HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-3 REZONE PLANNING 1 OF 3... .. .... _..,.. .___._ __. ,.. ,..., ._. .._... of
- '� - �i�ll�I9�i1�Yif����t�f��►�/�Rrwl�e�s+rwa�saur...m�...�.�,�����.--•.__.-..�-.-._- _. .�
89-O8-i6�1 P1R.C7•?E:CZ' SL7MiyIARY' SHMMT 90-3
Paul and Sadelie Levy C.W. 3achmaZ, Engineer
applicant representative
ADDRESS-., 364 (Jest San Madele 3012 Esplanade
.Fresno, CA 93704 Chico, CA 95915
PWN ':. �93`RX593
property owner
ADDRESS:
PROTECT DECK=P22oN'_ Rezone to SR-1
A-10on the east side of $i hwa 99 a
on property zaned located' g Y pprox. 4,000 ft,
south; of Keefer Road., 047-4�►Q-012
identified as, AP town/area: Chico, Ca
GENERAL, PLAN` DESIGNATION A-R
�T3
PPE-APP a PAID: 3� -^ w RECEIPT NU4BER: '`—'
APPLICATION::,,"CEPTED; ,o-•,._ 10896 8/1/85
FIYA1 AFP ?AID:: 4 '1 00;
��_ RECEIPT NUMBER::
REZONING PETITION SIGNATURES CECKED PERCENTAGE: G 0 _ i G
HAILING LIST-PREPARED
MAIL-OUT' NOTICES ' WRITTEN'
- j�j News- (2:- 24 -0_
NOTICES MAILED NUMBER:%-! Public: 12-2441
LEGAL; DESCRIPTION PREPARM
PUBLICATION-NOTTCE'WRITTEN
DISPL.IY AD PRE°ARED
MSPAPEt.PUBLICATION 0 P G B R DATE OF PUBLICATION:'
INMAL STUDY PREPl tED
ENVIRONMEYZAL- DEIMURNATiON:: Categorical Exemption FILED:,
Yegative Declaration FILD:
' 1t Mitigated ;legative Declaration FILED
E�rri=omental, Impact Report C`RTIFT_e-D
Other:
.'TAIL: CL ARINGdOUSE Nb7MBER':
APPF:I=7T/11ZEF.RES'1iT YE' NOMFICATION OF �?V'MONkM7EAL DEMRMINATION
PLANNING COMMISSION' BEARING(s): Q
BOAFM OF SUPERVISORS'' I'ZAR.T.NG(s )r.
RESOLUTION N'uME- (G?-Az) ' ADOPTED:
ORDI,"i&N ZRINISER ADOPTED:
_-.
110=t5 OF" DEi�.� 11ATION IApgendix Hj FILED:
MFW-..�16
Will---- �a�auaelt -prop°sed Negative I;�eclar'ation with mitigation environmental impact and Re7____one from A_10 g on measures regarding
1 "(Suburban ,Residential - 1 acre parcels) forPropertylocated oural -.10 nthe
to SR -
Highway 99, identified as AP 04`7-430-003, north of Chico, he east side of
closed from April 26, 1990) (File 89-24
(Continued
k'au.--1 an_d_ adelte Lem proposed Negative Decla�on with
regarding environmental impact andne torn A=10 (Agricultural 10yac�
to SR -1 (Suburban Residential - 1 acre parcels' for _ h mitigationac measures
Of Highway 99 a re parcels)
approximately 4,000 feet sout,11 of Keefer Road, iddhas east side
440-012; Chico. (File 90-3) (continued closed from April 26' 047
P , 1990)
Roberti trap -
pcoposed NePatve Declaration with mitigation measures regarding
environmental impact and , ezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 1�1 acre ares r
1 (Suburban Residentril - 1 acre parcels) for roe g
southeast of Keefer tial and Highway 99 inters P ) to SR-
Residential
p rty located approximately 3/4 mile'.
99, identified as AP 047-260-138 Chico. ( ection, on the east side of l=Tighway
26, 1990) File 89-49) (Continued closed from April
Staff said the hearing was continued closed for a final motion.
,kdd the language for Conditions 1, 6, Arid 14 that was inadvertentlyy '
Staff said.. the would likr, to
Agreement Mating at the end of the condition; dropped from the
1i 2a;..
on AP �Pnt sn applicant's 60-138' and 047-440-012•, 6:(20.. prior prior
to recordation of any map
on APAP #), 14: (2.m) , . , prior to recordation of any map
in applicant's A"), prior to recordation of any map on AP
Staff reported that the applicants have requested that the new
Condition 13 (21) be worded to state "
Staff is recommending that this Wordingnot be chan e
••• prior to Any approval air discretionary action..,",
�omn ssioner g d because of meeting CEQA. timelines;
sand that the. Board of Supervisors a fact that there is nn requirement
I•arribnrt pquestioned o d' _. for
ean
did not include t1, Levy and Li tra . ' Mo She
.S,.aff said the Board directed staff tors property in the discussion, Property
P P
sse a e ative L�eclarati '°
on for° flauseli
Declaration, instead of air EIR, which addresses drainage and traffic g "ba
toxone will not allow develop do a' conditional zoriin anconceriti Mitigated IVPs tine'
these three � of is before a Spec tic Staff s aid no - p w' ns' Staff said ilio
plandevelopment 'Willi be allowed to occur on
the riparia." habitat concern was addressed in theinitial iscussed the wetlands, Staff said
study..
Commissioner Lynch corrected paragraph d of the Agreement chap ih
8 g Ind' to "bind",
�Commissionertic flan needs bort said she would not support these requests.
4 come firsts q She stated that the
Chairman Forties said the applicants have been waitinga ton t'
feels this zoning is likely to happen in the area r,ver tie, g time for a decision and he
Commissioner Lainbert said if she Kaci a PUD or develo me'
might have been more favorable: P nt playas in front of her, she
Commissioner Lytich questioned what would happen to thisr,.,
was Approved and no Specific Plan was developed?p operty in the event the rezone
tri1"10fl> tlY Wf t "qti `.. y�t//''��}}������f'''yy� y'
COUN J.W i v n*...w R 'k4i.a ♦u+1vp, yyp
Ol•� 1 . 11 {y
;r
Staff said there would' be a condition of the rezone that could not be met and the project
would have to come back to the Commission for modification or removal of the condition
or a rezone of the property. Staff said the only recourse to a ,conditional; rezone. agreement
is ;another rezone.
Commissioner Lynch said he was concerned that this is 'fast a request for rezoning with no
development plan.
Chairman Forbes said that the map tr , the Commission that the area is going to develop
if all the mitigation measures can be _-..omplshed, into one acre parcels.
The Commission made three separate motions.
