Plan. Additionally, the project would have significant indirect growth inducing impacts not evaluated in the initial study. Permitting the proposed development to occur adjacent to existing agricultural uses would be a precedent setting action, making it easier for future projects with similar characteristics to gain approval. As indicated in the recent memorandum ofButte County's Director of Development Services: "The Bell Muir area currently has four Tentative Parcel Maps and one Tentative Subdivision Map applications in the VLDR zone under County review that potentially involve the application of Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5 [300 foot buffer] and are awaiting a determination by your Board before they can proceed (or not). Existing agricultural uses (on residentially zoned land) are located adjacent to each of the parcels proposed for residential land division. The locations of the pending applications in the Bell Muir area are shown in Figure 6. Put simply, these parcels cannot be subdivided consistent with the residential zoning and the 300-foot buffer required by Policy AG-P5.3." (Exhibit1)(Emphasis in original). Thus, approving project TPM14-0005, notwithstanding that doing so would violate the requirement to impose a 300 foot buffer zone along the property's western boundary, would establish a precedent that buffer zone requirements can be ignored-essentially clearing the way for immediate development of the four parcels currently proposed for residential land division in the Bell Muir area, and development of additional properties with similar characteristics in the future. Reference to the "Bell-Muir Area-VLDR Zone" aerial photo and "Pending Land Division Applications and General Plan Designations in the Bell/ Muir Area" map appended to Mr. Snellings' memorandum (Exhibit 1) shows that many of the properties in the VLDR 2.5 zoning designation immediately surrounding proposed project TPM 14-0005 are far larger than the minimum 2.5 acre zoning designation, and remain devoted to agricultural 134 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 28 uses. Permitting Project TPM14-0005 to go forward in its current form would establish a precedent favoring the subdivision of those as-yet undeveloped properties-even if they are surrounded by property devoted to agricultural use. The direct and indirect growth inducing impacts that approving project TPM 14-000 5 will have on the Bell -Muir addressed is not addressed in the Initial Study. That deficiency is inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, which mandates that an Environmental Impact Report evaluate and discuss the ways in which a project fosters the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. A full EIR is required to evaluate the growth inducing impacts that approving the proposed subdivision will have on the Bell Muir Area and west Chico generally. III. CONCLUSION Proposed Project TPM14-0005 is inconsistent with Butte County's General Plan and the policies, standards, and ordinances the County has adopted to implement that plan. Additionally, the CEQA Initial Study's conclusion that a mitigated negative declaration should be prepared for the project is deficient and legally unsustainable. We urge the Commission to reevaluate the wisdom of subdividing agricultural property on the agricultural .side of the Chico Area Greenline and which is adjacent to other properties devoted to agricultural uses. A full Environmental Impact Report must be prepared to analyze the significant environmental impacts associated with the project which were described and demonstrated in these comments but not considered in the Initial Study. By: AJM:dd Enclosures cc w/enclosures: Client Very truly yours, MINASIAN, MEITH, SOARES, SEXTON & COOPER, LLP . l'lt/~L- J. McCLURE, ESQ. S:IAJM\Peterson\Subdivision of Property\Final Comments to Planning Commission(2).wpd 135 Project TPM 14-0005 Date: November 5, 2014 Page 29 Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 Exhibit 8 Exhibit 9 Exhibit 10 Exhibit 11 Exhibit 12 EXHIBIT LIST Memorandum of Tim Snellings Minutes of July 14, 2005, Planning Commission Meeting Declaration of Peter D. Peterson and Aerial Photo Depicting Project Area. Excerpts of Butte County General Plan 2030. Excerpts of Butte County Code Ch. 35 (Right-to-Farm Ordinance). Butte County Code CH. 24 (Zoning Ordinance). Excerpts of proposed General Plan Amendments. Environmental analyses of groundwater pumped from Wells on Peterson property. Environmental Analyses of Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan-2014. Resoults from Monitoring Well25 (MW25). Excerpts of Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan. California DepartmentofPublic Health-Nitrate Fact Sheet. Butte County Department of Environmental Health Preliminary Review of Project TPM14-0005 136 Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Transmittal Clerk of the Board Use Only Agenda Item: 4.07 Subject: Request for Direction Regarding Amendment of General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 Department: Development Services Meeting Date Requested: May 6, 2014 Contact: Tim Snellings Phone: 538-5821 Regular Agenda ,f Consent Agenda Department Summary: (Information provided in this section will be included on the agenda. Attach explanatory memorandum and other background information as necessary). Policy AG-P5.3 in the Butte County General Plan 2030's Agricultural Element requires: "The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.*" Article 17, Agricultural Buffer Setbacks, in the Zoning Ordinance establishes the setback for dwellings within an agricultural buffer area at 300 feet from any property line that abuts Agriculture (Agriculture (AG) and Agriculture Services (AS)) (B .C. C. § 24-83) zones. The distance may be adjusted based upon an Unusual Circumstances Review (B.C. C.§ 24-84). The recent processing of several applications for tentative parcel maps and a vesting tentative subdivision map on lands with a residential land use designation adjacent to existing operating agricultural uses (also located within this residential designation) requires Board direction on where the the 300' buffer should be applied when both proposed residential development and surrounding orchards exist in a residential land use designation (such as Very Low Density Residential [VLDR]). Based on the Board direction, staff would prepare a General Plan Amendment for consideration. Fiscal Impact: None. Personnel Impact: Does not apply. Action Requested: Direct staff to initiate an amendment of General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 to clarify that the policy is applicable in the Agriculture land use designation and where that designation abuts residential designations. Administrative Office Review: Sang Kim, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer 137 ( Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Office (530) 538-7785 Fax www.buttecounty.net www.buttegeneralplan.net To: Butte County Board of Supervisors From: Butte County Department of Development Services Subject: Request for Direction Regarding Amendment of General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 Date: May 6, 2014 I. RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to initiate an amendment of General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 to clarify that the policy is applicable in the Agriculture land use designation and where that · designation abuts residential designations. II. SUMMARY Policy AG-P5.3 in the Butte County General Plan 2030's Agricultural Element requires the following: "The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.*" (See Attachment A for the complete text of General Plan Agricultural Element Goal 5). Article 17, Agricultural Buffer Setbacks, in the Zoning Ordinance establishes the setback for dwellings within an agricultural buffer area at 300 feet from any property line that abuts Agriculture (Agriculture (AG) and Agriculture Services (AS)) (B.C.C. § 24-83) zones. The distance may be adjusted based upon an Unusual Circumstances Review (B.C.C. § 24-84). Attachment B provides the complete text of Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. The recent processing of several applications for tentative parcel maps and a vesting tentative subdivision map on lands with a residential land use designation adjacent to existing operating agricultural uses (also located within this Residential designation) raised the following issue which staff brings to the Board of Supervisors for direction: Where both proposed residential development and adjacent agricultural uses, such as orchards, exist in a residential land use designation (such as VLDR), should the 300' buffer apply and if so, where? a. If YES, then the residential development is not allowable or would be greatly constrained in most residential designations that are adjacent to existing agricultural uses, such as orchards, in residential zones and the 300' buffer WOULD apply on the Residential side. Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 1 of 14 138 ( b. If NO , then the residential development would be allowed in the residential locations that are adjacent to existing agricultural uses, such as orchards, which are also located in the residential zone and the 300' buffer would NOT apply on the Residential side. II. BACKGROUND This review focuses on the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) General Plan designation due to several pending projects under review by the Department of Development Services. The Butte County General Plan designated 10,358 acres of land as Very Low Density Residential (VLDR -0.2 to 1 unit per acre). Many of these lands have existing agricultural uses, or with recent increases in the value of agricultural commodities, are being planted and/or more intensively managed. This is shown in Figures 1 through 5 and includes: • North Chico Specific Plan (NCSP) Area -In the NCSP area, there are 248 acres of agricultural lands (orchards and grazing) zoned VLDR (as well as 148 acres in the MDR zone). • Bell Muir Area -This area is west of the City of Chico and zoned VLDR -1.0 and VLDR -2.5 (Very low Density Residential -one-acre, and two and one half acres minimum, respectively). The Agricultural Commissioner has identified 170 acres of orchards in this area. • Durham Area-Areas surrounding the central portion of Durham are zoned VLDR-1.0 and consists of a mix of orchards and residential parcels. • Miners Ranch Road Area -This area is located east of the City of Oroville and Miner's Ranch Road and zoned VLDR -1.0. Existing land uses in this area are primarily residential with larger parcels in grazing and orchards. • Biggs Area -This area is located east of the City of Biggs and west of State Highway 99 in the VLDR -1.0 zone. Land uses are also a mix of residential uses and orchards. The Bell Muir area currently has four Tentative Parcel Maps and one Tentative Subdivision Map applications in the VLDR zone under County review that potentially involve the application of Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5 and are awaiting a determination by your Board before they can proceed (or not). Existing agricultural uses (on residentially zoned land) are located adjacent to each of the parcels proposed for residential land division. The locations of the pending applications in th e Bell Muir area are shown in Figure 6. Put simply. these parcels cannot be s ubdivided consistent with the residential zoning and the 300-foot buffer reguired by Policy AG-P5.3. Ill. ANALYSIS Staff recommends clarification of Policy AG-P5.3 through an amendment of the policy's text. Application of Policy AG-P5.3, as currently written, on a project by project basis for discretionary land use applications outside of agricultural designations would create a conflict between the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and their administration. Application of this policy apart from the requirements enacted through the Zoning Ordinance has far reaching consequences for land use decisions in Butte County. This is because areas designated and zoned VLDR are intended for the ultimate development of one acre residential parcels. The application of an agrict,.~ltural buffer would severely limit future development potential of this, and other, residential zones. Analysis of an action's consistency with policies of the General Plan, including Policy AG-P5.3, only occurs with discretionary projects, such as the proposed subdivisions. Because the requirements of Article 17 for an agricultural buffer only applies in agricultural (Agriculture (AG} Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 2 of 14 139 and Agriculture Services (AS)) zones, a ministerial building permit for a residence on an existing parcel would not be subject to the buffer requirement. In the interim time between now and when these areas develop at one acre densities, several landowners in the Bell Muir area west of Chico have chosen to continue to pursue an agricultural use within the VLDR zone. Four Tentative Parcel Maps, and one Tentative Subdivision Map, are also currently under County review in this area. Existing agricultural uses are located adjacent to each of the parcels proposed for residential land division. The locations of the pending applications in the Bell Muir area are shown in Figure 6. Agricultural ,uses, as planned for Bell Muir, are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which also allows for crop cultivation. However, if a 300 foot agricultural buffer setback is implemented, it would, in effect, prohibit neighboring properties from developing at the one acre density consistentwith the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. While the VLDR designation and zone allows crop cultivation, it is classified as both a residential and an urban zone by the Zoning Ordinance. Through the very deliberative process undertaken by General Plan 2030, areas were designated and approved by the Board of Supervisors for the future growth of the County. The designation of the Bell Muir area for residential development was thoroughly . reviewed at a community level and through the Citizen's Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors during the development of General Plan 2030. IV. NEXT STEPS Based on the direction provided by the Board of Supervisors, staff would prepare a General Plan Amendment for further consideration. In preparing this amendment, staff would review other potential General Plan designations where a policy regarding an interim agricultural use may also be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to amend the Right to Farm Ordinance, providing that interim agricultural uses would be afforded some protection from nuisance complaints while they were in operation. Depending on direction from the Board of Supervisors, Development Services will continue to process the above referenced map applications consistent with that direction while the County is processing the General Plan text amendment. If the text amendment is going to require the buffer on the residential development in the residential zone or not, staff will notify applicants of this important matter and its impact on their project. These maps can be conditioned that the amendment be completed prior to their recordation. Should you have any questions please contact Planning Manager Chuck Thistlethwaite at 538- 6572 or Tim Snellings at 538-6821. Sincerely, Tim Snellings, Director Butte County Department of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: A. Butte County General Plan 2030 Agricultural Element Goal AG-5, Policies and Actions FIGURES: B. Article 17, Agricultural Buffers, of the Zoning Ordinance 1 - 5 VLDR Zoning in North Chico, Bell Muir, Durham, Miners Ranch Road and Biggs Areas 6 Pending Land Division Applications in the Bell Muir Area Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 3 of 14 140 Goal AG-5 Policies AG-P5.1 AG-P5.2 AG-P5.3 AG-P5.4 AG-P5.5 Attachment A Butte County General Plan 2030 Agricultural Element Goal AG-5, Policies and Actions 1 , Reduce conflicts between urban and agricultural uses and between habitat mitigation banking and agricultural uses. Agricultural uses shall be the primary uses within the, Agriculture land use designation. Residential uses, such as a farmer's home, and habitat mitigation banking uses shall be considered accessory uses. Urban development and habitat mitigation banking uses shall not limit the financial sustainability of agricultural operations. The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect existing agricultural uses from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.* Land divisions that separate a farmer's home or an agricultural processing facility from the agricultural land shall be prohibited, unless the lot split meets the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning district. To protect agricultural areas from flooding, all urban/residential development projects shall provide a drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer that, at a minimum, addresses: a. Pre-development drainage conditions for the development site, including peak runoff rates and runoff volumes. b. Post-development drainage conditions, including changes in peak runoff rates and runoff volumes. c. Off-site drainage or flooding impacts and proposed or recommended mitigation measures. d. Mechanisms for maintenance of drainage facilities. 1 General Plan 2030's Goals, Policies and Actions and the relationship between them are explained as follows: A goal is the description of the general desired result that the County seeks to create through the implementation of its General Plan. A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making as the County works to achieve a goal. Such policies, once adopted, represent statements of County regulation. A policy is on-going and requires no further implementation. The General Plan's policies set out the standards that will be used by County staff, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in their review of land development projects and in decision-making about County actions. An action is an implementation measure, procedure, or technique intended to help achieve a specified goal. The County must take additional steps to implement each action in the General Plan. An action is something that can and will be completed." (Introduction, pg. 5) Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 4 of 14 141 Actions AG-A5.1 AG-A5.2 AG-A5.3 Periodically update the agricultural buffer setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and the Agricultural/Residential Buffer Implementation Guidelines to reduce conflicts between agricultural and residential and nonresidential urban uses. Periodically update the Right to Farm Ordinance to reflect changing practices. Develop a program that will inform homebuyers about the ramifications of agricultural operations within the Unique Agriculture Overlay. Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 5 of 14 142 Attachment 8 Article 17, Agricultural Buffers, of the Zoning Ordinance Article 17. AGRICULTURAL BUFFERS Sections: 24-81 -Purpose 24-82 -Applicability 24-83 -Agriculture Buffer Setbacks 24-84 -Exceptions to Agricultural Buffer Setback 24-81 Purpose This article establishes a means to conserve and stabilize agricultural land uses in order to protect agricultural lands from encroachment and conversion to residential uses. Tlris article advances tllis purpose by: A. Requiring residential development to provide land use transitions, setbacks, and buffers between residential development and agricultural uses, in order to reduce interference and conflict; B. Creating development and performance standards designed to protect agricultural uses from residential encroachment conflicts; and C. Providing a clear delineation between long-term agricultural production lands and residential areas. 24-82 Applicability A. This article applies to residential structures in all agricultural buffer areas. The agricultural buffer is applied to the following areas of the county: 1. All lands zoned Agriculture; 2. Other zones within 300 feet of the boundary of Agriculture zones; and 3. Areas inside and within 300 feet of sphere of influence boundaries for incorporated cities, where the boundaty abuts parcels zoned Agriculture. B. The agricultural buffer requirement shall apply to the parcel where residential development is proposed. 