Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZCA 94-81_PLANNING 69 SEPARATOR - SHEET APN PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET FILE NO. 94-81 PERMIT NO. PROJECT TYPE: Code Amendment APPLICANT: Butte County Planning Commission ADDRESS: 25 County Center Dr. , Oroville, CA 95965 REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend code sections 24-202, 303 & 304 to remove restrictions regarding senior citizen dwelling units in favor of restrictions for second units, and to modify the regulation for temporary mobile homes ON PROPERTY ZONED: various LOCATED: county wide AP NO.: various TOWN/AREA: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION various 1. Application Complete: Amount: Receipt No.: 2. Comments sent to: 3. Comments received from: 4. Rezone Petition Signatures Checked: 5. Mailing List/Lead-In Sheet: 6. Assigned To: 7. Environmental Determination: Categorical Exemption - CEQA# State Clearinghouse No.: Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Subject to Fish & Game: _Environmental Impact Report General Rule Exception - CEQA#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: O C P G B R 13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): Action Taken: Special Conditions: Commission Resolution No. 14. Board of Supervisors' Hearing(s): /40 ��'y`T (� ! Q � A- ^ Action Taken: Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No.: Adopted: .9X 15. Type Use Permit/Send for Signature: 16. NOE/NOD/APPENDIX G: Fish & Game Fees Paid: Yes No 17. Send validated Use Permit: 18. Assessor's Memo: 19. Copy of UP/VAR. to Planning Technician: 94-345 , Continued hearing - Butte County Planning Commission - - consideration of a code amendment (negative declaration regarding environmental impacts has been recommended) amending Chapter 24, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify the past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas Countywide. (FROM 10-11-94) (2414) MOTION: I MOVE TO ADOPT THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS (AMEND SECTION 24-35. 2 ANIMAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS; SECTION (B) USE PERMIT REQUIRED . FOR MORE INTENSE OR COMMERCIAL USE. TO ADD "REGARDLESS OF PARCEL SIZE, USE PERMITS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR STABLES", AND THE NUMBERS CORRECTED ON OCTOBER 11, 1994 BE INCLUDED) TO AMEND CHAPTER 24, COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE TO CODIFY THE PAST ZONING INTERPRETATIONS, UPDATE DEFINITIONS, WORDING AND USES, SIMPLIFY PERMITTING PROCEDURES, MODIFY CERTAIN PROVISIONS REGARDING ALLOWED USES, AND APPROVE RECOMMENDED REORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT. THE AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY TO UNINCORPORATED AREAS COUNTYWIDE. S - M VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - November 8 , 1994 = ( 94-314;, Public hearing - Butte County Planning Commission (zoning ordinance amendment 94-92-) - consideration of a proposed ordinance (negative declaration regarding environmental impacts has been recommended) amending Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding senior citizen dwelling unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for G�� general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a use permit rather than an administrative permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for temporary mobile homes and simplify the permitting process to require an administrative permit rather than a use permit. (1655) (**00) (HEARING CONTINUED OPEN TO NOVEMBER 8, 1994 AT 10:00 A.M. ) 94-314 Public hearing - Butte County Planning Commission - �\ consideration of a code amendment (negative declaration regarding environmental impacts has been recommended) amending Chapter 24, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify the past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas Countywide. (HEARING CONTINUED OPEN TO NOVEMBER 8, 1994 AT 10:00 A.M. ) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - October 11 , 1994 Butte County Planning Commission, Code Amendment, Files 94-80 and 94-81: Summary Sheets Agenda Report - Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Initial Study - Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Agenda Report - Second dwellings Initial Study - Second dwellings Planning Commission Minutes: January 13, 1994 May 12, 1994 June 23, 1994 July 14, 1994 July 20, 1994 August 11, 1994 August 25, 1994 Draft Revised Code Amendment in its entirety Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-02: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a use permit rather than an administrative permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for Temporary Mobile Homes and simplify the permitting process to require an administrative permit rather than a use permit. (94-80) (CBS) AND Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Code Amendment amending Chapter 24, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (94-81) (BKH) Chairman Lambert said they would take both of these hearings together for discussion purposes. Mr. Hogan said the zoning amendment was continued to broaden the advertisement. He said this amendment was an attempt to clean up the problems in.administering the code. The interpretations and changes in State law have .been incorporated into the code -through this amendment. He said the most significant change is in the procedure for administrative items such as agricultural segregation and homesite segregations, large family day care, and temporary second dwellings. He submitted a memo dated May 11, 1994, and would like the Commission to also consider to allow staff to re-order the document in terms of its organization. He said the subject change would allow the temporary permits to be done by administrative permit which would take less time and money. Chairman. Lambert-_asked_,if-the. change would allow permanent permits for second dwellings and other permanent uses including homesite and ag segregation and home occupation, permanently, with a use permit and temporary units, temporarily, with an administrative permit. - - : '' ' "-BUTTE-•COUNTY-PL-gNNING'COMMISSION-MINUTES MAYA 2;-l994Y--- - I Mr. Hogan said yes. Chairman Lambert said the proposed ordinance suggests restricting second dwellings to within the city's sphere with a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet. She asked about other areas where there is a nitrate study for example, would these units be allowed? Mr. Hogan said the other health conditions would override the minimum lot size requirement. Commissioner Lynch stated that there are no changes or added restrictions in either proposal, the attempt is to try to simplify the ordinance, reduce cost and reduce time to process projects. i The hearing was opened to the public. AI Appelman, Nimshew Road, Magalia, said home occupations have never required a permit and he was against the recommendation for this requirement. He said home occupations do not need a permit process. He said people are trying to supplement their income and can not afford the permit fees. He also said he did not think bed and jbreakfast operations should be considered a home occupation. He said home occupations have never needed a permit and do not need one now. Craig Sanders said the home occupation permit fee is purposed for$50-100. He said this process would allow the department to track the number and types of home occupations in the County and would help when complaints are taken. He said. staff will be able to determine if there is a legally permitted home occupation at that time. Mr. Appelman said this type of fee will start small and get larger. He was against the permit process. Charles Cruthers said he agreed with Mr. Appelman. He said the permit requirement would have nothing to do with planning, but would be about control. He said the County is over governed and over regulated. He stated the zoning ordinance was a penal ordinance and to violate this ordinance is considered a crime. He said this proposal would transfer discretion from the Board of. Supervisors to the Planning Manager to decide if a crime is being committed. He said these proposed changes are not about sensible zoning, but about control. He was concerned with power going to the Planning Manager. Vern Chadwick said this proposal is as important as the proposed General Plan update and should be given as much time in considering it as the General Plan. He stated that there are items in this proposal that have been changed contrary to Board direction. BUTTE COUNTY-PLANNINGCOMMISSION_�MINUTES��MAY_12 .1994, There are typographical errors in the document. He said this proposal needs a lot more consideration and is not ready to be voted on. ' He said this proposal gives the County the right to search peoples homes when they apply for a home occupation. He said there are illegal elements in this proposal. He said there should be town hall meetings on this subject. Bill Wilson distributed a copy of the constitution. He asked the Commission if they took an oath of office? Commissioner Nelson said that was not germane to this hearing. He 'said the Commission was here to address the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wilson asked again if the Commission took an oath of office? He said the proposal is contrary to the constitution. He said the hearing was not properly noticed because the notice did not say there would be more added restrictions. He said this was an illegal meeting. He objected to the proposed changes and to adding more fees. He said he bought his land; pays taxes on it, and does not want to be told what he can or can not do with the land. Commissioner Nelson was absent at this time. Mr. Wilson asked if the Commission had read the proposed document? Commissioner Bergman said he had not read all of it. Mr. Wilson said the Commission needs to be informed people. He said his property is private and the County authority ends-after the 30 ft. right-of-way. He questioned what is permitted for a home occupation? Mr. Sanders read the uses allowed in a home occupation as it exists today. He said they are not proposing to change this section of the-ordinance, just moving the description to another part of the zoning code. Mr. Wilson was against the Planning Manager having the authority to decide what type of permit is required as it states on Page 13. Mr. Hogan said home occupations are now allowed without a permit or, in some special cases, with a permit before the Planning Commission. He said they are `suggesting a procedure where staff can approve this type of use with less cost and time to the applicant. �- 13UTTErCOUNTY _PLANNING"COMMISSIONwMINUTES `MAY12 '1994 ' . :tm++t.+o......... _•..•.-.+.rs.�ts,..nr:-•�ie�r�r-ax:...,.�.w..n.•-..d _7^'.r�!"'*, i^.ti• .