HA:USELT;
It was moved by (,Wrman Forbes and seconded by Commissioner Matson to recommend
apprdval as follows-
MOTION:
ollowsMOTION: ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STAFF MEMO DATED
MAY 15, 1990,• MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A"; "B", AND "C"
MOVE AS OUTLINED UNDER "D" AND "E" INCLUDING ALL OF THE
CONDITIONS NUMBERED 1 'THROUGH 15;
A. Find that:
1 An initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA;
I Said study and comments received thereon ideritified potentially significant
environmental effects which the project may have had, but will not in this case
because of the adopted mitigation mcasures attached; and
B. Find that the environmental documents together with any comments received during
the public review process- have been reviewed and considered, and recommend the
Board of Supervisors adopt a Negative Declarationwthmetgation measures attached,•
and
C� Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies including the text and map of
the Butte County General "Plan; and
D, Recommend, that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance rezoning to SR -1 that
property identified as AP 047-043-003 ('William Hauwlt) and
' MY a a:`.m.•. @v^�8+�4. .y-�a,�-yye7».�jt},. w^ama+.a �a�Fa�.ni�w}"a+�ykn�vw �A�S1Y,'+ry+y.�.,ti��r*rr:tWr�e+iiyr.�`Vr, IIT�TT7�4"�'�'�1'y�''''W*,�p+"�r'-y�nkf'i°i'+�y+'0.Zy7lP I31 ../ffuu'w x .y F? �µ 1` W9t
hi� hr n?y�y.K _v.�,�s••A�-+,�ii,�U ��;5!' SCV 41V `ii+s. ��t14V lV �L`'67 4VL'L�i,c.O r7 y1., `*'L�t ,w��Y :L" $1 +76"'•d. `A'j 7 V�'+„»R4* .wW,; twt'W4 '�;;pw,%Ru°"K ..✓P �i
V
Recommend' the Board of Sup,? - 4 , s adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional
E. Zoning Agreement for AP 047-043-003 (William Hauselt) subject to the following
1
conditions:
1. Grant a. 60' non-exclusive easement to Levy and Liptrap and their heirs;
successors and assigns and offer for dedication prior to recordation of any map
on AP 047-043-003, 047-260-138, and 047-440-012:
2. Easement to be located on or adjacent to the southerly property line of the
Hauselt property at State Highway 99 and to connect to the easement on the
roe The easement as to provide circulation from State Highway 99
Levy to Garner Lane.
3. All road construction in the
easements is ito be to $utte 'County Standards for
maintenance and offered for dedication.
4. Up to 20 total lots may be created using a single accesanc! LState
tr pYpc pen es
Additional lots +will require circulation through the Levy p
to Garner Lane.
Croation of the 21st lot taking access via any easement wal require the
Intenan
conetruction of a road to Butte County standards or mal
ar Lane.c�� and an offer
of dedication connecting State Highway 99 and Garn_
�. pay a pro ra,'Ml share toward the reconstruct
14,ion of Garner Lane prior to
recordation ori ani, may Ort AP 047-043-003:
All access to State Highway 95 to be via the easement at the south property
line.
8; Roadways to be designed to provide fol' culverts and proper drainage design
to insure that no additional flooding will take place..
9. Finished fioor elevations to be in accordance with FEMA and County
requirements.
10. Retention ponds are to be used so that stream peak flows are not increased
above existing levels;
11r The retention ponds to be designed in accordance with Coupty standards and
standard engineering practices.
..v •. - fi�✓'�"" 'al'+ -^'14X' 'i48' � wpNW."Ar
�Qr2N1��a'.S`SOI�i Mx I° r
NUDES;'"T-'" 5 24. 90'
__OJM' Y' p r
j
The owner is to sign. an agreement
to
n a drainage ma e
assessment district ct when
one is formed.
Participate in the development and financing of,a Specific Plan or other area -
wide plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that addresses
�.�--••�'•-,fid- VJ ,.acw,givaui, LU piuwue ana tuna lnlrastructure identified by the.
resulting, plan as being necessary for additional development in the plan area.
14. Provide a no -development setback from Keefer Slough prior to recordation of
any map on AP 047-043-033.
,.A
15. Designs for roads and drainage systems to comply with FEMA tequirements.
AYES: Commissioner Matson and Chairman Forbes-
NOES:
orbesNOES: Commissioners Lynch and Lambert
ABSENT: Commissioner Ostrowski
ABSTAINED: No one
A 2-2 vote of the Commission is deemed a denial for the relief applied for.
LIPTRAP'
It Was ,moved by Chairman Forbes and seconded by Commissioner Matson `to recommend
approval as follows:
ON ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF'THE STAFF MEMO riATED
MOTION' MAY 15,1990; MAKE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER '"Ar- "B ^
AND C
MOVE AS OUTLINED ^
UNDERM D AND "E" TNCLUD`ING A .L OF THE
CONDITIONS NUMBERED I. THROUGH 14.-
A,
4:A. Find that
1. An initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA
study arid comments tedeved
2. Sax identified
potentially
. significant
environmental effects which ,theiprb e temay h ve had but w ll hot in this case
because of the adopted mitigation measures attached; and
I(
; cotJi`7SY1 ' �" . 1S�1 ,7.���- �( {*�}� {moi �Y
x' 9,"t„ `✓ V
r
B. Find That the environmental documents together with any comments received during'
the public review process have been reviewed and considered, and recommend the
Board of Supervisors adopt a Negative Declaration with .mitigation measures attached;
and
C. Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies including the text and map of
the Butte County General Plan; and
D. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance rezoning to SI`-1 that
property identified as AP 047-260-138 (Robert Liptrap),• and
E. Recommend the ,Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution approvicig a Conditional
.'honing Agreement r.'or AP 047-260-138 (Robert Liptrap) subject to thefollowing
conditions,
11 Grant a. 60' non-e xct; ; yve easement to Levy Hauselt and their heirs,
successors and assigns and offer for dedication prior to recordation of any map
on AP 047•.043-003, 047-269-133, and 047-440-012.
I Easement to connect to the easement on the Levy property and to Garner
Lane. 'Phe easement is to provide circulation from State Hi
Lane, ghway 99 to Cramer
3. All road construction in the ea.Qerxents is to be to Butte County Standards for
maintenance and offered for dedication.
4• Up to 20 total lots may be created using a single access to State Highway 99,
Additional lots will require circulation through the Levy and Hauselt properties
to Garner Lane.
5. Creation of the 21st lot taking access via any easement will require the
construction of a road to Butte County standards for maintenance, and ari offer
of dedication connecting State Highway 99 and Garner Lane;
6. pay a pro rata share toward the reconstruction of Garner Lane prior to
recordation of any may on AP 047-260-138,
7. AII, access -to State Highway 909 to be livia the e nea aseinent at the southroPe
P rty
8. Roadways to be designed to provide for culverts and proper drainage design
to insure that no additional flooding will take place,
-04va MJ:IVU+J:Es,^G - .s
si �
r
t
9. Finished floor elevations to be, in accordance with :FEMA, and County
requirements.
10. Retention ponds are to be used so that stream peak flows are not increased
above existing levels. -
11. The retention ponds to be designed in accordance with County standards and
standard engineering practices.
12.