24-83 Agricultural Buffer Setbacks As shown in Figure 24-83-1 (Agricultural Buffer Setbacks), the setback distance for dwellings witllin an agricultural buffer area shall be 300 feet from any property line that abuts Agriculture zones. Tllis distance may be adjusted based upon the Agricultural Buffer Guidelines as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 16, 2008 (and as amended) or an Unusual Circumstance Review in Section 24-84 (Exceptions to Agricultural Buffer Setback). Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 6 of 14 143 24-84 AGRICULTURAL BUFFERS FIGURE 24-83-1 AGRICUU'URAL BUFFER SETBACKS I I I All setbacks ncn abuning an AG zone an.1 the same as applicable zone I I I Residential Zone -----------_,_ --------- ------_, ---------. 24-84 Exceptions to Agricultural Buffer Setback A. Eligibility. Any project applicant may request an adjustment to the 300-foot agricultural buffer setback requirement through an Unusual Circumstances Review, as described below. B. Review Authority. 1. A request for Unusual Circumstance Review submitted for concurrent review with a ministerial permit application shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. 2. A request for Unusual Circumstance Review submitted for concurrent review with a discretionary permit application shall be reviewed by the authority reviewing the discretionary permit application. C. Application Submittal. An application for an Unusual Circumstances Review shall be ftled and reviewed in compliance with Article 27 (Permit Application and Review). The application shall include the information and materials specified in the Department of Development Se1vices Buffer Guidelines for Unusual Circumstances Review applications, together with the fee in compliance with the Planning Fee Schedule. It is the responsibility .of the applicant to provide evidence in support of the findings required by Subsection F (Criteria for Decision). D. Consultation with Agricultural Commissioner. The Zoning Administrator shall consult with the Agricultural Commissioner prior to taking action on an Unusual Circumstances Review or prior to forwarding a recommendation on an Unusual Circumstances Review to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors. Request for Direction Regarding General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 May 6, 2014 Page 7of 14 144 E. Public Hearing. 1. Public notice and hearing for an Unusual Circumstances Review associated with discretionary permits and approvals shall be provided in compliance with Article 36 (Public Notice and Hearings). 2. No public notice or hearing is required for Unusual Circumstances Reviews associated with ministerial permits. F. Criteria for Decision. The review authority may approve an adjustment to the required setback only if the following findings can be made: 1. The adjustment will not result in a modification to adjacent agricultural practices. 2. Unusual circumstances are present on the subject properties or surrounding properties that render the 300-foot setback requirement infeasible or unnecessary. Unusual circumstances include, but are not limited to, parcel size and shape, the location of existing residences, infrastructure and other existing uses, and natural physical features and topography. 3. The proposed dwelling is placed the greatest distance possible from all property lines abutting an agriculture zone or other location that presents the least detriment to agricultural practices on adjacent properties. 4. The location of the proposed residence does not interfere with easements, septic systems, or prior conditions of approval applicable to the subject property. G. Buffer Guidelines. Agricultural Buffer Guidelines as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on December 16, 2008 (Butte County Resolution # 08-166 and as amended) shall be utilized as a guide in evaluating the proper agricultural buffer and in rendering determinations on requested adjustments to the required setback. H. Post-Decision Procedures. The procedures and requirements relating to notices of decision, appeals (Article 37 (Appeals and Calls for Review)), effective dates, permit expiration, permit revocation, and changed plans shall apply to Unusual Circumstance Reviews as provided in Artide 34 (Post-Decision Procedures and Section24-234 (Post-Decision Procedures)). I. Agricultural Worker Housing Center. Within Agriculture zones, Agricultural Worker HousingCenters, as defined under this chapter, shall not be subject to the Agricultural Buffer Setback. Request for Direction to Amend General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-PS.3 May 6, 2014 Page 8 of 14 145 146 147 148 149 150 lture/Timber/Conservatlon Designations Agriculture (20-ac to 160-ac minimum) 1'---' Retail and Office (0.4 maximum FAR) Industrial (0.5 maximum FAR) jaa~~~:~~• green line City Limits Kromer Pendin g Land Divis ion Appl ications and General Plan Des ignations in the Bell/Mu ir Area 0·-=3~7·5~7~50 ...... 1 .• 50=0=====2~,2.50 ..... 3 •. 000 -.. Feet 151 Kelly Br·own, Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 12.69-acre parcel into two 6.35-acre parcels on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural-5 acre parcels). The proper1y is located on the west side of Jones A venue, extending northerly 2,040 feet from the intersection o fBell Road, Chico. APN 042-770-032 (CD) (TPM 05-03) Mr. Durling gave a brief summm.y of the project. Commissioner Nelson asked if the area to the west was being farmed. Mr. Durling said they were a large lot subdivision. He said the policies of the Greenline are the problem. Commissioner Leland said if this parcel was not on the agricultural side ofthe Greenline, it would still be denied because of the 300-foot agricultural setback. He said the Greenline was just a boundary between zones. Ms. Christopher said that the Greenline has its own set of policy statements that go with it in the General Plan. Commissioner Lambet1 asked if there was a policy to not make a parcel smaller on the agricultural side of the Greenline. Mr. Durling referred to Page 2 of the Agenda Report under analysis. He said it spells out the provisions of the Greenline. He said the Greenline ordinance states that the existing A-5 zoned properties through A-1 0 zoned prope1ties on the effective date ofthis policy are deemed consistent with this policy. He said it does not allow for divisions of the existing parcels. Ms. Clui.stopher said this was critical for the owners because of nonconforming parcels. The hearing was opened to the public. Doug Sutherland passed out an excerpt from the Land Use Element m.1d Agricultural Element ofthe General Plan. He highlighted Programs 2.2, 2.3, 2.7, and 2.9 in the Agricultural Element. He also highlighted Zoning Regulations 2.2 in the Land Use Element noting that the guidelines have not been done. He said the current zoning for the property is A-5 and there is an Orchard and Field Crops General Plm.1 designation, but the Greenline states that all areas which are zoned A-5 ;:y:!£._ A-1 0 on the effective date of tlus policy are deemed consistent with this policy. He said it does not speak:to individual parcel sizes. He said that the zo1ung by decree of the Board of Supervisors is consistent and by so doing the Board of Supervisors assumes that the owner will split these properties to the level that the zoning allows. He said regarding the Agricultural Element, Program 2.2 states that the Zoning Ordinance require a buffer on the property proposed for residential development to protect existing agricultural uses. He said the desired standard will be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. He said it states in Program 2.3 that a buffer could be a topographic feature, a substantial stand oftrees, a water course, or similarly defined feature. He felt this spoke to • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSJON • MINUTES • JULY 14, 2005 • PAGE 42 • T • ol ~SOB-TSB-085 152 what could be done here. He said under 2.7 of the Agricultural Element, it gives them a way to convert agricultural land to urban uses. He said he has already established that this zone is consistent by decree of the Board of Supervisors and a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning are not necessary. Discussion on the use of the sun·mmding properties. Commissioner Lambert asked under the establishment of the Chico area Greenline, the last item that stated "The agricultural residential land uses may occur on the agricultural side of the Chico area Greenline only within those areas designated for Agricultural Residential use on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map." She asked Mr. Sutherland to address the above statement. Mr. Sutherland said he couldn't because the Greenline map is in several places and it is somewhat sketchy as to where that exactly is. Commissioner Lambert said that this property is designated Orchard and Field Crops in the General Plan and the way she reads the above statement, it can only happen in the Agricultural Residential designated areas. Mr. Sutherland said they could put a residence on this parcel now as it stands. Commissioner Nelson said the property is completely surrounded by residential. He said if this was in the City of Chico's sphere, it would fit infill criteria. Mr. Sutherland asked that the Initial Study be done. He stated again that the zoning as been deemed consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Christopher pointed out that the Orchard and Field Crop provisions still apply. Commissioner Nelson said he is a defenderofthe Greenline, but this is one place the policy needs to be changed. He said this parcel was good infill property. Commissioner Leland said if the strip that was being protected was part of the application, this would probably be approved. Mr. Sutherland said the applicant does not own the strip. Bob Kromer, owner ofthe property, discussed development in the area. He said he wants to split his parcel to have two parcels approximately 5 acres each. He said he can not farm this parcel. He said he talked to Mr. Hill in the Agricultm·al Commissioner's Office and he said this was a seriously impacted agricultural parceL Commissioner Lambert asked on the second parcel to the south if Mr. Kromer would have to meet the 300-foot buffer. • BUTTE COUNTY PL~~rtJ.Q CQM,MISSION • MINUTES • JULY 14,2005 • PAGE 43 • 153 Mr. Kromer said the parcel next to residential \VOuld not be a viable agricultural parcel. He discussed the map away from the mj}ce. He said the goal is to spit this parcel. He said tbe 300-foot buffer is appropriate on the no1ih side. Kelly Brown said he has sold parcels in the area for years. He said other parcels in the area have been split after the Greenline "Nas adopted. He said the Greenline should not be an issue. He said the strip in question is too nan-ow to fann. Peter Peterson, 2233 Bell Road, said he owns the original Bell Headquarters. He gave a briefhistory of the property. He said he has been a strong proponent of the Greenline. He said people in the area are successfully fanning orchards. He asked the Commission to uphold the Greenline and preserve the agricultural land. He supported staff's recommendation for denial. He said he is fam1ing his land today, that he has had livestock in the past, but is planning on planting trees. Commissioner Lambert asked ifhe was engaged in any other ag1icultural ventures. Mr. Peterson said he fanns over 10,000 acres of almonds and has a nut processing plant. Chaim1an Matin commented that the character of the land has changed. Susan Morlock, 795 Churchill Drive, Chico, said she was opposed to the lot split. She said she bought her property because it straddles the Greenline. She said everyone on Churchill Drive wants to preserve the Greenline. She said she has 12 walnut trees and has raised goats in the past. She wanted the agricultural uses to continue. Bob Kromer said ifthe parcel split request is approved, the back parcel will have access off ofJ ones Avenue. He said he just wants two 6-acre parcels. Chairman Marin asked Mr. Peterson ifhe bought the 12 acre parcel and divided it into a 5 acre at1d another parcel, but you don't want the neighbor to split his propel.iy. Mr. Peterson said his property was split when he bought it. Mr. Southerland said Jones Avenue was created on the Bay Tract Subdivision and goes all the way ·through to the north another mile or so. He said the two parcels in question to the west \vere created in Book 123 of Maps, in the early 90s. Mr. Brown said he lives on the far west end of what was the Bell Ranch. He said he handled most of the sales for the Bell sisters. Ms. Christopher said earlier today during the Sefcik map project that there was a question about the improvement of the road and the length ofthe road and Public \Vorks stated that they would have to improve the entire length of the road, even though not needed. She said they have not done an Initial Study on this project because they do not do CEQA review on projects brought forward for denial. She felt that the Jones road would have to be improved for the length of the property. • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMJSSION • MINUTES • JULY 14, 2005 • PAGE 44 • --I 154 f ' ' Commissioner Leland believed that was true if it was an existing road it would have to be improved. Mr. Kromer said in his discussion with Public \\7orks because the property has access on Jones A venue their comment was that he would have to make sure that the road \:vas adequate in its existing size and he did not bring up that it would have to be extended beyond as far as the road goes today. Commissioner Lambert noted the letter received from Minasian's office. The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Commission and staff. Commissioner Nelson asked if the Commission was leaning towards an approval, how far can they go today. Ms. Cluistopher said they could do a Motion ofi11tent in order for staff to finjsh the environmental documents. Commissioner Leland said he sees this as a 300-foot setback issue rather than a Greenline issue. He said the Peterson property is agricultural property and should be protected. Commissioner Nelson felt this property was an island and should not be stopped hom splitting. He did not think a 5 acre parcel would hurt the buffer. He felt these should be dealt with on a case by case basis. He said they should do what is logically right. Commissioner Leland asked what they do with the 300-foot buffer to protect the Peterson's property. He said to be consistent they would have to say the property is not agriculturaL He said he would have a problem with that because it is agiicultural and is being fan11ed. Commissioner Nelson said the Agricultural Commissioner is trying to figure out how to deal with the setback problems. Mr. Wannenmacher said the form that was brought up is the form that is normally used for a ministerial permit. Conunissioner Nelson asked Mr. Peterson if he had some new infmmation. Mr. Peterson discussed his property on the map away from the mike. MI·. W annenmacher said the least impact on agriculture is to move it to the east and not to leave it only 75 feet from the west. He was not sure why the Agricultural Commissioner would have said for a ministerial building pennit only 75-foot buffer fi:om the west is required. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Kromer a question. • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COiv.rMISSION • MJNUTES • JULY 14,2005 • PAGE 45 a • • I 155 , I l', I· 1 6 "I Mr. Kromer showed the ministerial approval fon11 that the Agricultural Commissioner wrote "parcel size will not support a standard buffer, place residence structure 75 feet fiom west boundary, no buffer to east or south boundary." Mr. Wannenmacher asked if the Commission had all the information on the policies that are being addressed or do they need more infom1ation on Greenline policies or have the Agricultural Conm1issioner address the 300-foot buffer policy in the case of a parcel split. Commissioner Lambert said she thought they needed all of that Commissioner Nelson said he would like to have the Agricultural Commissioner present. Mr. Wa1menmacher said a tie vote was a no action. He said they need to have a majo1ity of the quorum to take an action. Commissioner Leland said they can only do what the Board of Supervisors autho1izes the Commission to do, including applying this 300-foot setback. He felt the Commission had to apply the 300-foot setback requirement and deny tlus application. It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Conm1issioner Lambert, and unanimously carried to deny the Tentative Parcel Map for Bob Kromer subject to the iindings set out in the Agenda Report as follov·iS: I. Find that the denial of this project is not subject to CEQA pmsnant to Public Resources Code 21080 b. (5) and under Sections 15270(a) <:md (b) 'of Title 14, Califomia Code of Regulations, Chapter 3 (Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act), and that no Fish and Game fee is required. IT. Deny the Tentative Parcel Map for Kelly Brown (File TPM 05-03), subject to the following findings: A. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the provisions of the Butte County General Plan Land Use and Ag1icu1tural Elements designed to protect Butte Cotmty Agricultural uses in that. • The zoning for tlus property is A-5. When the Board of Supervisors adopted the Greenline requirements as pari of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (see pages LUE-82 and 83), they detennined that "All areas which are zoned A-5, A-10 on the effective date of this policy are deemed consistent with this policy." The subject parcel was zoned A-5 on October 7, 1975, several years prior to the adoption of the Greenline policy. Although it did not have to be rezoned when the Greenline policy was adopted, there is nothing in the Greenline policy to indicate that a property can be subdivided to the parcel minimums in order to advar1ce residential developm.ent. Instead, • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNJNG COMMISSION • MINUTES • JULY 14, 2005 • PAGE 46 • 156 ''.,, •• Itt the Greenline policy seeks to preserve the agricultural nature ofpropetiies on the agricultural side of the Greenline. • The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Orchard and Field Crops sectio11 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan (page LUE- 48) because: o It would increase the potential for pest insect breeding by introducing the potential for non-regulated private residential agricultmal uses. o It would reduce the economic viability of the property for agricultural purposes by imposing restrictions on pesticide use, and increase complaints ofnoise and dust created by norrnal agr.icultural activities. • The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is inconsistent with the Agricultural Element of the General Plan because it would: o Require an "adjustment" (Program 2.2, page AE-11) to the 300-foot setback requirements. Guidelines illustrating buffer requirements for various situations have not yet been adopted. o Conflict with the criteria for conversion of agricultural lands as provided in Program 2.7, page AE 12, of the Agricultural Element. For example: o Further extension of mbanization into an agricultural area requires a General Plan and Zoning change. No application has been submitted. o The conversion would be detlimental to existing agricultural operations. The proposed parcel map >vould impact agricultural operations on adjacent properties to the north and west. Conm1issioner Nelson said if this project is appealed he wanted the Agricultural Commissioner's infom1ation before the Board of Supervisors ~md the problems on the west side. Mr. Wannenmacher said if the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors they need to spend more time addressing the Greenline policy. Commissioner Nelson he was not sure this was a reasonable policy with a landlocked piece of property. Mr. Wamwmnacher said ifit is the Board's intent to approve this an Initial Study v ... ·ill need to be done. There is a 1 0-day appeal period on all decisions with the Clerk of the Board • BUTTE COUNTY PLAJ'\'NING COMMISSION • MlNUTES • JULY l<l, 2005 • PAGE 47 • 157 I 2 3 4 5 DECLARATION OF PETER D. PETERSON I, PETER D. PETERSON, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: 1. I have owned the approximately 8 acre property identified as APN # 042 6 -770 -03 7, located on Bell Road in Chico, California since 1991. 