Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRZ 96-02_PLANNING 0 'SEPARATOR SHEET p,„ 011 - q2o - oos -PROJECT NUMBE fZZ 9C� - OZ .� '-_ _ . .,,.�- � .�^-. '�" a!!� - mss. - -�-- - - v r r � 1 �• �,;.J �. i � ? � _� —� i� .��� D �� �. ! _ ` , ..d • � y.y1" "� .. r' . � �l�� _ y �-� > .,r • t` � w.+ � ., t �Z � ��� .:r'�° 'r4 �r t PROJECT SUMMARY SHE Al OZ _ FILE NO. 40 6 81 PROJECT TYPE: n t / R e z o n e APPLICANT: Board of Supervisors I ADDRESS: Z ✓w ✓ OWNER: Vav 10 S ADDRESS: REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: ��n f� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: O.A.�.Z'?ovin t'Y`-- ' " �'�-" 2,a PROPERTY ZONED: -S LOCATED: �K - �.� �-4-L ovi G*yA te,,S± o AP NO.: V4.y►oys /�� TOWN/AREA: 11 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: &6 ivy to ly% 1. Application Complete: Amount: Receipt No.: 2. Comments sent to: 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing Ust(Lead-In Sheet: 6. Assigned To: 7. Environmental Determination: _Categorical Exemption-CEOA# State Clearinghouse No.: (`t, Y eanning 1epar4nent _Negative Declaration MAY 2 1 1996 _Mitigated Negative Declaration Subject to Fish&Game: QI'Ovii6m,y.uiiYJi'nlr3 _Environmental Impact Report Gen.Rule Ex.-CEOA#15061.(b)(3) Other 8. Staff Report: Project Video: 9. Clearinghouse circulation required:Yes No Date Sent to SCH: 10: Publication Notice Written: . Display Ad Prepared: 11. Notices Mailed: Number of Notices: 12. Newspaper Publication Date: Q ^ c O C P G B R 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): /0 /0 ' S 6P Action taken:: (AO NT � Ita. rL q !d ti G.►✓1 Special Condib Conditions 3'/ � f+9� '-vA•�• �ouZ� �Iz'I Reco.r►�.•►�l �,w,,.,,Q Commission Resolution No. ,((�� - •,,o p 14.• Board of Supervisors'Hearing(s): Action taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No.: Adopted: 15. Type Use Permit/Send for Signature: _ 16. N.O.EJN.O.DJAPPENDIX G: Fish&Game Fees Paid: Yes No 1 _ Send validated Use Permit; PlanningUP—rtmPnt 18. Asressor's Memo: 19. Copy of Use_PermfWariance to Planning Technician: J U! 17 1995 QP`......_ .,_....:.71;6 .S E. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre. parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from March 13, 1997) Cal Ling, on the Board of Directors of the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, submitted and read a written statement describing the mission of the conservancy to protect fish in the creek by protecting habitat in co-operation with landowners. She requested that decisions regarding policies which concern Butte Creek be postponed until the Conservancy has completed more work and made more information available. Kelly Meagher, 1781 Honey Run Road, spoke in favor of the rezone because of dangerous flooding potential. He felt the rezone does not go far enough to protect people from flood damage. He said problems occur on-site, up and downstream, and ultimately the taxpayers bear a cost in addition to the homeowners flooded. The flood prone area should not be developed. Morris Boeger said he sees the issue as one of property rights and that people should have the right to divide their property into 5 acre parcels. He described how flood damage was caused by the fish ladder at Okie Dam. i . HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Leland felt a rezone would be inappropriate since the concerns can be j addressed by a Stream Corridor Zone to protect the environment or can be handled on a case by case basis as a parcel is proposed for development. Chairman Lambert was in favor of considering more alternatives or a holding pattern, if not the rezone to FR-20. It was moved by Commissioner Cage, and seconded by Commissioner Mooney to deny without prejudice the request to rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge in Butte. Creek Canyon on approximately 800 acres of land, since the area is mostly developed already in 5 acre or smaller lots and there is no reason to change the zoning since the change would be unfair to the landowners. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Cage, Mooney and Leland NOES: Chairman Lambert ABSENT: Commissioner Nelson ABSTAIN: 0 __ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES,-March 27, 1997 A. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from December 12, 1996) B. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combining zone. The zone will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) (Continued open from December 12, 1996) Mr. Sanders said that Alan Harthorne of the Butte Creek Conservancy was unable to be present at today's meeting, but could be present on March 27, 1997. Mr. Sanders gave an overview of why the rezone'and code amendment have been proposed. Commissioner Leland said that different criteria are being used for two different concepts. Commissioner Mooney said it would seem that the SC zone would tend to negate the effects of other zones. Commissioner Leland said that"taking" should not be an issue as long as the owner's right to build is preserved. Chairman Lambert read a letter by John Farhar dated March 13, 1997, in favor of both the proposed rezone to 20 acre minimums and the SC combining zone. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Bob McClure, owner of property north of the covered bridge, said most of the problems in the canyon are due to tourists and tubers, not the residents and landowners. He said the SC zone would be superfluous and the landowners should be able to make the decisions concerning the canyon, for example, through the watershed conservancy. Renee McAmis spoke about the history of her property which had 20 acre minimum parcel sizes imposed. She was not in favor of placing such restrictions on other properties. Morris Boeger, member of the Butte Creek conservancy and a volunteer fireman, said the issue is really the people with .5 acre lots who want to use the McAmis property as a park. He said the proposed rezone and SC zone would be "takings" and would be Socialism at work. He was opposed to the rezone and the SC zone. He submitted photos showing cars parked in the roadway. He said day use is the biggest problem and parallel parking should not be allowed on the road. a ~� w BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 13, 1997- t Mr. McClure said there is a sanitation problem because of a lack of toilet facilities for all the day use people. Rob Cheal, owner of property above the covered bridge, said the rezone should be considered separately from the SC combining zone since they are completely different issues. He submitted an aerial map showing his property. He said there is lots of money available for purchase of property to protect stream corridors, but the rezone would devalue the properties even for people who might wish to sell them for stream protection. He said flooding is not a problem and property is being taken away from the owners. He said Commissioner Nelson has a conflict of interest. Commissioner Nelson did not think he had a conflict of interest, but said he would discuss the matter with County Counsel. Mr. Cheal said he lives in a 600 square foot mobile home along the creek and might not be able to enlarge it because of the proposed restrictions. He said the economy could be hurt by the proposals and property value lowered. Chairman Lambert said there seems to be three separate issues: 1) the 20 acre rezone, 2) the SC combining zone, and 3) the conservancy. Commissioner Nelson explained that the.concept of conservancies is to include all the landowners in the decision making process. He noted his only involvement with the conservancy is to draw their maps. Linda Meyers, owner of ten acres of property above the Okie Dam, spoke against the rezone. She said there are already sufficient restrictions in place for anyone wishing to split their property. For example the Health Department has certain restrictions. The creek itself has washed out trees. -She said the rezone would accomplish nothing except cut her property value in half. It was moved by Commissioner Cage, seconded by Commissioner Mooney, and carried to continue the hearings OPEN to March 27, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Mooney, Cage, Leland and Chairman Lambert NOES: Commissioner Nelson __ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 13, 1997 i B. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from December 12, 1996) Mr. Sanders read a letter from John Farrar, in favor of both the rezone to FR-20 and the Stream Corridor Combining zone, because of the "highly dynamic and unpredictable hydrological aspect of rive rine/riparian environments" as resources to protect for their biological value and for flood protection functions. Mr. Farrar felt properties should be considered individually and apply for rezoning for something less than 20 acres on a case by case basis. Chairman Seegert said the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain may have changed recently. Mr. Sanders said the 1989 FEMA maps are the most recent information available. During the recent floods, several videotapes were taken in the canyon. There was a discussion of needing updated information in order to have an accurate map of the flood zone after the recent floods in the canyon. Mr. Sanders said the proposed SC zone would be 300 feet measured from the top of either creek bank. The flood zone may go beyond that, and building is allowed in a flood zone at or above the high flood level. If the creek bank changes, the 300 feet would change with it. He said the SC overlay zone would apply in addition to the base zone, which is currently FR-5. He said 100' from the creek bank would be a No Development Zone. From 1 00' to 300' from the bank, a detailed site plan would be provided at the time of building permit application to allow Public Works, Planning and Building staff to review earth removal and changes to vegetation and to work with applicants to minimize impacts. Depending on the topography, requirements could be waived by the Director of Development Services. Mr. Sanders noted that the SC zone could be used countywide, and in order to be applied to a particular stream, public hearings would be held. There was a discussion about parcels which have unique circumstances such as being on a bluff above the creek, without riparian vegetation, which would allow certain requirements to be waived. Mr. Sanders said requirements could be waived to allow building within the 100 foot setback. Commissioner Lynch said it would be helpful to know where the top of the bank actually is. Commissioner Nelson said the concept of an SC zone can be considered without actually knowing where the top of the bank is. Chairman Seegert said large parcels would not necessarily protect people from flooding. Mr. Sanders said the number of people affected by flooding would be less with larger parcels. �� BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9,t 1997 y Commissioner Cage said there is no room to build levees since some properties are developed right up to the creek. Commissioner Lynch said levees are not in this commission's purview and are not practical. The natural stream course is the bottom of the canyon where development is occurring. Levees can create a worse situation if they are breached. The canyon walls are the natural levees. He said the overlay concept should be considered in light of the recent floods in order to see if such a zone would have any merit and actually do some good. C. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combing zone. The zone will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) (Continued open from December 12, 1996) HEARINGS "B" AND "C" OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Kelly Meagher said the flood plain of the canyon should be a No Development zone totally. He opposes the proposed rezone, although it is a step in the right direction. He agreed the natural levees are the canyon walls. The exhibit map is incorrect. At his home above the Covered Bridge, the current of the creek has moved from near his house to 60 or 70 yards away. In the flood of 1986 the water was higher because of being dammed up, but this year the water was faster and took out more of the bank by his house. It is foolish to consider development in this flood plain. There was flooding this year without water being dammed up. The proposed setbacks are ludicrous. The tops of the banks change. Matt Kidder distributed diagrams to the Commissioners. He said his property is indicated as being in the flood plain on the FEMA map, but it was not flooded this year. His property is affected by some water that comes from the Baldwin property. There is a manmade problem that needs a manmade solution. Mr. McAmis should be allowed to plug some problem areas and eliminate the problems the people have on the other side of Kidder's place. Environmental and safety issues need to be balanced. The local flooding problem of several inches of water in some houses can be solved. The issue of density in the canyon should be separated from the flood issue. Flooding concerns should not be used to control density. Commissioner Nelson noted that a flooding situation can be created by a tree damming up the creek and flooding a property that might not otherwise have been flooded. Mr. Kidder said the proposed 20 acre rezone is oppressive. He might not be able to do a boundary line modification. Mr. Sanders said that might not be accurate. A substandard parcel can be part of a boundary line modification under certain circumstances. BUT COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997 Mr. Kidder asked who people can go to if they want to become proactive about the flooding situation. Commissioner Lambert asked if he meant a Specific Plan for the canyon. Mr. Kidder said he meant specifically adjustment of conditions on the McAmis property, who is restricted now from being able to fix some situations. If he wouldn't have done what he had done before he was stopped, some people would have been flooded much worse than they were this year. Commissioner Lynch thought that in the absence of a reclamation or levee district, the Army Corps of Engineers might be the agency to contact. Chairman Seegert described how someone who improved a levee on their own, was subsequently sued by his neighbors when their property was flooded. Commissioner Lynch said that solving a problem in one location might create a problem in another location. Mr. Kidder said that walking the actual property can be very informative. There is a relative easy "fix" in his situation and water would not be backed up the canyon. Euell Holliman, a neighbor of Matt Kidder, agreed with what Mr. Kidder said. He said the work by McAmis did help lessen the flooding situation. He noted the water in Butte Creek Canyon does not come from Paradise, Magalia or Stirling City. Mr. Holliman was in favor of 5 acre zoning, putting things back the way they were, working with the contractor, and putting in a levee and opening the creek up like it should be. He suggested walking the property. He said the miners and Butte Creek Rock have worked the land over and over. There is a bottleneck that needs to be fixed. The water goes into a big hole which was manmade. John Merz, Chairman of the Board of the Sacramento River Preservation Trust, asked if the SC zone is still at the conceptual stage. Commissioner Nelson said it would be the adoption of a zone, but not actually applying it to a location. Mr. Merz asked if the recommendation to the Board would include also specific locations. Mr. Sanders said the Commission could recommend specific areas along with a recommendation for a SC'zone. Mr. Merz said the SRPT supports the concept of the overlay zone. He said Shasta County has been working on a similar mechanism. He said the setbacks depend on the size of the stream course. He said, if a zone is established, he hopes it will not take 2 or 3 years to implement. He asked where Butte County is, in the process of implementation for specific streams. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9, 1997 Mr. Sanders said the overlay zone came about as an alternative to the FR-20 rezone, so a portion of Butte Creek Canyon would be the steam it would probably be applied to. Other specific water courses have not been identified at this time. Commissioner Lambert said the overlay zone could also be used in conjunction with FR-20 zoning. Mr. Sanders said that is true, and another option that could be explored which is done for the Watershed Protection Zone above Paradise, is that the standards for the Zone were adopted by Resolution which allows the. standards to change within each Watershed Protection Zone. For example, standards could be different for the Magalia and Concow watersheds. A Stream Protection Zone for the Sacramento River could be different than for other water courses. Commissioner Cage said that Stream Protection Zones are still in the discussion stage. Mr. Merz recommended the process to move along quickly. A lot of mapping has already been done. There are prototypes in place. He supports the goals of the Stream Protection Zone and says it is important that the protection be put in place, both for riparian/wildlife habitat values and the flooding nature of the streams. Butte Creek is not the only water course that should be protected. Decisions should be made not just in emergencies, but on the realities of the streams over time, relative to development pressures. He recommended that on determination of the "top of bank", the County should be involved in that decision, not just the Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Seegert suggested that the property owner could be part of the debate as to "top of bank." Mr. Sanders said the intent was that the Department of Fish and Game, as the "expert" would be the final opinion if there is a dispute between the property owner and the County. Mr. Merz suggested that regarding the waiver of requirements by the Director of Development Services, the results of any and all waivers should be reported to the Planning Commission at some point, so there is some notification to the public that the waivers have occurred and why. Morris Boeger, of Butte Creek Canyon, asked if the overlay zone would be applied to the entire length of Butte Creek or just a portion in the canyon. Mr. Nelson said the discussion is not about specific locations at this time. Mr. Boeger said it is erroneous to say there was more water backed up at the Covered Bridge in the 1986 flood. He said only cemented gravel or bedrock were not moved by the creek. The creek straightened out wherever it could and went right through gravel bars. The channel is deeper than it was before; the creek bottom was scoured. With the 100 foot setbacks which have been in place on lots developed since the early 1980's and the creek width, there is already a 260 to 300 foot BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9, 1997 riparian corridor in place. He said there are already adequate protections for the creek and a study is being done by the Butte Creek Conservancy which will provide information on what more needs to be done to protect the habitat. He suggested eliminating parallel parking on Centerville and Honey Run Roads to eliminate day use on the creek because there are no toilet facilities. There are hundreds of people that use the creek every day in the summer and leave trash. The road is blocked by parked cars and people. The houses of canyon residents are not the problem. The day use needs to be corrected. He objects to the overlay zone and said it is a "taking." J. D. Zink said the overlay zone might be a good idea, but maybe some of the definitions in the proposed zone need to be "rethought." He agrees with Mr. Boeger's concerns. He considers the zone a "taking". If he cannot build within 100 feet of the creek on his lot, which was created in the 1960's, his lot would be valued 75% of its current value.. He agrees day use of the canyon is a problem for the residents and a hazard for fire protection. The overlay zone would give too much power to the County bureaucracy regarding building locations. Rob Cheal, of Helltown Road, said that hundreds of people would be affected by overlay zones without knowing about it. It would be an extra layer of bureaucracy and a weapon of environmentalists. His property values would be affected. The overlay zone would spread throughout the county on other streams and would be very divisive. It would be very expensive for people who develop their property to make maps. Mr. Cheal submitted some letters from other property owners who are opposed to an overlay zone and said that other people would be here to speak if they knew about the proposed overlay zone. The rights of people to use their property for the purposes they bought it would be taken away. The Department of Fish and Game pays for stream corridor easements and the option to sell them would be taken away. Mr. Sanders noted that setbacks of 100 feet from streams have been required of newly created parcels since the 1980's. Mr. Boeger said mapping of trees would be costly, add another level of bureaucracy, and add to the price of homes. He objected to the restriction to 10% for home additions. It is ludicrous to talk about 4" trees when trees of 30" to 36" have been floating down the creek. Alan Harthorne, of the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy and Butte Creek Management Project, said they are in the process of an extensive management planning process for Butte Creek and doing extensive mapping. They have been identifying areas within the lower canyon related to the proposed rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 and have come to realize that out of 800 acres in the rezone area, almost 300 acres are riparian areas owned by Fish and Game. Other parcels are in the process of being purchased for riparian areas by various agencies. Only about 5 or 6 parcels appear to be subject to division into 5 acre parcels. There needs to be more information about exactly where the flood plain lies. They are commissioning an air photo survey of Butte Creek from Skyway to Butte Meadows. It should be possible to identify the high water mark and provide information to the County to better make decisions on whether a rezone is really necessary and which parcels would be affected by the rezone. He asked for continuance of these hearings and more public involvement and perhaps a public forum on how an overlay zone might be applied in different areas, which are all different. There needs to be better information before proceeding. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997 Mr. Nelson asked if Mr. Harthorne is in favor of an overlay zone but is concerned about its implementation. Mr. Harthorne said that is correct. The overlay is unclear and general at this time. There needs to be more information and more public involvement and finding out what other counties have done. Commissioner Lambert asked how soon Mr. Harthorne would have more information available. Mr. Harthorne said he is working on identifying the parcel owners with the proposed rezone area. He has identified the Fish and Game properties and will soon have all the parcels identified which are splittable within the area. The air photo survey should be completed within 30 days but it will take up to 6 months to do the work necessary to identify the high water mark. He said that in locating a stream protection corridor, it should be identified more clearly where it would be applied. There are very different conditions in the upper and lower parts of the canyon. He suggested different types of corridors for the valley, the lower canyon areas and the upper canyon areas. Commissioner Lambert said that flooding should be distinguished from riparian/wildlife habitat. She suggested obtaining information from other counties and Mr. Harthorne and discussing one E specific area, such as the lower canyon, for the time being. Mr. Harthorne said he could provide information on the lower part of the canyon in about 3 months. Commissioner Cage asked if the aerial study would include other creeks besides Butte Creek. Mr. Harthorne said the study is only for Butte Creek, above the valley floor area which has already been mapped. Renee McAmis said that she has been informed that the work which was done on her property has kept people's houses from getting flooded any worse than they were in 1986. It appears that the building pads on her property have not been flooded. Although her property is being restricted to 20 acre parcels, it would not be fair to other people to be restricted to 20 acres as long as they build out of the flood zone. John Merz clarified that the streamside corridor protection program established in Shasta County was a process initiated by Fish and Game and supported by Shasta County and Redding. It has not been adopted by the County, but has been used to complement their CEQA compliance process relative to specific developments. Mr. Merz is not sure if implementation of the protection zone is within the County General Plan. The City of Redding will address the streams that flow through Redding using the data collected as part of the streamside protection program. He suggested contacting the Fish and Game representative in Redding. He also suggested that public health and safety issues might be brought more to the front as reasons for a stream corridor protection zone. People living near streams need to understand the risks. Public responsibility and costs need to be balanced against private property rights. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997 Chris Bowman, resident of Butte Creek Canyon, objected to the concept of public rights over private rights. He objected to the ambiguity of the terminology in the report for the overlay and the lack of day issues being addressed. He has 3.25 acres with 350 feet of creek frontage and a home on a bluff about 80 feet above the creek. He was concerned about not being to add on more than 10% to his home. Mr. Nelson read Paragraph 4 about requirements of the stream corridor zone being waived due to topography, lack of riparian vegetation and other physical characteristics. He said the restrictions would not apply to Mr. Bowman's parcel. Mr. Bowman was concerned because of the word "may" and that a determination would be made by an individual. He built his home with the intent of future expansion for a-larger family. He might be forced to raise his family in a one bedroom, one bath home and not be able to sell the property for what he has into it. He felt the waiver clause is very vague and "grandfather" rights should be included to protect property rights of people who have been there for years. His home is set back 100 feet from the 100 year flood line and his property is not in a flood zone, but the overlay does not differentiate. Protection of riparian habitat and areas that are flood prone are combined, and affect his property although he is not in a flood zone. Mr. Nelson felt that Mr. Bowman, being on a bluff, would be out of the riparian vegetation area and would be exempt from the restrictions. Mr. Bowman said he is within 100 feet of the edge of the bluff. The definitions of"bank" and "bluff' are not clear. Commissioner Lynch said that an overlay zone should take into consideration the issue Mr. Bowman is raising, which is that Mr. Bowman's intended expansion of his house would become a discretionary action by 'someone in the Planning Division. He said a restriction should be based on what is the "public good." Chairman Seegert asked whose "public good" is being discussed -- that of the property owner or another public? Commissioner Lynch said restrictions placed by Planning and Zoning are based on the State's police power which is for the public good. When dealing with property rights, the finding needs to be made that a restriction placed on someone's property is justified as being for the public good. If protection of riparian habitat for the public good can be justified, that is fine, but the Commission should be careful when placing a blanket restriction on someone's property. He did not feel that 100 feet from the streambank or a waiver is adequate. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9, 1997 Mr. Sanders said Mr. Bowman's property being on a bluff with no riparian vegetation might not be included in a stream corridor zone. Also Mr. Bowman has already complied with the 100 foot setback and thus would not be restricted to a 10% increase. Commissioner Lynch said Mr. Bowman is raising a point that would apply not only to his parcel, but other parcels that might be in a similar situation. Mr. Sanders said that a stream corridor zone should be applied where appropriate and there may be sections of the canyon where the corridor would not apply. Commissioner Lynch said that "either/or".alternatives should be included before a stream corridor zone is adopted. Mr. Bowman asked if the zone would be applied to deal with flooding or riparian habitat or both? Mr. Sanders said the 300' line is not the flood zone, because the flood zone extends beyond 300 feet. Mr. Bowman said his parcel has water rights. The overlay would put him in violation of zoning laws if he were to pump water out of the creek and cut vegetation and install a pump. There would be a conflict between precedence laws and zoning laws resulting in litigation. Conflicts within the law have not been addressed by the overlay zone. Rob Cheal said he owns a parcel of 160 acres with 2 or 3 acres on one side of the creek where he has a mobile home and is trying to build a home, but has to keep repairing the bridge which keeps washing out. The building area is about 100 feet from the bank, which goes straight up from the creek. If he was to move out of his mobile home, he would not be able to replace it or build a regular home, but would have to build across the creek. There is no problem with flooding on his property or his safety. It would be a "taking." He eventually wants to build a small house where the mobile is now and another house farther in. Morris Boeger said that health and safety is being used to impact property. The sensible thing to do is look at the riparian watershed which is now gone. The actual streambed was scoured. Once something is 5 feet out of the flood plain, health and safety rules should not apply and should not be used to "slam dunk people." There is a lot of the "Not in My Backyard" syndrome taking place. Mr. Boeger bought 20 acres with the intent of creating 4 parcels for retirement funds, and a 300 foot setback would devalue the property by 80%. William Herferth, from Centerville Road, said zoning might condemn existing lots. Mr. Sanders said property cannot be condemned to keep people from building homes. He said there is no proposal for a 300 foot building setback, but rather a 100 foot building setback. From 100 to 300 foot, the property owner is asked to show excavation and vegetation removal in conjunction with building a home. Parcels that only have a building area within the 100 foot setback, would qualify for the waiver. Mr. Herferth said if the value of property is lessened or destroyed, the property owner would have to be compensated. ~ T 9 , 1997 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Lynch felt there was not enough information to act on either the rezone or the stream corridor zone. Commissioner Nelson felt there was enough information to make a decision on the stream corridor zone, although it could use some refinement. He was in favor of moving forward on.the stream corridor zone. Regarding the rezone from FR-5 to FR-20, if very few parcels would be affected, that might not be a good idea. Commissioner Lynch was in favor of more study rather than moving forward. Chairman Seegert was concerned about the retroactive effect of the stream corridor zone, and the fact that virtually all of the people who would be affected.by it are opposed to it. Commissioner Nelson said most of the speakers are developers. Commissioner Seegert was concerned about protecting the "public good" of a public that doesn't want the protection. Commissioner Nelson said there is a health and safety issue when the public agencies have to go in and rescue people in floods. Commissioner Seegert did not think people would want to give up personal rights for public safety. There was a discussion of the County's obligation in protecting people versus placing restrictions upon them. Commissioner Cage said changes have taken place since these rezones were first proposed, information has come forward from property owners, and there is a study being made of the canyon, so the discussion should be continued. Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Parilo how Nevada County handles stream related issues. Mr. Parilo said Nevada County zoning requirements specify that the 100 year flood plain be defined, which is not the same as the "top of bank." Normally FEMA elevations are used for the boundaries of the flood plains on significant waterways in more urbanized areas that have been mapped. In rural areas there is a 100 foot setback from the 100 year flood plain, which is determined by a hydrologist, and is costly but might provide more protection than what the overlay zone is apparently meant to accomplish. Stream channels change as well as the tops of banks. The objective of having a stream corridor zone should be clearly defined -- protection of riparian vegetation or flood protection. The Department of Fish and Game as arbiter, would tend to be thinking more in terms of riparian vegetation than flood protection. In EI Dorado County and Nevada County there is concern about limiting exposure to natural hazards such as flooding and wildland fires. In river canyons and streambed areas there is an effort to reduce exposure to additional structures that might impede or exacerbate a natural hazard. There is the issue of reducing that exposure and the issue of how much reliance can be put on standards to mitigate. The Commission should feel comfortable with their information when making a decision. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 ,1997 Commissioner Lambert said the concepts of the FR-20 rezone and the stream corridor rezone are good, but more information would be useful. Chairman Seegert said the main problem of the existing property owners seems to be the retroactive effect. Commissioner Nelson said the riparian area would tend to be the same area subject to flooding. Commissioner Lynch said the proposed stream corridor zone needs more refinement, and since more information will be available soon,he was in favor of continuance of the discussion. Commissioner Cage was also in favor of a continuance. It was agreed that information on what other counties are doing such as Shasta, EI Dorado and Nevada Counties would be useful. Mr. Sanders said the goals should be clarified. The main purpose of a stream corridor zone is not really concerned with development within a flood plain, but rather such things as riparian protection and water quality protection. The flood plain extends more than 300 feet and development is allowed in a flood plain. Commissioner Lambert suggested that if both proposals are objectionable to the residents of the canyon, there might be another alternative such as a Specific Plan. She asked if fire, homeowners, and flood insurance could be required. Mr. Parilo said flood insurance cannot be obtained unless the County's program qualifies under FEMA. The Ordinances in place need to meet the requirements of FEMA. Apparently building is allowed in the flood plain, but it must be floodproofed. In allowing people to build in flood plains it should be understood that the FEMA 100 year flood boundary is different from the historic high water mark or tops of the banks. There is the issue of private property rights being balanced with larger public interests. He described zoning tools which can be used, such as not allowing subdivisions within a particular zone, restriction of building locations, and lower density zoning standards. If it is felt that private property owners are being denied reasonable use of their property, the proposed ordinance provides for exceptions. How far does the County want to go in protecting those interests? Transfer of development rights is a tool that can be used. In the more significant stream zones, a more comprehensive approach could be taken to include more issues such as day use, land use issues and fire hazards. The SC overlay zone is limited with regard to the broader issues. The General Plan or special studies could look at important stream zones where higher degrees of protection are needed or multiple interests are competing. Commissioner Lynch noted that problems can be created downstream from development upstream. Commissioner Nelson said the consensus is for staff to work on the stream corridor,flooding concerns, and the problems in the canyon during the summer. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997 Mr. Harthorne said he could supply information on the riparian corridor in six months and could identify sensitive parcels in the lower canyon in a month. It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Cage, and carried unanimously, to continue the hearings on both items to March 13, 1997. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 ,V 1997 • C. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from October 10, 1996) G. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combing zone. The zone will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) Mr. Sanders said that concern was expressed at the previous hearing on the proposed rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 since some parcels had minimal frontage on the creek and only small areas within the flood boundaries. He said an additional exhibit was prepared indicating the 300 foot stream corridor protection zone. He noted that the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for a Stream Corridor combining zone would be a new countywide zone and would require public hearings for application to any particular piece of property. A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to initiate a Stream Corridor combining zone could be made. Commissioner Lambert said that the SC zone only relates to stream protection for 300 feet on either side of the creek and does not cover density of development in Butte Creek Canyon. Chairman Seegert said the SC zone is supposed to address the issues that are the driving force behind the proposed 20 acre rezone. Mr. Sanders said the issues would be addressed in part -- such as flood hazard. Development in the zone would not be precluded. Chairman Seegert said that development in the SC zone would be subject to more stringent review. Mr. Sanders said development which is proposed in the flood zone must be built with the finished floor at or above the flood level. Typically on discretionary permits, the requirement is for the finish floor to be one foot above the flood level. He said that the SC zone would require more detailed plot plans than what is normally required for a building permit, to show grading and tree removal. He said the intent of the zone would not be to make a parcel unbuildable, and certain requirements could be waived in order to develop the parcel. Commissioner Lynch said that the County should not be in the position of telling someone they cannot develop their property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12'. 