The owner is to sign an agreement to ,loin a drainage assessment district when
Oft is formed.
13. Participate in the development and financing of a Specific; Ilan or other area
wide plan and associated Environmerntal Jmpact Report (]:,IR.) that addresses
Cumulative impacts regarding traffic, drainage and drainage district funding; '
downstream flooding, and other impacts that may be identified f
I for discretional ,, action at public agencies. Agree notrfnro Opposeany l(i
formation of a mechanism to provide and fund inlrastructire identified b the
resiulting plan as being necessary for additional development in the pian area,
14. ;Designs for roads and drainage g systems to comply with FEMA requirements,
AYES: Commissioner Matson and Chairman Forbes
NOES: Commissioners Lynch and Lambert
ABSENT: Commissioner Ostrowsk
ABSTAII�TED: No one
A 2-2 vote of the Conim-ssion is deemed a denial for the relief applied ;For,
LEVY:
It was moved by Chairman Forbes and seconded by Commissioner Matson to recommend
approval as follows,-
MOTION','
ollowsMOTION'S ACCEPT THE .RECOMMENDATIONa OF THE STAFF MENTO DATED
MAY 15,1990; MAKETHE`FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A", )VP AND "C
MOVE AS OUTLINED TINDER "D" AND "E" .INCLUDING ALL OF "C
CONDTONS NUMBERED 1 THROUGH 15:
C'04's.W .�,�}
�y„ y,,;a»,r „Id .wr�rvMsg•.�;15�* y r�e��,.�."xfihYfc3��
'
w:
A. Find that:
1: An initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA:
2. Said study and comments received thereon identified potentially significant
environmental effects which the project may have had, but will not in this case
m
because of the adopted mitigation measures attached; and
B. Find that the environmental documents together with any comments received during
the public veview process have been reviewed and considered, and recommend the
Board of Supervisors ,adopt a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures attached.;
and
C Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies including the text and map of
the Butte County General Plan; and
D. Recommcnd that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance rezoning to SR -1 that
property identified as AP 047-440-012 (Paul and Sadelle 'Levy); and
E. .'recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional
Zoning Agreement for AP 047-440-012 (Paul and Sadelle Levy) subject to the
following conditions:
1. Grant a 60' non-exclusive easement to Liptrap and Hauselt and their heirs,
successors and assigns and offer for dedication prior to recordation of any map
on AP 047-043-003, 047-260-138, and 047.440-012;
2. Easement to connect the Hauselt and -Levy easements over thv it property and
to Garner Lane. The easement is to provide circulation front State Highway
99 to Garner Lane:
3: All road construction in the easements is to be to Butte :County Standards for
maintenance and offered for dedication:
4. All new lots created must take access either through the Hauselt or the Liptrap
properties. lip to 20 total lots may be created using a single access -to State
Highway 99 or to Garner bane, Additional properties connecting State
Highway 99` to Garner Lane,
5, Creation of the 218t lot taking access vita any easement will require the
construction of a road. to Butte County standaa'ds for maintenance, and an offer
of dedication connecting State Highway 99 and Oarner Lane.
j1'0ca. i
E GOT7NTY QNNG CnMM$ON ITNt1TS,,5� -0 ,,r•
•w
6. Fay a pro rata share toward the reconstruction of Garner Lane prior to
recordation of any may on AP 047-440-012.
7o All access to State Highway 99 to be via the easement at the south property
line.
$• Roadways to be designed to provide for culverts and proper drainage design
to insure that no additional flooding will take place.
9: Finished floor elevations to be in accordance with FEMA and Cbunty
requirements.
10. Retention ponds are to be used so that stream peak flows are not increased
above existing levels.
11. The retention ponds to be designed in accordance with County standards and
standard engineering practices.
12. The owner is to sign an agreement to join a drainage assessment district when
one is formed.
13. Participate in the development and financing of a Specific Plan or other area
wide plan and associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that addresses
cumulative impacts regarding traffic, drainage and drainage district funding,
downstream flooding, and other impacts that may be identified, prior to any
application for discretionary action at public agencies. Agree not to oppose
formation of a mechanism to provide and fund infrastructure identifiers by the
resulting plan as being -,necessary for additional development in the plan area.
14; Provide a no -development setback from Keefer Slough prior to recordation of
any map on AP 047-440-012.
15. Designs for roads and drainage systems to comply with FEMA requirements.
AYES: Commissioner Matson and Chairman Forbes
NOES; Commissioners Lynch and',_,ambert
ABSENT: Commissioner Ostrowsk,;
ABSTAINED: No one
A 2-2 vote of the Commission is deemed a denial for the relief applied for,
.P'QUN Y P�i�1 ='0
x}3 MMSSTJ -24-, 00
„'al`Str A4a'hh, +..a*!k aa... } `, xrx {d;�,t' •': "�'i.''k .a r *+; rr
A
1illiam Hauselt proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding
environmental impact and ezonq from A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels) to SR -1
(Suburban Residential - I acre parcels) for property located on the west side of Highway
99, identified as AP 047-430-003, north of Chico. (File 89-24) (Continued open from
February 22, 1990)
Paul and. Sadelle 'U- vv w; ` proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures
regarding environmental impact and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural 10 acre parcels) to
SR -1 (Suburban Residential. 1 acre parcels) for property located on the east side of
Highway 99, approximately 4,000 feet south of Keefer Road, identified as AP 047-440-012,
Chico. (File 90-3) (Continued open from February 22, 1990)
Robert Liptrap - proposed. Legative Declaration with mitigation measures regarding
environmental impact and Rezone from A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels) for property
located approximately 3/4 mile southeast of Keefer Road and Highway 99 intersection, on
the east side of. Highway 99, identified as AP 047-260-138, Chico. (File 89-49) (Continued
open from February 22, 1990)
Staff suggested all three applications be heard together and the Commission agreed. Staff said
since the last hearing there has been a meeting in Chico regarding an area referred to as the North
Chico Area (4000 acre) which includes these parcels, Staff is trying to develop the concept of a
specific plan for the entire area because the cumulative impacts of traffic and drainage would be
very difficult to identify and address and mitigate on an individual basis. It is a regional issue:
There is also concern about an elementary school in this area. Staff recognizes that the Board
determined through the appeal process on the William Hauselt application for rezone, that a
Mitigated Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Staff then applied the mitigations that had
been recommended for the Hauselt property to the Levy and Uptrap properties, However at this
time, it is staff's recommendation that the identified cumulative impacts for the area, can not be.
considered for each individual parcel, but must be addressed for the region. Therefore, the
recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration for these three parcels would not be
appropriate. Regional impacts are issue's that individual applicants can not address or mitigate.