7 2. APN # 042-770-037 is located immediately west of, and shares a roughly 8 1160 foot property line with, the property proposed for subdivision in Project 9 TPM14-0005. IO 3. This Declaration advises whom it may concern that my roughly 8 acre II property identified as APN # 042-770-037 is currently devoted to the following 12 agricultural uses: I3 A. Approximately 6.19 acres are devoted to an experimental orchard I4 which is used as a seed bank for commercial tree orchard varietals of almond, pistachio, 15 peach and fig. Operation and maintenance of the experimental orchard includes 16 traditional commercial agricultural activities such as seasonal foliar applications of I7 chemical sprays, and utilization of commercial agricultural equipment and machinery for I8 planting, harvesting, and field work. I9 B. Approximately 1.86 acres are devoted to pre-existing livestock 20 facilities. Livestock-related facilities include a barn, loading shoot, and feedlot designed 2I to accommodate up to 200 head of livestock. 22 4. APN # 042 -770 -03 7 is devoted exclusively to the agricultural uses 158 described in Paragraphs 4(A) and 4(B) above. There is no residential structure located 2 on the identified property and there are no residential uses occurring thereon. 3 5. The identified agricultural uses occurring on my roughly 8 acre parcel 4 generate dust, noises, odors, vibrations, and possibly chemical spray drift. Such impacts 5 are normal results of agricultural operations, but would likely be objectionable to a 6 residential tenant living in the property proposed for subdivision which shares a boundary 7 line with my roughly 8 acre property. 8 6. Additionally, our sheep kept on our roughly 8 acre parcel have previously 9 experienced nuisance harassment from domesticated dogs living on residential properties IO in the vicinity of that property. Such harassment would likely increase in the event that II the inhabitants of the residential properties in the proposed subdivision keep domesticated I2 dogs as pets. I3 7. The agricultural character of my roughly 8 acre parcel has not materially I4 changed since July of2005 --when the Butte County Planning Commission previously I5 found that subdividing the 12.69 acre parcel east of my property "would be detrimental to I6 existing agricultural operations. The proposed parcel map would impact agricultural I7 operations on adjacent properties to the north and west." (Minutes of July 14, 2005 Butte I8 County Planning Commission (rejecting a previous proposal to subdivide APN I9 042-770-032)). I have no current plans to alter or change the agricultural uses or 20 agricultural operations currently occurring on the identified 8 acre parcel. 21 8. The absence of a buffer to separate the agricultural uses existing on my 159 2 3 4 5 6 7 property from the residential uses which will occur in the proposed subdivision will likely result in numerous conflicts between these incompatible uses of property. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 2 8 day of October, 2014, in Cf-fr c u , California. PETER D. PETERSON 160 Proposed Subd ivision TPM14-0005 Proposed Subdivision TPM14-0005 Proposed Subdivision -APN 042-770-032 • Peterson Property -APN 042- 770-037 Peterson Property Shown in Yellow Proposed Subdivision Shown in Red 161 ( Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Office (530) 538-7785 Fax www.buttecounty.net/dds Butte County Planning Commission AGENDA REPORT Butte County General Plan 2030 General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and Amendment to Butte County Code Chapter 35-Right-to-Farm Ordinance October 20, 2014 To: From: Butte County Planning Commission Dan Breedon, AICP, Principal Planner Subject: Amendments to the General Plan Agriculture Element, Butte County Code Chapter 24. Zoning Ordinance, and Butte County Code Chapter 35. Protection of Agricultural Land I. RECOMMENDATIONS (Three Motions) 1. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors the amendment of the Butte County General Plan Agriculture Element Policy AG-P5.3 and related new Policies AG-P5.3.1 and AG-P5.3.2 as set forth under the attached Resolution (Attachment A and Exhibit A); and, the approval of an EIR Addendum (Attachment D) to the General Plan 2030 EIR and Supplemental EIR for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 1 of 15 1 162 2. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as set forth under the attached Resolution (Attachment B and Exhibit A); and, the approval of an EIR Addendum (Attachment D) to the General Plan 2030 EIR and Supplemental EIR for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission recommends to the Board of Supervisors the Amendments to Chapter 35. Protection of Agricultural Land (Right-to- Farm Ordinance) as set forth under the attached Resolution (Attachment C and Exhibit A). II. ANALYSIS Background On June 24, 2014 the Board of Supervisors directed that staff prepare a General Plan Amendment to 1) prepare an amendment to General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3; 2) develop a new policy in the Agricultural Element to minimize compatibility conflicts between existing orchard operations and new residential development in the Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) designation; and, 3) amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish a process for consultation between the Zoning Administrator and Agricultural Commissioner to determine setbacks between existing orchard operations and new residential development in the Very Low Density VLDR zone. The proposed General Plan Amendment and several of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance amendments described below have been proposed in order to address this Board direction. In addition to applying this direction to the VLDR zone, staff has set forth recommendations below for policy that would apply to all residential zones, and that would allow interim agricultural uses in residential, commercial, and industrial zones. Summary General Plan Agriculture Element Policy AG-P5.3 has been amended to apply to Agriculture designations in the General Plan. Applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance have been amended to provide setbacks in residential designations and zones for residential development adjacent to existing orchards and vineyards. The Zoning Ordinance has also been amended to allow interim agricultural uses in non-agricultural zones. A variety of other amendments are also directed at the Zoning Ordinance. Lastly, Chapter 35 of the Butte County Code, Protection of Agricultural Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 2 of 15 2 163 Land ("Right-to-Farm") Ordinance, has been amended to extend the Right-to-Farm Ordinance to interim agricultural uses within non-agricultural (residential, commercial and industrial) designations and zones. The three major actions recommended under the staff report (General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment and Right-to-Farm Ordinance Amendment) are discussed in more detail in the following three sections. 1. General Plan Amendment (Attachment A and Exhibit A) The Butte County General plan was adopted on October 26, 2010, after a four-year comprehensive update process. More recently, on November 6, 2012, Butte County adopted a County-initiated General Plan Amendment to the General Plan to address a variety of needed updates to the General Plan. Since the General Plan's adoption in 2010, and the additional 2012 amendments, an additional amendment has been identified by staff and directed by the Board of Supervisors concerning General Plan Agriculture Element Policy AG-P5.3. Further detail concerning this amendment is provided below. General Plan Policy AG-P5.3 The proposed text amendment to General Plan Policy AG-P5.3 and related new policies are intended to provide further clarification and amplification on the application of the Agricultural Buffer, a 300 foot wide section of land imposed between agriculture and residential development. This buffer is intended to establish a means to conserve and stabilize agricultural land uses in order to protect agricultural lands from encroachment and conversion to residential uses. It also has the effect of reducing negative conflicts between agriculture and residential development (e.g., dust, noise, light, chemical spray drift, vibration, and other conflicts generated by agricultural activities that present negative impacts on residential development) and avoid circumstances that impair the productivity and profitability of agricultural operations. The text amendment is being made to clarify that the agricultural buffer is intended to protect lands designated by the General Plan as, and zoned as, Agriculture, but is not intended to protect lands with agricultural uses that are not designated by the General Plan as, and zoned as, Agriculture (e.g., an agricultural use located in a residential zone). This amendment will provide greater consistency between the General Plan and Article 17. Agricultural Buffers, of the Zoning Ordinance, and will also work to uphold this policy's intent to reduce and mitigate the conversion of farmlands of concern. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 3 of 15 3 164 Proposed General Plan Amendment to AG-P5.3 Text Policy AG-PS.3 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect exiting agricYit~:~ral Yses lands designated Agriculture by the General Plan and zoned Agriculture under the Zoning Ordinance from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.* *This General Plan policy is required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These policies all use the imperative "shall," and in all cases are mandatory. Policy AG-PS.3.1 The Zoning Ordinance shall allow agriculture as an interim use in all non-agriculture zones. The Butte County Right-to-Farm Ordinance (Butte County Code Chapter 35) shall be amended to recognize that, while not exclusively devoted to agriculture, Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones may support agriculture as an interim use prior to development. Policy AG-PS.3.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require a mm1mum 25 foot setback between new residences and preexisting active orchard and vineyard operations on adjacent parcels in residential~ This setback shall be imposed on the developing parcel by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Agriculture Commissioner and may be larger than 25 feet but shall not limit the allowed residential density and intensity permitted by the residential zone. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments (Attachment B and Exhibit A) On November 6, 2012, Butte County adopted a County-initiated General Plan Amendment and Comprehensive Update to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance #4050). More recently, the Zoning Ordinance was amended on September 10, 2013. Since the Zoning Ordinance's adoption, and since the last amendment in 2013, Development Services staff has assembled a number of various additional amendments to the County's Zoning Ordinance and Map. These additional amendments are discussed below. 1) Article 2.1nterpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 24-8. Rules of Interpretation. F. A new allowance to provide zoning consistency for aliquot parts of an irregular section of land under the public land survey system. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 4 of 15 4 165 Sections of land surveyed under the Public Land Survey System are intended to have 640- acres of land. In most cases these sections have been found to vary in size by a few acres due to survey errors, and advancements in surveying technology that account for the curvature of the earth. Property owners and surveyors have relied upon equal parts (aliquot) descriptions of said section of land for purposes of describing land divisions (see figure 1 below). However, an equal parts description of a section that is less than a full 640 acres results in parcels that are fractionally smaller than 160, 80, 40, 20, 10 or 5 acres. 40 acres .- 2.5 acres ~ Figure 1. 640-acre Section of land 10 acres I I H-1 NW1/4 SE 1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4 SE 1/4 E112 NE 1/4 N~ 1/4 s 1/4 ~~ 1~1 The minimum parcel size used for some of Butte County's zoning also reflects equal parts of a section of land. For example, the Agriculture zone provides sub-zones that identify minimum parcel sizes of 160, 80, 40, and 20 acres. The Rural Residential zone provides parcel minimums of 10 and 5 acres. This new provision will allow for equal parts descriptions of irregular sections of land and additionally provides that the resulting parcels, which may be fractionally less than the zone's minimum parcel size (either 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, or 5 acres), to be deemed consistent with the corresponding sub-zone. This provision was included under the old Zoning Ordinance and was erroneously left out of the updated Zoning Ordinance. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 5 of 15 5 166 2) Article 4. Agriculture Zones. Section 24-14. Development Standards for Agricultural Zones. New Section G. Agricultural Worker Housing Center. Provisions for Agricultural Worker Housing and related definition contained in Article 42. Glossary. The current Zoning Ordinance permits Agricultural Worker Housing Centers as an accessory use in Agriculture zones. The revision to the Zoning Ordinance will provide an administrative permit process to ensure that applicants are aware of the limitations and requirements pertaining to Agricultural Worker Housing, and to apply standards that will pertain to the location and occupancy requirements of the housing, and the completion of a deed restriction. This change does not allow for further development, it simply provides further administrative oversight in the permitting of Agricultural Worker Housing. 3) Article 6. Residential Zones. Section 24-18. H. Medium Density Residential (MDR). The removal of the allowance of duplex homes from the Medium Density Residential zone. This is a minor correction to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zone to remove an allowance for duplex units. The MDR zone is a single family residential zone as directed by the General Plan. The correction provides for consistency with the General Plan's Medium Density Residential designation. The correction would not increase development potential or land use intensity within the MDR zone. 4) Article 6. Residential Zones. Table 24-20-2. Setback and Height Standards for Residential Zones. Provisions for a setback in residential zones from interim agricultural uses (orchards and vineyards); and, 5) Article 12. Setback Requirements and Exceptions. New Section 24-56.1. Residential Setback from Orchards and Vineyards. Provisions for a setback in residential zones from interim agricultural uses (orchards and vineyards). These new zoning provisions (items 4 and 5 above) are directed by the new General Plan Amendment pertaining to AG-P5.3 and related new policies AG-P5.3.1 and AG-P5.3.2 discussed above. The provisions requires a 25-foot minimum setback for residential development in residential zones to provide a separation from agricultural uses (orchards and vineyards) that are taking place on an interim basis in residential zones. The Agricultural Setback as set forth under Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance applies the 300-foot agricultural buffer only from adjacent agricultural zones. This leaves a gap in providing a setback to agricultural uses that are taking place in residential zones. A setback is needed to help address nuisance issues arising between the two uses (e.g., dust, noise, Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 6 of 15 6 167 light, chemical spray drift, vibration, and other impacts generated by agricultural activities that present negative impacts on residential development). Agricultural activities taking place in residential zones are not afforded the same level of protection as provided by Agricultural designations and zones in recognition of the fact that the General Plan directs growth to these areas and residential uses are expected to develop over time. Larger setbacks (such as the 300-foot Agricultural Buffer) would limit the potential for permitted residential development because it would not permit development within the 300-foot buffer area. This would be inconsistent with the direction provided by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to accommodate future residential growth where designated and zoned. The 25-foot setback is not assuming the role of an agriculture buffer. Agricultural activities will be limited because the setback will not provide as much buffering as the 300-foot setback imposed under Article 17. Rather, it is providing some additional separation from residential dwellings and adjacent agricultural operations to minimize nuisances from taking place. 6} Article 6. Residential Zones; Article 7. Commercial and Mixed Use Zones; and, Article 8 Industrial Zones (Use Regulation Tables 24-19-1, 24-22-1, 24-26-1}. Provisions for animal grazing and crop cultivation in residential, commercial and industrial zones on parcels 1- acre or more in size. The provision would also allow for private stables in the Low Density Residential Zone (LOR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), and Very High Density Residential (VHDR) zones subject to a minor use permit on parcels of 4 acres or larger in size. The General Plan Amendment Policy AG-P5.3.1 as discussed above and as shown below directs that the Zoning Ordinance allow agriculture as an interim use in all non-agriculture zones. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance implement the direction provided by the General Plan Amendment Policy AG-P5.3.1. This is in response to a public need that has arisen since the approval of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for grazing and crop cultivation activities in undeveloped areas of the County on a temporary basis. These interim agricultural uses do not detract from the ability to accommodate future development in accordance with zoning and require no permanent improvements. They do, however, provide for a productive use of the land while it remains in an undeveloped state. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 7 of 15 7 168 Policy AG-P5.3.1 The Zoning Ordinance shall allow agriculture as an interim use in all non-agriculture zones. The Butte County Right-to-Farm Ordinance (Butte County Code Chapter 35) shall be amended to recognize that, while not exclusively devoted to agriculture, Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones may support agriculture as an interim use prior to development. 