�' ,r7er�,re :.sr,....._n. 1!ti, 777_ Mr. Wilson discussed the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He wanted to keep County personnel off his property. Vern Chadwick asked if the Commission was holding illegal meetings outside of this room? He stated that according to Fred Gerst, Mr. Gerst has been assured that this proposal will not be passed today and is assured how the Commission will vote. He was very upset to think Mr. Gerst knew ahead of time how the Commission would vote. Chairman Lambert said there have been no illegal meetings. She stated with a project of this magnitude it is unlikely it would be passed today. Commissioner Lynch said it was a common practice of the Commission to make carefully considered judgements and the meeting would probably be continued in order to permit more time for consideration. He said Mr. Gerst has attended enough Commission meetings to know this. Commissioner Nelson was present at this time. Fred Gerst said he told Mr. Chadwick he did not think this would be adopted today and would probably be continued. He said Mr. Chadwick has quoted him out of context. He denied everything stated by Mr. Chadwick as false. There was a 15 minute recess at 10:45 a.m. Nick Monte said he has spent hours reading this document. He said the document is highly restrictive regarding growth. He said this document is against the will of the voters. He stated that the Agricultural Committee is having illegal meetings on the Agricultural Element, with support by County staff, in a County building, with the help of County Counsel. Mr. Hogan said the documents before the Commission today are not part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. He said there are a few items of significance in the proposed document, but that is not the main intent of this document. The intent is to fix problems brought up in the past and to make a more readable document and to add clarification. In addition, he explained that staff is not a member of the Agricultural Committee and the Committee is not supported by County Counsel. Mr. Chadwick asked that the proposal be read into the record. He formally objected to all the items that are being changed in this document. He said two members of the Committee were staff members, because he asked them at the meeting. =BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING"COMMISSION=MINUTES~ MAY�12; 1994 _, �_ _ . Mr. Hogan said there are no staff members as part of the Committee. He said the present zoning ordinance is confusing to the .public and this is an attempt to make the document clearer. Chairman Lambert asked the public if they like the process as it is now, or would they prefer a shorter, faster and less expensive process? Mr. Monte said the issue is the method they are using to try and pass this ordinance. Maxie Shirley said this document is.destroying personal freedoms. He said staff's talk is a waste of time. He asked if the Commission had read the Bill of Attainder. Charles Cruthers said he would like to see less costly use permits replaced by administrative permits, but backed by, a firm set of laws, not at staff's discretion. Mr. Hogan explained the concept of minor use permits and variances. Commissioner Nelson said this proposal was a major change and expressed concern regarding the home occupation process requiring a permit. Mr. Cruthers said this change in the home occupation process extends major authority to Planning staff. He said staff will be able to change the law to suit their opinion. Cindy Schons said she has a general comment. She said on Page 38, Line 17, this statement, the Planning Manager's approval, is throughout the whole document, and it gives vent to possible graft on the part of staff. Commissioner Nelson said the Planning Manager as well as Commission members file a conflict of interest statement. Ms. Schons said she was also concerned with senior housing. She said there is no such thing as a "quick fix". She said senior housing should be allowed in any residential zone and not just in the areas that are within the city's sphere. She said this would be unfair to people.outside of the spheres. She said the County needs to take care of their own families. She wanted people who live in the outlying areas to be allowed to have senior citizens dwellings. She said when the A-2 zone was changed to the "U" zone, she lost 70% of her property rights and this proposed document would take away more of her property rights. Mr. Hogan said the senior dwellings were proposed to be removed from the agricultural zones. He said the proposal covers the five city areas, but other areas can be considered. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 12,;1,994 _. Larry Duncan, Town of Paradise Planning Commission, said he lives in Paradise and would be against the requirement for a permit to do a home occupation. He also felt that bed and breakfast operations should not be a home occupation. Mr. Wilson said this proposal has major changes on Page 30. Mr. Sanders explained that the M-R zone does not comply with the current General Plan. Mr. Appelman said he wanted to discuss the home occupation ordinance.with staff. He offered to write the ordinance and submit it to the Commission. Chairman Lambert said they would consider any suggestions submitted by the public. Commissioner Nelson said he has no problems with the proposed changes and saw no reason to hash this over and over. He said staff should be commended for their work on this proposal. Chairman Lambert felt this item should be continued for discussion if the Commission can not agree on the proposal. Commissioner Bergman said he was not happy with this document at all. He said if the hearing is continued, he would like people to stop making threats, limit the speakers to 5 minutes, and not repeat what has already been said. Commissioner Lynch said the Commission would welcome new comments at the next meeting. He said the public comment period will have to be closed, at some time, to allow the Commission an opportunity to discuss the matter. Phyllis Grace said these proposed changes will affect the life styles and property rights of the residences of the County. Mr. Sanders encouraged people to call the office to go over their concerns and to submit written comments. Commissioner Lynch asked that people submit their written comments to the Planning office in a timely manner so the Commission can receive them prior to the meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Bergman, seconded by Commissioner Lynch, and carried to continue both hearings open to June 23, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. and to keep the 9:00 a.m. time slot for just this item, by the following vote: - BUTTE�COUNTY PLANNING"COMMISSION MINUTES - MAY 12,.1;994 AYES: Commissioners Bergman, Ferguson, Lynch, and Chairman Lambert NOES: Commissioner Nelson ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: No.one _ .BUTTE COUNTY.rP.LANN!M 46MMISSIONiMINUTES ?'�� tf � ._ S Y' - i �. (,j Qly y+ !l F Y ( �.r.-�•�f{��}.,•�ar.yw�yw. ...Jw...•-w+�Y. �K �171kr 1� A�+i M1-.^,.�' ?- / _ .-' .Y 4�. � •7^�T" ••� It....Li.. .+-<.=.MPJ/Fwsi..awYi}�.+i7PY:�.�..Lv."wn-%EJG.MM• d•-{i4•Fis L! ,•Ar .r a X. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Discussion - Senior Citizen Dwelling Units, second dwellings, (62- 1200's) - Report from Staff. Staff said the Commission asked what jurisdiction the Commission has in regulating senior citizens' dwelling units. Staff said the County does not have to have a provision for senior citizen dwelling units. Staff said State law says that the County "may" provide for these types of units. Staff said there is a separate section in the State Code that says that Counties may provide second units. Chairman Lambert asked if the Commission needs to adopt an Ordinance in order to not allow 62-1200 dwelling units? Staff said they did not believe so. Staff said if the Commission wants to control second units that house seniors, there are specific regulations from the State, but the difficulty is in enforcement. Commissioner Nelson asked if they can specify a separate room to the main dwelling? Staff said they could specify that the access would be from the primary dwelling, with no exterior access. They could specify attached or detached. Staff said once you have. kitchen facilities it is considered another dwelling. Commissioner Nelson said the intent was a small duplex attached to the side and not a second dwelling. Staff said the State allows second units, but granny housing is more restrictive. Chairman Lambert talked- about doing away with the granny housing provisions.. Staff said they would have to check with County Counsel, but staff believes if someone wants to build to the requirements of a 62-1200 they have to be allowed. ,Staff said,the State allows a provision to have a second unit. Staff said it would be easier to administer second dwelling units. Commissioner Nelson said there could be restrictions, such as making the second unit attached. Staff said they could require notice on the deed to be recorded. Commissioner Bergman suggested restricting the square footage and to the unit being attached, and limit the dwelling to bed and bathroom, with no kitchen. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. - January..13-;• 1994 -�- Staff said this is allowed now as an addition and is not required to come before the Commission. Commissioner Bergman said these units are creating shanty towns. Staff said there is a real need for the "Aunt Minnie" dwellings. Staff said they can exclude zones and require sewer for the second dwelling. Commissioner Lynch said they need to do some tightening up of enforcement. He said it is not fair that "Aunt Minnie's" are temporary and more expensive than the Granny housing which are permanent. Staff said enforcement on 62 years of 'age groups is difficult. Staff said they would bring back a proposal for a more restrictive second dwelling policy. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 13= 1994 - s Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts_and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-81.:_. A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a Use Permit rather than an Administrative Permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for Temporary mobile homes and simplify the permitting process to require an Administrative Permit rather than a Use Permit. (BKH) (Continued open from May 12, 1994) and - - - - - - - - - Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Code Amendment amending Chapter 24 94-80 , - Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (CBS) i (Continued open from May 12, 1994) The above two hearings were taken at the same time. Mr. Hogan said these amendments are to the ordinance to codify the interpretations that the Board and Commission have made in the past, certain cleanup to language, legal cleanup to be consistent with State laws, and some reorganization. He noted the testimony at the last meeting relative to Home Occupations. Craig Sanders said there has been considerable discussion on home occupations. He said he has revised the recommendation to add the alternative to take home occupations out of a permit process and institute a simple form to be sent to people who inquire about home occupations to be filled out and sent back. He said there would not be a hearing process, fee, or permit associated with home occupations. Mr. Hogan explained relative to the senior citizen dwellings and temporary mobile homes, there is one change staff would like to suggest. He said it was previously recommended to move the senior citizen dwelling process from an Administrative Permit to the Use Permit process, remove the age requirement, and restrict the dwellings to within the LAFCo Sphere of Influence. He said staff is suggesting that the Magalia area be excluded from allowing second units. He said the area does not have infrastructure as does the Other urban areas in the County: He said at this time the temporary mobile homes-are a Use Permit process and the suggestion is that these be handled by Administrative Permits`He said the three reasons for this change would be cost, time to process, and 'BUTTE-COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June_ 23, 1994 ` the permits would not require CEQA review. Mr. Hogan outlined the Administrative Permit process stating the permits would be handled over the counter as a non-discretionary permit. The applicant would have to meet the requirements for a temporary second dwelling, file a bond, and it would be approved over the counter. He said this would provide improved service to the community and meet the intent of the ordinance. He discussed following up on review of the temporary second units. Commissioner Lynch said after going over this proposal, there needs to be more concern about what the Commission is doing. He said some of the ideas presented in this document are good, but there are-some problems with definition of terms. He said he is hearing that on the one hand Administrative Permits can be accomplished over the counter, but on the other hand there will be notification to the neighbors. He said you can not have notification to the neighbors and issue the permit over the counter. Mr. Hogan explained there are three kinds of permits. He said an Administrative Permit would not require notification and is an over the counter issuance. He said staff is proposing a process for minor Use Permits and minor Variances that would require notification. He said temporary second dwellings are suggested under the second process that would require notice with a staff hearing that could be appealed to the Planning Commission with the appeal ending at the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lynch did not feel they could stop the process at the Planning Commission and not allow for appeal to the Board. Mr. Hogan said he has talked to County Counsel regarding one appeal to the Commission only and County Counsel indicated this was legal. Chairman Lambert said if the minor permits can be processed with staff in 14 days, they should be able to come to the Commission in 14 days. Mr. Hogan said in the Administrative Permit process, if approved, it would remove certain types of uses as a discretionary permit, to be handled in the same manner as building permits are handled. Chairman Lambert said she has a problem with staff reviewing an application and then staff making the decision on approval or denial of the permit. Commissioner Bergman said he has a problem with the Development Review Committee for the same reasons. . He said it is intimidating for the public to come before staff members for their hearing. He said he would like to see the applications that are now handled at the Development Review Committee come before the Planning Commission. ` BUTTE COUNTY PLANPIING-COMMISSION MINUTES - June� 23 ,y1994 Commissioner Lynch said he would like to see a Commission sub-committee set up to go over these proposals in greater detail. I o Chairman Lambert said the Commission did not want to dismiss the work that has been done by staff. Commissioner Lynch said the Administrative Permit and minor Use Permits are a concern as well as the agricultural segregation process. Mr. Hogan disagreed with the formation of a sub-committee. He said he_believes the changes are not major. ' He said if there are concerns regarding the Commission hearing the items, then the minor Use Permits and Variances can be put on the Commission " agenda as consent items. He said to have a sub-committee for what staff believes to be non-substantial changes, when there will be a full revision in the future, will be a waste of the Commission's time and staff's time. He said he would rather see the Commission deny the request and move it on to the Board, or adopt the sections that the Commission feels are appropriate and recommend against adoption of the other sections. The hearing was opened to the public. 'i Jane Davis, Biggs, said she disagrees with the Planning Manager that these are minor changes. She said some of the changes are major and will affect the public's livelihood. She suggested that this document not be approved until it has been looked at closely. She said on Page 1, 24-21.001 accessory uses, who determines what is an accessory use? She said there was an interpretation on agricultural accessory use presented to the Board of Supervisors on June 16, 1994, that was passed. She felt that this should not have gone to the Board because of the current public hearings being held. She asked how can the Board make an amendment to Chapter 24 when there are public hearings in process? She said on Page 5, 24-21.260 definition of kennels, "If a person has a kennel, it is an establishment where dogs are bred for sale, border, trained, etc. and is a business." She said if she wants to have 5 spayed and neutered dogs for pets, she should not be considered a kennel. Mr. Sanders said this definition is contained in Section 4-3 of the Butte County Code which deals with animals and it is not changed by this section, just repeated. This definition is what is being enforced today, and staff is not changing the wording. Ms. Davis said the word kennel should be applied to a business use only. BUT M_GOUN.TY=ELANNING G:OMMISSION-MINUTEST Ju �1 ne,`23,- 994 .. 4 . Mr. Hogan said the intent was to make the code internally consistent with other sections of the Butte County Code. He said if the definition is removed, it would not change the fact that this is the law at this time. He said her point regarding commercial kennels is well taken and will be considered during the comprehensive change with the new General Plan. Commissioner Bergman was absent at this time. Ms. Davis said she wants the definition of kennels to be clear. She said under Section 24-21.354 the definition of recreation vehicles should include buses because a bus when converted is considered a recreation vehicle. She said on Page 7, 24-26, it says the Butte County Development Service Department, Planning Division, or. She said this sentence is not completed. Mr. Sanders said there are other sections in the full Code that were already there. He said this does go on to say the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Bergman was present at this time. Ms. Davis said the draft should be complete. She said on Page 10, 24-35.2, Use Permits are required for more intense or commercial uses. She felt that raising cattle should not require a Use Permit, but a feed lot would. She said she was concerned with how many times Planning Manager has been put into Chapter 24 and she objected to this. She said on Page 13, C, in some places "shall' has been changed to "may" and in some places it still says "shall". She said this is not consistent. She said on Page 16 she would recommend a time limit of 10 days for notices to be sent out. She felt #17 C should be deleted. On Page 18, 24-40.3, she recommended 10 days be added. She said on Page 23, line 45 she was concerned with not being able to split a 10 acre parcel that is zoned for five acres. Mr. Sanders explained that this paragraph is related to special circumstances for agricultural segregation of a homesite, where the remainder of the property will be left in agricultural production, but allows the home owner to retain his home. He said this does not prohibit someone from splitting their property according to their zoning. Commissioner Lynch agreed that this would not take away her right to split her property once the Agricultural Protection Zone is lifted. Ms. Davis again said she feels the proposals are major changes. She asked if the public can be assured that the sections that are not in this proposal for change, will not be changed without a public hearing? Chairman Lambert said that is correct. Xt UTTE 'COUNTY-PL�'ANPdING CO MMI_SSIO.NKMI�NUTES June 23. ;1994 _ _,.-. ..:•:'"...r•-.•a_...�.__,,4. �'-_';i .-fir:"lr....y� 'ra• ".... . .-. � ... -.. _ .,.•r.�..; ..� .],. .rvv Don Doershlag said under this proposal for the amendment to Section 24-202, senior -citizen dwellings-or second dwellings would be prohibited in Forest Ranch-and he was against this change. Mr. Hogan said they are proposing to eliminate the age requirement on second units. He said they are proposing to restrict where these units will be allowed. Mr. Doershlag said with this proposal, if approved, second dwellings for seniors or anyone will not be allowed in Forest Ranch. He said he was planning to move a small mobile home onto his property when he retires and rent out his house. He said if this is approved he will not be able to do that. Mr. Hogan explained the second dwelling ordinance under this proposal, in outlying areas of the County. He said the question is should the area be restricted which would allow second units? Commissioner Bergman asked Mr. Doershlag if he would prefer to be heard before staff or the Planning Commission? i Mr. Doershlag said he would much rather have an application heard before staff. Chairman Lambert said when senior dwellings were first brought before the Commission, the Commission was told they could not deny them, but could condition them. She said this is why the senior dwellings were put into the Administrative Permit process. She said the Commission needs to look at this process again, if there is no state mandate to require the County to provide senior citizen second dwellings. Mr. Doershlag said if the second dwelling is going to be restricted, it should be restricted by acreage and not by area. Commissioner Lynch asked where this recommendation was located in the proposal? Mr. Hogan said on Page 2, Line 5 of Attachment A to the staff report for Section 24-202. Vern Chadwick said on Page 29, 24-64, these changes were part of the Junk Ordinance. He said definitions do not have to be the same in all sections of the Code. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Lynch said he was not entirely ready to pass this document forward to the Board without more work. v - N NG COMMBUTTE COU-NTY=PLANIS SIGN MINUTES June 23 - Chairman Lambert asked if the Commission appoints a sub-committee, how much time would the sub-committee need? Commissioner Lynch said the committee could have a conclusion in two weeks. Chairman Lambert appointed Commissioner Lynch and herself to a sub-committee to go over this document. Mr. Hogan said he would like the Commission to take action on this request at the July 14th hearing. He said, at that time, if the Commission wishes to deny this project, he will not send it forward if that is the wish of the Commission. _ Chairman Lambert said she would like the Commissioners to list their concerns, in writing, so if the document goes forward, their concerns will be there. envisions major changes to this document this hearing Mr. Hogan said if the Commission � 9 9 should be continued open. Commissioner Ferguson said an alternative is to scrap the whole project at this time. Mr. Hogan said they could do that, keep the sub-committee and have them work on the complete revision or deny this project and not have it go forward to the Board. It was moved by Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, and unanimously carried to continue this item open to July 14, 1994 at 10:30 a.m. and to form a sub-committee of Commissioner Lynch and Chairman Lambert to study the current documents and bring back recommendations at the July 14th meeting. Ms. Davis asked that a citizen or two be appointed to the sub-committee. Chairman Lambert said they will keep the sub-committee confined to Commission and �— staff. -- �- -J a -- BUTTE COUNTYPI;ANrdING 'COMMISSION- MINUTES June231994 r 10, Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding ` environmental impacts and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-81: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a Use Permit rather than an Administrative Permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for Temporary Mobile Homes and simplify the permitting process to require an Administrative Permit rather than a Use Permit. (BKH) (Continued open from June 23, 1994) and Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Code Amendment amending Chapter 24 94-80, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (CBS) (Continued open from June 23, 1994) These two hearing were taken together. Chairman Lambert stated the sub-committee met on June 29th and July 12th. She said they received a letter from Commissioner Bergman. Commissioner Lynch submitted the sub-committee's report. He said on Item D the committee is suggesting no lot size be set, but that the second dwelling conform to the lot size required in the zone. He said they need to consider infrastructure when considering second dwellings. . He said he is concerned that this is not a quick fix. He said there are some areas of agreement between the Sub-Committee and the proposal such as the need for a definition of stables and the need for reorganization of the Code. He said the committee recommends elimination of the Administrative Permit process. He said if these items are to be noticed and a hearing held, they should come before the Commission. He said over the counter permits do not allow for protest from the neighbors. He said there is a problem with minor permits and minor variances. He asked , what is considered minor and who would decide. He said they should use the reorganizational work that has been done. He said if the Administrative Permit process can be streamlined for the office, it can be streamlined for the Commission. He said the temporary second dwelling renewal forms need to be revised and enforcement of the Code needs to be done. He did not think second dwelling permits should go through the Administrative Permit process. He also said the Commission was told they could not deny senior citizen second dwellings and this was the reason they were put under the Administrative Permit process. He said the Commission needs to be sure the information is correct when they are told something is State law. He said when the Board makes a recommendation, the Commission needs to see it, also when the Board makes a policy change. He said the committee agreed with the need for a check list for home occupations to show what is required and allowed. He felt as long as the home occupation is legal, they do not need a permit. q �. . B ` r� + ro Missro SIN - ; sir Y1a, . _ ' x 2'{`. 6'l.NS 1: .1. :<• �� Rf? ay. ...`..�.'..•? •...L4Gaiy'93' .•�. _ Chairman Lambert noted that the agricultural segregation procedures are being discussed at the Agricultural Committee. Commissioner Lynch said agricultural segregations should not be an Administrative Permit. Chairman Lambert said the concern is that Administrative Permits do not work as they should, that they need public hearings at the Commission with appeals to the Board. Commissioner Bergman said that Development Review Committee items should also come before the Commission. Commissioner Nelson said the subdivision and parcel map process is a formality, if the map meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, they can not be denied. He said he did not necessarily want them to come before the Commission, but he did want to know where they are proposed. He said they should define what is minor and what is major. He felt if the permit is minor and there is no opposition, they should not have to come to the Commission. Chairman Lambert said the problem with the administrative process is that the applicant comes in with a request, staff deals with the applicant and developer and then staff makes the decision. She noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, staff determined that a request could be a home occupation, and she did not agree. She said there are many cases where they need an un-biased opinion. Commissioner Bergman said both sides need to be heard at a public hearing. Mr. Hogan said the projects that require time to process are the ones with CEQA requirements. He said that exempt items could be put on the Commission agenda as consent items. Commissioner Bergman said the Commission is bound by the Brown Act, where staff is not. Mr. Hogan said staff is bound by the Brown Act when they act as the DRC. It is made up of members of different divisions and departments and is not allowed to discuss the items on the agenda except during an open public hearing. Commissioner Bergman said that Mr. Hogan is the Planning Manager and the Planning staff are his subordinates and as Planning Manager, he will make 90% of the decisions set forth. He did not see how Mr. Hogan could sit on the Development Review Committee. Mr. Hogan discussed the concept of having a hearing officer, possibly the Commission chairman. He said certain permits could be identified with a list of criteria, be non-hearing items and placed on the consent agenda without notice, i.e.,temporary second dwellings, agricultural segregations, home occupations, etc. J Chairman Lambert said she does not agree. Commissioner Lynch said second dwellings,temporary second dwellings, and agricultural segregations need public hearings. He said with a public hearing the neighbors will be notified. The hearing was open to the public. Don Doerschlag, Forest Ranch, was concerned with second units not being allowed 'in Forest Ranch and only in the LAFCo Sphere of Influence. He said this will discriminate against low income seniors in the Forest Ranch area. Mr. Hogan said the' issue is where second dwellings can be located and not discriminating against low income citizens. Mr. Doerschlag said the State Code provides criteria for providing the areas to allow the second units. Mr. Hogan said staff has received letters against permitting second dwellings in Forest Ranch. He said the location of these dwellings should be determined by clear criteria. Mr. Doerschlag said Government Code states that second dwellings can not be denied based on density. Commissioner Bergman said there are problems with Forest Ranch as there is with Magalia such as ingress and egress, lack of water, lack of fire and police protection, etc. Mr. Doerschlag said according to Government Code Section 65852.2 9c findings to limit housing and findings for adverse impacts must be proven. Mr. Hogan said staff is opposed to age restrictions on second units because it is not easily enforceable. He said the County is.not required to have an ordinance for second units or grannie housing, but an ordinance would be advisable. Commissioner Nelson suggested the second-units be attached to the main dwelling with a restriction on size as is done in Shasta County. Mr. Hogan said if a mobile home is a primary dwelling you can not attach an addition to it because it would compromise the integrity of the mobile home. He discussed guest dwellings. Chairman Lambert said the County could allow second homes only where the land meets the acreage required for that. zone. Mr. Hogan said yes, they could require the second dwelling be on conforming lots. Shane L. Shane, .Paradise Planning Commission, said many areas are strapped as far as infrastructures and second dwellings would impact these areas more. He agreed that second dwellings should be on conforming lots. Mr. Hogan said the Commission could state the zones where these dwellings would be permitted or remove the restriction as far as location of the second dwellings., Chairman Lambert asked if the.Commission wanted to continue this discussion°to July 20, 1994.at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Nelson said at that time the Commission needs to state what they agree with in the proposal and what they do not agree with. It was moved by Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Commissioner Bergman, and unanimously carried to adjourn this meeting and re-convene on July 20, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. for a special meeting on these matters. e • ti , Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Zoning_Ordinance Amendment 94-81: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Units, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a Use Permit rather than an Administrative Permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for temporary mobile homes and simplify the permitting process to require an Administrative Permit rather than a Use Permit. (BKH) (Continued open from July 14, 1994) and Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Code Amendment amending Chapter 24 94-80, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (CBS) (Continued open from July 14, 1994) The above two hearings were taken at the same time. Chairman Lambert suggested the Commission discuss the changes and then open the hearing to the public. Mr. Hogan said it might be easier to take the second dwelling units, aunt minnie item first. Chairman Lambert said the Commission needs to discuss the aunt minnie process, home occupation, agricultural segregations, and second dwellings. She said the Commission needs to discuss the Administrative Permit process. Commissioner Nelson said the first question is whether or not the Commission wants an Administrative Permit process? Chairman Lambert said she is not comfortable with the Administrative Permit process. Commissioner Nelson said he can see a place for the Administrative Permit process. He said there are instances where the Commission should not have to deal with certain types of straight forward permits that are non-controversial where specific criteria are in the ordinance and basically allowes the use. He felt the Commission could set criteria for those types of uses so they do not burden the Commission. He said, with the proper criteria, home occupations could be handled over the counter. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSTONYMINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 Chairman Lambert did not agree. Commissioner Nelson asked, why have a formal public hearing if the home occupation meets set criteria? Chairman Lambert said with a public hearing people are aware of the proposal before the hearing so they can attend. Commissioner Lynch said the Commission can spend hours to come up with standard criteria for home occupations and still not agree. He believes the County should require business licenses and not regulate home occupations through the permit process. Mr. Sanders stated the criteria is already set in the current Code. He said home occupations are a land use issue. Commissioner Lynch said the Code has a definition now for home occupations and, as far as he can see, it works. Chairman Lambert asked why the FR zone has been set out differently for home occupations? Mr. Sanders said when the FR zone was written, it allowed for home occupations with one employee. He said, at this time, there is no formal home occupation procedure, no office contact, no permit required- etc. He said this is a problem from the standpoint of code enforcement when there are complaints. Commissioner Bergman said that code enforcement is not a function of the Commission. Mr. Hogan said code enforcement is not the function of the Commission, but many of the i complaints from the Commission are relative to the lack of code enforcement. He said one of the things that staff does when they look at changing a code is to look at how it might be enforced. He discussed moving the authority on Administrative Permits from staff to the Commission. He said this would identify them as being different from Use Permits, still have a noticed hearing, advertise, but list them on the consent agenda. i Commissioner Bergman said it will be a burden on several thousand people to have a permit " process on home occupations because there might be 52 complaints a year. Chairman Lambert said what she would like to see is the request for a home occupation to come into the Planning Division office, and have the applicant provided with a full written copy of the regulations concerning a home occupation as stated in the code with a place at the bottom for them to sign that they understand the conditions. Commissioner Bergman said it is a burden for people to have to come in and get a permit and it just adds another layer of government. -.--' BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 Commissioner Lynch felt a no fee permit issued, over the counter, with a criteria checklist for the applicant to sign, was a good idea. He said that way the County will have a record. Mr. Sanders explained that there has been enough code enforcement problems to justify initiating this proposal. Mr. Hogan said the home occupation permit would be handled the same as a building permit. He said it would be simply a list of conditions and a copy in a file for legal home occupations in the County. Chairman Lambert said there needs to be an exact definition of what is considered a home occupation. Mr. Hogan noted the proposed changes to the home occupations. He said .staff is suggesting adding bed & breakfast homes to the list. Chairman Lambert asked if a bed & breakfast was a home or an inn? Mr. Hogan said a bed and breakfast home is for three or less guests and is defined on Page 3 of the proposed Code. Chairman Lambert said she is opposed to over the counter permits for bed and breakfast homes. She felt the neighbors should be notified. Chairman Lynch said most bed and breakfast homes do not have a separate building, but are in the main dwelling. Mr. Sanders said this would be for a maximum of three guest rooms in the house, which is the same as now permitted for a day care of 6 or less children, which does not require a !i permit per State law. Chairman Lambert said the County should be able to track them with a checklist. Commissioner Lynch suggested a checklist with no fee. Commissioner Nelson said the County should be allowed to charge a nominal fee of$25,00 or so to cover processing time. Commissioner Bergman said for people who are just getting by, a fee would be a hardship, no matter how small. Commissioner Lynch discussed the parking and access situation connected with bed and breakfasts. He said there needs to be-a permit process with no fee. It was the consensus of the Commission to have a checklist process for home occupations. 'BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 It was the consensus of.the Commission to not charge a fee for home occupations. It was the consensus of the Commission to not include bed and breakfast homes under home occupations. Mr. Hogan asked about allowing bed and breakfast homes and inns in all residential zones with a Use Permit? It was the consensus of the Commission to allow a bed and breakfast establishment in all residential zones with a Use Permit. Mr. Hogan questioned if renting out one room in a house would be considered a bed and breakfast use? Commissioner Nelson felt it would not. Chairman Lambert was concerned with bed and breakfast homes being allowed in the agricultural zones. Mr. Sanders pointed out that, yes it will be allowed in the agricultural zones, but will come to the Commission as a Use Permit with conditions of approval. Commissioner Nelson said a bed and breakfast use for three or less rooms, is a perfect use of the minor Use Permit process. Commissioner Lynch asked if the minor Use Permits would come to the Commission on the consent agenda section? Mr. Hogan explained the minor Use Permit and minor Variance process as being simple, quick, on the Commission consent agenda, with limited notice, possibly across the street and adjacent properties. He said if there is a problem, the item could be removed from the consent agenda and heard or set for hearing in the future. He said agricultural segregations and large family day care could be handled this way also. • Chairman Lambert said she did not consider these uses as minor. Mr. Hogan said the minor Use Permit and minor Variance process is proposed to provide an in between process from Administrative Permits to full Use Permits. He said these permits would have notice to property adjacent and across the street, with a hearing at the Planning office, and then placed on the Commission consent agenda. Chairman Lambert said she has trouble with the limited notice recommended. Commissioner Nelson said a consent item can be pulled off the consent agenda if there is a problem and heard that day. .BUTTE- COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20:, 1994 Chairman Lambert said she did not like short cutting of notices. i Commissioner Nelson said the most important people concerned with the project would be notified. Commissioner Lynch asked if staff was aware of which parcels are occupied when they send out notices? Mr. Hogan said this can be determined from the Assessor's Roll. Commissioner Bergman was absent at this time. Commissioner Lynch discussed having a minimum of 10 notices. Mr. Hogan said a minimum of 10 notices is fine with staff. He said the proposal is a hearing by staff, a letter to the applicant indicating the applicant's intent, indicating a hearing to be held, and then putting it on the Planning Commission consent agenda. Commissioner Bergman was present at this time. Commissioner Lynch said if this comes to the Commission, will they see the staff report and application? Mr. Hogan said yes. He said staff will also have the authority to require a full Use Permit process and asked that this wording be included on Page 18, line 10. This was agreeable with the Commission. Commissioner Lynch said he did not agree that an agricultural segregation was a minor Use Permit. Chairman Lambert said agricultural segregations should be under the full Use Permit process. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow Bed and Breakfast homes of 3 or less rooms in all zones, located in the existing structure, and meets the parking standards. Commissioner Lynch said they should not change agricultural homesite segregations until there is a final conclusion on the proposed Agricultural Element. Mr. Hogan said staff is waiting for the recommendation from the Agricultural Committee. Chairman Lambert said agricultural segregations should be under the full Use Permit process. 9 Commissioner Lynch agreed. Commissioner Nelson said he was in favor of eliminating homesite and agricultural processing segregations from the Code. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING 'COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, `1994 Commissioner Lynch said he could support a minor Use Permit on temporary_ second dwellings. He said the Commission should require a full Use Permit for large day care facilities. Mr. Sanders said a Use Permit for large day care centers will cause an extreme hardship on people. He said he has been working with the Children's Home Society trying to get this process streamlined for these people. He said providing day care is something the County needs to try to help with and allow it to be done as easily as possible. Large family day care is defined in the Code as 7-12 children. He said the cost of a Use Permit would be a burden. He said there is a benefit to the community for this use to be allowed. Commissioner Lynch said it might be reasonable to leave large day care facilities as a minor Use Permit. Mr. Sanders said they are issued at this time by staff as an Administrative Permit. Chairman Lambert said clear criteria is needed. Mr. Hogan agreed. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave #4 as recommended as a minor Use Permit. Mr. Hogan said the proposal for minor Variances is on Page 18, Line 48. He said the purpose of side yard setbacks is for fire access and light and air access. He said the minor I Variances are listed in the proposal. Commissioner Lynch said a great number of Variance requests are for buildings already built or built without permits. Mr. Hogan said buildings which were illegally constructed should not be given a Variance or a minor Variance, and staff would recommend denial. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow minor Variances. Chairman Lambert asked if the appeals will go to the Board? Mr. Hogan said that is correct. Chairman Lambert asked if home occupation permits would be on the Commission's consent agenda? Commissioner Nelson said no. Mr. Hogan said home occupations would be an over the counter permit ,and not on the Commission's agenda. He said there would be notification to the applicant of the criteria and BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20 1994 conditions, in writing, with the applicant's signature stating they have read the conditions and agree with them. Chairman Lambert said the Commission should wait for the Agricultural Element before taking action on agricultural segregations. She said the process should remain as it is for now. Mr. Sanders said the recommended changes are to clarify whether to segregate one home or more and add wording to segregate all structures or not. Chairman Lambert said the original intent of the ordinance was for one home on one to two acres. She said the requirement for living in the home for ten years was added later. Mr. Sanders said there is the question of adding all structures to the homesite. Chairman Lambert said this should be answered after hearing from the Agricultural Committee. Mr. Hogan said the Agricultural Committee meets next week on July 26, 1994, for the final draft of the Element. He suggested the Commission approve the change to move the location of the definitions for agricultural segregations. He said there might possibly be two more Agricultural Committee meetings. He said staff hopes to bring the Agricultural Element to the Commission, for their consideration, in October of this year. Commissioner Lynch asked if agricultural segregations are allowed in the Agricultural Protection Zone? Mr. Hogan said the Board determined that agricultural segregations can continue in the agricultural zones if they meet the criteria. Commissioner Lynch agreed they should leave the homesite segregation and agricultural processing alone and just change the location of the definition until they hear from the Agricultural Committee. Chairman Lambert stated that the agricultural segregation process was not intended for financing homes. Commissioner Lynch said financing is in the Code as one of the reasons for allowing an agricultural homesite segregation. Mr. Sanders said if a home is on the property, it will not affect the agricultural operation by drawing a parcel line around the home. He said the Commission might want to consider protecting the agricultural portion longer than 10 years. Commissioner Nelson said drawing the parcel line is not a problem when both-parcels are under the same ownership. He said the problem comes in when the agricultural portion is sold and the agricultural setbacks come into effect. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 r _. �....�.__..... Commissioner Lynch said this problem has not been brought up in the past, but could be a concern. He said this could be one reason in favor of eliminating homesite segregations and agricultural processing segregations from the Code. Commissioner Lynch said on Page 27, under re-application, it should be spelled out that the Commission has the authority to deny an application without prejudice, which allows for immediate re-application. Mr. Hogan said he would add that wording. He said on Page 29 staff will replace the words "Administrative Permit" with "Use Permit" where applicable. Chairman Lambert questioned whether the Commission wants to allow temporary second dwellings in agricultural zones? Mr. Sanders felt they should be allowed. Chairman Lambert asked what the need is or why people want second units? Mr. Hogan said a second unit generates extra income. He said sometimes the second dwelling is for extended family. He said the reasons vary. i Commissioner Nelson said allowing a second home on R-1 property turns that property into R-2 property. He said a second home on R-1 property is a way of cheating the R-1 zone. Commissioner Bergman said he was against clustering houses on lots. Mr. Sanders said State law states that Counties have to make provisions for second dwellings. He said the County can restrict the zones where second dwellings are allowed in or make the criteria so second dwellings are hard to obtain, i.e., by requiring it be attached to the main dwelling, must be conventionally built, and no mobile homes. He said a requirement could be that the second unit in an agricultural zone must meet the density and General Plan requirements of the zone. li Commissioner Lynch asked if 2 acres would be required in an SR-1 zone to allow a second unit? Mr. Hogan said no, but they would have to meet all the requirements of the zone. i I Commissioner Nelson asked about the second unit being attached. Mr. Hogan said with an attached unit the architecture should be similar to the primary dwelling. He said if there is a requirement for the second dwelling to be attached, there should be no outside access provided from the second unit. Chairman Lambert did not want to limit second units to the spheres of influence. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 Mr. Hogan noted that by making the second unit attached, it would eliminate property where a mobile home is the primary dwelling because it is not possible to add on to a mobile home unless the existing unit has been designed for such. i Commissioner Bergman pointed out that a garage is considered attached if it is connected to the main dwelling by a breezeway. Commissioner Lynch said there is a provision in the Code that states 30% of the primary residence or 1200 square feet, whichever is greater. Mr. Sanders said with the 30% calculation, people would need a 2500 square foot home to have a livable sized second dwelling. Mr. Hogan said it could be stipulated in the ordinance that the second dwelling by physically attached and not by a breezeway. He suggested there be no age limit because of the enforcement problems. Mr. Sanders said by allowing second dwellings in the A-R and T-M zones, the County meets the State requirements. Chairman Lambert discussed adopting a second unit ordinance, and asked what it would provide? Mr. Sanders said they could recommend an ordinance allowing second units in all zones, physically attached, with no outside entrance, and that it be conventionally built and that they not be allowed on sub-standard lots, excluding the R-1 zone. Commissioner Bergman said the County is creating slums with these second units. i Mr. Sanders said the City of Chico made a special zone for second dwellings to be allowed and the County might want to consider that approach. He said second dwellings should be located in urban areas because of infrastructures. Commissioner Lynch said the County could limit second dwellings to areas where there is City sewer and water available only. Mr. Hogan said he agrees with public sewer, but private well water would be acceptable. Commissioner Nelson said the intent is to set up a dwelling that will probably accommodate an older loved one in the family, with the entrance through the primary dwelling, and physically attached, which would not create slums. Mr. Hogan said the second units could be restricted to adequate public water and sewer. Commissioner Bergman said no, private sewer systems, as are allowed in some subdivisions, should be allowed. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 Commissioner Lynch said the property should have to meet the zoning requirements as to size before allowing a second dwelling. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow second dwellings in all zones, physically attached, conventionally built, with no separate entrance, meet the minimum size required for the zone and not to be approved where there is a temporary second dwelling already on the property, and with the full Use Permit process. Mr. Hogan said the recommended changes for the temporary second dwellings were located on Attachment B. Commissioner Bergman said these permits should be eliminated altogether except for elderly sick people and a doctor's certificate should be required. Commissioner Lynch said he disagrees. He said there are people who do not believe in doctors. Mr. Sanders said if the permit is by age the affidavit could attest to the age of the occupant showing a need, or if they are infirmed or diseased, a doctor's certificate could be required. He said staff could ask for additional information. Commissioner Bergman said there needs to be some kind of verification that there is a need for the temporary second dwelling. He said regarding the renewals approved at the last meeting, one is where the applicant's son has moved into the second mobile, another one is where a woman and her three children live in the second mobile, etc. Mr. Sanders pointed out that the person requiring the care does not have to reside in the temporary dwelling. He said the applicant can reside in the main dwelling with the care giver living in the temporary dwelling. Chairman Lambert discussed changing the form for renewals to add the intent and reason for the temporary dwelling. Commissioner Lynch said there is a need for this type of permit as long as the people meet the criteria. Mr. Hogan suggested temporary dwellings be handled as minor Use Permits, with limited notice, and placed on the Commission consent agenda. Commissioner Bergman said this use should be a full Use Permit hearing, at least on the original request. Chairman Lambert agreed. Mr. Hogan said the Commission could consider a minor Use Permit for renewal, that would come to the Commission on their consent agenda, with minimal notice. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20, 1994 Commissioner Bergman was absent at this time. Commissioner Lynch said Mr. Hogan's suggestion would work for the renewals. He said people need to know when the occupancy changes, a new Use Permit application is required. Commissioner Bergman was present at this time. Commissioner Bergman said Condition 4 should be changed to say "owned or leased". Chairman Lambert said she wanted a full Use Permit hearing for the original application with renewals each year. She said the renewals need to be checked. Mr. Hogan discussed adding the wording giving the applicant 60 days to post a bond or the permit expires. Commissioner Lynch suggested the wording be for 120 days to post the bond and activate the Use Permit. This was the consensus of the Commission. Mr. Sanders said the remainder of changes to discuss except for a couple of items reflects . what is being done today in our zoning code or Board interpretations. One additional item is restricting residential uses in commercial zones. He said staff felt if a proprietor of a business wanted to live on the property with that business, they should be allowed. Commissioner Lynch agreed, but said they need to put a phrase for the people who's homes are grandfathered in. Mr. Sanders said this is covered under the nonconforming use section. He said banks require a letter from Planning stating that a residence is permitted in a commercial zone. He said in the industrial zones, staff is recommending restricting commercial uses to a percentage of the industrial use, i.e., if you have a manufacturing business, you would be allowed some sales area, etc. Mr. Hogan said staff has added a list of accessory uses to the amended Code. Chairman Lambert discussed sororities and fraternities being confined primarily to the Chico area. She felt these uses should be restricted to the City. She said these uses do not belong in the unincorporated area of the County. Mr. Hogan said a sorority and fraternity house would require a Use Permit under the current Code. He said under the definition for family they could add "except for sororities and fraternities". Mr. Sanders explained the changes proposed in the zones. He said they have condensed the zoning code and added graphics, added a new section for accessory uses, and ag housingis defined as an agricultural use b State law. 9 Y BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 20., 1994 Chairman Lambertsuggested staff bring the document back, with the changes discussed today and agreed upon for a final vote. Mr. Hogan suggested August 11th. The hearing was opened to the public. Bill Evert, Chico, said he was concerned if he applies for a Use Permit today, he has no idea whether it would be approved in the new code amendments, whether it is allowed as a use on