1996 Mr. Sanders explained the difference between the 100' foot No Development setback which is currently in use and the proposed 300' protection zone. Development could take place in the 100' setback if there is no other developable area. He suggested that some combination of a rezone and stream corridor zone might work. Chairman Seegert said the rezone almost needs to be done on a parcel by parcel basis. Commissioner Lynch said'the SC zone could be applied, leaving the zoning unchanged. Commissioner Lambert said leaving the zoning as is would not address the density issue. HEARINGS ON ITEMS"C" AND "G" OPEN TO THE PUBLIC J. D. Zink said he owns a parcel on Butte Creek above the Covered Bridge. The parcel is 130' wide fronting on the creek and about 490' deep. The parcel has a bluff area and the building area is within the last 100' of the creek front. There are existing dwellings nearby which are built within 100' of the creek. Restricting his building area away from the creek would devalue his lot. Lots which were created and bought with the idea of building near the creek would be devalued by the proposed SC zone. Mr. Zink said he has $80,000 into his lot and the value would drop to $20,000 if the only building area is away from the creek, which would be a "taking" of his property. The SC rezone could expose the County to a tremendous liability and would be unfair as well. Chairman Seegert said at this point the lots above the Covered Bridge are not being considered for a rezone. Mr. Sanders said the Director of Development Services could waive certain restrictions. Mr. Zink thought the SC zone was to be a countywide proposal. He said he could build closer to the road, but the view of the stream would be gone which is the value of the lot. Commissioner Lambert thought there are restrictions currently in place on building within 100' of the creek. Mr. Sanders said the Building Division could approve building within 100' of the creek. Tom Wrinkle, of Sierra West Surveying, said that if the 20 acre zone is implemented, people with lots less than 20 acres would not be able to do boundary line modifications. Regarding the SC zone, the wording is vague, and he sees lots of problems with such a zone. There would be problems defining which areas are "sensitive." Riparian vegetation' extends beyond 300' and covers a lot of the canyon floor. "Special scenic value" is vague. "Areas subject to erosion" needs further definition. The settlement of disputes by the Department of Fish and Game leaves no room for appeal. The requirement to submit a site development plan will add $1500 to $2000 to —T the cost of developing a parcel. There is no mention of fees to be charged by the County. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 I� Mr. Sanders said the hourly rate would be charged and the site plan need not be complicated. Mr. Wrinkle said there needs to be more clarification. The 100' No Development Zone is already being applied on new parcels. "Flood control purposes" should be more clearly defined. Why should expansion of a home be limited to 10 percent? If the requirements .can be waived by the Development Services Director, the requirements should not have been there in the first place. The proposed SC zone overlay needs to be defined, clarified and thought out. Commissioner Lambert asked how septic and leach areas affects the creek. Mr. Wrinkle said a leachfield cannot be within 100' of the creek. There would have to be a tight line away from the creek. A leachfield cannot be within a ten year flood zone. A home could be built near the creek, but the leach area would have to be away from the creek. There are already rules and regulations in effect and there does not need to be another layer of government. Commissioner Nelson said the regulations don't seem to be working. Mr. Wrinkle said the focus is on one.property owner and there is not a problem throughout the County or in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone to 20 acres is not warranted either. The grading ordinance already addresses many of the concerns for protecting the environment. Morris Boeger said he owns 20 acres which he bought knowing it was zoned 5 acres minimum, with the intention of subdividing. He has done a lot of work to protect the watershed. He said PG&E has done a tremendous amount of irreparable damage. He objects to having his property rights taken away-- it is Socialism and Communism. There is already adequate protection for the watershed. With current regulations, 35 percent of his property is controlled by the County. A 300' setback on both sides of the creek would control 90 percent of his property. Ten feet away from the stream, the vegetation is the same all the way to the canyon rim. Current laws provide plenty of protection. PG&E does the most damage. There are lots of problems from the city people who come out and use the creek and trash it. The problems of impact on the creek are not from development. The proposed SC zone is a "taking" and would devalue property and lower tax revenues. The local residents protect and police the canyon and creek. Garry Cooper, a landowner, real estate broker and developer, said the 300' setback would be a "taking" by not being able to be near the creek. He is in favor of the 100' setback area to protect the creek, but the large setback would change the property to "non creek front" property and lower the value to one third of its former value. Most of the lots that were created prior to the 100' No Development Zones have already been built on. There are some old lots that are narrow and would be severely impacted by a 300' setback and should be completely exempted from any sort of control. Commissioner Nelson said the overlay zone does not prohibit structures within the 300' protection area, and even allows development within the 1 00' setback if there is no other area available. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Mr. Cooper was worried that if a parcel is 500' deep, development could be limited to the last 200'. Mr. Sanders said development would not be limited to areas outside of the 300'. Mr. Cooper felt that existing regulations are effective in protecting the creek and riparian habitat. He objects to "taking" of private property and government intervention. Locating each 4" tree would be as expensive as setting property corners. He feels his American rights are being infringed upon. Fish and Game can work with each individual land owner on sensitive issues rather than making blanket requirements. Commissioner Nelson said that basically Mr. Cooper is talking about protection of the environment and there is not really a disagreement that Butte Creek needs protection. Mr. Cooper said that protection of the environment and development are not mutually exclusive. He lives in the canyon and cares about it. He felt that restrictions are appropriate on new parcel creations, but not on existing parcels, which might be devalued. Commissioner Lynch left the meeting at this point, and said he was in favor of continuing discussion of both items.. Commissioner Cage asked if there are conditions placed on his parcel map (which was approved by the Development Review Committee) on October 10, 1996, which Mr. Cooper does not agree with, or is he just talking about what is on today's agenda. Mr. Cooper said he feels comfortable with the conditions imposed on his parcel map. He said the conditions are concerned with the canyon environment, not just the creek. He said he is concerned about older lots which he owns, one of which has a building site and well overlooking the creek, and is within 100' of the creek, although above the floodplain. He would not want to move the building site 50' back. He bought the lot believing he could build near the creek. Commissioner Cage said generally development is not allowed within 100' of a creek. Chairman Seegert said the 100' No Development area is not a retroactive requirement. Mr. Cooper said that if this new zone is enacted, the No Development area would be retroactive and subject to the whims of some official. Scott Huber, 12706 Quail Run Drive, said his home is within 100' of the highwater mark. He is concerned about the restrictions on non-native plants, vegetation removal, and the 10% limit on increased living area. Recently he has trimmed trees, planted non-native plants and constructed a garden box and campfire ring in the 100' area. He is concerned that he would be violating a zoning restriction by such activities if the SC zone is enacted. He may wish to add a bedroom or family room to his home and would be restricted by the 10% limit. He thinks the proposal is well intentioned, but too broad and too limiting. He is in favor of considering things on a case by case basis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Chairman Seegert asked where the 10% limitation originated, and how would a garage be i considered? Mr. Sanders said Bill Farrel, the Development Services Director, was in favor of the 10% limit. The question of accessory structures was raised by Mike Vieira, Building Division Manager, but was not resolved. Allan Hawthorne said he is.the Chairman of the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, owner of 7 parcels in Butte Creek Canyon, a resident for over 20 years, and Project Manager for the Butte Creek Watershed Project which will be doing a watershed plan on Butte Creek. He said he was involved in the 1970 rezone of the canyon which created the current zoning of the canyon. He said the residents of the canyon should be making the proposals, not the Planning Commission. The rezoning of FR-5 to FR-20 is motivated by the McAmis property situation. It should be up to the canyon residents if they want that zoning applied to the entire canyon. If the people working on the watershed planning process want something like a SC zone, they will let it be known. They are mapping the riparian corridor and developing base maps and will identify the problem areas and will be making recommendations, at which time the County should get involved. The residents will let the County know if regulations are needed. Planning should be done from the grass roots, letting elected officials know what is wanted. Both proposals should be tabled and the residents should have more input and have the opportunity to examine the proposals. The residents of the canyon should be included in the planning process for protecting the resources of Butte Creek Canyon, especially the salmon and trout. Renee McAmis, said 20 acre zoning was imposed on their property, and she feels badly that everyone feels the proposed rezones have come about because of what they wanted to do with their property. They met.all requirements and did expensive studies to create four parcels. She agreed with Mr. Boeger that tubers cause lots of damage and bring in garbage. Creation of the four parcels was so expensive and troublesome, that they would have asked for 4 parcels (instead of 14 parcels) from the beginning, if they had known how much money and time would have to be spent, and they would have saved everyone this hassle. Matt Kidder, 1054 Honey Run, was concerned about the abstract representation of the flood zone and the reality of what exists in the canyon. He asked what the gray area on the Exhibit indicates. Commissioner Nelson said the gray area is the 100 year flood zone according to FEMA. Mr. Sanders said no depth has been established for the flood zone. Mr. Kidder felt the map was an abstract image and decisions should not be based on the map in blanket fashion and eliminating his right to build based on a map that was not intended for that use. The images are very abstract. Commissioner Nelson said that a standard mitigation is to construct buildings above the flood zone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Mr. Kidder said if someone can build above the flood plain, they should be exempt from the 20 acre rezone, if that is a reason for the rezone in the first place. Mr. Sanders noted that the McAmis's had their own study done, and it was found the flood zone on his property was different from that depicted by FEMA, in fact it was larger than depicted by FEMA. Mr. Kidder said that applications for parcel splits should be dealt with individually, rather than with a blanket approach. Mr. Sanders said that in the McAmis hearings there was a great deal of testimony about flood hazards, exposing more people to flood dangers, concerns about evacuation and what the proper density should be. Mr. Kidder said that disclosure laws would inform buyers they would be buying into a FEMA flood plain, so why add onto that? People who were against the McAmis development might have "trumped up" some issues. It is too easy to assume the map abstraction is valid. Commissioner Nelson disagreed that FEMA would draw abstract maps without scientific basis. Decisions have to be made with the best information available and public safety is a concern. Commissioner Lambert was concerned about notification for people who buy property in a flood plain. Mr. Kidder's main concern was the use of.the particular FEMA flood map relative to a rezone. Rob Cheal, 13631 Helltown Road, said the 300' line would be larger than what is represented by the map. There is a problem with not being able to identify the highwater mark. It would be very expensive for people to figure out where their property is affected and how to map their area. Since Butte County is the only county considering this type of rezone, it may be a little out of line: Mean-spirited people on small parcels have attacked the McAmis project and tried to create problems. If an SC zone is implemented countywide, fights will be started everywhere. The residents of the canyon should be the ones to request zoning changes. There are. enough regulations already and a Watershed Conservancy. The proposed zone is divisive and was instigated by owners of small parcels against their neighbors. Many people who own property on the creek may be willing to negotiate with agencies to sell riparian habitat corridors. The proposed zoning would take away the opportunity to negotiate with agencies for fair compensation for the use of their land. The residents of creek areas should be allowed to develop their own concepts of how their area should be developed. c PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Dan Gesick, a canyon resident for 30 years, said the flood issue is blown out of proportion because of the McAmis project. The only bad flood was caused by Baldwin Contracting because of a levee. The McAmis property should have been allowed to have 5 acre parcels. Flooding is not a big problem in the canyon. There is probably a worse problem in Durham. There is no depth indicated for the gray area of the Exhibit map. f . Mr. Fermin, a resident of the canyon since 1952, said he has seen lots of high water in the canyon and doesn't know if it has even had a 100 year flood yet. The gray area on the Exhibit map could be 50 feet under water. He is favor of the gray area for informing the public that they would be buying property in an area that might flood and they can build their homes accordingly. He has been flooded out many times himself. People fought the McAmis development because until McAmis purchased the property it was available for people to use freely. He would have appreciated knowing about the flood area before he built his house. Gary Smith, owner of a 2 acre parcel above the Covered Bridge was concerned about restrictions in the 100' setback protection zone since there is a need to clear vegetation for fire protection. He has taken out dead trees and brought in sand. The people in the canyon take care of the creek. More government regulations are not needed. HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Chairman Seegert said he could not support either proposed rezone, due to his participation in the Development Review Committee and the hearing on the McAmis property. He did not know what would be the objective of continuing the discussion of these items. Commissioner Cage said there could be input from the Bureau of Land Management. Commissioner Lambert said if the idea of an SC overlay is eliminated, appropriate zoning.for the canyon should be addressed. If 5 acre zoning is retained, would the SC overlay be retained? Commissioner Cage was in favor of leaving things as they are since that is apparently what the canyon residents want. Chairman Seegert said that at a previous hearing, the speakers were predominantly in favor of the proposals, and at this,hearing those in opposition to the proposals are predominant. Commissioner Lambert did not feel there is a need for a stream protection corridor, but a position should be taken on the 20 acre zoning. There should be more than just the McAmis parcel in the 20 acre zone. Five acre parcels may be too small in the area below the Covered Bridge, taking into consideration the concerns for flooding, fire and traffic. Commissioner Nelson asked how current the FEMA maps are. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Mr. Sanders said the FEMA maps were adopted in September, 1989, and are the most current available. Upstream from Skyway the maps were not done with a detailed study making a determination of actual flood elevations, which would be a Zone AH, as was done downstream from Skyway. Engineers can be hired to do more detailed studies as was done by the McAmis's. Such a study would be submitted to FEMA to be included in their information. . Commissioner Lambert was concerned about density, traffic, and fire, and not just flooding concerns. Commissioner Nelson was concerned about the creation of 5 acre parcels in an obvious flood . zone. Chairman Seegert said that information was provided to the Development Review Committee for a 14 unit tentative subdivision indicating that potential problems could be mitigated by conditions, such as building above the 100 year flood plain. The Development Review Committee approved the project based on the information available. The same information could be applied to any parcel. Commissioner Lambert said the Board of Supervisors must have had reasons why they felt the density was too great (and approved only 4 parcels for McAmis ). Commissioner Cage was in favor of continuing the discussion. Commissioner Lambert said she would appreciate more detailed maps showing individual parcels. Mr. Sanders said that one of the Exhibit maps actually shows the individual parcels. He said each parcel has a mix of developable area, riparian habitat, cobbles, mine tailings and such. Commissioner Nelson asked how a request for a ten lot subdivision would be considered, with the 5 acre zone currently in place and in the flood zone. Mr. Sanders said it would be necessary to show that there are buildable areas outside of the flood zone, and in providing such elevations, that the flood level is not raised on neighboring properties. Commissioner Nelson said the flood zone may already accomplish what the proposed rezones are attempting to accomplish. Commissioner Lambert was concerned about the build-out potential with the current 5 acre zoning in place and the impact on fire, flooding, roads and other concerns which are normally addressed in a rezone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996 Mr. Sanders said there are 67 potential lots which could be created below the Covered Bridge with the current 5 acre zoning. That may be a 25% to 30% overestimation because of physical constraints and maybe 40 or 45 lots would be more realistic. Chairman Seegert said that 40-45 parcels would not have a big impact on traffic or fire safety or being flooded out. Commissioner Nelson said he would like time to think about these issues, and to talk to the Watershed Conservancy as to their future plans and activities. Chairman Seegert asked what the objectives of further discussion are -- to fine tune the combining zone? He said much of the discussion has been about how the SC zone would affect , people retroactively. Mr. Sanders asked if more information is sought, or changes to the SC zone, or a different proposal? Commissioner Lambert said there should be clarification about what could or could not be done in the 300' setback area. Commissioner Nelson,noted the reason for the proposed overlay zone is because of previous testimony by people who thought it was a good idea. Mr. Sanders said the people in favor of the overlay zone at the previous hearing, were people who had the potential of their property being zoned to 20 acre parcels, and who saw an overlay zone as a better alternative for their situation. He said existing 5 acre parcels would not be affected by a 20 acre rezone. Chairman Seegert said existing parcels would be affected by an SC protection zone. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Cage, and carried unanimously to continue the open discussion of these items to January 9, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12", 1996 ;r C. Butte Counly Board of Supervisors -(Item determined to be a General Rule Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational -20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) Mr. Sanders summarized the Agenda Report, explaining that the proposed rezone was initiated by the Board of Supervisors in response to neighbors of the McAmis property, who were concerned about future division of his property and impacts on flooding and riparian habitat. Mr. Sanders described the area considered for the rezone. He said that traffic is not considered a significant concern. Another possibility is a Stream Corridor Combining Zone which would require development review standards all along Butte Creek Canyon which would allow site sensitive planning and the opportunity to review such items as proposed grading and vegetation removal, in order to reduce the impacts along the creek. Chairman Seegert asked why the flooding and riparian concerns cannot be handled on a parcel by parcel basis rather than with an area rezone. Mr. Sanders said the idea was to look at the whole area and see if a rezone would be appropriate for other properties. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Flo Opatrny, 976 Honey Run Road, spoke if favor of McAmis being able to create four lots on his property and said that some of his neighbors have been vengeful. Edward Opatrny, 976 Honey Run Road, said that if a parcel can provide septic area and the homesite can be above the 100 year flood level, the zoning should stay 5 acres. He said that every piece of property is different and should be looked at individually. Matt Kidder, 1054 Honey Run Road, asked where the flood plain information originated. Mr. Sanders said that F.E.M.A. supplied the flood information which is dated September 29, 1989. Mr. Kidder said that F.E.M.A. probably looked at residue from the 1986 levee break. He recommended looking at the parcels on an individual basis since they have different relationships to the creek and flooding. He noted that the attorneys who were representing people in a class action suit against Baldwin Construction were found to also be representing the M&T Corporation which owns Baldwin Construction, so there was a major conflict of interest which was never pursued, so the information on the 1986 flood should be looked at skeptically. Rocky Horton, representing the Alm Family,which owns over 900 acres below the covered bridge of which about 250 to 300 acres is in the proposed rezone on the southeast side of the creek, said that there are other constraints to development that already hold up.5 acre splits, such as access, topography, and traffic. If the intent is to take floodplain land out of potential development, then the floodplain land should be included. Most of the Alm land is out of the floodplain and he would ask that it be excluded from the rezone and remain FR-5 and if the property is ever developed, to be presented with the other constraints at that time. The Alm land does not have the concerns which the McAmis property had of development in the floodplain or on hard to sewer land. Although there are not intentions to develop the Alm land, down zoning to 20 acre zoning would be a"taking' of value of the land. A blanket rezone is BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES— October 10, 1996 not the way to handle the uniqueness of the parcels in the canyon. The Alm Family Trust would request either exclusion from the rezone or continuance of the hearing. In some areas a 5 acre parcel would be fine. There should be restrictions and setbacks for riparian areas and views. He would be interested in the Stream Combining Zone, if he could be involved in creating the conditions. Commissioner Nelson asked if only a portion of the parcel is in the floodplain, if it is included in the rezone. Mr. Sanders said that is how the rezone was prepared -- to have contiguous zoning and to treat all the parcels similarly. Commissioner Nelson suggested an Overlay for allowing almost no development within the floodplain itself. Mr. Sanders said that since development is normally allowed in the 100 year flood plains, unique properties of Butte Creek would have to be recognized, which the Stream Corridor Combining zone would be one way to do. HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Lambert said she would like to see a map with the Assessor's Parcel numbers in order to see exactly which parcels would be included in the rezone. Commissioner Nelson said that there is a Butte Creek Conservancy that is doing a watershed study on Butte Creek. HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC Al Hawthorne, Chair of the Butte Creek Conservancy, said that he is developing a watershed management plan for Butte Creek for CSUC Chico, and that Butte Creek is important for protection of the riparian zone to protect Spring Run Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout. He said the proposed rezone deserved further review. HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC Commissioner Nelson suggested that the purpose of avoiding development in the flood zone and protecting the stream corridor could be handled just as well by working with each individual lot rather than an area wide rezone that would rezone large lots to 20 acres even though a small portion of the property is within the flood zone. Mr, Sanders said that most of the Alm property is out of the floodplain, and it might be just as effective to have a Stream Corridor Combining Zone and have policies with regard to the floodplain in dealing with the property. Commissioner Lambert said she would like to see a map showing parcels with the floodplain outlined on the map. Commissioner Cage said she would like to know more about the Stream Corridor Combining Zone. Mr, Sanders said such a zone would designate an area parallel to Butte Creek 300 feet from the top of the creek bank on either side. Within that strip any development would require a site plan to show the location of structures and improvements, existing trees and trees proposed for removal, and grading, and leach field areas. It is also proposed that there should be a 100 foot setback from the creek that would be a No Development Zone. Within the 100 foot No Development Zone, some vegetation removal would be allowed and existing structures could be maintained and expanded subject to a Use Permit. Also there would be a provision for parcels that would be made undevelopable by enforcement of the No Development Zone. Routine maintenance would be allowed as well as construction and maintenance of driveways within existing rights-of-ways. Since the Stream Corridor Combining Zone has not been published, it would need to be published for public hearing for any action to be taken on such a zone. Commissioner Nelson liked the idea of using the flood zone along with the Combining Zone as a tool to deal with both the riparian issue and the flood way. Chairman Seegert said that if the reasoning behind the rezone is Butte Creek, it does not seem reasonable to include other parcels. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING_COMMISSION-MINUTES - October 10, 1996 Commissioner Nelson asked if the Board of Supervisors gave specific instructions for the rezone. Mr. Sanders said the neighbors near the McAmis property were concerned that people buying the 20 acre parcels would attempt to subdivide the parcels into 5 acre parcels under the FR-5 zoning and were adamantly opposed to that happening, so the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare a rezone for 20 acre parcels to ensure that the McAmis property could not be further subdivided. Some Board members felt that other properties should be included so that the McAmis property would not be the only property penalized with concerns about flooding and riparian habitat. Commissioner Lambert said she would like to see a map showing the parcels and where flooding actually occurs. It might not be necessary to have a 20 acre zone for the entire area. It would be nice to be able to see what parcels are actually included. Chairman Seegert thought rezoning the entire area might be"overkill." Mr. Sanders said that the neighbors around the McAmis property expect that at least the McAmis parcel will be rezoned. The Planning Commission should at the least make a recommendation regarding the McAmis property. There was a consensus that a Stream Corridor Zone might be a better vehicle to deal with the concerns of Butte Creek rather than an area wide rezone and that it would be very helpful to have maps showing the flood areas and riparian setbacks and parcels. It was moved by Commissioner Cage, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and carried unanimously to continue the . hearing on the rezone to December 12, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. and to advertize the Stream Corridor Combining Zone for public hearing also. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - _October_ 10, 1996 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner DATE: September 17, 1996 REQUEST: Rezone 96-02 -Applicant: Butte County Board of Supervisors/Owner: Various: A request to rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in 'Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. RELATED ITEMS: Proposed Stream Corridor Combining Zone FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 1996 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of this application. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS/ANALYSIS: This request was initiated by the Board of Supervisors to rezone lands within Butte Creek Canyon to FR-20 from FR-5. The project was initiated to address concerns raised by area residents regarding homesite construction in and around the FEMA floodplain and floodwa along with a desire to limit the number of homes in P Y 9 an area that is subject to potentially life threatening flooding. After reviewing the existing parcel sizes and extent of the floodplain boundaries throughout Butte Creek Canyon, it was determined that the greatest potential for both flooding impacts and additional land divisions was in the lower section, below Honey Run Covered Bridge. The first analysis of this area concluded that there are 19 lots which are wholly or partially contained li within the FEMA floodplain. Of those 19 lots there are 5 lots, totaling 62.91 acres of land which are 10 acres to 19.99 acres, 7 lots, totaling 178.01 acres of land, which are 20 acres to 39.99 j acres, and 6 lots, totaling 481.79 acres of land which are greater than 40 acres. However, rezoning only these parcels will result in the creation of several small islands of FR-5 zoned land which are wholly outside of the floodplain. These islands consist of parcels that are already under 10 acres in size, which can not presently be divided under the FR-5 zone. Including these parcels in the rezone will not affect the uses of the land or the potential to develop. Exhibit"B" attached depicts the boundaries of the proposed rezone as well as the existing zone districts. i ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 1 This rezone will reduce the potential for the creation of new lots in the area by approximately 67 parcels. This figure takes into account the fact that a large portion of the area being considered for rezone is owned by the California Department of Fish and Game and cannot be divided. It also assumes the maximum development potential of other parcels. Given the physical development constraints that exist in the canyon, the figure of 67 potential lots is probably an overestimation by at least 25 to 30%. The Commission has expressed other concerns regarding development in the canyon including, increased traffic, protection of riparian vegetation, habitat preservation, and fire protection. The remaining area above the covered bridge will still be zoned FR-2 and FR-5. However, much of the area is already developed to the maximum potential and many of the remaining larger parcels have significant physical constraints due to slope. Based on this, the number of potential new parcels does not appear to be that great. Development on existing parcels can still have an effect on Butte Creek and the adjacent riparian vegetation. To address this particular concern a proposed Stream Corridor combining zone has been prepared and is included in the packet for this agenda. The Stream Corridor zone will work in conjunction with this proposed rezoning and could be applied to other areas within the canyon to protect Butte Creek both physically and aesthetically. The whole canyon is primarily served by a single roadway, Honey Run Road from the Skyway. Two, little used, secondary access routes do exist, Centerville Road to Nimshew Road and Honey Run Road to Paradise. Area residents are concerned with increased traffic throughout the canyon. The EIR prepared for the McAmis project concludes that Honey Run Road is operating at a LOS "C" and there is significant capacity remaining before a LOS of D is reached. Based on this information, traffic from development in the canyon should probably not be the primary reason for reducing development potential in this area. If the Commission would like to consider changes to the zoning above the Covered Bridge, it is recommended that a separate rezone be initiated. It would also be helpful if the Commission provides direction to staff regarding desired minimum parcel sizes and other factors to be considered. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The rezone does nothing more than increase the minimum parcel size of the zone from 5 acres to 20 acres. All allowed uses and conditional uses remain the same. Future land divisions carried out under the new zoning will require full CEQA review at time of application. Based on these facts, this project has been determined to exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061 (3) of the CEQA Guidelines as a General Rule exemption. The section states: "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 2 n the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in a local newspaper and were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Rezone 96- 02, subject to the findings contained in exhibit "A". Reviewed and approved by: Wi is arrel, Director of Development Services ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 3 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS: Section 1: Environmental Findings. The project is exempt from CEQA review under section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states: "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."; and Section 2: Zoning Findings. A. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the requested zone is listed as a zone that is consistent with the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and the uses permitted by the zone will be consistent with the General Plan and surrounding properties; and Section 3: Action. A. Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this report, move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning to FR-20, that property identified in Exhibit "B". Attachments: A: Vicinity Map B: Site Plan C: Environmental Documents ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 4 i Vicinity Map oa o� Proposed Rezone L ation 1 E sm oa m 0 9 rham_pen �g4 7 REZ 96-02 AN Various wig ����' tet! 11111�1,� � I•:�- num 'CIO 01111111. m - Imm - • ' / .:u�. -_ - WIN "��� I . ��• !:1. (BookBUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: Board of Supervisors Owner: Various Requed: Rezone ftom FR-5 to FR-20. A.qqc.qsor Parcel No: Various .. 1. Workshop - Butte Creek Rezone Area. J Mr. Hogan indicated the area that is being proposed for'rezoning to 20 acre minimums. He explained which lots could currently be divided and which would be divisible with a 20 acre rezone. He said that basically 19 lots would be affected by a rezone with the covered bridge as the upper limit. Commissioner Lambert asked why the area above the covered bridge wouldn't be included in the rezone. Mr. Hogan said the area is characteristally different and would affect more parcels. The upper area is being considered for FR-20 zoning. The flooding issue which generated the 4 concern, tends to be in the lower Butte Creek Canyon area. Commissioner Lambert was concerned that roads and traffic are still a concern, and.the upper area has steep cliffs and rocky areas. Mr.,Farrel said that there are a number of issues in Butte Creek Canyon to consider: recreational access to the creek, traffic, aesthetics, and fire safety, and there is a need for a community plan for the area, however the immediate objective, as directed by the Board of Superivors is to address the flooding issue in the lower canyon area brought up by the McAmis map. Commissioner Lambert said that zoning should not be based solely on flooding potential. There are other issues to consider such as traffic, roads, and terrain. Mr. Hogan said that the Board of Supervisors directed that Planning staff address the flooding issue in the canyon, although the larger area of Butte Creek Canyon should be addressed by the General Plan as well. Commissioner Cage noted that the fire hazard issue should be considered. Commissioner Lambert said she would not want to infer, that the upper canyon area could retain their small zoning, since development in the upper area would impact the ` lower canyon area: She also.felt that zoning should be based on more than just flooding potential. _ Mr. Farrel said that issues such as fire safety and traffic should also be discussed in the rezone hearings. He noted that the proposed area of the rezone could be expanded. Mr. Hogan said that the USGS contours could be included in the data shown by the. rezone maps. Commissioner Lynch said that the concerned property owners should be notified individually of the public hearing for the rezone area. Commissioner Lambert asked for more identifying data on the map for the benefit of the public. BUTTE COUNTY PLANKING COMMISSION MINUTES - JANUARY 11 , 19996- -1� 7 Board of Supervisors , General Plan Amendment - _ RC.;c:. , V.i� Rezone T Planning Department r2!.:, j 96-� JUS_ 171995 3 0 D ay Revz evw OPovi➢t;,�,a,;iNjmla Pd Eads ' 5M�.. Rev_e•.v Periad Ends CORRESPONDE:�iC:.! COMMENTS M=INED Date Agenc 7,'?ez-s cn I f I I t • Board of Supervisors , General Plan Amendment - Rezone SC 4.P # Planning®eoartmen4 FILE 9 6-0 17 1995 30 Day Review Period Encs Sal Rev=ew Period Ends OUTGOING AC,IVITY I `! • i- PpiZcx-lzS G,J tT!1/1v P-r-,7ZD IJ C h�oa i�,r tST �sZ c) @ Z byT O 2 oz"G- - 928 pbrace, f S O f t - SSD iC� I. DI I - L410 � 1 73 S f T't01v l.� i " I ,' �l �� �+��.A�W►.>J CAS . ��:.. �i ' 3 9 ,V 1 � • , i ` l i too 09 1 V� i i a-0 k 1:2 -, S -5 L� _ _ -M "s c-n 55 ( O I l O I 1O i i lYCJ2 -O ' 001E n4 !h-L 13-7 ID-.raqzl f H 9 ... ; E 1 ti i, I om s s►M3'1 ro 00 � 5�h-��� h h f?i s L 00Of?E) nni c� `a7lS �vl �n rL1�C1e� ! 10' iN»d7 Oso; WZ0 rz G -�-,�- SSO - OLS - II ® O ;- oho - � ►� "7�1 5zgzr'J 7- IL(1 v Z 0-11 2321 8` ; n i 5 j � - a �` 3 rr,-I t-,da b ko —q ryovCt LoiD -- CJ13S-7 -11® . L.00 i 001 i 001-- 0 h h -1 10 }z - 0L0 - 1 !Q w®' - ate OO j r ©z0 �-ate FZ d0 i ��s cJ "/ I ��dares dca-z- r o "-J- GO!► ry i H-U-(" 0'70 aJ i I v i ' a 1 j i j i r i o � QI 91 I _ bhp rvAryyt - -.O-9 6 .2 a"cs -1-sr? fv MT OZ } i � 3 t 1 _ 3 t T, 9 .i a Q _ , i '� i - '�33� . w 1 i � .. .