7) Article 7. Commercial and Mixed Use Zones. Section 24-22-1. Provisions for small-scale slaughtering accessory to a retail butcher shop or similar use in the General Commercial (GC), Community Commercial (CC) and Mixed-Use (MU) zones, and related new definition for Animal Processing, Limited in Article 42. Glossary. This provision would require a minor use permit for the slaughtering and processing of animals raised off-site for commercial purposes that is accessory to a primary commercial use such as a butcher shop, meat market, grocery store or similar use. Animal slaughtering would be limited to no more than 40 animals per month. All confinement, slaughtering and processing of animals shall take place within an approved enclosed structure. The need for this provision has arisen from public requests from county businesses. The ability to slaughter a limited number of animals in conjunction with their businesses provides additional opportunities to serve their customers and generate business. Animal Processing, Limited would be restricted to parcels of two acres or more in size to ensure adequate space for confinement structures, circulation, and buffering from adjacent uses. Site specific environmental review would be conducted pursuant to CEQA in conjunction with the minor use permit. The minor use permit would allow staff to make recommendations about the uses based upon site conditions and compatibility with the surrounding uses. 8} Article 20. Signs. Provisions for the consideration of digital off-site signs (aka: billboard sign) through a minor use permit or use permit process. Staff originally apprised the Board of Supervisors of the need to address this emerging technology at the Board's November 6, 2012 public hearing on the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. It was identified as a future Zoning Ordinance Amendment to be brought back for both the Planning Commission's and Board's review. This provision would allow for the installation of a digital (electronic) Off-Site Sign (aka: billboard sign) or the ability to convert an existing standard Off-Site Sign to a Digital Off- Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 8 of 15 8 169 Site Sign subject to a minor use permit. Definitions of Off-Site Signs are provided from the Zoning Ordinance as follows: Off-Site Sign. A sign identifying a use, facility, service, or product which is not located, sold, or manufactured on the same premises as the sign or which identifies ~ use, service, or product by a brand name which, although sold or manufactured on the premises, does not constitute the principal item for sale or manufactured on the premises (aka as a billboard sign). Off-Site Sign, Digital. An off-site sign as defined above that uses digital-display technology as a means of changing sign images. Digital Off-Site Signs allow for the electronic display of sign copy. They can replace a standard Off-Site Sign that relies on work crews to manually change sign copy. The new provisions will include standards that will ensure that digital Off-Site Signs will be as close to presentation style as a standard Off-Site Sign as possible, including requirements that images may not be animated, move or present the appearance of motion and may not use flashing, scintillating, blinking, or traveling lights or any other means not providing constant illumination. Further, the light emitted from the sign shall not be of an intensity or brilliance as to cause direct illumination of an adjacent residential area, impair the vision of any driver, or interfere with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle. Digital Off-Site Signs will be allowed in the General Commercial and Industrial zoning districts only and will be subject to a minor use permit. Digital Off-Site Signs would not be allowed in other zoning districts. Site specific environmental review would be conducted pursuant to CEQA in conjunction with the minor use permit, except when abutting a residential zone, in which case a conditional use permit shall be required. The minor use permit or conditional use permit would allow staff to make recommendations about the uses based upon site conditions and compatibility with the surrounding uses. A minor use permit would be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, and a use permit would be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. An appeal process would apply to both the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission decisions. 9) Article 25. Supplemental Use Regulations. Section 24-158. Animal Keeping. Provisions to keep and maintain livestock in higher density residential zones when parcels are 1-acre or greater in size, and for the keeping of hens and roosters in higher density residential zones, subject to standards. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 9 of 15 9 170 This provision is being added to the Zoning Ordinance in recognition of animal keeping uses that are taking place in undeveloped areas of the County on an interim basis and in response to public requests to allow animal keeping on parcels zoned for higher residential density but that have yet to develop at those higher densities. This provision would allow for Animal Keeping pursuant to Section 24-158 (Animal Keeping) of the Zoning Ordinance, which provides regulations addressing the keeping of livestock and chickens in a manner that will protect the health, safety, and welfare of nearby residents, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of animals. This section currently applies the animal keeping standards to the Rural Residential (RR), Rural Country Residential (RCR), Foothill Residential (FR) Foothill Country Residential (FCR), Very low Density Residential (VlDR), and Very low Density Country Residential (VLDCR) zones. The proposed provision would expand applicability to the low Density Residential (lDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), High Density Residential (HDR) and Mixed Use (MU) zones. While these zones would not have the capability to provide for animal keeping when developed to maximum densities, many areas of the County are still undeveloped or only partially developed and present opportunities for animal keeping on an interim basis. The new provision has been written to allow animal keeping pursuant to the standards set forth under Section 24-158, only when parcels are 1-acre in size or greater (the minimum parcel size allowed for the keeping of animals). The new standards would also apply a 50- foot setback for any corral or animal containment structure to any dwelling either on or off-site in order to protect compatibility with residential uses. The animal density requirements set forth under Section 24-158 are designed to minimize environmental impacts to surrounding properties. These interim agricultural uses do not detract from the ability to accommodate future development in accordance with zoning and require no permanent improvements. They do, however, provide for a productive use of the land while it remains in an undeveloped state. 10) Article 25. Supplemental Use Regulations. Section 24-162. Home Occupations. limitation on use and storage of hazardous materials in conjunction with home occupations (home businesses). The current Zoning Ordinance does not provide clear language concerning the use and storage of hazardous, flammable, combustible, or explosive materials in conjunction with a Home Occupation. The new language indicates that the storage and use of such materials is prohibited in conjunction with a Home Occupatio.n, unless they are incidental Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 10 of 15 10 171 to the residential use of the property. This new provision provides for greater regulation of hazardous materials in conjunction with Home Occupation and therefore has a minimal environmental impact. 11) Article 41. Lot Line Adjustments. Section 24-302.B. Findings. Amendments concerning lot line adjustments to ensure that a lot line adjustment does not allow for the creation of additional parcels at the expense of creating a non-conforming parcel. Article 41. of the Zoning Ordinance provides exceptions for minimum setbacks and parcel sizes to address issues related to property lines and the placement of new lot lines proposed under a lot line adjustment. This section provides that existing parcels may be reduced below the minimum parcel size in the applicable zone through a lot line adjustment in certain limited circumstances. The new provision will ensure that proposed lot line adjustments will not allow for the reduction of an existing parcel below the minimum parcel size imposed by the zone if the lands that are being conveyed from the parcel to another parcel results in the ability to subdivide. The new provision is intended to prevent the creation of substandard parcels so that other parcels may be subdivided. As such, it is reducing overall development potential and environmental impacts. 12} Article 42. Glossary. Amendments to the definition of "Family" to remove the limitation of six or fewer individuals in compliance with the Housing Element of the Butte County General Plan. General Plan Housing Element Action Program H-A5.2 (adopted by the Board on August 26, 2014) requires the Zoning Ordinance to be amended to define "family" to include groups of residents living together as a household unit, and residents of group homes, community care facilities, emergency or transitional housing, residentialcare facilities, or other special needs housing and to remove the requirement of six or fewer persons. This new provision is intended to comply with H-A5.2 and thus implement the Butte County General Plan. The provision would not enable any additional development that is not already contemplated under the General Plan. 13} Other amendments of a minor nature relating to corrections and clarifications. Article 26. Telecommunication Facilities. Section 24-183 C. 1. Monopoles or Towers, removing redundant statement concerning height limitations; revised definition under Article 47. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 11 of 15 11 172 Glossary. Parks and Recreation Facilities, to allow non-profit organizations to operate parks and recreation facilities; and revised cross-reference for the definition of Slaughterhouse (from Intensive Animal Operation to Animal Processing). The amendment to Section 24-183 C. 1. is intended to clarify language pertaining to height requirements for telecommunication facilities. The Parks and Recreation facilities definition is being amended to clarify that non-profit organizations may operate parks and recreation facilities and is not limited to being operated only by a homeowner's associations or special district. The Slaughterhouse definition is being provided With a correct cross reference from Intensive Animal Operation to Animal Processing. These amendment can be characterized as minor edits to the Zoning Ordinance that are corrective in nature and present no environmental impact. 3. Chapter 35 Protection of Agricultural Land (Right-to-Farm Ordinance) Amendment (Attachment C and Exhibit A) The amendment (implements new Policy AG-P5.3.1 as described above by extending the protections afforded by the Right-to-Farm ordinance to interim agricultural uses in residential, commercial, and industrial zones. The Butte County Right-to-Farm ordinance provides that no agricultural operation (or interim agricultural use per the amendment) conducted or maintained on agricultural land in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the county, shall be or become a nuisance for purposes of county regulations if it was not a nuisance when it began, provided that such operation complies with the requirements of all applicable federal, state, and county statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, approvals and permits. The provisions of this section does not apply where a nuisance results from the negligent or improper management or operation of an agricultural operation. Where nonagricultural land uses, particularly residential and commercial development, extend onto agricultural land or exist side by side with agricultural operations, agricultural operations are frequently the subject of nuisance complaints. As a result, some agricultural operations are forced to cease or curtail their operations and many others are discouraged from making investments in improvements to their operations, all to the detriment of adjacent agricultural uses and the economic viability of the county's agricultural industry as a whole. It is the purpose and intent of the Right-to-Farm ordinance to reduce the loss to the County of its agricultural resources by Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 12 of 15 12 173 limiting the circumstances under which properly conducted agricultural operations on agricultural land may be considered a nuisance. It is the further purpose and intent of the Right-to-Farm ordinance to promote a good-neighbor policy by requiring notification of owners, purchasers, residents, and users of property adjacent to or near agricultural operations on agricultural land, of the inherent potential problems associated with being located near such operations, including, without limitation, noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery during any time of day or night, storage and disposal of manure, and ground or aerial application of fertilizers, soil amendments, seeds and pesticides. It is intended that, through mandatory disclosures, owners, purchasers, residents and users will better understand the impact of living or working near agricultural operations and be prepared to accept attendant conditions from properly conducted agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector. Amendments to the right-to-farm statement have been determined to not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 (c) (2) as the activity does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by a public agency, and additionally the activity has been determined to be exempt from CEQA under Guidelines Section 15061 (b) {3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review An EIR Addendum (Attachment D) was prepared and is recommended for approval for the proposed project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines. This document serves as an addendum to the previously certified General Plan Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2008092062) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (GPA and Zoning Ordinance EIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2012022059) for the Butte County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. As demonstrated in the environmental analysis provided in Section 3.0 (Environmental Analysis) of the attached EIR Addendum, the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendments do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. An addendum is appropriate here because, as explained in Section 3.0, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 13 of 15 13 174 Tribal Consultation Invitations to consult on the proposed General Plan Amendment were provided to local Butte County tribes as listed by the Native American Heritage Commission in accordance with California Government Code § 65352.3. Applicable tribes were provided a letter and a description of the proposed General Plan Amendment. As a result of this invitation no further comment or request for additional consultation was received concerning the General Plan Amendment. Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 14 of 15 14 175 Ill. NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Amendments to Chapter 35 will be provided to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at a public hearing tentatively scheduled for December 9, 2014. The public is encouraged to attend this hearing and provide comment to the Board. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Principal Planner Dan Breedon at 538-7629 or Tim Snellings at 538-6821. Sincerely, Tim Snellings, Director Butte County Department of Development Services ATTACHMENTS: Attached to this Agenda Report: A. Resolution-General Plan Amendment Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment B. Resolution -Zoning Ordinance Amendment Exhibit A: Zoning Ordinance Amendments C. Resolution -Chapter 35. Protection of Agricultural Land Exhibit A: Chapter 35. Protection of Agricultural Land Amendments D. EIR Addendum for General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Amendments Provided separately to the Planning Commission: 1. Butte County General Plan, November 6, 2012 2. Butte County Zoning Ordinance, November 6, 2012 3. Draft Supplemental EIR, May 31, 2012 4. Final Supplemental EIR, September 13, 2012 Butte County Department of Development Services October 20, 2014 Page 15 of 15 15 176 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION -GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 16 177 Resolution. No. A RESOLUTION OF THE SUITE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO SUITE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 2030 WHEREAS, the Butte County General Plan 2030 (GP 2030} Update process was initiated by action of the Board of Supervisors, including the adoption of Resolution 06-085 on May 23, 2006, which created the Butte County General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and set in motion a process of holding public workshops and meetings regarding the County's GP 2030 Update; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the GP 2030 Update was to set policy guidelines for future conservation and development in the County and to address changed conditions since the last revision of the General Plan, which took place for various elements from 1971 to 1995. General Plan 2030 is a comprehensive, long- term general plan for Butte County and establishes an overall framework and set of land use planning goals for the unincorporated area of the County. GP 2030 has a 20-year planning horizon; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010 Butte County adopted a new General Plan under County Resolution 10- 152, including a new General Plan Land Use Map and Certified a Final EIR pursuant to CEQA under County Resolution 10-150; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 2012 the Planning Commission made recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and on November 6, 2012 the Board of Supervisors amended the General Plan under County Resolution 12-124 and Certified a Supplemental Final EIR under County Resolution 12-123; and, WHEREAS, General Plan 2030 is intended to be a living, dynamic and comprehensive document; and, WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the Butte County Board of Supervisors directed that staff prepare a General Plan Amendment to the Agriculture Element of the Butte County General Plan pertaining to Policy AG- P5.3; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment will result in consistency between Butte County's zoning ordinance (in accordance with California Government Code Section 65860} and the Butte County General Plan; and, WHEREAS, comments and participation concerning the General Plan Amendment were sought from County residents, California Native American Indian Tribes pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3, as well as public agencies, and community groups; and, 17 178 WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment was referred to the Butte Local Agency Formation Commission, the Butte County Association of Governments, the Butte County Air Quality Management District, local cities, and a number of other public agencies; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment on October 20, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR, on September 9, 2010 and the FSEIR on September 27, 2012, described above, administrative" record, staff reports, and all oral and written testimony presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the County complied with the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178.1 (CEQA) in approving the FSEIR; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR (SCH #2008092062) was certified on October 26, 2010 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Resolution 10-150) and the Supplemental EIR (SCH #2012022059) was certified on November 6, 2012 (Resolution 12-123); and, WHEREAS, the County has determined that the proposed amendments to the General Plan Amendment does not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to the General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR has therefore been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the proposed General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Addendum provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that support's the County's determination that the proposed amendment to the Agriculture Element of the Butte County General Plan does not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 including: 1) The proposed General Plan Amendment would not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact from the General Plan EIR or Supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][1]) that would require major revisions to either EIR. All impacts would be nearly equivalent to the impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR. Relatedly, the General Plan Amendment is not inconsistent with any of the General Plan policies intended to mitigate environmental impacts. 2) The proposed General Plan Amendment is programmatic in nature and does not include changes in physical circumstances that would cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, and there have been no other changes in the circumstances that meet this criterion. 3) As documented in Section 3.0 of the Addendum, there is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the General Plan adoption in October 2010, or General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance adoption in November 2012), that identifies: a new significant impact 18 179 (condition "A" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (condition "B" CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the General Plan; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment (conditions "C" and "D" CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Board of Supervisors the following findings: 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the General Plan Amendment, DEIR, FEIR, DSEIR and FSEIR was given as required by law and the actions were conducted in accordance with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. An Addendum was prepared that provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that support's the County's determination that the proposed General Plan Amendment does not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 3. All individuals, groups and agencies desiring to comment were given adequate opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the General Plan Amendments and the environmental review documents. These opportunities for comment meet or exceed the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA. 4. The Planning Commission was presented with all of the information described in the recitals and has considered this information in adopting this resolution. 