the zoning he currently has. He said the project is a golf driving range and possible golf course. He said he spoke with Bill Farrel, and he indicated that if the Use Permit is applied for today, it would not be considered for approval until sometime in November. Mr. Sanders said the Board made an interpretation that the golf course/driving range use in the M-1 zone was not a permitted use. He said the Board was informed of the proposed revision to the Code that would permit Mr. Evert's use subject to a Use Permit. He said this is in the proposal on Page 53, Line 33 for commercial recreational uses. Commissioner Nelson said there is no guarantee the request will be approved at the Commission. Commissioner Bergman said most golf courses include residential communities, and he asked if this proposal was like that? Mr. Evert said not with this request, that it will be just a driving range. Mr. Hogan said in the proposed code, if approved, commercial recreational uses will be allowed in the M-1 zone subject to a Use Permit. It was the consensus of the Commission to allow commercial recreational uses in the M-1 zone with a Use Permit if appropriate. Chris Seegert said he is trying to understand the permanent second dwelling changes. He asked if he has 100 acres in A-10 zoning and he puts in a second dwelling on that parcel, does it have to be attached? Commissioner Nelson said in an A-10 zone, the County should not allow A-5 uses. He said, yes, the second dwelling would have to be attached if these changes to the Code are approved. He said the intent behind the second dwelling is to accommodate a loved one. He said the State said the County has to provide this type of use, and the Commission is saying they can meet the intent by having an attached dwelling. The hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner Lynch, seconded by Commissioner Bergman, and unanimously carried to continue this hearing closed to August 11, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING , COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY :20, 1994 r, Butte County Planning Commission - proposed ftative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-81: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Units, and Sections 24-303 and 24304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a Use Permit rather than an Administrative Permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for temporary mobile homes and simplify the permitting process to require an Administrative Permit rather than a Use Permit. (BKH) (Continued closed from August 11, 1994) And Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Code Amendment amending Chapter 24 94--80, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (CBS) (Continued closed from 8/11/1994) Mr. Hogan said the changes have been submitted to the Commission with the entire code. He said the document has been revised as directed by the Commission. He said the administrative permit, with no fee, was moved into minor use permits where the notices are less, requiring only adjacent properties with a minimum of 10 to be noticed; senior units, remove the age restriction and require the second unit be attached which would disallow mobile homes as second units, allow in any residential zone, and increase the square footage allowed. He said staff had also submitted a memo dated May 11, 1994, regarding the re-organization of the code and that this has not changed. Chairman Lambert asked about home occupations being under the administrative process? Mr. Hogan said they are not requesting a permit for home occupations. Chairman Lambert noted that this was a dosed hearing. Mr. Hogan stated that people will have the opportunity to address this issue at the Board of Supervisors. BUTTS:.'COUNTY..PLANNING, OI! ISS-IQI :Y'9, Chairman Lambert discussed changing the Temporary Second Unit Renewal forms. Commissioner Lynch asked how the attachment of a second dwelling will be determined. He asked if a mobile home attached by an enclosed breezeway would constitute a second dwelling? Mr. Hogan said the second unit shall be attached with an interior access with the primary dwelling. He said the Commission can include that attachment by breezeways are not allowed. He said I there are any questions on meeting the intent of the ordinance, the request can be brought forward to the Commission. Commissioner Seegert said by not allowing attachment by a breezeway, it will eliminate places where second dwellings can be installed. Mr. Hogan said yes, it will be more restrictive. Commissioner Nelson said they are trying to make this document clearer and he suggested moving these items forward to the Board. ft was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Lynch, and carred to recommend approval as follows: Section 1: Environmental Findings A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. No impacts were identified; and B. The project will not cause environmental damage to fish or wildlife or their habitat and is, therefore, declared to be DeMinimus; and C. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered the proposed Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and D. Recommend approval of the organizational changes as defined in the memo dated May 11, 1994; and E. Recommend the Board of Supervisors adopt a Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts; and �•� 3.•=5}y��y��'�`�Y_:.r-e� ;'Geo�y ,Y. z..e. _ u s t. L994s'�` ` . Bt3-TS"`COiII�1TY_ w �4.. F. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance that repeals Ordinance 1750 and adopt a new comprehensive zoning ordinance as outlined in Exhibit A attached. AYES: Commissioners Lynch, Nelson, and Seegert NOES: Chairman Lambert ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: No one Chairman Lambert said she still has concerns, i.e. Administrative Permit process, Home Occupations, and Second Dwelling Units. COIIATY PLANNINGt C01WISSI01N4 MINUTE �Auguat 25,r. 1994 . t Butte County Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-81: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a Use Permit rather than an Administrative Permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for temporary mobile homes and simplify the permitting process to require an Administrative Permit rather than a Use Permit. (BKH) (Continued closed from July 20, 1994) T Due to the lateness of the hour these items were continued closed to August 25, 1995 at 9:00 a.m. . - ..-..-... - 4 .- � .._ �� - ... .+. -- ;�vw-.-,�w.���.....�-- ..�. - .-.�.�_»�-�.. _,. �tip{_. •v. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING .COMMISSION MINUTES - 'August - 11, 1994 Inter-Departmental Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Senior Citizen Dwelling Units/Temporary Second Dwellings DATE: December 13, 1993 At the Oct. 28 Planning Commission, staff was directed to meet with County Counsel regarding options available to the Commission to regulate second dwelling units, particularly Senior Citizen Dwelling units. This memo reflects the results of that meeting. It is the opinion of County Counsel and staff that the County has considerable discretion in regulating second dwelling uses. Section 65852.1 of the California Government Code . addresses "Granny Housing" and states that the County may issue a zoning variance, special use permit of conditional use permit for an attached or detached second dwelling up to 1200 square feet in size for 1 or 2 persons aged 62 or over. Nothing in this code section requires the County to allow Granny units. The only requirements of the section. are the 62 year age restriction and the size limitation of an attached unit of 30% of the main dwelling or a 1200 square foot maximum, detached unit. 65852.2 of California Government Code discusses the provisions for second dwellings in general. Second dwellings as discussed here, are not subject to any age restrictions and may be rented. The County may adopt an ordinance to provide for the creation of second dwellings in single and multi-family zones subject to the following provisions: 1. The County may designate specific areas where second dwellings will be allowed. 2. The designated areas may be based on criteria such as the availability of sewer, water, traffic flow, or other criteria the County determines should apply. 3. The County can impose requirements such as parking, height, setbacks, lot coverage, architectural review, and maximum size of the unit. 4. The County may also make findings that the addition of a second unit does not exceed the density for the lot upon which it is placed and that second;units are consistent with the existing general plan for the site. 5. The Second units created shall not be considered in the application of any local ordinance to limit residential growth. 6. The County may establish a process for the issuance of a conditional use permit for second units. As you can see from the above, the County has a very broad range of options when adopting an ordinance regulating second dwelling units. If, however, the County does not adopt any ordinance providing for a second unit we are limited in our options. Upon receiving an application for a second unit, the County must approve the request if it meets the following criteria: 1. The unit is not intended for sale and may be rented. 2. The lot is zoned for single or multi-family use. 3. The lot contains an existing single family dwelling. 4. The unit is either attached to the existing dwelling or is located on the same lot. 5. Attached units shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the existing unit. 6. Detached units shall not exceed 1200 square feet. 7. Any structure shall conform to existing setbacks, lot coverage, height, architectural review, site plan review, fees, charges, or other zoning requirements applicable residential construction in the zone. 8. Meets local building codes. 9. Meets local septic requirements. This is where the concept began that the County must approve request for Senior Citizen Dwelling units, however, this Government Code Section does not apply to these units. It has been staff's position that between our Aunt Minnie provision, allowing second dwellings with a use permit in the AR zoning series, the TM zoning series, the U zone and allowing second dwellings in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 zones, the County has met the requirements to provide for second dwellings in single and multi-family dwellings. However the Commission may want to take advantage of some of the criteria available to them to evaluate second dwellings instead of allowing second units over broad zoning categories. Several options for 62-1200's are open for the Commission to discuss, ranging from eliminating 62-1200 dwelling units altogether to allowing them without any permits. Staff will be looking to the Commission for direction on this issue. AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Chair and Board of Supervisors FROM: William Farrel, Director of Development Services?