Staff is hoping that the property owners and/or developers will work together to finance the
development of a specific plan for the area. There is no money in the County's budget to do the
Plan of this size (between $80,000 to $10(1,000 cost). A Specific Plan would set out the land use
for the area, roads to be developed, the .drainage system, and a plan for financing the
infrastructures. Staff said that these three applications are properties that intricately tie to the
circulation development of the. region inasmuch as Caltrans has approved one public road
approach that would serve the three: properties, ;staff said if the Commission wants to send these
projects forward staff would. caution that the ivi.r6nmental determination is not appropriate at
this time and that any recomaieridatioti going forward to the Board should either be for denial or
to continue untl they arrow whether or not a Specif c flan for the area will be developed:
Chairman Forbes asked about the document from the Department of the ,Army, would staff
interpret this document for the Commission.
bUttE::, co ftk PLAM9±MO CQDiAiuttt g M±M'bTt! AOJi�. 1 6 ,
w
Staff f,,qd two comments. The Section entitled "404" regarding permits would still be .required.
The same would apply to the FEMA floodplain maps. staff said there is a letter from the Corps
of :13ngineers stating that the project is in an area. tha contains wetlands. Staff said the biggest
concern is the riparian habitat along Keefer Slough. Staff said the problems are a'regional issue
and very 'hard to look at site specific,
Commissioner Lambert said she would like 'to be notified of the next meeting on an area. Specific
Plan if there is one. Chairman Forbes said lye would like to be notified also,
Commissioner Lynch asked how long it would ;flake to develop a Specific Plan anti how long until
it would be in hearings.
Staff estimated the time would be 4 months to put the Plan together (if it is financed) and
approximately 9 months to one year total processing time.
Commissioner Lambert questioned the time lines on the three project before the Commission now.
Staff srid they have waiversfrom the applicants on the time lines in the files.
y
The hearing was opened to the public.
Jill Bachman said that all three applicants are willing to go forward on their rezones today. She
was aware of the proposed Specific Plan and EIR for the North Chico area, but these three
rezones are compatible with the General Plan and Zoning of the area and the applicants have
been waiting a long time for a decision. She said the traffic study was done for these projects
which addresses cumulative traffic impacts: She said that approval of these 'rezones and
agreements will provide for east -west circulation corridor, All road construction will be to bounty
standards and the ro;a.ds dedicated to the County. She discussed the drainage retention ponds.
She said the applicants are `h Ming to form a CSA for a. drainage district, She wanted approval of
the three rezone requests. She said, the applicants would agree to participate in the Area. Specific
Plan and VIIR. She ` people pusing t
p a
n +
e for solution, to
drainage proble.msi Sbd said there have been a onew environmental issues identified since the
applications went into hearings. She said the applicants have addressed the cumulative impacts
regarding drainage and traffic. She said they are willing to form an assessment drainage district
for 300+ acres,
Commissioner Lambert asked if these requests were sent to the Board. could the Board send the
items to the Chico Issues Committee?
Staff said it would be unusual for a land issue to go to that committee.
Bill Hauselt said he is one 'of the ownrzt and .has 94 acres. He said the three property owners
have agreed with the conditional zoning agreement. He discussed the traffic problems. He said
he talked to the Fire .Department on access availability and the Fire Department would liko the
access from these parcel as soon as possible. Re said his application has been in the Planni tg
Department since 19M He said when the appeal of the EIR was upheld at the Board it was.
3t7n''1'E . C0�7oTY FL�NN�NG GC?i�M��Sf`1"
,r,
based on cumulative traffic problems End a,study was done. He did not think it was fair to hold
up these projects any longer. He said thiky have done everything the County has asked for. He
said there are no additional environmental problems since the appeal of a requirement for an EIR
* ' make a decision was upheld, He asked that the ornmission isic today« He said the County approved
Carriage Estates and Wildflower Subdivisions contiguous to his property with no provisions for
fencing to protect his property.
Ethel Liptrap said. she understands the need for the Specific Plan, but wanted 0. d(.--.i84on on her
application 'today. She said she agreed to the conditional zoning agreement.
Commissioner Lambert asked the 'status of the legal problem that was mentioned at the last
meeting.
M.M. Liptrap said anthe problem has been resolved and all the property owners are in agreement
with the zoning d conditional zoning agreement. She said the drainage will be addressed at the
time of the subdivision map.
Chairman Forbeii, said all of the applicants are aware of the issues that have to be address before
development can occur and the applicants have done everything the County has asked.
Mrs. 13achman again stated that all three owners would be willing to form a CSA for drainage..
She said the CSA could also include Carriage Estates because there is a clause in their deed that
says they will join a CSA Drainage District When one is formed. She said this same drainage
disfAct could later be expanded to include the whole north Chico area.
Staff said the Commission could require that the applicants participate the Specific Plan and
EM for the Vorth Chico area prior to subdivision.
Mrs, Bachman said the I'3elleves that some, of the applicants Want tot
P 6cced With splitting their,,
property as soon as possible.
Staff was concerned that the responsibility for long term impacts of a Specific Plan are carried
forward to rezoning. Staff said the Commission should consider a condition to insure that the
property owners will participate in the Speci
ific Plan and MR for the area.
Chairman Forbes asked about enforcing the conditions on a conditionalioning agreement
StAt said tho enforcement is to rezone the propertyi.
Commissioner Lambert asked about the Dock Crdek kedamation District,
Staff said the District 18 west of Highway 99
Mrs. ,Bachman -3ald the hock Creek k6clarnation District was formed, but ,no Ver 'funded.
171
Commissioner Lynch dlsvn-,�,�ed the designing of drainage retention ponds for these three parcels.
9
0
e
Ma a auselik - proposed Legative I��elaratiozr1 with mitigation measure;s regarding
ernrironmentad impact and Bezand from A-10 (Ar/)►*cultural - 10 acre parcels) to SR -I
1Suburban R.es dential -1 acre parcels) for proper't'y loc;:tpd on the west side of Highway
99, idontihed as AP 047-430-0303, °north of Chico, (File 89-24) (Continued open from
January 11 19190)
I'll a d' t y
oaaiproposed Negativ eclwith mitigation measures
� ivampact andrearding .eromenP_a from A-10 (Agricultural -10 acre parcels) to
„
del e
SR-I(Suburban Residential - 1 acre parcels) for property located on the east side of
Highway 99, approximately 4,000 feet south of ]Keefer Road, identified as AP 047-440-0121
Chico. (lF lie 90-3) (Continued open from January 11,1990)
jigbert J. p_ ra - proposed v_g„Ueclaration with mitigation measures regarding
environmental impact and Y, '_je. from: A-10 (Agricultural. 10 acre parcels): for property
located approximately 3/4 mile southeast of Keefer Road and Highway 99 intersection, on
the east side of highway 99, identified as A" 047-260=138, Chico (File 89-49) (Continued
open from ,January Ili 1990)
Staff said the Commission needs to keep these -three applications together for discussion purposes,
but when the time comes the Commission will need to ;make three separate motions. Staff
submitted at me;tx>lo dated February 14, 1990 clarifying time lines by adding language to Conditions
2a, 2f, 21, and 2m
Commissioner O trowska asked staff if they viere referring to the Staff Finding or the Agreement?