5. The proposed Adoption of the General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plan as provided by Government Code Section 65860. 6. The proposed Adoption of the General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the General Plan. 7. The proposed Adoption of the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the County. 19 180 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Butte County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Butte County Board of Supervisors the adoption of the General Plan Amendment set forth under Exhibit A. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AITEST: Tim Snellings, Secretary Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California Chuck Nelson, Chair Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California 20 181 EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 21 182 Butte County General Plan Agriculture Element Amendment The following shows amendments to policies located in the Agricultural Element of the Butte County General Plan in strikeout and underline text: AG-P5.3 The Zoning Ordinance shall require that a buffer be established on property proposed for residential development in order to protect e>dting agricultural uses lands designated Agriculture by the General Plan and zoned Agriculture under the Zoning Ordinance from incompatible use conflicts. The desired standard shall be 300 feet, but may be adjusted to address unusual circumstances.* AG-P5.3.1 The Zoning Ordinance shall allow agriculture as an interim uses in all non-agriculture zones. The Butte County Right-to-Farm Ordinance (Butte County Code Chapter 35) shall be amended to recognize that, while not exclusively devoted to agriculture, Residential, Commercial and Industrial zones may support agriculture as an interim use prior to development. AG-P5.3.2 The Zoning Ordinance shall require a minimum 25 foot setback between new residences and preexisting active orchard and vineyard operations on adjacent parcels in residential zones. This setback shall be imposed on the developing parcel by the Zoning Administrator in consultation with the Agriculture Commissioner and may be larger than 25 feet but shall not limit the allowed residential density and intensity permitted by the residential zone. *This General Plan policy is required as means to mitigate environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These policies all use the imperative "shall," and in all cases are mandatory. 22 183 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION -ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 23 184 Resolution No. PC A RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (BUTTE COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 24) WHEREAS, the Butte County General Plan 2030 (GP 2030) Update process was initiated by action of the Board of Supervisors, including the adoption of Resolution 06-085 on May 23, 2006, which created the Butte County General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee and set in motion a process of holding public workshops and meetings regarding the County's GP 2030 Update; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2010 Butte County adopted a new General Plan, including a new General Plan Land Use Map; and, WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of the new General Plan, Butte County embarked on a comprehensive update to the Butte County Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance Update"), being a part of the overall Butte County General Plan 2030 project directed by the Board of Supervisors also referred to as "Meeting Series #8", which involves a comprehensive update to the existing Butte County Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, on September 27, 2012 the Planning Commission made recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and on November 6, 2012 the Board of Supervisors adopted the Zoning Ordinance Update under Ordinance #4050, and Certified a Supplemental Final EIR under County Resolution 12-123; and, WHEREAS, additional modifications, corrections, and clean-ups to the Zoning Ordinance were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 10, 2013; and, WHEREAS, additional modifications, corrections, and clean-ups to the Zoning Ordinance have since been identified and are set forth as amendments to the Zoning Ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance Amendment")under Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on October 20, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission reviewed and considered the information in the FSEIR described above, FSEIR administrative record, staff reports, and all oral and written testimony presented to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the County complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178.1 (CEQA) in approving the FSEIR; and, Page 1 of 4 24 185 WHEREAS, the General Plan EIR (SCH #2008092062) was certified on October 26, 2010 by the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Resolution 10-150) and the Supplemental EIR (SCH #2012022059) was certified on November 6, 2012 (Resolution 12-123); and, WHEREAS, the County has determined that the proposed amendments to the Zoning 0 rd in an ce do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to the General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR has therefore been prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments; and WHEREAS, the Addendum provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that support's the County's determination that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Map do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 including: 1) The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact from the General Plan EIR or Supplemental EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][1]) that would require major revisions to either EIR. All impacts' would be nearly equivalent to the impacts previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Supplemental EIR. Relatedly, the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are not inconsistent with any of the General Plan policies intended to mitigate environmental impacts. 2) The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Map are programmatic in nature and are not changes in physical circumstances that would cause a new significant impact or substantially increase the severity of a previously identified significant impact, and there have been no other changes in the circumstances that meet this criterion. 3) As documented in Section 3.0 of the Addendum, there is no new information of substantial importance (which was not known or could not have been known at the time of the General Plan adoption in October 2010, or General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance adoption in November 2012), that identifies: a new significant impact (condition "A" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact (condition "B" C:EQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]); mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible that would now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the General Plan; or mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the General Plan EIR which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment (conditions "C" and "D" CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[a][3]). Page 2 of 4 25 186 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Board of Supervisors the following findings: 1. Notice of the Planning Commission hearing on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, DSEIR and FSEIR was given as required by law and the actions were conducted in accordance with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. An Addendum was prepared that provides analysis and cites substantial evidence that support's the County's determination that the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance do not meet the criteria for preparing a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 3. All individuals, groups and agencies desiring to comment were given adequate opportunity to submit oral and written comments on the Zoning Ordinance Amendments and the environmental review documents. These opportunities for comment meet or exceed the requirements ofthe Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA. 4. The Planning Commission was presented with all of the information described in the recitals and has considered this information in adopting this resolution. 5. The proposed Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments are consistent and compatible with the General Plan and any applicable community or specific plan as provided by Government Code Section 65860. 6. The proposed Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The proposed Adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments is in the public interest, and protects the health, safety, and welfare of the County. Page 3 of 4 26 187 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Butte County Planning Commission hereby recommends to the Butte County Board of Supervisors the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments set forth under Exhibit A. DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of October, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Tim Snellings, Secretary Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California Chuck Nelson, Chair Planning Commission County of Butte, State of California Page 4 of 4 27 188 Deerpoint Group, Inc. Summary of Water Quality & Treatment Recommendations For Peterson Ranch Pete's House:, Domestic & Landscape May 16,2013 189 Deerpoint Group Summary For Peterson Ranch-Pete's House Incoming Water Quality Results • Peterson Ranch collected well water samples from Pete's house. One sample was collected from the Domestic well and one sample was collected from the Landscape well. The samples were collected to get a baseline of the water quality at both sources. • The Domestic well had moderately high total hardness and bicarbonate alkalinity with a moderate pH. The silica level was somewhat high. The nitrate level is high. The Total Bacteria Count was 68, and did not show evidence for slime-forming bacteria. · • The Landscape well had extremely high total hardness and high bicarbonate alkalinity with a low pH. The silica level was somewhat high. The nitrate level is high. The Total Bacteria Count was 19, and did not show evidence for slime-forming bacteria. (Well) Carbonate Alkalinity (ppm as CaC03) 0 pH 7.1 6.8 Calcium (ppm as Ca) 41.9 76.9 Magnesium (ppm as Mg) 28.1 54.8 Sodium (ppm as Na) 15.3 (ppm as Fe) 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.08 75.3 1.42 1.78 21.5 43 190 Deerpoint Group, Inc. Summary of Water Quality & Treatment Recommendations For Peterson Ranch Pete's House: Landscape July 22, 2013 191 Deerpoint Group Summary For Peterson Ranch-Pete's House Incoming Water Quality Results • We collected one sample fi•om the Landscape well at the pump, one sample from the hose bib outside the rose garden; one sample from the hose bib inside rose garden, and one sample from the hose end. • The Landscape well had very high total hardness and high bicarbonate alkalinity with a relatively low pH. The silica level was somewhat high. The nitrate level was high. The Total Bacteria Count was Too Numerous To Count, and did not show evidence for slime-forming bacteria. • The hose bib outside and inside the rose garden was very similar to the incoming landscape water. The Total Bacteria Count of the hose bib inside the rose garden was 1 colony/mi., and did not show evidence ·for slime-fonning bacteria. • The hose end flush collected at the rose garden contained solids, so the sample was filtered. The solids and the filtered water were analyzed separately. The hose end flush filtered water was similar to the incoming well water with a few exceptions. There was some carbonate alkalinity present and the pH increased slightly. The very small amount of light brown solids in the hose end flush was composed of iron/aluminum silicates and a small amount of biological material. • The results are summarized in the table on page 2. 192 Date: 7/17/13 7/17/13 7/17/13 7/17/13 Sample I.D. Landscape Hose Bib-Hose Bib-Roses (Well) Outside Roses Inside Roses (Hose End) Total Hardness (ppm as CaC03) 349 350 370 358 Bicarbonate Alkalinity (ppm as CaC03) 234 236 246 238 Carbonate Alkalinity (ppm as CaC03) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 pH 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.4 Calcium {ppm as Ca) 63.5 63.5 67.1 65.6 , Magnesium (ppm as Mg) 46.2 46.3 49.1 47.1 Sodium (ppm as Na) 20.7 20.6 21.1 20.4 Iron (ppm as Fe) 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 Manganese (ppm as Mn) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Boron (ppm as B) 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.11 Silica (ppm as Si02) 77.3 75.8 75.5 75.3 Phosphate (ppm as P04) 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.31 Potassium (ppm as K) 1.54 1.58 1.64 1.71 Sulfate (ppm as S04) 48.0 48.0 51.6 48.3 Chloride {ppm as Cl) 54.2 39.4 41.4 42.4 Nitrate (ppm as N03) 53.1 44.3 45.0 48.6 EC (J.tS/cm) 713 716 754 712 TDS (mg/L) 456 458 483 456 Total Bacteria Count (colonies/mi.) TNTC TNTC 1 TNTC ~-.. . --·· 1NTC means Too Numerous To Count (>300 colomes/ml.) 193 BILL TO ,> ._ 563 EAST LINDO AVENUE /tl'tn .. ,,... . JJ 'iP/. CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 .A ~L"~~~~L PHONE (530) 343-5818 Ijibodltorg, I~tc. · PETER D PETERSON 33;:-~2 BELL. ROAD CHICO, CA ':35973 A. 1 c. 17 COPY TO SAME TOTAL COL.IFORM/E.coli NITRJ!:.lTE COMMENTS (INVOICE) 0. !Zt0 194 A(O!lad:/i r .. . Ijjbomtorg, '171_c. 563 East Lindo Avenue • Chico, CA 95926 Sampling Point~~ L .· &ft.L , Phone County 1) Date 7f7g 7o / vi' vrnr k ' relf.l--eJ!"'I'..f ~" f\J k' • Collected By P.QP, Ho4 Collected <.?'1 \ .--0~ S L) ~~OArl Copy or Fax To: (530) 343·5818 Analysis Method Water Source Type of Sample ~0Control Laboratory Remarks ,[a"colitorm ~Colilert )1 Drinking Water 0 Routine 0 Repeat Temp oc 0 Leaked In Transit J:J. Fecal 0 Colisure 0 RawSurface DExtra 0 Raw LT 0 Insufficient Sample Coliform 0 Laury! Water Routine BG 0 Date Called 0 HPC Tryptose 0 Sewage 0 Replacement EC 0 Date Faxed RESULTS (To Be Filled In By Laboratory Only) Tube Number Or Portions .eo Coliform/100 mL Coliform MPN/100 mL Proportions In mL (Logs) L:ur 10 10 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .. ~;resence Results: Date Time Analyst Hours Absence Presumptive 24 E. coli/Fecal/100 mL E. coli/Fecal 48 0 Presence MPN/100 mL Confirmed 7/Jh 1Z 1.{6 <f.-24 0 Absence - 48 Lab# HPC/CFU/mL CI,Res. \~Z:ifJtfb at 35 oc mg/liter 24,2 48-2 Fecal/E. coli 24 Setup: 24-2 ?jq /2_~o 2p 48 195 PETE:h: L). 1:;b n;;:r?.~::i0!\1 333;;: UEi. .. l ... H0/\0 C:i·I!CO, CA 9!'H~T}· i.TllmN?Of./1 p;)p• S<iltn(.iN.' [v·iatrix: u~.1Uid r~<.;uwve:d: O?!I'HN'J.(l(}'i 1; ; T ot;;.J! c::olifr;.;Tn F!.li~~:;ult IAE:~f.·3'E:l>.J(;E .A!:!ti!.Ji.\\~.P.~t:~!ttt;.\\l!R ... ~"~!\1'ff.\t~.(\rir~ ... rr:!l;~.r .. :;5~.i~HU!Jl/I;~.~:!:;:_ .. :E . .!!P.;;t§».:~f~;l .......... . C:i\S !VkKhod Cc.iii(·Ht. SM O:I.2;5El ..... E:;(:rg;f(~!l.'ttJ;.~t~.ft~~~ ... ~·~n:!L~~;;:.if!Jtri.~Jl.J:!l.1i::L :~ .. \t~;t.1~:'.f::.;\t. . ................................................ . .\ntth: Derivr~d in L<~b From · ·U!i lviL, \...._...~3 EAST LINDO AVENUE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 PHONE (530) 343-5818 Un!t l,,'d Ci 0 rn i.. J\~-~''llvn•d CU.I'!Ci/200\ .................... (\J.L~i!.!f~.U.illbL.l!~~.f4.~\.~!l!J:M!r.!llD.~t'!.: ... !l:~J!.!!~ ... ~JIJ!~i:: .. ~:~~~~;.:;:li .. ~~.tl~it.r! .. !;;;:§:~ttrJ:fi.ll.~.I!!!!: ... ·"·!1Y;:f>il~~{t;r:. D!-:<~:>Gdptinn H;•:-1:;u!f: \halw:• Odnl:inrt Wc!l.:er ( l?•tWl\fl.i.!t:l: !Jlf'I!Jf.l.OO'R •!•!W} Di}} Vcl"ifiml: 01/'!~~l~OIH '!4:'10 DL~:l ) tFf:,o:ttlihu: }ui.tklk~: !!'! 'f;t~':i \\IlL, t'!.l\SllC, Nf~:.?::;~w;:i ~Jtmid;,wd n .21 D.~n ~·:)t;;Jndarci ~3talldard St;:-mciard Duplic;.'i\~e · ~:ipih~! 1Ulr.l ';l<i'l t 1·'.:•l), nA:·~ O,dl! 0.44 tl.BH lf .. 4 4.0 rn\}11 tnq/L. rnq/L By 11JG II 196 ~o¥Jk·~ ;II: H.'~~ rrnnt:::oo 1 R:~tJ:tl[~fflf~ fnM::II?.iitt~~.P liil.f!il' :;:;;i!Htrm~:fillrt:: ·11\lF:MiY&·.:f, ·1 Pwvr, Pi.Asnc. uv-(~p::~r:sr:::mn:n //C'!tJl)CUlt ·11 <34 fv1r\~·:) \.__ ;3 EAST LINDO AVENUE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 PHONE (530) 343-5818 HI:: ST/i..fE: <.;oroJ:3liJE:F~S f\illl~AJE: I...EVl::t...s CNEr~ 46 !\ Pi)"IT~NTfAL HEALTH Hf\ZANU. !viGiL"" MII.U(3hU\MS F1l::;t:\ I..JfEH A!\JL> i:3 !::(X.HVAJLNT ::< F>/\HT':; PI:::!~~ l1ii!i.J..JOI··J. 197 JJ{~arl:/t_ Ijjbodltorg, I./lc. (# J"i!;{!J!fll'i'fJ(t1. l;;;ff!/11-:z, !i~tf.'ll'ld~~rd Gnm~nt, Ell'.~ ifi22m::~ 1;.\:M •• ,.,,,··"'".""·~~''"'··" \),4~J I:U:lF.l "'l,i"\ ,;;,.,!, 4.4 4J] M;ii,S MAf:l )· \ ... .,.~3 EAST LINDO AVENUE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 PHONE (530) 343-5818 llAi!l Oktf~ lfiA 4·.{! \X'fi1GtliKH IJ)F!H.l/;,1;Qi,H ~nZJ,:fL i R!C\ iOO 10H t1 198 11:31! 1t3'~ Mb":i;; M/5~~;1 563 EAST LINDO AVENUE CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95926 PHONE (530) 343-5818 '-' 199 Invoice # 377221A Remit To: FGL Environmental 853 Corporation Street Santa Paula, CA 93060 Peterson Ranch P.O. E.ox 36458 Chko~ CA 9592:7 :RJ~CEIVEP NOV 1 3 2013 ~-~~~~-~-- Account # 7006008 ----Date Billed Amount Due 11/08/2013 $105.00 (C ~\~ c --Date :Oue Amount Paid __ J2~~~~13··--~----------~ To ensure that your aooount IS properly cretllted, plfHilii'l retuttl top portion with payment KMp botton\ portion 1dr your reeords. IN,70ICE ~----=--=====----=--==--=-r--~A-c=co-u = n - t ~ # = = - - ~ ~ p ~ = = ~ - = = L a - b __ N_u_m~ 7006008 10/30/2013 CH 1377221 ~oice # Date-B-ill-ed--Anlount J-)u_c..;.,........../1 Description of Work Inorganic Analysis In-igation Suitability 377221A 11108/2013 $105.00 Date Paid ·-+---Date Dtw-Amount P~ 12/08/2013 --Quantity Rate Charge 1 ,..-r,~P-~\W><~x-a~~~~~~~'1~~~~*1MWI!Ii!il \ l i l l t i f f i ' M i : # i : ~ i ! J I ~ t t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~ ~ ~ . ~ Cllrporatc Offlcos & L.nbe.ratory Offltlo & LttbOtlltory ()ftlco & Ll!borlitory Offlcn & Laborattlry Office & l-aboratory 853 Corporation Streat 2500 StagaeoMh Road !l£1~ El. Llnctc, AVIIIlUe 3442 E:mpresa Onve, Suite D 9415 W. Goshen Avenue Santa Paula, CA 93060 Stockton. CA 95215 Chico, CA 951l26 San luis Obispo, C/'. 93401 VIsalia, CA 93291 TEL: (805)392-2000 TEL (209)942-0182 TEL: (530)343-5818 TEL (ll05)783•2940 TEL: (559)734·9473 Env FAX: (805)525·4172/Ag FAX: (005)392·2063 FAX' (209)942-0423 FAX: (530)343-3807 FAX: (805)783-2912 FAX: (559)734-8435 CA NELAP Certification No. 01110CA CA ELAP Certlftcallon No. 1563 CA ELAP Certification No. 2870 CA ELAP Cartlficalion No. 2775 CA ELAP CertiftCI'ltlon No. 2810 200 November '7, 201:3 Peterson Ranch P.O.Box 3668 Chico, CA 95927 Description : Field 970 Projeet :PO# 10362 Potassium Sodium Anions Carbonate oride Minor Elements Boron Copper Iron Manganese mg/L 77 56 2 18 < 10 320 65 53 104 < 0.1 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.05 < 0.01 0.020 695 7.2 0.938 Fairly Fai 0.0 18 7.2 Meq/L 3.8 4.6 0.051 0 78 0 0 5.2 54 1.4 .14 1.5 15 1.7 17 0 0 Poor Problem Lab ID : CH 1377221~001 Customer ID · 7-6008 Sampled On Sampled By Received On Matrix Lbs/AF Good 210 ** 150 ** 5 ** 49 0 870 180 140 280 0 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.054 1900 units dS/m :October 30, 2013 : Mon.ty Millard . October 30, 2013 : Ag Water Severe Problem Or 44 oz/lOOOGal of urea Sulfunc Acid (15/49). % provide you with 'AT·A·GLANCE' interpretations. *'' Us<~d in various calculations; mg/L = Milligrams Per Liter (pprn) meq/L ""' Milliequivnlents Per Liter ~~~~t>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ltl~~~>.'ffliiJ Corporate Offices & Laboratory Offlco & Lllboratory Otflco & Laboratory Office & Laboratory Office & Labor;atory 853 Corporation Slreei 2500 Stagecoeoh Road 563 fl. LlndoAvtlhue 3442 El'lil>rcsa Drive, SUiteD 9415 W. Goshen Avenue Santa Paula, CA 930GO Stoeklon, CA 95216 Ohleo, OA 9l:i9:l6 Sah LUis Obispo, OA 9J401 Vlsallll. CA 93291 TEL: (805)392·2000 TElL: (201l)94~.f)illil iSL: (530)34il·M·ta iEL: (806)71l3·2S40 'fEL: (569)'734·9473 l:nv FAX; (80S)525-41ill/ Ag FAX: (805)392·.2063 FAX: (209)942•04213 . i=AXf (51ii0)343·3iltl7' . I"AX: (1!05)7'83·11912 PAX: (559)734·8435 CA Nt;LAP Ce~IOoatton NC), 011100A CA I£LAF> CilrtiOfl~lloh No, '1M3 OA ~LAI'l tiliiFilncstioh No, 2670 CA SLAP Certlfl<m!loh No. 2775 CA ELAP CertlnCI!tlon No. 2810 201 November 7, 2013 Peterson Ranch Test D Chemical Manganese Iron Good Note: tion Micro < 0.01 < (),05 695 7.2 260 3 52 52 5.4-6.7 Problem mg/L mg/L units Lab ID : CH 1377221-001 Customer ID : 7-6008 Description : Field 970 Graphical Results Presentation to provide you with 'AT-A-GLANCE' interpretations. Water Amendments Application Notes: The Amendments recommended on the previous pages include: Sulfuric Acid: These products should be applied as needed to prevent emitter plugging in micro irrigation systems and/or as a soil amendment to adjust soil pH to improve nutrient availability and to facilitate leaching of salts. Please exercise caution when using this material as excesses may be htnmt'ul to the system and/or the plants being irrigated. The reported Acid requirement is intended to remove approximately 80 % of the alkaHnity, The final pH should range from 5.4 to 6. 