� . .. ��. �. � , I i � � ' 1. ,~ REZ 96-02 Butte Creek Canyon Mailing List Paremeter, Parcels within 300 ft. b Rezon Area UT L: 011 060 018 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 179 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ALM GILBERT TESTAMENTARY TRUST , BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC ALM ERIKA TRUSTEE P 0 BOX 1477 P 0 BOX 311 CHICO CA 95927 ( MARYSVILLE CA 95901 L: 011 060 061 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 177 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MELINE EDWARD R & CHARLENE M IRR TR ET RASH KENNETH A & JOYCE E MELINE RANDALL C ETAL TRUSTEES 9888 FIMPLE RD P 0 BOX 221 CHICO CA 95928 PALERMO ' CA 95968 L: 011 060 072 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 420 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE HONEY RUN BRIDGE ASSN OPATRNY ED P 0 BOX 5201 976 HONEYRUN RD t CHICO CA 95927-5201 {.. CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 .070 064 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 420 014 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MCAMIS FAMILY TRUST STEWART JOAN LORRAINE ETAL MCAMIS JOHN E & RENEE C TRUSTEES 390 HONEY RUN RD 400 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95928 t CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 096 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: O11 420 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ENLOE THOMAS S JR MD MCCAIG MAX B & JANICE L PARAGON PROPERTY MNGT 641 NORD AVE 342 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 122 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 420 025 000 STATUS: ACTIVE JARRETT JERALD FAMILY TRUST KOROCK STANLEY W. & LUZ CECILIA JARRETT JERALD TRUSTEE 1967 SKYWAY 761 REBECCA CT CHICOCA 95928 i CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 410 143 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 420 026 000 STATUS: ACTIVE PARROTT RANCH COMPANY ETAL STEWART RONALD E & JOAN LORRAINE C/O LLANO SECO RANCHO P 0 BOX 1039 400 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95927 ( CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 172 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 420 028 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DRAKE JOHN D ETAL MYERS LINDA E GRAY VIRGINIA P 0 BOX 1967 554 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95928-8847 L: 011 410 173 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 016 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SITTON WESLEY GARY & JUDY LYNN PAUGH ROBERT C & BETTY L (CB DVA) 390 HONEY RUN RD 1211 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 080 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 110 056 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DALEY LEWIS V & JOYCE A ! ANDERSON FAMILY TRUST ANDERSON WALTER LARRY & STELLA C TRS 1223 HONEY RUN RD 1768 HONEYRUN RD CHICO CA 95928 t CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 080 018 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 110 057 000 STATUS: ACTIVE PHILLIPS LINNAEA ETAL BORGES MANUEL S & E JACQUELYN TRUST DEYO PIERRE BORGES MANUEL S & E JACQUELYN TRUSTEES 785 TOPSAIL DRIVE 1794 HONEY RUN RD VALLEJO CA 94591 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 080 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L:. 011 240 051 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SCHWARZ JOHN DOUGLAS & BETTY A SMITH JAMIE H & HARRIET 1251 HONEY RUN RD 545 N MAIN ST CHICO CA 95928 YREKA CA 96097 L: 011 080 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 240 075 000 STATUS: ACTIVE TAYLOR K JOAN BRANDT FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST BRANDT ALLEN L & ROSE NELL TRUSTEES 1157 HONEY RUN RD 18 OMAN DR CHICO CA 95928 !. OROVILLE CA 95966 L: 011 080 021 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 240 076 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SYKES GENE L & ARLYNE JO MARTIN RICHARD E L & GENIE H 1179 HONEY RUN RD 1960 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 110 034 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: Oil 380 005 000 STATUS: ACTIVE NELSON WARREN & NANCY C HOLT JIMMY WAYNE 37 CARUTHERS LN 168...HONEY RUN RD �. CHICO CA 95928 +. CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 110 037 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE FRITZ WILLIAM A & JOANE E (CB DVA) HUTZLER TIMOTHY R & HELEN K 11706 CENTERVILLE- RD 180 HONEY RUN RD ! CHICO CA 95928 t. CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 110 038 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 380 007 000 STATUS: ACTIVE LAKE PAUL & ROXANNE SOLINSKY FRANK & JUDY 11703 CENTERVILLE RD P 0 BOX 1738 CHICO CA 95928 ; CHICO CA 95927 L: 011 110 051 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 01l 380 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WYSS MITCHELL SHERIDAN ETAL SHEPARD ROBERT & CLARICE 1781 HONEYRUN RD . 172 .HONEYRUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 009 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 151 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ARTHUR TERRY J & DEBORAH LOU i<ATO TERENCE T & SUSAN KEHM 174 HONEY RUN RD 49 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 152 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ALLEN BARBARA E TRUST KATZ JUDY ALLEN BARBARA E TRUSTEE 1685 SKYWAY 2234 ESPLANADE CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 390 001 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 153 000 STATUS: ACTIVE HALL DAVID B & CAROL L JACOBS GREG A & DONNA E MOORE P 0 BOX 137 83 SPANISH GARDENS DR CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 390 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 154 000 STATUS: ACTIVE f GIMBAL RAYNOR E & NANCY N MINKLER R W & BETTY 342 HONEY, RUN RD P 0 BOX 607 CHICO CA 95928 ORLAND CA 95963 L: 011 390 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 155 000 STATUS: ACTIVE KNIFFIN TOM & BARBARA WELSH MICHAEL E & SANDRA J 346 HONEY RUN RD 4141 BIRCHWOOD CHICO CA 95928 SEAL BEACH CA 90740-2808 L: 011 390 018 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 156 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DEVEREAUX ELIZABETH F ETAL DAHLMEIER DON & TRUDY MALONE NICHOLAS 2155 B PARK AVE 135 SPANISH GARDEN DR ' . CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 148 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 .410 157 000 STATUS: ACTIVE r _ JOHNSON BARRY K & KAREN M CASEY PATRICK H & DORIS P #1 SPANISH GARDEN DR 155 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 149 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 070 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ' KOTYLUK ERNIE & PHYLLIS J HOVEY LEROY & ISABELL P 15 SPANISH GARDEN DR 1090 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 150 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 070 022 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SMITH ROBERT J & JOYCE C GALIA ROBERT E & GAIL (CB DVA) P 0 BOX 6298 1384 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95927-6298 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 158 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 070 024 000 STATUS: ACTIVE STOCKWELL MICHAEL W t' DAVIDIAN KRAD E & SYLVIA C 205 SPANISH GARDEN DR P 0 BOX 4391 CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95927 L: 011 410 159 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MAURER DAVID L: 011 070 026 000 STATUS: ACTIVE GILBERT RAY & IRENE A 224 SPANISH GARDEN DR CHICO CA 95926 1372 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 160 000 STATUS: ACTIVE COULTER JOSEPH H JR i. L: 011 070 028 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CASEY COURTNEY J & BRENDA R SORENSON 2608 NORTH AVE CHICO CA 95926 1261 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 410 161 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WEIR JAMES M II & LYNNE CAROL f. L: 011 070 030 000 STATUS: ACTIVE LAMPKIN TOM & ROSANN 13391 OAK RANCH LN r CHICO CA 95926 1354 HONEY RUN -RD CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 . 410 163 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WEIBEL GAREY B & BARBARA J L: 01i 070 031 000 STATUS: ACTIVE KIDDER MARCIA S REVOCABLE TRUST P 0 BOX 41 KIDDER MARCIA S TRUSTEE � CHICO CA 95927 P O BOX 549 COLUMBIA CA 95310 L: 011 410 .164 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DUFOUR TOM & INGRID L: 011 070 035 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CLAYTON EYVONNE M 1350 E LASSEN AVE CHICO CA 95926 1273 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 060 070 000 STATUS: ACTIVE TAPP LAURA D L: 011 070 040 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ZIMMERMAN WILLIAM GLENN ETAL 1479 HONEY RUN RD MCBIRNEY DOREEN D CHICO CA 95928 P 0 BOX 1433 NOVATO CA 94948 L: 011 060 074 000 STATUS: ACTIVE i ARCHER WILLIAM H & SHERMA C L: 011 070 043 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SUTTON LOREN & MORAG 1517 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 1367 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MALATESTA PIETRO A & GIUSEPPINA L: 011 070 044 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MELHUS PETER K & JENIFER 449 CUNNINGHAM WAY SAN BRUNO CA 94066 1309 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 045 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 070 061 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MCCOLLOUGH JAMES M VANMETER DANIEL ETAL 2045 REYNOLDS ST 1132 HONEYRUN RD FALLS CHURCH VA 22043-1634 CHICO CA 95926 L: 01i 070 046 000 . STATUS: ACTIVE L: Oil 070 063 000 STATUS: ACTIVE FARHAR JOHN FRANCIS & KITTY DEE VANMETER WANDA R (CB DVA) 1285 HONEY RUN RD 1154 HONED` RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 047 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 070 067 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DERINGTON JAMES P & MAXINE L FAMILY TR FEHRMAN WILLIAM B SR & PEGGY A DERINGTON JAMES PARIS & MAXINE LEONA T 1319 HONEY RUN RD 1078 HONEYRUN ROAD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 048 000 STATUS: ACTIVE PETERS ROBERT W JR & SUZANNE G L: 011 080 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE COSSETTE C D & BERNICE 1010 HONEY RUN RD 1059 HONEY RUN RD r CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 055 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 005 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BLACK DONALD E & JOAN E AMDAHL (CB DVA ' GESICK DANIEL. R & HELEN J 1353 HONEY RUN RD 1073 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 959.28 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 056 000- STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 007 000 STATUS: ACTIVE HEATH SAM A ETAL SACKETT TERRANCE E HEATH SAMUEL ALLEN 2207 HONEY RUN RD 1087 HONEYRUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 058 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BROWN LESLIE ANN MENDEZ ANTONIO V & SALLY JEAN f 1278 HONEY RUN RD 1095 HONEY RUN CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 059 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 009 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WITHERSPOON TOM LEWIS ST ELMO JR & MARGARET A 1302 HONEY RUN RD 1101 HONEY RUN RD CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 070 060 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 080 011 000 STATUS: ACTIVE COPE HERBERT ETAL KLACKLE KURT C & JOY E COPE NEIL 1326 HONEY RUN RD P 0 BOX _915- CHICO CA 95929 - CHICO CA 95927 L: 01i 080 012 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 003 000 STATUS: ACTIVE STRINE BRENTON R & CYNTHIA V HILL ROBERT T JR & JEANINE G 1129 HONEYRUN RD 199 E SHASTA- CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 I I L: 011 080 013 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MATTTHEWS GORDON G & CASEY D EVERETT LEWIS A JR 1141 HONEY RUN RD 2165 NORD AVE APT 10 CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 080 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 005 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WOLTMAN MARY MARGARET WOLK PETER J 1197 HONEY RUN RD 1481 RIM ROCK DR CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 168 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ' MENNUCCI DAVID F & DANIELLE K CAVALLO RONALD S & VIRGINIA A 61 ALM BLUFFS DR 1485 RIM ROCK DR CHICO CA 95928 ' CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 410 169 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 007 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CANNON BENJAMIN H MD HERRICK KENNETH R & MYRNA M 188 SPANISH GARDEN DR 1461 RIM ROCK DR CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 420 015 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 430 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE JARRETT JERALD HUGHES DEVYN BENTLEY SURVIVORS TRUST LAMESA 208328576 HUGHES DEVYN BENTLEY TRUSTEE 1967 SKYWAY 702 MANGROVE AVE #324 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95926 L: 011 420 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 440 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE PRIDDY FAMILY TRUST `. SAUNDERS F LEON M D PRIDDY CHARLES R JR & MARY ANN TRUSTEE 2515 RAMADA WAY 1166 ESPLANADE STE 3 CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95926 L; 011 .420 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 440 005 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CARTER GEORGE C JR & DORIS E CORNYN JAMES WILLIAM & MARCIA A MOORE 1321 CANYON RIM PL 1463 OAKRIDGE DR CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 420 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 440 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE LEWIS WILLIAM W & JOAN 0 LUCENA SYLVESTER & CAROL 1339 CANYON RIM PL 1437 RIM ROCK DR CHICO - CA 95988 CHICO CA 95928 rr T L: 011 440 007 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 119 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WINSLOW RICHARD D & DARVA D CAMPBELL INTERPACIFIC PROPERTIES INC C/O YOUNG-JIN SOHN 1443 RIM ROCK DR 4-17 TAMAICHO-2 TOYONAKA CHICO CA 95928 OSAKA JAPAN 0000 L: 011 440 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 166 000 STATUS: ACTIVE WILLIAN DAVID E & DIANNE E BECKETT WILLIAM C & BARBRO LAURI P O BOX 3105 99 ALM BLUFF DR HARBOR OR 97415 CHICO CA 95928 L: 0i1 380 037 000 STATUS: ACTIVE i L: 011 410 167 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DIXON GERALD D ETAL ` MORRIS STEPHEN & BARBARA i ' 56 HORSE RUN LN 79 ALM BLUFFS DR CHICO CA 95928-8818 ` CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 027 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 410 170 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MADEROS MATTHEW G & SHELLIE LEE ` PRYOR LEROY & JOAN 25 HORSE RUN LANE 256 VIA MISSION DRIVE CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95428 L: 011 380 028 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 680 001 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CARLEY BRAD D & JACQUELINE S MIK ASSOCIATES 35 HORSE RUN LANE P 0 BOX 1477 CHICO CA 95928-9998 CHICO CA 95927 L: 011 380 029 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 680 009 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BETH KYLE E & PATRICIA K DAHLIN WALTER O 47 HORSE RUN LN 2 TERRACE LN CHICO CA 95928 CHICO CA 95926 L: 01.1 380 030 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 680 010 000 STATUS: ACTIVE THOMPSON MARSHALL & ANDREA KOONS FRANK V & CARLA A 59 HORSE RUN LN 906 ALMOND WAY CHICO CA 95928 ORLAND CA 95963 L: 011 380 031 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 680 011 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CARTWRIGHT NICHOLAS B & ROBERTA S HAGENS REVOCABLE TRUST HAGENS PETER A & LORETTA A TRUSTEES P 0 BOX 6778 15 EAGLE NEST DR CHICO CA 95927 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 380 032 000 STATUS: ACTIVE L: 011 680 013 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SPANGLER KEVIN R & PEGGY J CHALMERS R SCOTT & CYNTHIA 4805 SONGBIRD 49 EAGLE NEST DR CHICO CA 95926 CHICO CA 95928 L: 011 680 019 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CUMMINGS ARTHUR D 1750 DAYTON RD ` CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 020 134 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MORRISON BUILDING MATERIALS INC P 0 BOX 326 YUBA CITY CA 95992 L: 040 020 141 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ` BALDWIN CONTRACTING CO INC BUTTE CREEK ROCK CO 1764 SKYWAY j CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 020 161 000 STATUS: INACTIV YOUNG PORREST B & HELEN 82 NORTHWOOD COMMONS PL CHICO CA 95926 L: 040 600 043 000 STATUS: INACTIV NANCE CANYON PARTNERS LP C!0 DONALD E SWART2 I ' 2038 DALADIER DR RANCHO PALOS VER CA 90274 I ' COUNTY OF BUTTE -AGENDA ITEMS 'TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Department Development Services, Planning Division DATE: July 10, 1997 SUBJECT: Rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 in lower Butte Creek Canyon initiated by the Butte County Board of Supervisors in 1995. SUMMARY OF REQUEST-ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission's action on this request was denial without prejudice. Action requested: Accept report on the Planning commission's action on this project. Pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-25.40,it is recommended that the Board take no further action and allow the passage of a 90 day time period which will confirm the Planning Commission's recommendation and deny the project. Additional information attached: Yes No Describe Memo Previous Board action: Date Minute Order Summary of Action: Funding sources Current year cost Budgeted Yes No Annualized cost If also planned for next year Will proposal required additional personnel? Yes No State No._Permanent Temporary_Other_ Will proposal require a budget transfer? Yes No If yes, read the following: 1. Complete worksheet on back 2.'Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline Administrative Office Approval: 415 Vote required Majority vote required SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLERK Contact Person: Graig Sanders,Senior Planner Telephone No.: 7601 Ordinance Required Resolution Required Minute Order Required Agreement? Yes No Special distribution directions (copies attached): 1. 3. 2. 4. Return to department .Legal publication and notification requirements: Publication: _ Clerk to Publish and Notice attached . Department Published and Affidavit attached Publish: _Countywide _Local (specify) Number of times Days before hearing (Code Section) Notification: _ Clerk to mail Notice and Notice attached _ Department mailed Notice and Affidavid attached Notify:_Countywide _Local (specify) Number of time Days before hearing (Code Section) BUDGET TRANSFER REQUEST/WORKSHEET List each of the affected line items with regard to their current status: (As of (date) Expenditures + Line item Budget Encumbrances To Date Balance Transfer Request: AMOUNT LINE ITEM LINE ITEM Transfer$ (no cents)from to Transfer$ (no cents)from to S Transfer$ (no cents)from to Transfer$ (no cents)from to Reason for request: 1 } y AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors FROM: Department of Development Services, Planning Division SUBJECT: Rezone 96-02 Butte County Board of Supervisors- Rezone from FR-5 to FR- 20 in lower Butte Creek Canyon. DATE: December 6, 1995 SUMMARY: When the Board of Supervisors considered and acted upon the Tentative Parcel Map for McAmis, it directed staff to initiate a rezone of the Butte Creek Canyon area to 20 acre minimum lot sizes. No specific area was identified other than the McAmis parcel. The Department of Development Services staff along with direction from the Planning.Commission, identified other areas to be included in the rezone. Inclusion in the rezone area was based upon property having similar characteristics to the McAmis property, particularly inclusion within the 100 year flood plain. After several hearings at the Planning Commission level, including a concurrent hearing on a proposed Stream Corridor overlay zone, the Planning Commmission unanimously voted to recommend to the Board that no rezone be adopted at this time. The Planning Commission also withdrew the proposal for the Stream Corridor overlay zone. As the Board is aware, California State University, Chico is currently directing the preparation of a comprehensive watershed management plan for Butte Creek. The Planning Commisison recommends that the watershed project be substantially completed before any zoning changes occur in the Canyon. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-25.40, it is recommeded that the Board take no further action on this item and allow the passage of a 90 day time period which will confirm the Planing Commision's recommendation and deny the project. Attached: Planning Commission Report dated September 17, 1996 0 Butte County 0 Department ojDevelopment Services 0 Planning Division 0 1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner DATE: September 17, 1996 REQUEST: Rezone 96-02 -Applicant: Butte County Board of Supervisors/Owner: Various: A request to rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. RELATED ITEMS: Proposed Stream Corridor Combining Zone FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of October 10, 1996 SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of this application. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS/ANALYSIS: This request was initiated by the Board of Supervisors to rezone lands within Butte Creek Canyon to FR-20 from FR-5. The project was initiated to address concerns raised by area residents regarding homesite construction in and around the FEMA floodplain and floodway along with a desire to limit the number of homes in an area that is subject to potentially life threatening flooding. After reviewing the existing parcel sizes and extent of the floodplain boundaries throughout Butte Creek Canyon, it was determined that the greatest potential for both flooding impacts and additional land divisions was in the lower section, below Honey Run Covered Bridge. The first analysis of this area concluded that there are 19 lots which are wholly or partially contained within the FEMA floodplain. Of those 19 lots there are 5 lots, totaling 62.91 acres of land which are 10 acres to 19.99 acres, 7 lots, totaling 178.01 acres of land, which are 20 acres to 39.99 acres, and 6 lots, totaling 481.79 acres of land which are greater than 40 acres. However, rezoning only these parcels will result in the creation of several small islands of FR-5 zoned land which are wholly outside of the floodplain. These islands consist of parcels that are already under 10 acres in size, which can not presently be divided under.the FR-5 zone. Including these parcels in the rezone will not affect the uses of the land or the potential to develop. Exhibit"B" attached depicts the boundaries of the proposed rezone as well as the existing zone districts. ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 1 This rezone will reduce the potential for the creation of new lots in the area by approximately 67 parcels. This figure takes into account the fact that a large portion of the area being considered for rezone is owned by the California Department of Fish and Game and cannot be divided. It also assumes the maximum development potential of other parcels. Given the physical development constraints that exist in the canyon, the figure of 67 potential lots is probably an overestimation by at least 25 to 30%. The Commission has expressed other concerns regarding development in the canyon including, increased traffic, protection of riparian vegetation, habitat preservation, and fire protection. The remaining area above the covered bridge will still be zoned FR-2 and FR-5. However, much of the area is already developed to the maximum potential and many of the remaining larger parcels have significant physical constraints due to slope. Based on this, the number of potential new parcels does not appear to be that great. Development on existing parcels can still have an effect on Butte Creek and the adjacent riparian vegetation. To address this particular concern a proposed Stream Corridor combining zone has been prepared and is included in the packet for this agenda. The Stream Corridor zone will work in conjunction with this proposed rezoning and could be applied to other areas within the canyon to protect Butte Creek both physically and aesthetically. The whole canyon is primarily served by a single roadway, Honey Run Road from the Skyway. Two, little used, secondary access routes do exist, Centerville Road to Nimshew Road and Honey Run Road to Paradise. Area residents are concerned with increased traffic throughout the canyon. The EIR prepared for the McAmis project concludes that Honey Run Road is operating at a LOS "C" and there is significant capacity remaining before a LOS of D is reached. Based on this information, traffic from development in the canyon should probably not be the primary reason for reducing development potential in this area. If the Commission would like to consider changes to the zoning above the Covered Bridge, it is recommended that a separate rezone be initiated. It would also be helpful if the Commission provides direction to staff regarding desired minimum parcel sizes and other factors to be considered. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The rezone does nothing more than increase the minimum parcel size of the zone from 5 acres to 20 acres. All allowed uses and conditional uses remain the same. Future land divisions carried out under the new zoning will require full CEQA review at time of application. Based on these facts, this project has been determined to exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15061 (3) of the CEQA Guidelines as a General Rule exemption. The section states: "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 2 the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in a local newspaper and were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Rezone 96- 02, subject to the findings contained in exhibit "A". Reviewed and approved by. Wi is arrel, Director of Development Services ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 3 EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS: Section 1: Environmental Findings. The project is exempt from CEQA review under section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states: "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."; and Section 2: Zoning Findings. A. Find that the rezone conforms to the policies, including the text and map of the Butte County General Plan, because the requested zone is listed as a zone that is consistent with the Agricultural Residential General Plan designation and the uses permitted by the zone will be consistent with the General Plan and surrounding properties; and Section 3- Action. A. Subject to the findings indicated in Sections 1 and 2 of this report, move to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning to FR-20, that property identified in Exhibit "B". Attachments: A: Vicinity Map B: -Site Plan C: Environmental Documents ■ Butte County Department of Development Services Agenda Report ■ 4 ' Vicinity Map oa , o� Proposed Rezone L ation 1 E sn" ' ca 0 B rtiam-P°n I I REZ 96-02 AP#Various BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Board of Supervisors that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM DETERMINED TO BE A GENERAL RULE EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) The above mentioned application and map are on file and available for public.viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILLIAM FARREL, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, September 26, 1996. 0 Canyon rezoning plan gets flood of disapprovaF By Nick Ellena suggestions raised at the hearing for the county's Department of lumped into an overall zone. Staff Writer caused commissioners to continue Development Services, submitted The same argument was made it to Dec. 12 so these could be the draft ordinance Thursday. by Rocky Horton as spokesman for OROVILLE — The Butte explored. It would extend from the the Gilbert Alm Trust. which owns County Planning Commission is The issue is traced to the flood Covered Bridge between the some 900 acres from the creek„to trying to balance the need for flood of 1986 that inundated a dozen Skyway and Honey Run Road west the canyon rim. ;p, protection with the rights of proper- homes along the creek, followed by to their junction. He agreed that development ty owners to utilize their land in an aborted attempt by property The ordinance would apply to standards are needed inside ,the lower Butte Creek Canyon. owner John McAmis of Chico to 19 parcels within the 800 acres. flood plain. but not for the canyon Controversy over how the gain approval for a 14-lot subdivi- These total some 600 acres and are sides above it. canyon west of the Honey Run sion on 93 acres west of the bridge in whole or in part within the des- "A blanket rezone is not the way Covered Bridge should be allowed on Honey Run Road. ignated flood plain established by to handle the uniqueness of parols to develop dates back over 20 Supervisors in June 1994 indi- the Federal Emergency Manage- in this part of the canyon.” he said. years. It may be resurfacing. cated they would side with canyon ment Agency. "You could still have flood plain The commission Thursday residents against the subdivision, The numerous other parcels of restrictions and reasonable riparLgn opened a public hearing on pro- and McAmis abandoned attempts less than 20 acres would not be setbacks could still be imposed... posed rezoning to require 20-acre to win approval.The board directed affected by the rezone. Allen Harthom. chairman of the minimum parcels to minimize that rezoning be initiated with larg- Matt Kidder, a canyon resident, non-profit Butte Creek Watershed development in what is considered er parcel sizes to reduce the poten- said parcels have differing charac- Conservancy, said it is in .Ehe the flood plain of the canyon. tial destruction by floods. teristics and should be considered process of making a comprehensive But opposition and alternate Craig Sanders, senior planner individually rather than being study of the Butte Creek Watershed and appropriate management of its fisheries and other ollege head targeted by Richter. to retire titre sing gs he importanceendorsed of making a decision based on full informa- tion. ® Orioles, Cards even playoff series/1 Ca Colin Powell Jobs Dole ik IN R; J] �R�DAYr "k 1996 DONKEY MEDIA GROUP 143RD YEAR—NO. 334 PHONE 891-1234 �Ocfober 11, 1996 today's forecast: SUNNY •Sunny, getting Ino anne : can i*t cooler toward the weekend; partly cloudy on Sunday. Predicted temperatures:84-50 par W ay and fl Canyon zoning The Butte County Plan- Sparks fly as backers, foes of ., . ning Commission is trying reVe et to balance the need for flood protection with the \3/12/1997 14:00 916-022-7109 SC COMMUNITY SERV PAGE 01 Post-Ir Fax Note 7671 Date '? p8of b, To F .J � March 13, 1997 co, Phone r Phone A Fax a c�� _ � Fax 71 Butte County Planning Comunission J 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA RE: Board initiated Rezoning of properties within Butte Creek Canyon from FR-5 to FR-20. Dear Honorable Chair and Commissioners; Please read this letter into the record during the public hearing. The proposed rezoning was initiated by the Board of Supervisors upon recognition that the proposed subdivision by John McAmis was clearly located within a hazardous area subject to flooding. These concerns have been realized during the last two winters when high flows have inundated the majority of the site demonstrating that the proposed 5 acre parcels could never be safely developed. In fact, it appears doubtful that the new 20 acre parcels can be safely developed. The hydrologist's report supporting the project stated that the creek was"moving south" when in fact we have seen the creek channel clearly move to the north toward the building sites and the road. The proposed building sites, access roads and/or sewage disposal areas were all affected by either inundation or erosion. The Commission should seriously consider their responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of both current and future residents of Butte County. The proposed rezoning would help to accomplish this objective by limiting development of the low lying, flood prone properties thereby reducing unnecessary encroachments and site disturbances. This action will in turn help prevent the many problems witnessed this winter. I strongly urge the Commission to follow through on the Hoard's direction and approve the rezoning of the McAmis property to 20 acre minimums. The other properties in the study area are subject to the same hazards and appear to be well suited to receive the same designation. The approval of this rezoning would not address the hazards associated with development on the many existing parcels of land located along stream corridors. In addition to flood hazards, there are many natural resources that are negatively impacted by development activities within these riparian areas. I also strongly urge the Commission to approve the establishment of a Stream Corridor Zone for Butte County. Sincerel , ohn F 1285 Honey Run Road Chico CA 95928 1 i . I, I' Memorandum TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner DATE: November 21, 1996 REQUEST: Amendment to chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone. The zone will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. RELATED ITEMS: Butte Creek Rezone. FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 1996 SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend areas in the County to which it should be applied. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In response .to concerns raised by both the public and the Planning Commission regarding development in Butte Creek Canyon, staff has developed a Stream Corridor overlay zone that could be applied to portions of Butte Creek as well as other sensitive watercourses within the County. The overlay zone will work in conjunction with existing zoning designations and will not affect the uses allowed in any zone. When applied, the zone will impose stricter development review procedures within 300' of a river, stream, or other watercourse. Attached is a copy of the proposed Stream Corridor (-SC) overlay zone. The proposed zone is consistent with the Butte County General Plan and will aid the County in implementing several policies in the plan including the following policies from the Land Use Element: 2.4a Maintain quantity and quality of water resources adequate for all uses in the County. 2.4c Control development in watershed areas to minimize erosion and water pollution. 6.4c Encourage compatible land use patterns in scenic corridors and adjacent to scenic waterways, rivers, and creeks. 1 7.3a Limit development in areas with significant drainage and.flooding problems until adequate drainage and flood control facilities are provided. Implementation of the zone will also serve to further some of the goals and policies in the Conservation element regarding the County's waterways. Butte Creek is classified as a premium waterway and should receive special protection. As proposed in this report, the width of the zone will be 300' from the top of the bank, on both sides of the stream to which it is applied. However, the Commission may wish to define the limits of the zone differently. Another option, especially for streams and creeks that have significant associated flood plains, would be to apply the zone to the flood hazard boundary. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This project is exempt from CEQA review under section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states: "CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA." Adoption of this zone will not result in any physical changes to the environment and when applied will result in a higher degree of site sensitive planning. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in local newspapers for all areas of the County. As of the date of this report we have received no public comment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend areas in the County to which it should be applied. Attachments: A: Proposed Stream Corridor combining zone 2 I EXHIBIT A Stream Corridor Combining Zone 24-227 Stream Corridor (-SC) Combining zone A. Purpose and intent. . The purpose an intent of the Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone is as follows: 1. To protect the County's surface water resources.. 2. To ensure compatible, site sensitive development within designated floodplains. 3. To preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources. 4. To protect identified streams and creeks from erosion and loss of riparian habitat. B. Applicability. The -SC combining zone shall be used as an overlay zone in conjunction with existing zone districts along streams and creeks that have been identified as having sensitive habitat or requiring protection. This combining zone shall be apply to the area within 300' of the top of bank along identified sections rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to either: 1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource; 2. Have special scenic value; or 3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or other environmental.impacts. The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of identified watercourses. If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a dispute as to the location, the determination on the location shall be made by the California Department of Fish and Game. Pp Pe�,t�;b� .7 7 �►� c:,h�,,«6,� �; , , C. Combining zone requirements and standards. The following requirements and standards shall be applied to land uses within this combining zone as well as the standards of the underlying or base zone. If conflicts arise between the combibig zone and the base zone, the combining zone requirements shall prevail. 3 1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval of a site development plan by both the Departments of Public Works and Development Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any building permit or septic permit that shows: A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and driveways; B. Location and species type of any of trees greater the 4" in diameter d.b.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal; C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and leachfields. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan may be required by the Department of Development Services Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant species or vegetation removal is permitted within the "No Development Zone" with the following exceptions: A. Vegetation removal done for flood control purposes or work done for streambed enhancement and under permit from Department of Fish and Game; B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No Development Zone" may be granted through the Conditional Use Permit procedure. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10% increase in habitable floor area. C. If, when applied to an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No Development Zone" renders the property undevelopable, the parcel may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission shall approve such a Use Permit but may condition the permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct specific locations for development on the site. 3. Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures, septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the development of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or new right so of way created as part of a parcel map or subdivision map approval shall not be 4 I subject to any review or permits not normally required for the activity. 4. The Director of Development Services may waiveY any (�. all of the requirements of this zone if, because of topography, lack of riparian vegetation, lack of erosion potential, or other physical characteristics of the site, the provisions of this section are not applicable. oy WccNVW Vyv✓It"A VV., S S a 4n ` � M J W-v�lti re- - So . Jo Ait od� ' - 5 ;,..� � . ■ �I R9 ,_c`�� vie .RIOFR-1 60 PWO kh.,a_ -,"Wm-, r -- BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Board of Supervisors • 1111:n,17TIT-3,1 r4vzoExisting Zone: FR-5 (FoothiU Rcereational, n Rezone from • 1 A.qqcssor Parcel No: • :••. •. 