Staff said the Agreement:
The hearing on all three items was opened to the public:
Jill Bachman said that the Rauselt property is.,in litigation in court and she would like a 60 day
continuance on the Hauselt application. She requested the Commission to take action on the Levy
and ..iptrap applications separately so the recommendation could be sent forward to, the Board
of Supervisors and not ,held up by the Hauselt litigation
Staff, said that these agreements are closely tied because of the limits d access and the number
of parcels that could be developed on the total of the t1free propertie9i Staff is reluctant to
recommend that `the Commiiision forward any recommendation until the Commission can respond
to the whole 304+ acres. Staff believed that they have time relief front Haruselt because of the
appeal to the Board of'Supervisors p,q regtiiring an F,TR, Ihia other two projects did not have the
benefit of that appeal process and there is only one ;more rrionth before the Commission wbold
taave to act, at l,as#, on'#he environmental detern?rination. St<affwould litre to recommend that the'
t
�� .\C -�ot3 fi' P. S SNG �Otv1M ��S at�t ',R �0''t; V'bbj!d (:t 2; J9Q
1 gid"
Commission get relief from applicfnt's Levy and Liptrap from the time lines of the California
V.,r»vironmental Quality Act to allow the Commission to ho;d'this hearing with the other propt:rty.
Staff said if the Commission is placed in a position of making a determination on the applications
toady, staff's recommendation would be for denial. Staff said the Commission could not isolate
any one of the properties from the other in regards, to coy -c r ,s that were raised' environmentally,
Staff said because of the difficulty in coming to a raasopial.le agreement on where an access would
be on Highway 9 the most northerly P P.e ro r, aiau'Rhe concerns of Caltrans and the traffic study,
�7
itis clear only one access should be allowed onto Highway 99. Staff said this limits the other
properties.
Mrs. Bachman said the conditions definitely tie all three properties together and the ,rezoning
would not change this She wanted the Levy, and I..iptrap application: to go forward and not be
held up by the Hauselt applicant. Sine said that approving the zoning would not allow Levy or
L iptrap to proceed with development that was contrary to the conditions. She said the applicants
Want to be able to start planning future development.
Commissioner Lambert noted that. in the memo from the Fire Chief, he stated that there must be
ingress and egress for all three properties to 'Highway 99 and there must be an :access route
connecting Highway 99 to Garnet Lane.
Staff said they talked to the Fire Departmont for clarification and the department said if the
southerly property develops first, the Fire Department would :Fant to see then first vestiges of the
through street being developed at 'least as an all weather road in order to give access to the
outherly parcel through the Hauselt northerly property. Staff said at this time, the Hauselt
:property is the key to this proposal. Staff said that the comparison condA( ons provided show that
if the Commission sends any one forward without the �i#her, they are talking about conditions
dependent upon a future action and they do not know what that action is going to be. If this was
done the Comrn fission would be imposing a condition upon someone that might not be able to be
achieved:
Commissioner Lynch said the Commission harts not seen any designs of what the sub:;equent
subdivision will be
Staff was concerned with access and circulation and did not want to send one or two of the; three
projects forward.
Commissioner Lynch asked if circulation for the three properties was going to be interlocked other
than the access onto Highway 99
Staff ;said the three parcel owners have to work together in order tO develop their property. Staff
said that Caltrans would like to see no access taken off bf Highway 99, but will allow one ade%s
point for all three parcels
BtJT ' 'dtfN IaA: M±RG, COMOilNS 14tS
Lie
Commissioner ,Lynch said the properfcles are intricately tied together and it is not practical to take �
any action on only one or two of the three projects.
Mrs; Bachman said there are letters in the files of Levy and Laptrap to waive the CEQA time lines
and staff acknowledged that this is correct. She said she would like the Levy iwd Liptrap hearings
sent forward to the Board or continued with the I-lauselt hearing. She did not want the. projects
denied.
Commissioner Matson asked Mrs. Bachman if the nature of the litigation would change the
agreements?
Mrs, the zoning
said re the litigation is regarding ownership ;�f the I-lauselt property and would not
affect. the zoning agreement.'
Evelyn Liptrap said she lives in the Bay area and has signed the agreement. She would like her
proje+.A to go forward and not have to wait on the outcome or the Hauselt litigation:. S'he wants
to be able to start plaru ing the development:
Commissioner Lambert asked about the possibility of her doing a ;i'X,JD so the !Commission could
see a develgpment plan for the property.
Mrs. Liptrap said she would refer not to do this,, 'Des not know p She said alta d, how the property
will develop, whether all or part, at this time. She said she assume3 the retention. ponds would be
ov the Hauselt property close to Keefer Slough,
r
ld�ars- Bache, tan said there is no way to do a FUD at this time. She said these are thr ^e sepaPate
pi operties and 1 or 2 of the parcels coulddevelop now and the other one later. She said the
reiention ponds would be as close to Keefer Slough as possible. She said runoff from the three
properties would be directed to the north to Keefer Slough,
The hearing was closed for discussion purposes only.
Commissioner Lanil-=ert asked What would happen to the developed properties if Keefer Slough
flooded.
Staff Aiscussed the potential floating of keder Slough. 'Staff said the retention ponds should take
care of downstream flooding problems. Stafi" said drainage is it problem in this part of the County.
Staff said there is a Dralinage District place, now` that encoinpasses-this area. Staff said the area
is developing to the point where something riedds to be done nen a regional basis rather than on
an indivldt.W bases. Staff said the Board findlog was for a Negative Declaration on the Hauselt,
property: Staff said tithe recommended Nei-;ative Decisration on all three protects and the
environme.,,tat findings tie all three properties together, Staff said it the protects were sent to lite
Board individually the projects would have to be looked at as individual projects for enviro
impacts.
nmental
Commissioner Lambert said if there is a waiver of the CEQA time lines in the files she would
in favor of a continuance on all three projects, be
Chairman Forbes said the three projects should be 'kept together.
Commissioner Lynch said that the statements clearly indicated that nothin . ca
the Hauselt property being approved. T; n happen without
Staff' said the ER requirement oil the Haus
findings fora Negative Declaration. Staff saiproped the find ni gs at the was appealed
and were e, Board
made thei
the Levy' and Liptrap applications,
considered far
Commissioner Lambert discussed the Drainage District and their fees.
trtaff affic.aid there is a request at the Board from staff regarding the area as i't relate `
s to drainage and
The hearing was reopened.