7. We l'ecommend a field pH determination to confirm that the pH you designate is being achieved, This application is based upon the use of a 98% Suli\1ric Acid product. The application ot' t.l'rea Sulftmc Acid is based upon the use of a product that contains l.S% Urea (l .S9 lbs Nttrog1~n), 49% Sulfuric Acid and has a specific: gravity of 1.52 at 68 °F. Guidelines for the above interpretations are somccd from USDA & U.C. Cooperative Extension Service publications. Please contacr us if you have any questions. FRUIT GROWERS LABORATORY, INC. SBl:KDM 202 llRR[GATJlON WA':lrER ANALYSIS TERMS Cations an~ positively charged ions and make up nearly 50% of the salts found in waters . .(\njons are nef~atively eharged ions and make up about 50% of the salts found in waters. The sum of cations and anions in meq/1 must be within:!: 10% for an allalysis to be considered valid. N!tr!ltc To convert Nitrate to Nitrogen (N) + 4.43 To convert Mg/1 to Lbs/AF N x 2.72 Minor Elements Other These clements are usually present in very small quantities in ground waters, but may be higher in surface waters and recycled waters. pH pH is an indication of the degree of actdlty or alkalinity of a water. A pH of 6.5 to 8.4 is normal for most waters. A pH level o:f7.0 Js ntlutri!.l while below 7.0 is acidic and above 7.0 ls basic or alkaline. E. C. Electrical Conductivity is a measure ofa water's capacity to O()nduct an elcotrlcal cmrtcnt. The E. C. provides an approximation of a water's mineral content. SAR Sodium Absorption Ratio. This is a calculation to determine the degree to Which a water may adversely affect soil structure and drainage. Crog Suitabili!_y The crop suitability evaluntion is derived from intbrm11tion taken from a variety of research publications and assumes the use of good irrigation management practices. Amendm~nts Leaching Requirement This is a calculation to determine the relative amount of extra watf:r that must be applied to prevent excess salts from accumulating tn the root zone of an irrigated crop. Gypsum Requirement This is a calculation to determine the amount ofpute gypsum (ot the equivalent) needed to prevent a water from adversely affecting soil structure and drainage. The chemical reaction when gypsum is added to soil is as follows: Exch. Soluble Water Leachable Water Exch. Sodium Calcium Sodium Calcium Sulfate Sulfate x = Soil Exchange Sites The addition of gypsum to soil, either directly or via irrigation water, provides a readily available source of soluble Calcium to exchange with the Sodium held on the soil exchange sites. This Sodium will combine with Sulfate to fonn a soluble Sodium-Sulfate compound which can then be leached from the root 7.:one. 203 ~mendments (conQ: Urea Sulfuric Acid Requirement This is the result of a titration that is made to show how mMh of this acid is needed to remove approximately 80% of the watet's alkal!nlty. See the foohHltc on page 1 of your water tinalysis report. The chemical reaction that takes place when Sttlfurle Acid is added to soil is as follows: Sulfuric Insoluble Soluble Acid Calcium Calcium Carbonate Sulfate The use of Urea Sulfuric Acid, rather than raw Sulfuric Acid, is recommended for safety reasons.l3e sure to read and follow all safety precautions when using any fonn of Sulfuric Act d. · The addition of the recommended amount of Sulfuric Acid to watc1· is made to lower its pH to n level that will dissolve Carbonate Salts in the soil. When Ca!ciun1-Carbonate is dissolved, soluble talcium is released and is then free to exchange with exchangeable Sodium. This Sodium will combine with Sulfate to form a soluble Sodium*Sulfate compound which then can be leached from the root zone. Micro Syst.em Plyg~ These analyses are of concern only when the water ls nppli~d vlnru.icro spttnklers; drippers or other low volume delivery s:ysteniS. Manganese and Irnn These clements tend to precipitate and tb.rm scale and/m slime that wJH cause plugging in alkaline waters. TDS by Smnmation This is a calculation that shows the sum of all the dissolved cations and anions and indicates tb<) relative degree to which scaling will occur in water having an alkaline pH. Alkalinity This is a result of a titration. Total alkalinity expressed as Calcium Carbonate is a calculation from the Carbonate and Bicarbonate alkalinity. Alkalinity may contribute to scale fonnation. Langlier Index This is a calculation based on Alkalinity, CalclUm1 pB ~nd Ttill:lf.H~rature the.t Jndioates whether a water has a tendency to be corrosive towards metals. A positive; result intlleates a t~;~ndt!ncy to promote hardness scale. A negative result indlcutt1s a too~detitly to cm:tod~ the pipe interidt. Aggressiveness Index This is a calculation based on Alkallnity, Calcium and pH that indicates whether a water has a tendency to be aggressive towards metals. A result of:<: 12.0 is nonaggressive, 10.0 ~ 11.9 is moderately aggressive and :t: 10.0 is htghly aggressive. Hardness This is a calculation that shows the sum of Calcium and Magnesiun1 expressed as Calciun1 Carbonate. Hardness may contribute to scale formation. 204 1 o f ! _,{ - ~ , ( ; \ \.. ' \ 70 0 6 0 0 8 ' ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P. O B o x 3 6 6 & Ch : c o . CA 95 9 2 7 Ph o n e (5 3 0 ) 4 7 3 - 3 3 0 0 FA X F..m a i l : ri : a r d o . n e : o @ ' ~ c o m . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Na m e : ~ o: J : : t . 1 D 3 & d- . - pe r s o n Ri: a r d o t " < e l o Bil l i n g In f o n n a t i o n (i f di f f e r e n t f r o m a: o o v e ) N~~: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ad d r e s s : P.O . Bo x 3 6 6 & C!O C o . CA 95 9 2 1 (5 3 0 ) 8 9 4 - 5 4 4 ! F A X - - - - - - - - - - - - Co n ! a c t P e r s o n . ~ = ~ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Em a i l : ka t h r e e n ! i i ? ~ - = Pu r c l l a s e or d e d co i l ! I a c t / F G L . q m O l i e l l m l W ~ L{- . < J ~ ~ £ ' \ P S Q ! :: e d : ~~ ' ! > . "'S ' " i C : t O : p r o o .,;,- : r , _ - . . : ; r ~ c tf' ~ { ;_ .'.: . ;,., . . t •: - · 1 ' ? . ; ; : : : : & •• ~:-; : h ~ ~!. _ --·~ ~ OS P : k J *-" nn 1SO t J !'. t : u , . . . x : t . C , *· ~ ~~ i a r : tA • r - 1 1 " ' i;, _ - :3. - . l ~ , : l . O i A : '' \ . X C!Cl " l ; ' ? J . ! - t ~ , : · ; I ' U A 1 l\ T f ) V I ' T T< ' ' T ' f H " a V v . Z . Z f l . . l l T V - ' . \. - - V O .1 . V L f - ' . AN D 4. N A L Y S E S RE Q U E S T FO R M Sa m p l e ! { s ) , , ._ . . . ·~ . , ~ , • - Da r e of S a m p l i l g ; _ !D ., ~ ., t -.> - . 7 {.,. ' ' J Tn r e · D< ; ; i.. / / ) Mil e a g e · r: . ~ ~ 'h J Re~ ~ : _ - y • : 4 ' / . , __ ff l l / } d! C 1 J R~ - e d - B y : ! C <r l Rd ! l , , m i s . ' ! e c ~"• ~ • l Ra. - - e ~ B} : ----. , ~ , . . , _ : - ' i ; , . . O . , . , . ; " " ' . : : . . . _ . _ _ _ t . (~ • .:t ! ~ " " b . < J > j(; " ' : . ~ b:~ & .... ~- ;u~ <.f u a . . tA . ..;. " 1 " - t " f< t l::- ~ 0 1 J.t : 3 . ~ 1 ~ X ,:;. < . ! . >:.n : ~ . Q ! t : - Subject to surchargj:: QN Q C re p o r t re q u i r e d . yes __ TIS s u e Mo n i ! o r i n g R c q t u r c d yes ___ _ 1... : 1 b Nt J m b c t · l 3 I ·7 2. Z. } La ! > l.. o c 2 t i o n : SP Pn n t N a i l l " - - - - - - - - - Pn n t N a m e · - - - - - - - · - - · - - - - Pr u n Na m e - - - - - - - - - STK VI I CH.'K cc . f: Date !O·}Plj Da t { ' io-·g;;-,·? Da l e /£ ~'Jb.·t 3 Da t e . tic h~P· ~ '""• (. \ Ttrne: tj ty.) T sne: Cj{J{) j Time / ?!)£' I Tm1e· ~/ j l ~.; ·•J! ~;.J ·l~~ .. l.·ol,rlt· ,,'iv·-0"' . .:'~1 ~·· t,: ~-'"'~.!.JIU1 205 ' .. FGL Environmental Revision Date: 01/12/11 Doc ID: "'/D090000l._SOP._5.DOC Page: 1 of 1 Chico ~ Condition Upon Receipt (Att@.ch to COC) Sample Receipl at CH: ,~ 1. Number of ice chests/packages teceived: ~ D ( 2::~-_ _ 2. Were samples received in a chilled condition? Temps: J!:?T/ __ I ___ I __ _/ __ _ Acceptable is above fTeezi.ng to 6° C. Also acceptable is received on ice (ROl) for 1he !lame day of samplillg or received at room temperature (RR T) if sampled within one hour of receipt Client contact for temperature failures must be ttactu~nenl..;;d below, If many packages are received at one time check for tests/H.T. 's/n1shes/Bacti 's to priorit:ze further review. Please notify Microbiology pers01mel immediately of bactl samples received .. 3. 4. Do the number of bottles received agree with the COC? 6) No Were samples rtceived intacc? (i.e. no broken bottles, leaks etc.) 0-v:...~.s) No 5. VOAs checked forHeadspace? ~~) No 6. Were sample custody seals intact? ~s.) No 7. If required, sample split for pH analysis in Chico Ye8~ No Sign and date the COC, place in a ziplook and put iyi)th~a~une ice ch~)St as the samples. Sample Receipt Revie\V completed by (initials): -~~L~ KIA }..fA NIA NIA Sample Receipt at SP: . L' L Were samples received in a chilled oondttio11? Temps: ~~I _;L_ I·~-· ·-· .. I~~-·-I---·· Acceptable is above freezing to 6° C. If many packages are rcceivrld at orte time check for tests/H.T.'s/rushcs/Bacti's to prioritize further revie'"· Please notifY Micmbiologypersonnel immediate!;: ofbacti samples re.::eived. ~ 2. Do the :number ofbottles received agree •,;·ith the COC? Yes No NIA 3, 4. Were samples receive:i intact? (i.e. no broken bottles, leaks etc.) Were sample custody seals intact? No Yes No Sig11 and date the COC, obtain LIJVIS sample numbers, select methods/tests and p1int labels. Sample Verilicalion, Labeling ancl Distribution: ~ 1. Were all requested analyses understood and acceptable? No 2. Did bottle labels co.nespcmd with the client's 11J's? s No 3. vVere all bottles l'equlring Sa!11Jjle pre~cevation ~)fOJ:H'Jrl:y preserved? Yes No FGL 4. VOAs ohec'k:etl for Be&dspEi.ce? Vvr''"" 1ll·'l1 .T,-.• ~.~ \''l';t..;n l1n]·'f!' "t' ''"''' "ttl''l'"' of'r,'•"''"'':,L•')r • . . ... • -,~ "" ~ ... . 1./ L.... '"" "' f, ,J.0 J..u . .t ... -..> t.t .t .. ...... ~,~,.-0...:·\.tl.! ...... Attach labels to the 0ontainers and include a copy of the COC for lab deli vex Sample Receipt, Login and Verification completed by (initials): (..4-.___::;:........... _,) ;.,c ep: l e} 1)or?.; n;B•· fD tion; r.ny Items al>o,·r:. hkh c,re "Nt:.'" or do ~'1t meet s~·c-dtic tiom (i.e. temps) nnst be re.;olvc-.;, 1. Person Contactd: lni ti<iLed B :y :--~--.. =·-.. ·---· Problem: Resoh.lticm: LIMS 2 lD F7REC005 1·, C00.:.:.1 1-lLl r tH'I../)1'1 ·I,::J nnn ' . " ~ ' .... ; ~ ' . ~ I 'l.J ,, ' ~ I .It • / . J' i ''tt.il j( .~ ,:t... ~;;. • I, t;.,,,.. '"'"' ... :h, 206 of I C!~~ ? n l Pe t e r s o n Rm J C h ( ·v s ! o m e : Nu m i , l t ' r 7iX l 6 ! ~ J X Au d r c s : ; Pi l Bo x 36 6 8 Ou c o . C A 95 9 2 7 Pho~ 1 < . . : {- " 3 0 H 7 3 - J 3 0 0 - - - - - Lm a ; i nc a r d o J1Ct o { t i · d l K ~ 0 l l ! J t ~o m Pt o j t c t Nm n t : ~ -· ~·f -~; ( J. - r ' . fA \ - - - - - - - - - - /I _,·" ' - · - ; Clm k 1 C t pt~ f S O n Rx : a r d o Ne : o r r r Hi l l i ! t i ! ln f o n m H i o n {i f d i t f c r e u r fr u m ab O \ ' { ' ) · No 1 1 l l t Ad d n . : : , s PO &> , 36 6 ! > ChJ C o . CA '1 5 9 2 7 Ph u r e (5 3 0 ) X 9 4 - 5 4 4 ! h\ . . ' \ - - - - - - - - - - - - - Co l l l a c ! Pe r s o n . Ka t l l f c e n !.a n m J C ~ ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LB l 3 . r l kat l t r e c n t ~ ; c h t e o n u t . c o m Vu r d h l ! \ e or d e r } co n t r a c t / FG L --. ; u o t c nu m b e r o: I ~ "!:1 . . ~ ' "- 'f ' ' .. ~· .< J • '\ ,, :,,. , . ~ - >·~ ' ~··; .:t. ~ . ' l~t: > , , \ . ] . b . . - : . <\ ::;. , ; ~ J : o - t . ) = < · .;~ " - ' < '\! • > ' . J . . T , m t A· r ; , ; : : - ;4- : . .:~ r ;·~: - . < i : - . : ,. : \ x ,~,, · • : . . : . : - ; : . ~ , . : : · Cf l A ! I V OF CU S T O D Y At Y D AN A L Y S E S RE Q U E S T FO R J i il i i i , 2 i l l l i i i i i t • i San-~ ; ! e ; ( s ) _; _ _ _ : _ . -' - - - - r - - · - ' · · - - · - - · - - - - - - - · - - \til)Jt.'t'"t tn ~urchaq;c - - · · · · - - - - - - - ' _ 0. \! , J ( n.: ; » : m rc q u r ~ d · ... '::. 1 •• ~ . l ) { l,) a t e n: Sa m p l i n g _ - - - - - - - - - · - "- : Ts s u : ! l\- 1 . o n n o n n ~ R,w ~ ~ u t r { ; " d :v~s j Lo h \iu m h c r .) ·; } 2. z ft n c L ;;~·'i . . : . ' .. - Mii e J g c L~h Lo c a l > . } ! \ ~!' " !'K \'l I'll';( i. c j -\; - ; A L \ . S E S ~~ ! i l l = - I ~~~ 11 'll,-~ 1 ~ , ~ 1 : . . : . : : : = ; . . : 1 : : : . . : : : : ; . . : 1 ~ 1~1! -r-!1 11 r:![! SA M P L E IN F O .!2 a. -:! - .~· :i (! ! I ' ! l I' I I ~; ~ "":': - d l 1 ! t.:. ~~- _ n 1 · 1 1 · - 1 l 1· I 1 y - ,g ;; ·-: j! I i i l l l I I '::: ' · "' '!. ' T .· . ,, .. ~ ~ '" .. ~ ;;; ~ ~ 'J.' {~' " "' -·' 4',; 7'1 , -, 2 .., . ~ '• ' ~~ '~i'il I I ' ' l I ,. I l! l c.c ~-<~ ,. 1 I 1 *'~ ~~!I ~ 'I" I ~ ' ! .•• -- c - 'l "' - I ;, ! I ~~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~~- ~ 1i ! I 1- P : ~ : ~ ~~ ~ lr I! I ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I • · .. · ,.., . ·-· ·-J~<t : '" r - ... ,. "' . ... . -~~ t·tl~ ~-~l; ll -, .:. ~-~ ~ ~ ;:- II I l l l I I I \ I 1_ 1 _ 1 _ -~ .,., " 1>-1-:::i m ::: 5 "'" 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 W-1 1 llillill j l t 1 j J ]L _ L J ... I I I I l l I i Rd~n . , u r : l - . ~ " - f / ~ :.~ . ..} 1 ' J ?t? .... -: - ~ y.-s ... ~ ~ "-:: Y : ; : ' - : . . _ , . . - ~ - - . . . - ~ - · ! 1 · - - Rect : ~ ~ ~ By: _ ~ _ £ ; { "f~ ::- - ~ -·~~--- Rc ! J n . ; r n : ; h c d Bv _ _ _ _ _ R. x c n c d By - · - - - - - - , 11l 4 " - · & : : . . t ~ ~ ~ .j : ; ct: > , ~ l 4 u : : ~ ; , l :U< ~ > -t " , ... . . .z.~. l., S :·~ f . · ; ,_ ; L . ; . ' c c ; ; h\ A • .;; , . ;.; : . . ~ : !'n n t Na n : - c Pn n r !'\ a t T h : Pn r n Na n x ;; n n t '\; 3 ~ . · ~~~_ \ - , " " . . '.l.l ' l o . ~ : . l ! , . , . . , :;; 2 :r,~ . ~ >.1 ... ~· ~<' .. >• l < ' : . : ; w v \ •\ •: : : • .; ,) ( _ . , ' ' • " ' : ; · , · ;..· .. . -.. ;• ; : · _ . , . , , -r {)at~ ~-}.lh: J.J'J:te L)'.:n~· Tunc Tr.n:. Time lifl!t' ... 207 17326797.10001 ( SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN UPDATE CHICO URBAN AREA NITRATE COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FINAL Prepared for: Butte County Department of Public Health Division of Environmental Health Prepared by: URS URS Corporation 1550 Humboldt Road, Suite 2 Chico, California 95928 February 2014 208 Sampling and Analysis Plan Update Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Program Butte County, California TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Report Organization ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Regulatory Actions .......................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Previous Investigations .................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Connection of Existing Properties to Public Sewer ...................................................... 1-19 1.6 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................ 1-17 2.0 FIELD SAMPLING PLAN ........................................................................................................ l-1 3.0 DECONTAMINATION PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 3-1 4.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN ........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Data Quality Objectives ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Data Quality Objective Process ......................................................................... .4-1 4.1.2 Statistical Parameter Indicators .......................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Analytical Data Requirements ......................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Sample Collection and Quality Control... ........................................................................ 4-6 4.3.1 Sampling Design ................................................................................................. 4-7 4.3.2 Sample Collection Requirements ...................................................................... .4-7 4.3.3 Field Data and Sample Collection Procedures .................................................. .4-8 4.4 Chain-of-Custody Procedures .......................................................................................... 4-9 4.4.1 Field Procedures for Custody Documentation ................................................. A-1 0 4.4.2 Transfer of Custody and Shipment ................................................................... 4-10 4.5 Quality Control Procedures ........................................................................................... 4-11 4.5.1 QC Checks ........................................................................................................ 4-11 4.5 .2 Smnple Preservation ......................................................................................... 4-13 4.6 Data Quality Managetnent ............................................................................................. 4-13 4.6.1 Data Handling Systems ..................................................................................... 4-13 4.6.2 Data Validation ................................................................................................. 4-14 4.6.3 Data Reporting .................................................................................................. 4-15 4.6.4 Data Reporting Package Archiving and Retrieval ............................................ 4-15 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Standard Operating Procedures and Field Forms H:\Wprocess\Butte County\Nitrate SAP Update\Final\Text.doc URS Corporation 209 Sampling and Analysis Plan Update Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Program Butte County, California LIST OF TABLES 1 Groundwater Analytical Results ................................................................................................... 1~5 2 Proximity of Wells to Sewer Connection and Well Sampling Rationale ..................................... 2~3 3 Data Quality Objectives ................................................................................................................ 4~2 4 Reporting Limits and Analytical Data Quality Objectives for Groundwater Analyses .............. .4~3 5 Sample Collection Requirements ................................................................................................. 4~7 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Site Details Map ........................................................................................................................... 1 ~3 2 1993 Nitrate as N Data and Groundwater Elevation .................................................................. 1 ~ 19 3 2012 Nitrate as N Data and Groundwater Elevation .................................................................. 1~21 4 Wells Proposed for the 2014 Sampling Event.. ...................................................................... ; ...... 