1 OCT- 10-91 O :4:: AM P. 01 October 7, 1996 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive OroAle, CA Dear Commissioners-, This letter is intended to serve as a formal statement of support for the proposed rezoning from FR-5 to FR-20 for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road within lower Butte Creek Canyon. I have reviewed the study map of the affected parcels and believe that there is sufficient concern regarding flood hazards alone to justify the proposed action. Many of the affected properties could not be divided .6thout creating long, narrow lots crossing Butte Creek that would leave a very small portion of the resultant five acres actually usable. This situation results in homesites constrained for sewage disposal, well viability and protection from regular high water flows let alone the significant threat from greater flooding events that we have witnessed in recent years. Current residents of Butte Creek Canyon have additional concerns regarding the integrity-of the upstream dams that are operated by the Paradise Irrigation District. In addition, traffic concerns along honey Run Road related to speed control, line of sight visibility, concentration of driveways and limited shoulders/turn outs further support the need to carefully consider additional development in flus location. The impacts of development on water quality and quantity should be considered more carefully also. The significant biological resources that are identified within the County's General Plan deserve much more consideration than they have received in the past. Of particular concern is the extraordinary amount of site disturbance that is permitted apparently by the County's grading ordinance as evidenced by a recently approved parcel map on one of the properties in question. This site has been graded and excavated resulting in blocked historical drainage channels and dirt berms 10 feet high adjacent to existing homes. The result is an eyesore that has severely increased the flood hazard and drainage impacts to the surrounding properties. All of these issues should be more carefully analyzed prior to the permitting of any new development in this area. I urge you to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Board of Supervisors. I also urge you to give careful consideration to the concerns outlined above regarding development projects throughout Butte County. Thank you for your consideration. , Si cerel , John Farhar 1285 Honey Run Road Planning Divislon 0 CT 1 01996 orovilie, Galifomia 01/08/1997 12:.40 916-822-7109 SC COMMUNITY SERV PAGE 01 January 7, 1997 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA RE: Proposed rezoning of land within Butte Creek Canyon Dear Honorable Chairman and members of the Commission; I respectfully request that this letter be read into the record at the hearing since I am unable to attend. The climatic events of the past several years,most notably the recent flood episodes, are clear reminders of why this rezoning is so important. Properties lying within the lower canyon are subject to the dramatically powerful forces that created the canyon. We have seen the creek channel change its location by several.hundred feet in various locations each of the last 3 winters. The highly dynamic and unpredictable hydrological aspects of riverine/riparian environments also make them important resources that should be respected and protected not only for their biological value but also for the important flood protection functions they provide. I understand the concerns of the property owners. They have made investments with expectations of getting potential additional returns from development of their properties_ This does not however,obligate the county to allow development to occur in hazardous locations. I agree with their statements that each development should be considered on its individual merits. This is why the rezoning should be approved. If individual property owners can show that their property is suitable for a higher density,then they can apply for a rezoning on a case by case basis. I am not aware of any analysis of their safe development potential when the FR-5 zoning was established The 20 acre minimum appears appropriate for the properties identified. I would also like to express my support for the establishment of a riparian or streamside corridor zone based upon many of the reasons stated above. Sincer ly, 6i0j�FF Honey Run Road Chico CA 95928 Pli ening Division JAN 0 8 1997 �rovauc�, C�utorrna ��� ��! 111111■ PAP FR-1 60 Pr oil am Ado'. ■ \11111111111���1�►` ,11'e+.1/\1� �' 0 0� BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: Board of Supervisors Owner: Various Hearing Date: Exigting Zone: FR-5 (FoathiU RecreationaL 5 acre min.) 1ucgt: Rezone fromto 1 Msessor Parcel No: • :•• . 96-02 Vicinity Map ' oad or7 Proposed Rezone L ation 1 E 32 �PJ i oa 0 rham-P°^ S8� 7 REZ 96-02 AP#Various ����iuln,•-•iii. ■ -+~♦r'� ,,, I• nen .itumull�Li�uL /,,��\r.tlr� �` Al . M. ;2i/,� 1. gip? „i \:��i' ,esr' , •, PVJ \ %,.�''��✓ �� 15 ■ ,�W, =0 COUNTYBUTTE 1 / Owner:Applicant: Board of Supervisors 1 Existing Zone: (Foothill Request: Rezone ftom FR-5 to FR-20- Assessor f Vicinity Map oa ori i Proposed Rezone L ation / E o� m m ° - rham-Pen 7 i I I I ' REZ 96-02 AP#Various -.B TTE CREEK' ' CANYON i BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Board of Supervisors that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM DETERMINED TO BE A GENERAL RULE EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) The above mentioned application and map are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILLIAM FARREL, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, September 26, 1996. A. BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Development Services Director FROM: William Farrel, Director Of Development Services RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Board of Supervisors,RZ 96-02 DATE: May 21,1996 PLANNER: Craig Sanders We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for completeness and,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for Rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 on property zoned FR-5 (Foothill/Recreation 5 acre parcel) located in the Butte Creek Canyon area.east of Chico ,identified as APN various . It is within Supervisorial District No. 3 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) X PLANNING COMMISSION _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 26, 1996. YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 4,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATIONARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOUHAVE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): 0nnin9 Division P�AV I o .996 sIl ms$ All By: Date: k:\forms\comment.frm 10-16-95 BKH. It 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 ���� �! 11111 / � �•�� ANN MEN IF �VA&4 o .:� 60 104 .• fit,;�.�.,. ��� st BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: Board of Supervisors Owner: Various IExisting Zone: .. . min.) Rezone . . 1 Vicinity Map oro . Proposed Rezone L ation 1 E o� 0 B rham-pa 7 REZ 96-02 AP#Various STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION ROUSING AGENCY � PETE WILSON,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 P.O.BOX 911 MARYSVILLE,CA:95901 TDD Telephone(9167.741-4508 FAX(916)7415346 Te4*o*(916)74•.-0539 June 12, 1996 HBUT085 03-BUT-99 PM 30.3/30.7 Butte Creek Canyon Rezone RZ96-02, Application Mr. Craig Sanders, Senior Planner Butte County Planning Division Planning Divisi'6 Department of Development Services 7 County Drive J U N 7 1986 Oroville,CA 95965 Or'®"le, Gwitornid Dear Mr. Sanders: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced document. COMMENTS: Decreasing the potential residential density in this area from 5 acre minimums to 20 acre minimums will have no negative impacts on State Route 99. However, we would still like to review any parcel maps or development proposals for this property. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Terri Pencovic, Inter Governmental Review/CEQA Coordinator, at (916) 741-4199. Sincerely, E. A. "LIB" HARAUGHTY, Chief Office of Transportation Planning- Rural cc: Jon Clark,Butte County Association of Governments BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: California Department of Forestry FROM: William Farrel, Director Of Development Services RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Board of Supervisors,RZ 96-02 DATE: May 21,1996 PLANNER: Craig Sanders We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for completeness and,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days . of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your departrnent/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for Rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 on property zoned FR-5 (Foothill/Recreation 5 acre parcel) located in the Butte Creek Canyon area,east of Chico ,identified as APN various . It is within Supervisorial District No. 3 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) X PLANNING COMMISSION _DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 26, 1996. YOUR COMMENTS, IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 4,1996. IFNO COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATION ARE RE,CEI iIED BY 771A DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YOU HA ISE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): Monliftig VISIOP7! 1 Uhl hl A l 4066GrOvIlle . o Uwifofflta ' By: �. Date: kAforms\armment.frm 10-16-95 BKH. It 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 BUTTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: FROM: William Farrel, Director Of Development Services RE: Request for Comments on a Development Application: Board of Supervisors,RZ 96-02 DATE: May 21,1996 PLANNER: Craig Sanders We have received an application for development of the below described property. We are reviewing the application for completeness and,if complete,for conditions of approval. If the application is determined to be complete within 30 days of its submittal it should be heard at the estimated hearing date indicated below. Comments from your department/division/agency regarding completeness of the application and/or possible conditions of approval are requested. Should you not be able to respond in the time frame given,or if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to give us a call at 538-7601. Thank you in advance for your time and efforts. This is an application for Rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 on property zoned FR-5 (Foothill/Recreation 5 acre parcel) located in the Butte Creek Canyon area,east of Chico ,identified as APN various . It is within Supervisorial District No. 3 . THIS ITEM HAS BEEN TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE(check one) _X PLANNING COMMISSION —DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ON September 26, 1996. YOUR COMMENTS,IF ANY,ARE REQUESTED BY NO LATER THAN June 4,1996. IF NO COMMENTS OR COMMUNICATION ARE RECEIVED BY THAT DATE, WE WILL ASSUME THAT YO U HAVE NONE. COMMENTS(Attach additional pages if necessary): By: Date: k:\fotms\comment.ffm 10-16-95 BKH. It 7 County Center Drive -Oroville,California 95965 - 916-538-7601 -FAX 916-538-7785 LEAD - IN SHEET FILE NO: u7 96-M. AP# Varirnis APPLICANT: Board of Supervisors 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 Name Address OWNER: Various Name Address RESPRESENTATIVE: Name Address REQUEST: Rezone: from FR-5 to FR-20 SIZE: LOCATION: in the Butte Creek Canyon area, east of Chico SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # EXISTING ZONING: FR-5 ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Agricultural / Residential APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: k:\forms\lead-in �`'ra�arr�"�+r)-in,artment MAY 7 1 9996 ®rov'mt,, T 24�( �,ZCOMNMNT DISTRIBUTION LIST APPLICATION: q 6,—6 DATE: 51 17 lel,(- County e',lCounty Offices and Cities: zo,�' Chief Administrative Officer _✓ Develop. Services Director 81 Public Works Director Environmental Health Director _ Planning Manager _ Building Manager _ Sheriff /' BCAG _ ALUC _ LAFCo {SY" APCD _ Butte Co.Farm Bureau Biggs _ Gridley _ Chico Oroville _ Paradise . _ Chico Airport Commission Irrigation Districts: Butte Water _ Biggs/W.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other Domestic Water _ Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co. OWID _ Thermalito Irrigation District Other Sewer Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ L.O.A.PUD Fire Protection i/ California Department of Forestry _ EI Medio Fire Protection District Recreation Districts _ Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rea&Park Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks Utilities _ PG&E North-&ico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV StateAgendes CalTrans _ Dept of Water Resources Dept of Fish and Game Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. _ Highway Patrol Central Reg.Water Quality Control Department of Conservation _ Off.of Mining Reclamation Off.of Governmental&Env. Relations Federal Agencies US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,eta ` Lime Saddle Dist / Community Association _ Mosq. Abatement Oroville/Butte Co Drainage Butte Env.l Council _ Paradise Pines Com. Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society _ Butte Co.Mining Committee wr�l,asia��?�:-��s•t,»A194 AY 9 1 194S _ w • MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Butte Creek Rezone Area - A request by the Development Services planning staff for determination of the area of Butte Creek Canyon that should be considered as part of the County initiated rezone to FR-20. DATE: December 6, 1995 SUMMARY: When the Board of Supervisors considered and acted upon the Tentative Parcel Map for McAmis, it directed staff to initiate a rezone of the Butte Creek Canyon area to 20 acre minimum lot sizes. It left the determination of the boundaries of the rezone to the discretion of the planning staff. We have reviewed the area and have determined what we believe to be the appropriate boundaries of the rezone. This memo is to explain the process that staff used and to obtain concurrence by the Commission on the rezone boundaries or direction on modification of the suggested boundaries. DISCUSSION: Attached is a large scale color map of the area of Butte Creek from Honey Run/Skyway past the Covered Bridge and up Centerville Road quite a distance. The existing FR-5 zoning is indicated in blue outline. Most of the lots in the area (there are 279 of a total of 351 lots) are under 10 acres and, therefore, not divisible into 5 acre lots. There are 27 lots that are greater than 10 acres but less than 20 acres; these lots would be divisible under the current FR-5 zone. There are 23 lots that are 20 acres but less than 40 acres which would also be divisible. Lastly there are 22 lots that are greater than 40 acres which are also divisible. The map also shows in red the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone. This shows what properties are affected by flooding according to FEMA. Please note that the largest area subject to flooding, according to FEMA, is in the area below the Covered Bridge. On the map this is the area where Honey Run Road splits with one road becoming Centerville Road. It occurs approximately in the middle of the mapped area. The task before staff and the Commission is to establish appropriate boundaries for consideration of a change in zone from the FR-5 to FR-20. At a minimum the rezone must include the McAmis property. The McAmis property is located below the Covered Bridge. Using the Covered Bridge as an upper limit to the boundaries of the rezone we find that there would be 26 lots that would be affected. To further refine the area of the rezone we should look at those lots below the Covered Bridge which are contained within the FEMA identified flooding area. There are 19 lots which are wholly or partially contained within the FEMA. Of those 19 lots there are 5 lots, totaling 62.91 acres of land which are 10 ❑ Butte County❑Department ojDevelopment Services ❑Planning Division ❑ 1 acres to 19:99 acres,'7' lots, totaling 178.01 acres of land, which are 20 acres to 39.99 acres, and 6 lots, -totaling 481.79 acres of land which are-greater than 40 acres. Based upon the mapping shown, it would seem that the most seriously affected area would be from the Covered Bridge to the intersection of Honey`Run/Skyway. It is this area that staff feels should be the boundaries of the rezone application since the rezone would have the most beneficial effect to protect future development from the effects of flooding\ k:lmemoslbutteck.mem ❑Butte County ❑Department oJDevelopment Services ❑Planning Division ❑ 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Butte Creek Rezone Area - A request by the Development Services planning staff for determination of the area of Butte Creek Canyon that should be considered as part of the County initiated rezone to FR-20. DATE: December 6, 1995 SUMMARY: When the Board of Supervisors considered and acted upon the Tentative Parcel Map for McAmis, it directed staff to initiate a rezone of the Butte Creek Canyon area to 20 acre minimum lot sizes. It left the determination of the boundaries of the rezone to the discretion of the planning staff. We have reviewed the area and have determined what we believe to be the appropriate boundaries of the rezone. This memo is to explain the process that staff used and to obtain concurrence by the Commission on the rezone boundaries or direction on modification of.the suggested boundaries. DISCUSSION: Attached is a large scale color map of the area of Butte Creek from Honey Run/Skyway past the Covered Bridge and up Centerville Road quite a distance. The existing FR-5 zoning is indicated in blue outline. Most of the lots in the area (there are 279 of a total of 351 lots) are under 10 acres and, therefore, not divisible into 5 acre lots. There are 27 lots that are greater than 10 acres but less than 20 acres; these lots would be divisible under the current FR-5 zone. There are 23 lots that are 20 acres but less than 40 acres which would also be divisible. Lastly there are 22 lots that are greater than 40 acres which are also divisible. The map also shows in red the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone. This shows what properties are affected by flooding according to FEMA. Please note that the largest area subject to flooding, according to FEMA, is in the area below the Covered Bridge. On the map this is the area where Honey Run Road splits with one road becoming Centerville Road. It occurs approximately in the middle of the mapped area. The task before staff and the Commission is to establish appropriate boundaries for consideration of a change in zone from the FR-5 to FR-20. At a minimum the rezone must "include the McAmis property. The McAmis property is located below the Covered Bridge. Using the Covered Bridge as an upper limit to the boundaries of the rezone we find that there would be 26 lots that would be affected. To further refine the area of the rezone we should look at those lots below the Covered Bridge which are contained within the FEMA identified flooding area. There are 19 lots which are wholly or partially contained within the FEMA. Of those 19 lots there are 5 lots, totaling 62.91 acres of land which are 10 ❑ Butte County❑Department oJDevelopment Services ❑Planning Division ❑ 1 acres to 19.99 acres, 7 lots, totaling 178.01 acres of land, which are 20 acres to 39.99 acres, and 6 lots, totaling 481.79 acres of land which are greater than 40 acres. Based upon the mapping shown, it would seem that the most seriously affected area would be from the Covered Bridge to the intersection of Honey Run/Skyway. It is this area that staff feels should be the boundaries of the rezone application since the rezone would have the most beneficial effect to protect future development from the effects of flooding. k:lmemoslbuttack.mem ❑Butte County ❑Department oJDevelopment Services ❑Planning Division ❑ 2 �.,r„�iCj•.C? / , � ����� 111111■ � � all 'W111 III, Mu> WIN OPP, • `� eta 1111��11/►:11 1� ■ � s leg72 r:. COUNTYBUTTE 1 Applicant: Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: on .. Requed: Rezone from FR-5 to FR-20. No Scale Vicinity Map oaa Q- rae 0 d Proposed Rezone L ation E 3Z P'r o� A 0 rham-Pe^ �8 1 REZ 96-02 AP#Various T mom ►�i�/,1V� :fir � ■�- low— _41"��`! �.