Ii was.moved by Colrjifi4ssiondr Lynch, seconded by Chairman Forbes, end un
to continue all three hearings open to April 26, 1990 at 1036 a.m, ani.nously carried
(Subonmental impact •anWOVU z n I ve Declarafi
envir , 'with mitigation measures regarding
trban Residential - 1 acre parcels) forAO Agricultural - i0 Acre
99, identified property located an the v,e,. parcels) to SR
-1
as AP 47-43-03, north of Chico, (File 89.24) .,t side of lFIighway
'aul . end Sadelle 1�z
proposed Negative Declaration with mitigation measures
regarding environrnenfal impact and Rune from
(Suburban Residential - 1 acre parcels) for A-10 (Agricultural - 10 acre parcels to
Highway 99 a Y property located on the east side of
approxi )nate l 4 000 feet south of Keefer Road, 'identified as AP 047_
Chico, (File 90-3)
440-012;,
R- obe li tra proposed Ng alive Decla�on with
environmental impact and Rezone from A-10
mitigatio,l1 measures regarding
(Suburba.n Residential - l acre (Agricultural - .l0 acre parcels) to SR -1
parcels) for property P rtY located approxiraatelY 314 mile
southeast[ of Keefer
identified) as AP 04R+lad and Highway 99E intersection, On the east side of'Hihwa1-250-138, Chico. (File 89-49)
� y 99E,
The above three hearings were taken together.
The Commission'
waived the reading of the Siaff findings.
Staff said the
} have received additional comments' from CDF' and the
P indicated that the project grid the rezone City of Chico, The Department has
or their ability to provide se ice, the ultimate development might li ie Fire
to ne will no} have an effect on their facilities
: p services at current levels. Staff said the comments fust
g have an impact on their ability
Will need access via Highway 99 on her state
r
Staff said the Fire Departments said there should be some the Fire ev pmen t
all three developed properties at the time of development.
partme
Properties at first stage of develo . t•
Fire Station is located on the eSnt of those properties direct) fro>�i access road into all
type of all weather
P
wafer tender funds isnot adequate, that the Ft side ire Department w''1 � ighway 99, Staff said
Highway Staff said the current ordinance for
Staff said there was some concern by the Ai ort
t, l be asking for an increase of fees;
p perties 'may have as effect on the Chico Municipal A'
'Properties is rid Use Co Ji, that development of these
talked to the i works by the City of Chico 'rpi°rt. There is current) a re
Airport )Environs plan in the
City representative` Tom Lando and the n w a lonwconsultant. Y revised
Staff said the;; they
eXpainsion or.extensions. Staff said the City had no additional
p �" will not entail any runwav�
Commissioner Limber} asked if there was .z drainage nditioils on circulation,
distr' co_ ;
4'et formed in this area,
etenton t oinds ifor storm s an funded drainage district in this area,
p m water drainage until Keefer Slough n handle That the :wale,• ore `
ect P ,� rhes propose
-
C ponds
sioner Lambert said "On though this is the rezo 1
the r
ne level, she Wanted to kno%v how large
pori s would be or ho much water they would need to store. She. said
would be the septic systems and wells as they relate to the N:
her o}her question
Nitrate Plan:..
�
# Ct7,ilm7szar7 ,rfirr�1T.....
anuav ;,�
Sta' -,aid the property is outside of the nitrate area. Staff said the property densities wort
the ruirements for wells and septic by Health Department. Staff aatd the Property Id meet
the Sphere of Influence of the City of Chico and not subject to the nitrate policies Staf said
e
Staff said the
concern would be if the parcels were l acre' or less. Staff said. there. is no development plan at this
ime so it is not passible to estimate the size of the retention ponds:
Commissioner Ostrowskiasked if Keefer Slough had water in it only during the winter runoff time
and staff said yes.
Staff said the slough flows eat;!- to west.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked what the parcel sizes were north of Keefer Slough?
,Staff said I acre or larger parcels. Staff said there are no sewer districts ill the area, generally
individual septics and wells. _ g lly
Ile hearing was opened to the public.
,h
.fill Bachman, representing all three properties, said the timing for subdivision maps
Y p �,unktimirn
line. She said the ro er is surrounded he other parcel will be further down th
p tY i d b e
She said. 2 of the parcels mu-> develop m a ear or two, t , r ,
g.
an orchard being farmed is not acceptable. She SPI
he ondlit ons s to Me t thd an ere road through
the Fire Department and does not state an all weather road. q rerr"tents of.
Commissioner Ostrowski asked if all the; properties were currently orchards.
y " pp
NL'S. Bac � � � .said es. She asked for A, 3U da continuance to allow thea !cants :tithe to rc,�i �
the tonin a eements with their lawyers. ew
Staff said if the Commission is bgoing to continue these hearings, " he
arings should rem�iri Open,
Comnlissl6aer Lynch asked if the Agreements were between the applicant and DuRe
C,dunty. .
Staff said yes. Staff said the location of the access to Highway 99 is limited to the souther! cornEr
of the Hauselt property, y
Commissioner Lambert discussed widening of the; bridge.
Staff said the route concept for 'widening the road does not go' north of C '
require the bridge be widened. htco and would not
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconds
carried to continue all three hearings to February 2?., by1090fid? at 10:
si ner Lynch, and unanimously
FILE NO. 90.3
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS - January 2, 1990
APPLI CANT;
Paul and Sadelle Levy
OVINEP;
Same
REQUEST:
Rezone from A-10 to, SR;1,
AP NC?t
047-440=012
SIZE.-
68.19 acres
LGCAT[ON;
On the easy .side of Iii hwa
g Y 99
approximately 4,000 feet south of
Keefer Road, north of Chico, CA:
EXISTING ZONING,
A-10
ZONING HISTORY:
Zoned A-10 Jan. 1981 Ord. 2184
SURROUNIDING ZONING:
A -W, SR -1
SURROUNDING LAND USL;
Agricultural uses othe West, suburban
residential developm-ent and
agricultural uses to the north Ieast;
and south.
GENERAL PLA14 DESIGNATION.-
,Agricultural Residential
APPLICABLE RE, GULAT'IONSs
Butte County Code Sections 26 through
29, 24-75 and 24-162, Butte County
General Plan specifically the Land Use
Element and Circuli{ion Element,
�Ol1IMENTS RECEIVF�
h;
BLi`I'I' , COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS January 2, 1990
Caltrans- , See the attached letter dated 10/3/39.
Public Works:. "1. Bridge on Garner Lane at Keefer 'Slough needs replacing. 2,
Traffic impacts on Garner Lane. Currently GarnerLane is a minimal roadway."
Environmental Health: "Rezone OK. Subse4luent projects will require 1)
verification of soil; 2) verification of winter ground water 3) compliance
with flood plain ord.'"
California. Highwwt -Patrol: "Should not make a»y significant impact upon C14P
operations."
Butte County Mospuito Abatement: See attached .letter.