2~5 H:\Wprocess\Butte County\Nitrate SAP Update\Final\Text.doc ii URS Corporation 210 Sampling and Analysis Plan Update Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Program Butte County, California Table 1 (Continued) Nitrate as Total Fecal Sample Ammonium-N Nitrate as N N03 Coliform Coliform Location Date (ppm) (me:/L) d tsN Jm_g/L~ _{#/100mL) (#/lOOmL) 6/28/2004 -4.18 -19.00 12.0 - 9/9/2004 -1.20 -26.00 3.6 - 12/15/2004 -5.46 -24.57 34.0 - 9/5/2007 -42.90 -190.00 <1.1 <1.1 MW-22 12/4/2007 -4.95 -21.90 16.1 2.2 3/18/2008 -7.0017.07 -31.00/31.30 5.1/2.2 <1.1/<1.1 8/14/2009 -7.18 -31.8 1.1 <1.1 6/13/2012 -6.14 -27.2 80 17 2/6/2013 -8.7 -38.51 <2 <2 6/28/2004 -3.96 -18.00 <1.1 - 9/9/2004 -DRY -DRY DRY - 12/14/2004 -10.4 -46.80 2.0 - 9/1112007 -DRY -DRY DRY - MW-23 12/4/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - 3/18/2008 -15.37698 -68.10 <1.1 <1.1 8/5/2009 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY 6/1112012 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY 2/2013 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY 6/28/2004 -6.82 -21.00 23.0 - 9/7/2004 -DRY -DRY DRY - 12/14/2004 -6.09 -27.41 74.0 - 9/5/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - MW-24 12/4/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - 3/18/2008 -7.11 -31.50 <1.1 <1.1 8/4/2009 Insufficient Water To Sample 6/11/2012 Insufficient Water To Sample 2/2013 Insufficient Water To Sample 6/28/2004 -10 -45.00 5.1 - 9/7/2004 -11 -50.00 <1.1 - 12/14/2004 -17.3 -77.85 411.0 - 9/11/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - MW-25 12/4/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - 3/18/2008 -16.79 -74.40 3.6 <1.1 8/4/2009 Insufficient Water To Sample 6/11/2012 -20.8 -92.08 80 <2 2/5/2013 -36.0 -159.36 <2 <2 6/28/2004 -33 -150.00 >23 - 9/9/2004 -17.38 -79.00 16.1 - 12/13/2004 -20.7 -93.15 1.1 - 9/5/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - MW-26 12/4/2007 -DRY -DRY DRY - 3/18/2008 -23.93 -106.00 1.1 <1.1 8/4/2009 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY 6/12/2012 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY 2/2013 -DRY -DRY DRY DRY H:\Wprocess\Butte County\Nitrate SAP Update\Final\Text.doc 1-15 URS Corporation 211 Sampling and Analysis Plan Update Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Program Butte County, California In response to data gaps identified in the CUANCP in 2001, eight additional groundwater monitoring wells (MW-21 through MW-28) were installed in June 2004 and monitored until2005. Between 2007 1.5 Connection of Existing Properties to Public Sewer In response to RWQCB's Prohibition Order No. 90-126, the County of Butte, City of Chico, and the former Chico Redevelopment Agency are in the process of constructing new public sewer facilities to which citizens can connect in order to comply with the Prohibition Order. Project planning costs have been funded with County Service Area (CSA) 114 revenue dedicated to this project. The costs of sewer pipeline construction will be funded with a $38 million loan from SWRCB, which will be repaid with tax increment revenue received by the Chico Redevelopment Agency. Further information regarding the CUANCP is available online at http://www.nitratecompliance.org. A sewer expansion project is under construction within CSA 114, with priority given to areas with the highest density of individual septic systems per acre. Six sewer pipeline project areas were established as part ofCSA 114 (see Figure 1). Construction started in 2009, and as of January 2014, three of six sewer project areas are complete: • Project Area IN-Lassen Avenue Area • Project Area 1 S-Chapman-Mulburry Neighborhood Area • Project Area 2N-East A venue/Cohasset Road Area Completion of the remaining three sewer construction project areas is expected by 2017 (Butte County, 2012). A County-maintained database that consists of a compilation of septic tank destruction tracking systems for locations within CSA 1 14 indicates that since the program began, 1,288 septic tank destructions have occurred to date (CSA 114, 2013). Destruction of individual septic tanks along with connections to new public sewer is expected to decrease potential septic waste loading to groundwater over time. 1.6 Hydrogeology In the Chico area, the regional groundwater system is composed of three principal water bearing zones or aquifers within alluvial sediments. The SZA or "upper aquifer" is an unconfined system occurring at depths ranging from 10 to 50 feet below ground surface (bgs ), and is composed of alluvial gravels of late Pleistocene and Recent ages (Olmsted and Davis, 1961). Most ofthe monitoring wells in the CUA are screened within the SZA. Groundwater monitoring wells that were sampled during 1993 (before the CUA) and in 2012 (subsequent to implantation of CUA) are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The monitoring wells are represented on each figure as either yellow, orange, or red dots. The color of each well (dot on the figure) represents the range of nitrate as N concentration detected in the sample collected from that well in 1993 (Figure 2) and 2012 (Figure 3). The concentration data suggests a general , decrease in concentration for nitrate as N at three wells located in the northeast and east portions of Chico, but concentrations are increasing toward the west. Recharge to the SZA is from direct precipitation and local recharge from Big Chico Creek, Little Chico Creek, and the Lindo Channel. Groundwater flow in the SZA is generally to the west or southwest as shown on Figures 2 and 3. H:\Wprocess\Butte County\Nitrate SAP Update\Finai\Text.doc 1-17 URS Corporation 212 UR S Le g e n d Ni t r a t e Study Monitoring Wells Ni t r a t e as N Concentration MRL-10 mg/L 10 mg /L-20 mg /L >20 mg/L ·- - - --· Project Boundaries N A 1 ,600 3 ,20 Fee t Septic Tank Destroyed After 2007 Septic Tank Destroyed Prior to 2007 20 1 2 Ni t r a t e as N Da t a and Groundwater Elevation Nitrate Complia nce Program Chico, California Figure 3 213 Fred C. Davis, Chair District S, Paradise Curt Jo1iassen District 4, Richvale •Board Committee for Groundwater Nitrate Compliance Program ProJect Management John Blacklock. Chief Administrative Officer County ofButtc Starlyn Brown, Assistant Chief Admmistrativc Officer County ofButtc Eric Miller, Manager Program Resource & Development County of Butte Principal Teebn!gl Adyisors )earrey Bold, Pb.D., son. ~hell;list :Dames &. Moore; Sacramento · · Graham Fogg, Ph.D., Professor, Dept. of Land, Air&. Water Resources University of California, Davis Stewart Oakley, Ph.D., Director Environmental Laboratory DeJll Of Civil Engineering California State University, Chico Dennis Rolston, Pb.D_.1.Profcssor, Dept. Of Land, Air & water Resources University of California, Davis Regulatorv OVersight James Pedrl, P.E. Assistant Executive Officer Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Redding Ronald Dyk.straJ.P.E. Associate WRC ::;taffEnginccr Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Redding In Response to Order No. 90-126 and Order No. 95-024 of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CHICO URBAN AREA NITRATE COMPLIANCE PLAN (Program Report & Proposed · Implementation Plan for Groundwater Nitrate Compliance in the Chico Urban Area) A Summary of the Technical Analyses, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Chico Urban Area Groundwater Nitrate Compliance Program. 2000 214 '• ) •' ABSTRACT The Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (Plan) was prepared in response to the contamination of groundwater in the Chico Urban Area by nitrate, a form of nitrogen, and the subsequent issuance of Prohibition Order No. 90-126.adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on April 27, 1990. This prohibition order affects approximately 30,000 residents on 10,000 parcels, and represents nearly 12,000 dwelling units. The source of nitrate contamination to the shallow aquifer beneath the Chico Urban Area is from the use by residents of on-site septic systems for wastewater disposal. Residential developments with a housing density equivalent of four or more dwelling units per acre contribute concentrations of wastewater nitrate loading that slightly exceed the nitrate maximum contaminant level to groundwater. Federal and State water quality standards indicate that nitrate concentration levels of 45 milligrams per liter or more are considered a threat to drinking water and public health. Approximately 65% of the 12,000 dwelling units affected by Prohibition Order No. 90-126 are located within high density areas and are recommended to be connected to the City of Chico's sewer system. This figure translates to approximately 7,800 dwelling units located in neighborhoods in . north Chico (Lassen Avenue corridor), central Chico (the Avenues), and south Chico (Chapman- Mulberry area). These areas represent unincorporated portions of the Chico Urban Area and include single family dwelling units, apartment complexes, and mobile home parks. The resulting installation of a sewer collection system for these target areas (7 ,800 dwelling units) is at an estimated capital cost of nearly $71 million dollars, with an average cost of about $9,000 per dwelling unit. Program financing will be developed and managed by the County and· involve combining a portfolio oflow interest federal or state loans, local redevelopment agency funds, and available grants. It is proposed that loan re...;payment mechanisms will include the formation of assessment districts for areas targeted to receive sewer installation and service. The County is also the lead agency for preparation of related environmental and construction documents in accord with the Plan. It is proposed that construction of the sewer collection system and implementation of corrective action will occur within three to ten years from the date of adoption of the Plan by the Butte County Board of Supervisors (Board) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Those parcels to remain unsewered may continue to use on-site waste water disposal systems, with additional monitoring, to ensure their safe and sanitary operation. When adopted, this Plan will supersede the Nitrate Action Plan which was adopted by the Board and Chico City Council in 1985. It is imperative that the State. County, anq City of Chico, maintain a cooperative and focused effort to mitigate and solve the public health threat to groundwater nitrate contamination beneath the Chico Urban Area. (Abstract • Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan) k;\ad\11\quiektcf.tab 215 Nitrate Characterjzatjon Dames & Moore conducted the resampling of over 100 existing wells and the installation and testing of 19 new sampling wells. The results were published in their Final Report, Groundwater Nitrate Study, in January of 1994. Based upon this refined and updated nitrate characterization data, the County pursued a study of potential sources of nitrate and the effects of soil chemistry on septic tank effluent. The results, set forth in the Technical Memorandum (Dames and Moore, 1996), confirm that septic tanks are a primary source of groundwater nitrate. However, the studies further indicate that soils in the Chico Urban Area have a higher capacity to assimilate nitrogen than was recognized by the Regional Board. Three rounds of sampling were conducted in December 1993, July 1995, and October 1995. The data generated by these multiple samplings and the evaluation of further data needs prior to each collection, greatly increased the technical team's understanding of the extent and nature of the nitrate contamination. Groundwater elevation was measured at each sampling. The general direction of groundwater flow, shown in Figure 3-2, (Modified from Dames and Moore, 1996} is a basic factor in reaching eventual conclusions as to nitrate sources. In general, water level elevations are highest in the north and east portions of the Chico l.)"rban Area, and lowest in the west and south. Depth to the water table from the ground surface ranged from approximately 11 to 45 feet below ground surface depending upon location and season. Ftgure3-2 · GENERAL DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW Itt THi SHALLOW AQUIFER Scun:c Tec:hnlaif NclmonlncUn, o.m. ,. Motn, 1996 ••• ··••· Nitrate values at each of these samplings showed a range from background levels of less than 10 mg/L to various readings above 100 mg/L. Figure 3-3 shows nitrate concentrations in the shallow aquifer. One undeniable characteristic is that nitrate concentrations are highest directly down-gradient (westerly) Chapter 3. Scope and Results of the Technical Program -Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan 216 from the unsewered portions of the Chico Urban Area. Further, concentration is highest down gradient ) from the greatest number of onsite systems, along the "Lassen A venue Corridor". Nitrate concentrations in the intermediate aquifer are shown in Figure 3-4. As with the shallow aquifer, nitrate concentrations are greatest down gradient from the areas of septiC tank usage. It is worth noting that these nitrate values represent the conditions at a specific point in time. The recent efforts in nitrate characterization involved a greater emphasis on wells of known construction, multiple samplings and very careful quality assurance control. Nevertheless, the results of the recent work are generally consistent with past data-continued elevated nitrate levels (above the maximum contaminant level) westerly of the unsewered portion of the Chico Urban Area. &15N lsqtopjc Analysis One of the more sophisticated methods used to determine the source of nitrates in groundwater is nitrogen isotope comparison. This method is described below. Nitrogen exists in two primary forms in nature, one form has 7 protons and 7 neutrons, the other 7 protons and 8 neutrons. Therefore the former form has an atomic weight of 14 (7 + 7), and the latter has an atomic weight of 15. In the atmosphere, there is a constant ratio of the two forms. However, when nitrogen from the atmosphere is taken up by plants, or fertilizer is manufactured, or any other assimilation of nitrogen takes place using atmospheric nitrogen, one form tends to be used in the process differentially. In other words, more of one form will be used than is proportional to its natural abundance in the atmosphere, and the difference is measurable. By studying the different processes that use nitrogen, it is possible to measure these differences, or "signatures", of the different origins of nitrogen compounds. In other words, one process, such as the manufacture of fertilizer, will result in a ratio of the two forms of nitrogen that identifies the source as fertilizer, whereas another process, such as dairy production, will produce a different signature which identifies it as livestock waste. During the course of the studies that were performed in the Chico Urban Area to determine nitrate sources, both literature values and local site specific values were studied. The information obtained was consistent with the primary source of nitrate in the Chico Urban Area being from septic tanks (Dames and Moore, 1996, page 13). Chapter 3. Scope and Results of the Technical Program ·Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan 3-!> 217 · .. ··· : \~ 4.6 NON•RESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS One issue that must be incorporated into the final scope of sewering of the higher density residential systems is that of commercial, industrial, and other non-residential systems. These systems are extremely varied in their type and volume of discharge. Some systems may contribute very little to groundwater nitrate exceedance, whereas others may have high wastewater usage on a very small lot. In addition, some commercial systems w.ill produce non-domestic wastes which must be disposed of in the septic tank. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency defines septic tank leachfield systems that have the capacity to serve more than 20 persons, discharge more than the equivalent of approximately 500 gallons per day, or receive non-domestic wastes, as regulated injection wells (40 CPR [Code of Federal Regulations] 144 & 146) Owners of such wells must provide notification to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In light of the above information, the only prudent and viable method for dealing with commercial systems appears to be a case-by"case review of each nitrate loading situation, with consideration of proximity to areas to be sewered. 4.6 COMPLIANCE: MEETING THE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL The proposed Nitrate Compliance Plan would sewer approximately 65% of the estimated 12,000 dwelling units and allow the remainder to continue to use existing septic systems under the oversight of a monitoring program administered by the County. This section discusses how this solution will protect groundwater quality and is consistent with the State Water Code and other adopted State and Regional Board policies. Besolulloo 68-16 Statement of PolicY With Respect to Maintaining Hjgb Quality of Waters jn California This policy, sometimes referred to as the "non-degradation policy," basically states that waters should not be degraded from background quality unless the degradation is of overall benefit to the people of the state, and that in no case may discharges take place that cause or contribute to the exceedance of a water quality objective. Resolution 68-16 is set forth in full as Appendix J at the end of this document. PLAN CONSISTENCY According to the best available scientific and engineering estimates, the proposed Plan will reduce nitrates in the shallow aquifer in the Chico Urban Area to below the regulatory level of 45 mg/1. Nitrates will still be added to the subsurface, which will cause some degradation to take place, but the degradation will be in conformance with Resolution 68-16 in that a significant cost burden on approximately 40% of the homeowners will be reduced. Any septic system will cause some degradation of groundwater above background levels. In addition, the recharge of the shallow aquifer provided by these septic systems is in conformance with §13282 and §13283 of the Water Code, Resolution 71-1, and Central Valley Regional Board Basin Plan Policy, as shown below. Chzpter 4. Nitrate Elimination, Reduction, and Onsite Compliance -Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan 4-13 218 219 220 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR I PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 530.538.7601 Office 530.538.7785 Fax www.buttecounty.neUdds BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES November 13, 2014 TIME: 9:00 a.m. Vice-Chair Donati called the meeting to order at 9:05 am. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room County Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL -Commissioners Donati, Kennedy, White, Wilson and Chair Nelson. Present: Commissioners Kennedy, White, Wilson and Vice-Chair Donati Absent: Chair Nelson Others present: County Counsel: Environmental Health: Development Services: Felix Wannenmacher, Chief Deputy Counsel Kristin McKil/op, Manager, Program Development Chuck Thistlethwaite, Manager, Planning Division Pete Calarco, Assistant Director Dan Breedon, Planner, Principal Ill. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA -Commission members and staff may request additions, deletions or changes in the Agenda order. A motion to accept the agenda was made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by Commissioner White. Vote Ayes: Commissioners Kennedy, White, Wilson and Vice-Chair Donati Noes: None • BUTIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION• ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING• • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 1 of7 • 221 Absent: Chair Nelson Abstain: None IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda). None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/TIME CERTAIN ITEMS -The Chair will call for a presentation of the report of staff. The hearing or time certain item will then be opened to the public for proponents, opponents, comments and rebuttals. The hearing will be then be closed to the public and discussion confined to the members of the Planning Commission and staff. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. It is requested that individual public comments be addressed to the Chair and limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate. 9:00am A. Amendments to the General Plan Agriculture Element, Butte County Code Chapter 24. Zoning Ordinance, and Butte County Code Chapter 35. Protection of Agricultural Land (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 20, 2014} Applicant: County-initiated action Planner: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Location: Applies to all of unincorporated Butte County At the October 201 2014 Planning Commission Public Hearing, the Commission took the following actions: 1. Recommended to the Board of Supervisors the amendment of the Butte County General Plan Agriculture Element Policy AG-P5.3 and related new Policies AG-P5.3.1 and AG-P5.3.2 as set forth under the Resolution; and, the approval of an EIR Addendum to the General Plan 2030 EIR and Supplemental EIR for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Recommended to the Board of Supervisors the Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; and, the approval of an EIR Addendum to the General Plan 2030 EIR and Supplemental EIR for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments prepared in accordance with CEQA. Dan Breedon presented this item to the Commission. Members of the public who spoke: • Colleen Cecil -Butte County Farm Bureau • BobKromer • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING • • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 2 of 7 • 222 • Robyn Di Falco • Andrew McClure • John Peterson • PatJones • Colleen Cecil A motion to continue this item to the December 11, 2014 meeting at 10:00 am was made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. Vote Ayes: Commissioners Kennedy, White, Wilson and Vice-Chair Donati Noes: None Absent: Chair Nelson Abstain: None 10:00am B. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Rio D'Oro Specific Plan (SPOS-0001) Applicant: JKB Homes Owner: Guaranty Holdings of California, Inc. and Sainte CBI, LLC Project: Specific Plan SPOB-0001 Planner: Pete Calarco, Assistant Director A.P.N.: 025-240-009, -048, -054, -0691 -075, 025-350-035, 025-360-001 and 025-370-010. G.P.: "Specific Plan to be Developed11 Zoning: AG {Agriculture) Location: Between Palermo Road to the south and Ophir Road to the north, bisected north/south by State Route 70, and bounded on the west by Pacific Heights Road. Proposal: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report {Draft EIR) for proposed project. Staff Recommendation: Receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. Pete Calarco presented this item to the Commission. Member of the public who spoke: • Dion Lucas The Commission will receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. Butte County Planning Commission (DRAFT) November 13, 2014 Draft EIR Hearing Notes Rio d'Oro Specific Plan (SPOS-0001, GPA 09-0002, DA09-0001) Butte County Development Services The following are meeting notes for the November 13, 2014 Planning Commission hearing to receive comment on the Draft EIR for the Rio d'Oro Specific Plan (SCH#2011052035). • BUTIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING • • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 3 of 7 • 223 November 13, 2014 -10:00 am at the Board of Supervisors Chambers, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA. Vice Chair Rocky Donati of the Butte County Planning Commission introduced the agenda item. Pete Calarco, Assistant Director, introduced the meeting topic and gave a brief presentation of the EIR process and project information. The Planning Commission opened the public comment section of the hearing. Public Comment: 1. D'aon Lucas, (neighbor, adjacent property owner). She stated that she is concerned about development at this site, the number of houses, the school location proposed near her property and traffic on Pacific Heights Road. There are wildlife including turkey, deer and coyotes coming from the Wildlife Area. There is no mention of the adjacent residences in the Draft EIR. There is no mention of improvements to Pacific Heights Road. Traffic on Pacific Heights will increase significantly. There will be noise from the development. There has been grading and machinery on the property that can be heard all day long. There being no additional speakers, the Planning Commission closed the public comment section of the hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the traffic circulation patterns proposed and phasing of the development. Alan White, Planning Commissioner, asked if the EIR discusses a benefit assessment district for off-site infrastructure. Rocky Donati, Planning Commissioner, commented that the Draft EIR states that there is no impact to agriculture. He stated that this will change once the land is planted in walnuts. If they do go into walnut production, the EIR should specify that instead of stating that there is no impact. The Commissioners discussed the EIR process and closed the hearing. C. Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 Applicant: Brian Airehart Property Owner: Robert and Leeanne Kromer Project: Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 Planner: Rowland Hickel, Senior Planner A.P.N.: 042-770-032 G.P.: VLDR 0Jery Low Density Residential) Zoning: VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential -2.5 acre density) Location: Intersection of Bell Road and Alamo Avenue, approximately % mile west of the City of Chico city limits. Proposal: A Tentative Parcel Map to divide two existing parcels totaling 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Parcel 1 ), 2.5 acres (Parcel 2), 2.5 acres (Parcel 3), and 2.5 acres (Parcel 4) in size. • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING • • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 4 of 7 • 224 Staff Recommendation: Receive public testimony, continue Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 off calendar, and provide direction to staff to address concerns raised in the public comments received. Rowland Hickel presented this project to the Commission. Members of the public who spoke: • Suzanne Morlock • David • Charles Forester • BobKromer • Robyn DiFalco • Tom Peterson • Andrew McClure A motion to continue this item off calendar and direct staff to follow through on issues raised in public comment and reports back to the Commission was made by Commissioner Wilson and seconded by Commissioner Kennedy. Vote Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: 11:00am D. Commissioners Kennedy, White, Wilson and Vice-Chair Donati None Chair Nelson None Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Special Events Facilities Ordinance Applicant: County-initiated action Planner: Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Location: Applies to all on unincorporated Butte County Proposal: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Receive oral and written comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed project. Dan Breedon presented this project to the Commission. Member of the public who spoke: • Colleen Cecil • Don Mooney • Robyn DiFalco Dan Breedon explained the next steps in the process will be to respond to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report through the review period and put together a final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and bring back to the Planning Commission for additional public hearings on 118/15 and to the BOS on 1120115. These dates are tentative. • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING • • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 5 of 7 • 225 VI. GENERAL BUSINESS -This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff have been directed to do research and bring back to the Commission. Items may not always be addressed at every hearing, but will always be listed as part of the agenda. A. Directors' Report None B. General Plan Follow-up and Implementation Program None C. Update on Recent Board of Supervisors' Actions None D. Legislative Case Law Update None E. Planning Commission Concerns None VII. COMMUNICATIONS -Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are available in the Planning Division Office.) None VIII. MINUTES -September 25, 2014 A motion to accept the September 25, 2014 minutes was made by Commissioner Kennedy and seconded by Commission Wilson. Vote Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Commissioners Kennedy, White, Wilson and Vice-Chair Donati None Chair Nelson None IX. ADJOURNMENT Vice-chair Donati adjourned the meeting. • BUTIE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING • • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 6 of 7 • 226 Vice-Chair Donati Items will be heard in the order listed on the agenda unless the Planning Commission rearranges the order of the agenda or the item is to be continued. Applicants!Agents are expected to be present to represent their items when they come up on the agenda. In the absence of representation, the Planning Commission will decide whether to act on the item or continue it to a future date. Any questions pertaining to individual projects should be directed to the designated planner. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. if you need special assistance to participate in this hearing, please contact Development Services at (530) 538-6571 at least 72 hours prior to the hearing. Conduct of Public Hearings -the public is encouraged to participate in the hearing process. An agenda item is first introduced by the Chair and then presented by a staff member. The Administrator then opens the public hearing and provides an opportunity for the proponent to address the item. Following the proponents statement, if any, the Zoning Administrator will invite any other interested party in support of the item to address the matter. Following the testimony of the proponent and supporters, opponents are given an opportunity to present testimony regarding the item. After the opponents have completed testifying, the proponent is given time to offer rebuttal. At the conclusion of testimony, the Administrator will close the hearing. In the interest of everyone concerned, we request that you do not repeat what has already been discussed by someone prior to your turn. After a speaker has presented hislher views, if you are in agreement and wish to go on record, state your name and address and acknowledge your agreement with the speaker. This will enter your name into the record. Please limit presentations to a maximum of 3 minutes or other time limit as determined by the Planning Commission so that all interested parties will have opportunity to speak. Following your presentation. please print your name and address on the speaker's sheet, in order to obtain correct spelling and maintain accurate records. • Any person or persons dissatisfied with a Planning Commission decision may appeal that decision to the Planning Commission within 1 O calendar days along with a fee of $400 filed with Development Services (unless otherwise noted in the agenda item). In accordance with Government Code 65009, if any person(s) challenges the action of the Zoning Administrator, said person(s) may be limited to raising only those issues that were raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Zoning Administrator at, or prior to, the public hearing. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Development Services Department at 7 County Center Drive. Oroville, CA 95965 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 pm. Meetings are recorded and the audio file will be placed on the Department website: www.buttecounty.net/dds • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • ACTION MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING• • November 13, 2014 • PAGE 7 of7 • 227 Butte County Department of Development Services TIM SNELLINGS, DIRECTOR | PETE CALARCO, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 Office (530) 538-7785 Fax www.buttecounty.net/dds BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT – November 13, 2014 Applicant: Brian Airehart Location: The project site is located at the intersection of Bell Road and Alamo Avenue, approximately ¼ mile west from the City of Chico city limits; Rancho Arroyo Chico Land Grant; MDB&M. Owner: Robert and Leeanne Kromer File #: TPM14-0005 Parcel Size: 12.69± acres Request: A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Supervisor District: 2 Planner: Rowland Hickel Senior Planner G.P.: VLDR (Very Low Density Residential) Attachments: Zoning: VLDR-2.5 (Very Low Density Residential – 2.5 acre density) A: Vicinity Map/Zoning Map B: Tentative Parcel Map APN: 042-770-032 C: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration D: Agency and Public Comments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive public testimony, continue Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 for Brian Airehart off calendar, and provide direction to staff to address concerns raised in the public comments received. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Lot 1), 2.5 acres (Lot 2), 2.5 acres (Lot 3), and 2.5 acres (Lot 4). Domestic water for future development on the resultant parcels would be provided by on-site domestic wells. Wastewater disposal for future development would be provided by individual on-site septic systems. Access to the proposed lots would be provided by a new private road off Bell Road along the westerly side of the subject property. The access road will be constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII Standard, which will include two, 10-foot wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Road surfacing will include a 4-inch aggregate base overlaid with a single layer of sealcoat. The total length of the road 228 from Bell Road to its terminus is 1,319 feet, and will include a 40-foot radius cul-de-sac at its terminus. Road approach improvements will be constructed to S-18B standard, pursuant to the 2006 Butte County Improvement Standards. Subdivision of the project site would create four developable lots situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone district. The Very Low Density Residential zoning designation allows for single-family homes and related uses in residential neighborhoods within the county. Permitted residential uses in the VLDR zones include single- family homes, small residential care homes, second units, animal grazing, crop cultivation, on-site agricultural product sales, and private stables. The VLDR zone also conditionally permits non-residential uses compatible with a residential setting, including public and quasi-public uses, golf courses, park and recreational facilities, personal services, animal keeping, large residential care homes, and medical offices and clinics. The minimum permitted parcel size for this zone is 2.5 acres. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • Proposed Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 12.69 acres into four lots: 5.19 acres (Parcel 1), 2.5 acres (Parcel 2), 2.5 acres (Parcel 3), and 2.5 acres (Parcel 4) in size. • Domestic water to the project site would be provided by groundwater wells. • Wastewater disposal to the project site would be provided by individual on-site septic systems. • Access to each parcel would be provided by a new private road, 1,319 feet in length, and constructed to the County’s RS-8-LDIII standard. This standard includes two 10-wide travel lanes, 2-foot wide shoulders, and roadside drainages. Surfacing includes a 4-inch aggregate base with a single layer of sealcoat. • Establishment of a 60-foot wide right-of-way along the westerly property line. The new access road will be sited on the western side of the right-of-way, with the travel lanes and shoulders situated 8-feet from the western property line. • A 40-foot radius cul-de-sac will be constructed at the terminus of the new road. • Proposed road connection constructed to the County’s S-18B standard. • A 300-foot Building Setback will be established from the northwesterly property line, pursuant to Section 24-81 et seq. of the Butte County Zoning Ordinance. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: • The project site encompasses 12.69 acres of fallow agricultural lands situated in the VLDR-2.5 zone. Existing property improvements include a groundwater well and an unconnected/unmetered power pole. • Elevation of the project site ranges between 163 to 168 feet above mean sea level. Topography of the site is level with 0 to 1 percent slopes. • The Butte County General Plan, and land cover data provided by the Butte County Association of Governments, prepared for the Butte County Regional Conservation Plan, identify the project site as Agriculture. Existing vegetative cover is primarily native and non-native forbs and grasses, with a scattering of immature oak trees concentrated near the center of the site. • The Chico Municipal Airport is located 2.5 miles northeast from the project site, placing a portion of the project site within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone D. Compatibility Zone D for the Chico Municipal Airport is defined as the outer boundary of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 conical zone limits, subjecting lands to reviews to ensure that objects and other land uses do not affect the navigable airspace of the airport. Butte County Department of Development Services November 13, 2014 Agenda Report –TPM14-0005/Airehart Page 2 of 4 229 • The area surrounding the project site primarily includes low density single-family residences on one-acre averaged-sized lots to the west and south, single-family residences on five-acre averaged-sized lots to the east, and orchards/agriculture uses to the north. Public rights-of-way in the vicinity of the project site include Bell Road (County) and Alamo Avenue (County) to the south, Jones Avenue (Private), Santiago Court (Private), and Ciulla Lane (Private) to the west. • The project site is not listed on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) and is not located near any sites or sites known or suspected to contain hazardous materials. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/CEQA ISSUES In compliance with Section 15073(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), application, and reference documents for this project were placed on file for public review and comment for a 20-day period starting October 4, 2014 through October 23, 2014. Notices regarding the 20-day review period were mailed to landowners within 300-feet the project site, and was published in the Chico Enterprise Record. The Initial Study prepared for this project determined there may be potential environmental impacts to the following areas: • Air Quality • Cultural Resources • Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached to this agenda report, recommended four mitigation measures to reduce environmental impacts to a less than significant level. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the date of preparation of this report comments were received from the following interested parties: • Carol Berg and Stafford Thomas; • Erik and Stephanie Roos; • Emmit and Pat Jones; • Suzanne Clark Morlock, Attorney at Law, and Mark J. Morlock; and • Andrew McClure of Minasian, Spruance, Meith, Soares & Sexton, LLP, on behalf of Peter D. Nelson. Public comments noted concerns regarding the Tentative Parcel Map’s impact to agricultural soils, agricultural uses, noise, traffic, water quality and water supply. Commenters also noted the project’s inconsistencies with policies in the Butte County General Plan for the protection of agricultural lands; particularly the proposed Tentative Parcel Map’s consistency with General Plan Agricultural Element Policy AG-P5.3 which requires a buffer of 300-feet (or as adjusted to address unusual circumstances) on property proposed for residential development to protect existing agricultural uses. The Department of Development Services has been directed by the Board of Supervisors to prepare an amendment to Policy AG-P5.3; to develop a new policy in the Agricultural Element to minimize compatibility conflicts between existing orchard operations and new residential development in the VLDR designation; and to amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish a process for consultation between the Zoning Butte County Department of Development Services November 13, 2014 Agenda Report –TPM14-0005/Airehart Page 3 of 4 230 Administrator and Agricultural Commissioner to determine setbacks between existing orchard operations and new residential development. Your Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at the October 20, 2014 Planning Commission meeting and forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Tentative Parcel Map cannot be approved until such time as it can be found to be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and the consultation process with the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner is completed. Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue Tentative Parcel Map TPM14-0005 for Brian Airehart off calendar, and provide direction to staff to address concerns raised in the public comments received. Butte County Department of Development Services November 13, 2014 Agenda Report –TPM14-0005/Airehart Page 4 of 4 231