• � 111111/ � .� AO Zi -l 1Vii'" ...�. - 'tom r � ►rte; � °.±_►�� . t�`:�-_� �1����'�f1111',1111/:1�'��t�:,,,.�..�•�- �. Parcels less than 10 acres AREA(Sq.ft.) PARCEL-NUM ACRES BOOK PAGE BLOCK PARCEL 1 6176.00 11420029 0.14 11 42 0 29 2 8271.06 11260007 0.19 11 26 0 7 3 8799.31 11060066 0.20 11 6 0 66 4 10177.94 11110046 0.23 11 11 0 46 5 13827.69 11070030 0.32 11 7 0 30 6 14806.50 11070026 0.34 11 7 0 26 7 15062.50 11110027 0.35 11 11 0 27 8 15089.25 11080006 0.35 11 8 0 6 9 15293.81 11070029 0.35 11 7 0 29 10 15540.13 11080007 0.36 11 8 0 7 11 15862.38 11080001 0.36 11 8 0 1 12 16121.06 11080005 0.37 11 8 0 5 13 16456.44 11070024 0.38 11 7 0 24 14 16679.19 11080012 0.38 11 8 0 12 .15 16930.38 11290006 0.39 11 29 0 6 16 17015.06 11070058 0.39 11 7 0 58 17 17030.44 11080002 0.39 11 8 0 2 18 17191.44 11070046 0.39 11 7 0 46 19 17665.13 11420029 0.41 11 42 0 29 20 . 17952.38 11060071 0.41 11 6 0 71 21 18040.13 11080008 0.41 11 8 0 8 22 18141.13 11070028 0.42 11 7 0 28 23 18458.94 11070035 0.42 11 7 0 35 24 18726.75 11080004 0.43 11 8 0 4 25 18975.00 11080003 0.44 11 8 0 3 26 19095.63 11070063 0.44 11 7 0 63 27 19152.31 11080011 0.44 11 8 0 11 28 19777.44 11080009 0.45 11 8 0 9 29 20045.00 11080019 0.46 11 8 0 19 30 20185.75 11080018 0.46 11 8 0 18 31 20192.13 11080016 0.46 11 8 0 16 32 20312.75 11420010 0.47 11 42 0 10 33 20618.56 11110047 0.47 11 11 0 47 34 20749.94 11070061 0.48 11 7 0 61 35 21520.50 11670022 0.49 11 7 0 22 36 21655.50 11070056 0.50 11 7 0 56 37 21686.50 11080017 0.50 11 8 0 17 38 22177.06 11080021 0.51 11 8 0 21. 39 23068.63 11070062 0.53 11 7 0 62 40 23094.19 11070044 0.53 11 7 0 44 41 23106.44 11260009 0.53 11 26 0 9 42 24833.81 11080015 0.57 11 8 0 15 43 24869.63 11080010 0.57 11 8 0 10 44 25307.81 11080020 0.58 11 8 0 20 45 25356.44 11420028 0.58 11 42 0 28 46 25837.75 11070047 0.59 11 7 0 47 47 26761.81 11250045 0.61 11 25 0 45 48 26881.75 11070043 0.62 11 7 0 43 49 27311.94 11110011 0.63 11 11 0 11 50 28247.94 11380008 0.65 11 38 0 8 • 0 . 51 29471.00 11070045 0.68 11 7 0 45 52 30368.94 11080013 0.70 11 8 0 13 53 33196.38 11110032 0.76 11 11 0 32 54 34440.13 11110041 0.79 11 11 0 41 55 34824.75 11300024 0.80 11 30 0 24 56 35298.44 11360016 0.81 11 36 0 16 57 36361.94 11110069 0.83 11 11 0 69 58 36754.88 11260004 0.84 11 26 0 4 59 38029.94 11070067 0.87 11 7 0 67 60 38776.31 11070068 0.89 11 7 0 68 61 38957.63 11250042 0.89 11 25 0 42 62 39777.06 11070019 0.91 11 7 0 19 63 41674.19 11110030 0.96 11 11 0 30 64 42009.88 11110068 0.96 11 11 0 68 65 42141.88 11070034 0.97 11 7 0 34 66 42967.63 11070060 0.99 11 7 0 60 67 45081.00 11070040 1.03 11 7 0 40 68 47238.75 11420029 1.08 11 42 0 29 69 51101.19 11070055 1.17 11 7 0 55 70 51831.56 11260003 1.19 11 26 0 3 71 52295.81 11250001 1.20 11 25 0 1 72 52725.75 11420006 1.21 11 42 0 6 73 54310.13 11070059 1.25 11 7 0 59 74 55308.38 11250005 1.27 11 25 0 5 75 55791.81 11310019 1.28 11 31 0 19 76 56527.56 11110031 1.30 11 11 0 31 77 57458.81 11110056 1.32 11 11 0 56 78 59220.63 11380006 1.36 11 38 0 6 79 59394.13 11290042 1.36 11 29 0 42 80 61802.06 11380009 1.42 11 38 0 9 81 62932.25 11250007 1.44 11 25 0 7 82 63746.25 11110020 . 1.46 11 11 0 20 83 63828.56 11380007 1.47 11 38 0 7 84 64237.50 11110057 1.47 11 11 0 57 85 65270.50 11260019 1.50 11 26 0 19 86 65294.44 11360004 1.50 11 36 0 4 87 65755.13 11260001 1.51 11 26 0 1 88 65848.13 11420003 1.51 11 42 0 3 89 67714.44 11250044 1.55 11 25 0 44 90 69144.00 11290043 1.59 11 29 0 43 91 69248.44 11360006 1.59 11 36 0 6 92 69922.13 11110067 1.61 11 11 0 67 93 69970.00 11250008 1.61 11 25 0 8 94 70298.06 11250033 1.61 11 25 0 33- 95 70364.25 11110004 1.62 11 11 0 4 96 70640.13 11110029 1.62 11 11 0 29 97 71089.63 11110003 1.63 11 11 0 3 98 71217.19 11110012 1.63 11 11 0 12 99 71461.00 11110006 1.64 11 11 0 6 100 71538.50 11380005 1.64 11 38 0 5 101 71880.19 11110039 1.65 11 11 0 39 102 72575.56 11060072 1.67 11 6 0 72 103 73044.75 11360007 1.68 11 36 0 7 104 74767.88 11250004 1.72 11 25 0 4 105 75114.63 11290041 1.72 11 29 0 41 106 75590.50 11340054 1.74 11 34 0 54 107 75742.50 11290039 1.74 11 29 0 39 108 75775.25 11420029 1.74 11 42 0 29 109 -76534.88 11110008 1.76 11 11 0 8 110 76796.69 11110060 1.76 11 11 0 60 111 76826.25 11340067 1.76 11 34 0 67 112 77170.63 11270003 1.77 11 27 0 3 113 77577.56 11290040 1.78 11 29 0 40 114 78898.25 11250011 1.81 11 25 0 11 115 79513.31 11420028 1.83 11 42 0 28 116 81074.56 11110007 1.86 11 11 0 7 117 81106.75 11520021 1.86 11 52 0 21 118 81322.69 11360005 1.87 11 36 0 5 119 82055.81 11300026 1.88 11 30 0 26 120 87231.69 11110013 1.89 11 11 0 13 121 82310.00 11420029 1.89 11 42 0 29 122 84108.75 11340059 1.93 11 34 0 59 123 84725.31 11250057 1.95 11 25 0 57 124 84729.13 11110021 1.95 11 11 0 21 125 85506.94 11340094 1.96 11 34 0 94 126 85546.69 11520013 1.96 11 52 0 13 127 85712.25 11110023 1.97 11 11 0 23 128 88463.06 11110024 2.03 11 11 0 24 129 88492.13 11110005 2.03 11 11 0 5 130 88908.00 11260020 2.04 11 26 0 20 131 89314.44 11290044 2.05 11 29 0 44 132 89985.56 11060071 2.07 11 6 0 71 133 93454.94 11290045 2.15 11 29 0 45 134 93991.81 11270004 2.16 11 27 0 4 135 94872.13 11110040 2.18 11 11 0 40 136 95499.13 11260002 2.19 11 26 0 2 137 96619.56 11390003 2.22 11 39 0 3 138 97592.00 11290017 2.24 11 29 0 17 139 98685.56 11110002 2.27 11 11 0 2 140 98890.44 11070017. 2.27 11 7 0 17 141 99029.06 11340068 2.27 11 34 0 68 142 100240.10 11260005 2.30 11 26 0 5 143 100365.30 11380019 2430 11 38 0 19 144 102067.60 11070057 2.34 11 7 0 57 145 102341.10 11290046 2.35 11 29 0 46 146 103083.40 11250010 2.37 11 25 0 10 147 103315.90 11270005 2.37 11 27 0 5 148 103824.30 11310020 2.38 11 31 0 20 149 103860.40 11340164 2.38 11 34 0 164 150 104391.30 11250055 2.40 11 25 0 55 151 108485.90 11360008 2.49 11 36 0 8 152 108672.20 11110017 2.49 11 11 0 17 153 111297.10 11390001 2.56 11 39 0 1 154 111889.30 11340166 2.57 11 34 0 166 155 113371.30 11340163 2.60 . 11 34 0 , 163 156 115723.30 11110010 2.66 11 11 0 10 157 116267.10 1.1110009 2.67 11 11 0 9 158 117554.90 11380010 2.70 11 38 0 10 159 117633.80 11360006 2.70 11 36 0 6 160 120414.70 11390016 2.76 11 39 0 16 • 161 124172.60 11250035 2.85 11 25 0 35 162 126846.60 11300004 2.91 11 30 0 4 163 128346.50 11250054 2.95 11, 25 0 54 164 133157.40 11070048 3.06 11 7 0 48 165 134838.40 11250036 3.10 11 25 0 36 166 135744.40 11110066 3.12 11 11 0 66 167 136368.30 11110028 3.13 11 11 0 28 168 137123.10 11390015 3.15 11 39, 0 15 169 141224.00 11520020 3.24 11 52 0 20 170 142279.40 11290022 3.27 11 29 0 22 171 144104.70 11110044 3.31 11 11 0 44 172 148658.90 11390006 3.41 11 39 0. 6 173 148716.40 11340155 3.41 11 34 0 155 174 148780.60 11250009 3.42 11 25 0 9 175 149456.20 11260006 3.43 11 26 0 6 176 151842.20 11110052 3.49 11 11 0 52 177 156369.40 11380039 3.59 11 38 0 39 178 161388.40 11110059 3.70 11 11 0 59 179 161479.60 11280117 3.71 11 28 0 117 180 161774.90 11280102 3.71 11 28 0 102 181 162344.10 11300052 3.73 11 30 0 52 182 164392.80 11340168 3.77 11 34 0 168 183 165220.80 11360021 3.79 11 36 0 21 184 167263.40 11340166 3.84 11 34 0 166 185 168271.50 11340093 3.86 11 34 0 93 186 168582.80 11270001 3.87 11 27 0 1 187 173075.80 11520012 3.97 11 52 0 . 12 188 174743.00 11360015 4.01 11 36 0 15 189 175630.50 11110051 4.03 11 11 0 51 190 178483.30 11300031 4.10 11 30 0 31 191 184580.60 11110019 4.24 11 11 0 19 192 184617.00 11420012 4.24 11 42 0 12 193 187605.30 11060061 4.31 11 6 0 61 194 190896.10 11260008 4.38 11 26 0 8 195 193285.80 11280118 4.44 11 28 0 118 196 195250.90 11300027 4.48 11 30 0 27 197 195985.40 11250063 4.50 11 25 0 63 198 196352.30 11270002 4.51 11 27 0 2 199 196615.70 11250006 4.51 11 25 0 6 200 198872.30 11250064 4.57 11 25 0 64 201 200082.60 11420003 4.59 11 42 0 3 202 200658.60 11250065 4.61 11 25 0 65 203 202667.60 11060071 4.65 11 6 0 71 204 203663.90 11340169 4.68 11 34 0 169 205 204337.90 11110053 4.69 11 11 0 53 206 206686.90 11340163 4.74 11 34 0 163 207 214043.00. 11300045 4.91 11 30 0 45 208 214815.10 11250070 4.93 11 25 0 70 209 215093.80 11060063, 4.94 11 6 0 63 210 215142.50 11410174 4.94 11 41 0 174 211 217029.80 11380023 4.98 11 38 0 23 212 220429.90 11520023 5.06 11 52 0 23 213 220778.30 11070011 5.07 11 7 0 11 214 220828.10 11300042 5.07 11 30 0 42 215 220922.40 11520007 5.07 11 52 0 7 J 216 225378.10 11520022 5.17 11 52 0 22. 217 225553.10 11260016 5.18 11 26 0 16 218 227302.00 11390017 5.22 11 39 0 17 219 227614.50 11300043 5.23 11 30 0 43 220 228316.20 11520001 5.24 11 52 0 1 221 229959.40 11360026 5.28 11 36 0 26 222 230050.30 11280090 5.28 11 28 0 90 223 231503.40 11110063 5.31 11 11 0 63 224 235252.70 11300044 5.40 11 30 0 44 225 239267.20 11280092 5.49 11 28 0 92 226 241524.40 11060073 5.54 11 6 0 73 227 243616.20 11420021 5.59 11 42 0 21 228 248043.60 11360025 5.69 11 36 0 25 229 248239.20 11310073 5.70 11 31 0 73 230 257739.60 11410122 5.92 11 41 0 122 231 258451.00 11110037 5.93 11 11 0 37 232 261204.30 11280089 6.00 11 28 0 89 233 263709.80 11250075 6.05 11 25 0 75 234 267516.70 11240075 6.14 11 24 0 75 235 267737.70 11110065 6.15 11 11 0 65 236 269375.30 11520012 6.18 11 52 0 12 237 269600.20 11520002 6.19 11 52 0 2 238 270460.40 11280091 6.21 11 28 0 91 239 272263.20 11420026 6.25 11 42 0 26 240 272358.40 11420028 6.25 11 42 0 28 241 273508.70 11270011 6.28 11 27 0 11 I 242 275083.60 11390018 6.32 11 39 0 18 243 282345.70 11300047 6.48 11 30 0 47 244 282648.30 11310065 6.49 11 31 0 65 245 283217.90 11110064 6.50 11 11 0 64 246 285320.80 11250071 6.55 11 25 0 71 247 286098.70 11300021 6.57 11 30 0 21 248 286320.80 11520006 6.57 11 52 0 6 249 287293.30 11340067 6.60 11 34 0 67 250 292912.30 11300048 6.72 11 30 0 48 251 293605.60 11420029 6.74 11 42 0 29 252 294442.40 11340167 6.76 11 34 0 167 253 295069.30 11040025 6.77 11 4 0 25 254 296798.70 11420025 6.81 11 42 0 25 255 298719.90 11410096 6.86 11 41 0 96 256 303022.70 11250039 6.96 11 25 0 39 257 304582.40 11250069 6.99 11 25 0 69 258 307692.00 11300046 7.06 11 30 0 46 259 309471.70 11250043 7.10 11 25 0 43 260 311603.40 11110045 7.15 11 11 0 45 261 313389.50 11310068 7.19 11 31 0 68 262 315501.50 11110016 7.24 11 11 0 16 263 319371.10 11410068 7.33 11 41 0 68 264 332264.20 11250076 7.63 11 25 0 76 265 333196.30 11110058 7.65 11 11 0 58 266 334047.50 11300041 7.67 11 30 0 41 267 344330.40 11340155 7.90 11 34 0 155 268 347536.50 11110062 7.98 11 11 0 62 269 353993.40 11270007 8.13 11 27 0 7 270 367659.90 11300040 8.44 11 30 0 40 271 370255.60 11340170 8.50 11 34 0 170" 272 375080.20 11070049 8.61 11 7 0 49 273 391153.90 11270006 8.98 11 27 0 6 274 398721.10 11260013 9.15 11 26 0 13 275 407184.10 11340154 9.35 11 34 0 154 276 416048.70 11310076 9.55 11 31 0, 76 277 427215.90 11310067 9.81 11 31 0 67 278 427361.60 11300049 9.81 11 30 0 49 279 431968.30 11070031 9.92 11 7 0 31 I 10 to 19.99 Acre Parcels Division may be possible under current°FR=5°zone Could not be divided under proposed 20 acre minimum AREA PARCEL-NUM ACRES BOOK PAGE BLOCK PARCEL 442250.60 11420005 10.15 1.1 42 0 5- 446697.10 11280122 10.25 11 28 0 122 455322.-60 1141.0-143 10.45 11 41 0 143 458479.40 11310075 10.53 11 31 0 75 491400.20 11300050 11.28 11 30 0 50 507049.60 11270010 11.64 11 27 0 10 508042.30 11280104 11.66 11_ 28 0 104 51711:7.80 11250073. 11.87 11 25. 0 73 NO 523498.00 11410173 12.02 11 41 0 173 531462.40 11270009 12.20 11 27 0 9 531579.60 11340113 12.20 11 34 0 113 533347.60 11280082 12.24 11 28 0 82 560218.50 11310074 12.86 11 31 0 74 560905.70 11240076 12.88 11 24 0 76 583944.30 11260014 13.41 11 26 0 14 598442.30 11260015 13.74 11 26 0 15 602981.40 11250072 13.84 11 25 0 72 611439.40 11300005 14.04 11 30 0 5 612313.10 11270008 14.06 11 27 0 8 621998.30 11300030 14.28 11 30 0 30 655715.30 11060073 15.05, 11 6 0 73 655781.40 11340122 15.05 11 34 0 122 663974.60 1.141.0-1'72_ 15.24 11 41 0 172- 721992.40 11300039 16.57 11 30 0 39 792148.40 11260011 18.19 11 26 0 11 825535.90 11250077 18.95 11 25 0 77 847909.20 11520018 19.47 11 52 0 18 20 t0 39.99 Acre Parcels Division may be possible under existing'FR-5'zone Division not possible under proposed 20 acre minimus AREA PARCEL-NUM ACRES BOOK PAGE BLOCK PARCEL 879426.40 11240041 20.19 11 24 0 41 898641.60 11240077 20.63 11 24 0 77 909748.70 11060068' 20.88 11 .6 0 68 918351.70 11360024 21.08 11 36 0 24 928187.30 11300036 21.31 11 30 0 36 956777.80 11340168 21.96 11 34 0 168 981942.90 1.1450025 22.54 11 45 0 25 1012072.00 11300051 23.23 11 30 0 51 1032640.00 11520008 23.71 11 52 0 8 1047783.00 11070009 24.05 11 7 0 91 1085699.00 11070010 24.92 11 7 0_ 10- 1124905.00 11420003 25.82 11 42 0 =3 1233708.00 1.1420027 28.32 11 42 0 27 1371288.00 11410130 31.48 11 41' 0 130 1377810.00 11250066 31.63 11 25 0 66 1388613.00 11240069 31.88 11 24 0 69 1423543.00 11060061 32.68 11 6 0 61 1454468.00 11110068 33.39 11 11 0 68 1454686.00 11280120 33.39 11 28 0 120 1508518.00 11110034 34.63 11 11 0 34 1533111.00 11340159 35.20 11 34 0 159 1592553.00 11340158 36.56 11 34 0 158 1610019.00 11290020 36.96 11 29 0 20 Parcels Greater Than 40 Acres Division may be possible under both the existing'FR-5'zone and the proposed 20 acre minimum. AREA PARCEL-NUM ACRES BOOK PAGE BLOCK PARCEL 1784471.00 11340027.00 40.97 11 34 0 27 1801036.00 11280115.00 41.35 11 28 0 115 2045341.E+0 11280116.00 46.95 .11 28 0 116 2060221.00 11420014.00 47.30 11 42 0 14 2222544.00 11450026.00 51.02 11' 45 0 26� 2610138.00 11110035.00 59.92 11 11 0 35 2679002.00 11310028.00 61.50 11 31 0 28 . '2753961.00' 11420029:00 63.22 11 42 0 29` 2830730.00 11280080.00 64.98 11 28 0 80 3177879.00 11310029.00 72.95 11 31 0 29 3325899.00 11280107.00 76.35 11 28 0 107 3455109.00 11280079.00 79.32 11 28 0 79 3535585.00 11070064.00 81.17 11. 7 0 64-' 3709679.00 11300032.00 85.16 11 30 0 32 3870838.00 11280119.00 88.86 11 28 0 119 4518462.00 11410119.00 103.73 11 41 0 119 4940124.00 11410175.00 113.41 11- 41 0 175, 5474286.00 1.1060018.00 125.67 11 6 0 18 7496882.00 11340119.00 172.10 11 34 0 119 9057635.00 11280121.00 207.93 11 28 0 121 12888140.00 11280085.00 295.87 11 28 0 85 18188470.00 11340147.00 417.55 11 34 0 147 i 1,i Y ii. 1995 Auh is Hearings and Timed Items 95-200 Continued hearing - John Farhar, et al. - consideration of the Development Review Committee's approval of the J. E. McAmis vesting subdivision map (item for which negative declaration with mitigations has been adopted) , AP 011-070-057 and -064, four parcels, property located on the south side of Honey Run Road, adjacent to Butte Creek approximately 3/4 mile southwest of Centerville Road in the Butte Creek Canyon, Chico. (FROM 6-27-95) (20) MOTION: I MOVE FOR A MOTION OF INTENT TO 1) DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT FOR FOUR PARCELS SUBJECT TO A NOTE BEING PLACED ON THE DEED THAT WOULD GO WITH THE LAND THAT THIS PROPERTY CONTAINS NO STRUCTURE ZONES AND THAT NO FUTURE SUBDIVIDING OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE -ALLOWED; 2) ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY'S DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE; AND 3) CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1995 TO ALLOW STAFF TIME TO PREPARE THE NECESSARY FORMAL FINDINGS. S M VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) MOTION: I MOVE TO DIRECT. STAFF TO INITIATE A REZONE TO ACRE ' MINIMUM PARCELS 20 MIN , TO INCLUDE OTHER AREAS THAT STAFF BELIEVES SHOULD BE IN LARGER PARCELS, AND TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. M S VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) Page 212 July- ll, 1995 . From: Barry Hogan To: LynnR Date: Monday, July 17, 1995 9:57 am Subject: GPA for McAmis and area At the Board meeting, as a separate motion, they initiated a GPA/Rezone for the McAmis property and vicinity. Please start a file on this. We do not need to have an application, but it would be a good idea to have a copy of the Board's motion in the file. Craig and I will work on this together. CC: CraigS i I i S661 L 'in r . Iu8WPeuiO(3 buluueld MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Butte Creek Rezone Area - A request by the Development Services planning staff for determination of the area of Butte Creek Canyon that should be considered as part of the County initiated rezone to FR-20. DATE: December 6, 1995 SUMMARY: When the Board of Supervisors considered and acted upon the Tentative Parcel Map for McAmis, it directed staff to initiate a rezone of the Butte Creek Canyon area to 20 acre minimum lot sizes. It left the determination of the boundaries of the rezone to the discretion of the planning staff. We have reviewed the area and have determined what we believe to be the appropriate boundaries of the rezone. This memo is to explain the process that staff used and to obtain concurrence by the Commission on the rezone boundaries or direction on modification of the suggested boundaries. DISCUSSION: Attached is a large scale color map of the area of Butte Creek from Honey Run/Skyway past the Covered Bridge and up Centerville Road quite a distance. The existing FR-5 zoning is indicated in blue outline. Most of the lots in the area (there are 279 of a total of 351 lots) are under 10 acres and, therefore, not divisible into 5 acre lots. There are 27 lots that are greater than 10 acres but less than 20 acres; these lots would be divisible under the current FR-5 zone. There are 23 lots that are 20 acres but less than 40 acres which would also be divisible. Lastly there are 22 lots that are greater than 40 acres which are also divisible. The map also shows in red the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone. This shows what properties are affected by flooding according to FEMA. Please note that the largest area subject to flooding, according to FEMA, is in the area below the Covered Bridge. On the map this is the area where Honey Run Road splits with one road becoming Centerville Road. It occurs approximately in the middle of the mapped area. The task before staff and the Commission is to establish appropriate boundaries for consideration of a change in zone from the FR-5 to FR-20. At a minimum the rezone must include the McAmis property. The McAmis property is located below the Covered Bridge. Using the Covered Bridge as an upper limit to the boundaries of the rezone we find that there would be 26 lots that would be affected. To further refine the area of the rezone we should look at those lots below the Covered Bridge which are contained within the FEMA identified flooding area. There are 19 lots which are wholly or partially contained within the FEMA. Of those 19 lots there are 5 lots, totaling 62.91 acres of land which are 10 ❑ Butte County ❑Department ojDevelopment Services ❑ Planning Division ❑ 1 1 'y acres to 19.99 acres, 7 lots, totaling 178.01 acres of land, which are 20 acres to 39.99 acres, and 6 lots, totaling 481.79 acres of land which are greater than 40 acres. Based upon the mapping shown, it would seem that the most seriously affected area would be from the Covered Bridge to the intersection of Honey Run/Skyway. It is this area that staff feels should be the boundaries of the rezone application since the rezone would have the most beneficial effect to protect future development from the effects of flooding. Omemosbudeck.mem I ❑Butte County❑Department oJDevelopment Services ❑Planning Division ❑ 2 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (y�� Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Board of Supervisors that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, October 10, 1996, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM DETERMINED TO BE A GENERAL RULE EXEMPTION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) The above mentioned application and map are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you challenge the above, applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILLIAM FARREL, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, September 26, 1996. i