.Butte County. Fire Department`. "The conversion from A-10 to SR -1 has no
immediate effect on the Fire Department. However, once the lots are sold and
houses are constructed it will. Pi^cemeal development (4 at a time) in this.
area with no chance. for hydrant or water requirements is a problem:"
ANALYSISr
This projectis a request to rezone 68.19 acres located ori the east side of
State Highway 99, north of Chico, from A-10 to SR -1. This project is one of
three separate, but adjacent, applications requesting SR -1 zoning in this
area. All three properties are currently orchards and front on State Highway,
99, This Parcel also fronts on Garner Lane. This frontage is compromised dup
to existing development on small neighboring parcels and the proximity of the
bridge across Keefer Slough:
The ex staig A-10 zoning was adopted in 1981 as part of the Chico Airport
trivirons Rezone. The A-10 zoning was chosen due -to concerns regarding
flooding of the properties by Keefer Slough, downstreamdrainage, and traffic
hazards on Highway 99. '!'%-e Initial Study for the first project, (Hauselt)
determined that these potential impacts still exist and an EL'S was requited.Mr. Plauselt .appealed to the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Hauselt and his engineer
proposed methods to avoid further impacts on flooding and drainage (see
attached list of conditions), and the three applicants commissioners a i;affic
study of the area that identified potential iMPacts and developed requirements
for any further development (see attached Tmffic Study). CalTrans and the
Department of Public Works corioarred and suggested specific constitttior
standards. The Board of Supervisors then do.termined that Any signiticant
impacts can be mitigated by proper design of :subsequent subdivisions; The
design features will be required by conditional zoning.
2
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS - January 2, 1990
f.mpacts related to flooding a.,a drainage 'will be minimized by meeting the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE1V, ) requirements for development in
flood-prone areas and by the use of on-site retention ponds for storm drainage
waters. This will keep storm water on site until Keefer Slough flows drop to
a point that the slough can accommodate runoff from the site. Minimizing
traffic impacts will require the co-operation of all three of the applicants.
The Traffic Study _and CalTrans have determined that only one new public road
approach can safely be constructed along the three property frontages. This
road can only be located at the southerly boundary of the Hauselt property.
It will be necessary for the three property owners to deed each other road
rights-of-way that will connect through to Garner Lane along the Liptrap
frontage. Any roads will have to be built to county standards for gaintenance
and offered for dedication to the County, Additionally, the Butte County
Subdivision Ordinance will require the connection between Highway 99 and
Garner
Innbe plily n ancted and offered for dedication before
morethan twenty lots are but on Y F,gle
cul-de-sac.
Thud, 20 lots could'
be created on a cul-de-sac accessing Highway 99 and 20 lots could be created
On a similar cul-de-sar, off of Garner Lane; Any additional development will
require the two cul-de-sacs to be connected'. - '.Phis should be restated as a
condition in order to make it clear to any subsequent owner or developer that
the through circulation: is necessaiy, and so` " that no exception to the
Subdivision Ordinance is granted.
While }his property does have frontage on Highway 99, its pr mAmity to the fire'
station and the curve in the highway make development of a road approach in
this area inappropriate. The frontage on Garner Lane should not be developed
With a road approach because of limited sight distance due to the bridge and
exising development. Accordingly, further subdivision of this property will
have to access area streets via neighboringproperties`, This will be
coordinated with other development tcs the north and south as indicated in the
attached list of zoning conditions. This will encourage southbound traffic
from the developed property to flow toward Garner Lane and to access Highway
p9 at arcels the an existing
inu GaarnWork ole t r tf fi of sieasements 'Conditional ad a reementt loci all three
P P agreements between the
owm: rs that will ensure the ability to dtwelop all three: properties in a
logical manner. The attroched list of conditions shows' the relationship
between the properties regarding road,, right-of way aad im;provements,
The Environmental Docurt ents fo:t this project have been conlpleted and the Boar(
of Supervisors has found that a Negative Declaration witli Mitigation Measures
Attached is appropriate, The Mitigation Measure will consist of Conditional
Zoning requiring the design features discussed above. The Department of
;3
F
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS - January 2, 1990
Public 'Works and CalTrans have reviewed and concurred with the condition;,
which will address flooding, drainage and traffic concerns associated with
this project,
RECOMMENDATIONS:
MOTION: ACCqHE RECO�A`1'1ONS OF'1HE STAFFMEMO DATED January 2,1990;
` f.
MACE THE FINDINGS LISTED UNDER "A", "B", AP f D "r; ; MOVE AS OUTLINED UNDER "D
AND "E" ,INCLUDING ALL OF THE CONDITIONS NUA4BERED I THROUGH 15:
A, Find that;
1, An initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA.
2: Said study and comments received thereon identified potentially
significant environmental effects which the project may have had,
but will not in this case because of the adopted mitigation measures
attached; and
B. Find that thio environmental documents together with ufiy comments
received durinv, the public review process have tipen reviewed and
considered and recommend 'the board of Supervisors adopt a Negative
Declaration with mitigation measures attached; and
C, Find that the proposed rezone conforms to the policies including the text
and maps of the Butte County General flan; and
D. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance rezoning to
SR -1 AP 047440-012 (Paul & Sade Ile Levy); and
E: Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt 1. Resolution approving a
g
Conditional toning Agreement for AP 047-440-012 (Paul & Sadelle Levy)
subject to the 'following conditions;
1: Grant 'a 60' !tot, -exclusive easement to Hauselt and Liptrap and their
Heirs, Successors and Assigns and oiler for dedication,
2: P asement to connect the Hauselt and Uptrtip as over their
property and to pr wide for circulation from St Hwy, 99 to Garner
Lane.
3. Al road construction in the easements is to be to Butte County
Standards for maintenance and offered for dedi,cation,
4
BU ITE,
COUNTY JL4-NNING COIMMISSION
STAFF FINDINGS - January 2, 1990
4.
All new lots created must take access either through the Hauselt or
the 'L ptrap properties. Up to 20 total lots
may be created using a
single access to. State Highway 99 ar to Garner Lane. Additional
lots
will require circulation through the Hauselt and Liptrap
properties connecting St. Hwy 99 to Garnett
ie.
5.
Creation of the '21st lot taking access via any easement will require
the construction of ;a road to Butte County
standards- for main-
te*iance, and an offor of dedication, connecting State Highway 99'
and Garner Lane.
6:
Pay a pro rata share toward the reconstructio.in of Garner Lane.
7.
All access to State Ifighway 99 tj be viz the easement at the; south
ro, E line of the Hauseltproperty.
P P'�'
g.
t
RoadOays to be desi rmtd to
g provide for culverts and proper drainage
design to insure that no additional flooding take
will place.
9.
Finished floor elevations to be in accordance with FEMA and county
requirements: _
10,
Retention ponds are to be used so than stream peals flows are not
increased above existing levels:
1L
The retention ponds to be designed 10 accordance with county
Standards and standard engineering practices.
12.
Tho owner is to sign an agreement to join it drainage assessment �
district when one is formed
13.
Form a County Service Areat for drainage maintenance.
` 14.
Prov+de a no-develo mth
p t scaback from Keefei` Slough,
15:
Designs for roads ansa drainage systems
to comply with FEMA
requirements.
DRln3.Ir
Attachrrt.ents
to 'Commission and Cities.
Site
Plan
5
.. ,.a, ; , ..4.,.,, .r
r
• usef
AP 047.430-003
i.e�yv+
AP 047-440-012
T,iptra
AP 047-260-138
1,
Grant a 60' Non-exclusive
Grant a 60' Non. -exclusive
Grant a 60' Non-exclusive
easement to Lew and
easement to Lew, and
Liptrap and their Heirs,
easement to Hauselt and
Liptrap and their Heirs,
Hauselt and their Heirs,
Successors and Assigns and
S�,.ccessors and Assigns and
Successors and Assigns and
offer for dedication,
offer for dedication:
offer for dedication.-
2.
Easement to be located on
Easement to connect the
Easement to connect to Me
on the Lew
or adjacent to the southerly
Hauselt and Liptrap
their
easement
property and to Garner'Lane:
property line of the Hauselt
at State Hwy. 99
easements over
properties and to provide for
The easement is to provide
property
acid to Connect to the
circulation from St. Hwy. 99
circulation from St. Hvry. 99
easement an the Levy
to Garner Lame,
to Garner Lane.
Property, The easement is
to pr Ade circuladon from
St. Hwy. 99 to Garnet
Lane:
3.
All road construction in the.
A.il road construction in the
All roai construction in the
is to be to Butte
easements is to be to Butte
for
a asements is to be to Butte
County Standards for
easements
County Standards for
County Standards
maintenance and offered
maintenance and offered for
maintenance and offv<:ad for
for dedication,
dedication.
dedication.
d.
Up to 20 total lots may be-
All aew lots created most
`Up to 20 total lots riay be ,
created using a single.
Highway +
take 'access either through
the Flauselt or the Liptrap
created using a single access
to Garner Lane. Additional
access to State
Additional lots ;will require
properties. Up to 2:'l total
dots will require circulation
circulation through the
lots may be created using a
through the Levy and Hauselt
Levy and Liptrap properties
single access to State
properties to State Highway
to Garner Lane.
Highway 99 or Garner Lane.
99.
Additional lots will require
circulation through the
Hau elt and Liptrap
properties connecting St.
Hwy 99 to Garner Lane.
Creation of the 21st lot
Creation of the 21st lot
Creation of the 21st lot
taking access via any
taking access via any
the
taking access via any
easement Wi!1 require the
easement will require the
construction of a told to
easement will require
consiructiori of a road to
construction of a fond to
Butte County standards for
"+ffer
Butte County standards 'for
and an Offer of
Butte County standards lot
maintenance, turd ah offer of
maintenance; and at
of dedication; contaeeting
mcintenance,
dedication, connecting State
dedication, wri tiieting Statin
State Highway 99 and
Highway 99 and Garner
HigLanhway 99 and Garner
Garner Lane.
Lane.
61
pay a pro rata sham toward
Pay a pro raid sitare toward
Bay a era ratai share toward
the reconstrtiction of
the reconstructlon of Gainer
the reconstruction of Garner
Garner Lane.
Lane.
Lane.
Hauselt
Lew
Lintran
7,
All access to State Highway
99 to be via the easement
All access to Stale Highway
99 to be via the easement
All access to State Highway
at the south property line,
at
the south. property line of the
99 to be via alae easement at
the south property line of the
Hauselt property:
Hauselt property;
8.
Roadways to be designed to
provide for culverts and
Roadways to be designed to
Roadways to be designed to
proper drainage design to
provide for culverts and
proper drainage design to
provide for culverts and
drainage design to
insure that no additional
flooding will take place..
insure that no additional
flooding `will take place.
,..oiler
Insure that no additional
flooding will take place.
%
Finished floor elevations to
be in
l~inished floor elevations to
Anished floor elevations to
accordance withbe
FEMA
in accordance wilt ^*�*4A
be in accordance with'FEMA
and county
requirements.
and county requirements,
and county requirements.
1t7,
Retention ponds are to be
used so that stream peak
Retention ponds are to be
Retention ponds are to be
flows are ot increased
used so that stream peak
flows are not Inc; eased above
used so that stream peak
flows are not increased above
above existing levels,
g
existinglevels. :
existing levels,
11.
p onds to be
The retentionponds
des: ed in accordance with
i
retention
The ponds to be
d esigned in accordance
The retention
tt to be
county standards and
standard engineering
with
county standards and
standard:
designed in accordance with
county standardsand
Practices.
engineering
practices,
standard engineering
practices,
The owner is to sign nn
agreement to join a
The owner is to sign an
agreement to join a drainage
The owner is to sign an
- agreement
drainage assessment iistrict
when one is formed
assessment district when one
to join a drainage
assessment district when one
is formed;
is formed
Form a County Service
Area for drainage
Form 'a County Service Area
for drainage maintenance.
Form a County Service Area
maintenance.
for drainage maintenance,
14.
Provide a no-development
Provide a no-development
setback from Keefer
Slough.
setback from Keefer slough.
15
Designsand
systems t tot roads
1) ai gas ± for
tents roads oco and
ag iys comply
Designs for roads and
dralnage
with FEMA requirements;
witil 178NIA requirements,
systems to comply
with `EMA requirements,
e
STAVE. OP CAW ORNIA•—BI ISINE55, RA TATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 0
p,p, BOX 911, MARYSVILLE 95901
TDD Phone (916) 741-4463
Telephone (916) 741-4490
october '3 1989
i
3ENCf
GEORGE nwvtv1E11AN; 'GoVemoIr
--
03-But-59
P.M. 37.7
North Chico Rezone
Mr. David Hirom mus
Butte. County'
Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
orovi'lle CA 9596B
Dear Mr. Hironimus
Thank you for the opportunity to review the traffic study for the proposed
rezone of three parcels adjacent to tii ghway 99 north of w,, I cO .
These rezones would contribute to s ynif'��a1tln dsuresive shauIdabesto the level considered to of
service on Highway 99 in this area. Sever r
minimize mi+lzP ehese impacts. The number of private driveways onto the highway should
be trey +t111iL►,_. n+.v'•
ii*,lid be provided viu Mproved, 'intersectiotls„
Left turns from driveways andstreets olito Highway 99 will become increasingly'
diffi ctrl t as traffic Vollames ixicrease. heft turns should be concehtrated at
existing or plarned signalised intersecti,ens to avoid the need for additional
signals;
We urge the County -to consider construction ofcaGaanerrLaneial Cshoul'dybeo handle
intra-Gity travel. If these rezones are approved1
improved to arterial standards. Internal roads should be designed to maXimlze
the use of Garner lane for trips toward Chico.
Caltrans recommends no new access to Highway 99belpetmitould betrthe
most$Only
one new. access would be considered. Decelerateo
ired, and
it should be located at least 1,000 feet south of Keefer Slough BriNe .
Dedication of right"Of-way to at least 50 feet from centerline should be
required before a final 8ubdivision map is approved:
We suppoi:'t the recommendation of aper unit transportation mitigation fee and
concur that local funding will be necessary to address local growth.
,, s Will have priority for State funds. The
Inter regional transportation needy being conducted wi11 address a preferred
Route 99/70 freeway study to Sacramento.
Caltrans is not considering a new
routo linking Chico south to Sacramento;
expressway to the west of Highway _99 in north Chico and 'has rescinded the prior'
route adoption.
wit ca. mahhi64 Catm-'I
�;rovlll3� �iiiar5;