—"- BY: ervicesBY: Barry K . Hogan, Planning Manage p . DATE: September 26, 1994 ((�� REQUEST: Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-QI A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R. A-R. and R-1 zones only; and require a use permit rather than an administrative permit. The amendments to Section 24-303 and 24-304 would: modify the regulations for Temporary Mobile Homes and simplify the permitting process to require an administrative permit rather than a use permit. FOR: Board of Supervisors Meeting of October 11, 1994 ABSTRACT: The original amendments proposed in this revision are indicated in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report. The Planning Commission, after conclusion of the public hearing, decided to make further modifications to the Section 24-202 Senior Citizen Units and to the approval process of Section 24-303, Temporary Mobile Homes. The Planning Commission recommendations are contained within the Attachment B of the previous staff report on the Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Chapter 24. Approval is recommended. DISCUSSION: This item is for a change in the Section 24-202, Senior Citizen Dwelling Units and for a change in Section 24-303, Temporary Mobile Homes (Aunt Minnies). The Planning Commission discussed both of these items at considerable length. Senior Citizen Dwelling Units: The primary concern was the proliferation of senior citizen dwelling units around the County and the ability of the County to enforce the age limitation. In addition, the Commission was concerned that limiting Second Units to only the adopted LAFCo spheres of influence might be too restrictive. The Commission felt that it was better to eliminate the age restriction from the Senior Citizen Dwelling Units and to strengthen the requirements. The ordinance recommended for Board consideration changes the current Senior Citizen Dwelling Units by removing the age restriction and requiring that the proposed second unit be connected to the primary unit. No exterior ■ Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division ■ 1 entrance to the second unit is permitted. The effect of this change would limit most, if not all, second units to conventionally (stick) built construction. Additions to primary units which are mobile homes would not be permitted since the addition would violate the structural integrity of the mobile unit. However, additions to primary units which are modular homes would be permitted. The Commission also recommended that the current Administrative Permit process be elevated to a Use Permit process, providing for Planning Commission review and approval. Temporary Mobile Homes: The regulations for Aunt Minnies are recommended to be revised to clarify language relative to time extensions and posting of bonds for removal. The section has also been revised to require the approval of an Administrative Permit rather than the currently required Use Permit. This will have the effect of reducing the time and cost of the permit process without jeopardizing the County's ability for review, or the ability for the public to comment. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is subject to the requirements of CEQA. An Initial Study has been prepared by County staff. Based upon the a review of the Initial Study, staff has determined that the project will not result in any significant impacts as defined under CEQA and that a Negative Declaration can be adopted for this project, PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing occurred on March 2, 1994 in all major county newspapers. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Planning Commission recommended changes in Section 24-202, Senior Citizens Dwelling Unit and in Section 24-303, Temporary Mobile Home as shown in exhibit "B", attached to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Chapter 24, and subject to the following findings and actions: FINDINGS and ACTIONS A. Find that a Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and has been independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered and reflects the independent judgement of the County of Butte; and B. Adopt a Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts; and C. Adopt an ordinance that amends Section 24-202 and Section 24-303 as indicasted in Exhibit B. Attachments: A: Planning Commission Staff Report ■ Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division ■ 2 B: Revised Zoning Ordinance C: Environmental documents ■ Butte County Development Services Department, Planning Division ■ 3 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission FROM: Barry K. Hogan, Planning Manager DATE: March 24, 1994 REQUEST: Zoning Ordinance Arnendment9_yRI-Butte County/Applicant: A request to amend Sections 24-202, 24-303, and 24-304 to remove restrictions regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Units in favor of restrictions for Second Units, and to modify the regulations and requirements for Temporary Mobile Homes (Aunt Minnies) in order to simplify the approval process. FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 1994 ABSTRACT: Upon the initiation by the Planning Commission, an intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance was passed directing staff to prepare amendments to the regulation regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Units, Second Units, and Temporary Mobile Homes (Aunt Minnies). Attached hereto are the proposed amendments to the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the prop'Dosed amendments, direct staff to make any desired changes and recommend approval of this application to the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: Attachment A and B show the existing language of Sections 24-202, 24-303, and 24-304. Proposed amendments are indicated in redlrng while proposed deletions are ::....:..::.....:. indicated as s#fikeeuts. This amendment eliminates from the Zoning Ordinance the restrictions on age, requires the approval of a use permit instead of a administrative permit,.and narrows those areas where Second Units, in accordance with state law, are allowed. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows, with the approval of an administrative permit, senior citizen dwelling units in any zone which permits residential uses. The proposed amendment would remove the age restriction and allow second units, by use permit, only in the ASR, RT-1, SR, AR, and the R-1 zones when the lot sizes are at least 8,125 square feet, when these zones are within the LAFCo adopted Spheres of Influence for the five Butte County cities. Additional dwelling units are proposed in the "quick fix" Zoning Ordinance amendment to continue to be permitted within areas outside of the adopted LAFCo Spheres of Influence, but subject to a use permit, in the A, FR and TM zones so long as they are in accordance with the density requirements of the zone and the general plan. Temporary Mobile Homes (Aunt Minnies) currently require the approval of a use permit. The proposed amendment would clarify the purpose and intent, add the requirement that an Aunt Minnie could not be placed on the parcel or lot if there is a Second Unit already there, and Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 1 AGENDA ITEM move the approval process from a use permit to an administrative permit. ANALYSIS: The current process of approval of Senior Citizen Dwelling Units and Temporary Mobile Homes is backwards. The concept of a temporary mobile home is to assist in the care of the disabled or elderly and should be a quick and straightforward process. By moving the Temporary Mobile Homes to a administrative permit process, staff will be able to reduce the time spent on the application, speed the process of approval, and ultimately to reduce the cost of the application. With respect to the Senior Citizen Dwelling Units, the regulations are difficult to enforce. The state law indicates that if a jurisdiction has not adopted a Second Unit Ordinance that the requirements of state law apply. Staff has duplicated the state law requirements in the amended ordinance, removed the age restriction, and narrowed where state permitted Second Units can be within Butte County. When the state adopted the regulations for the location of Second Units, overriding local control, it was for the expressed purpose of promoting affordable housing by utilizing the existing infrastructure in place within urban areas. The state felt that it would be easy to add an additional dwelling unit to an existing single family homesite, with little or no impact upon the existing infrastructure. It should be noted that while the state law permits a jurisdiction to require a use permit, it does not allow the jurisdiction to deny the use permit. With this purpose in mind, we are suggesting in the amendment that state required Second Units be allowed only in those single family zones within the LAFCo adopted Spheres of Influence for the five cities (i.e. the ASR, RT-1, SR, AR, and the R-1 zones) and only on urban lots of at least 8,125 square feet in size. The reason for the minimum lot size is that a Second Unit on lot sizes smaller than 8,125 make siting of the unit and the required parking very difficult, if not impossible. We are also proposing in the quick fix Zoning Ordinance amendment, that an additional dwelling be permitted, subject to a use permit, if it is in accordance with the density for the zone and the general plan. By dividing additional dwelling units in this manner, we can meet the requirements of state law for Second Units and provide for an additional dwelling on lots and parcels other than R-1 through a conditional use permit process which allow the County the opportunity to consider approval or denial. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This application has been defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such, is subject to the requirements of CEQA. An Initial Study Part 1 has been prepared by the applicant and Part 2 has been prepared by County staff. Based upon the a review of the Initial Study, staff has determined that there are no project impacts. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing occurred on in the Butte County Planning Commission Agenda Report . 2 AGENDA ITEM . A display ad will'be placed in four,papers of general circulation throughout the County. As of the date of this report we have received no public comment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance amendments, make appropriate changes and recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors, subject to'the following findings: Section 1: Environmental Findings A. An Initial Study was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. No impacts were identified, and B. The project will not cause environmental damage to fish or wildlife or their habitat and is therefore declared to be DeMinimus;.and C. The.Planning Commission has independently reviewed, analyzed, and considered they proposed Negative Declaration prior to making its decision on the project, and the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the Butte County. Attachments: A: Section 24-202 as amended. B: Sections 24-303 and 24-304 as amended. Butte Counfy Planning Commission Agenda Report . 3 . AGENDA ITEM ATTACHMENT A 1 SECTION 24-202 $EGf�:NDSENIOR GITIZENS DWELLINGUNITS ' i ..:w{titit4::✓F.'?{V?1i:}r•}{�::{r?:,;?C'k}'f,.:;: 3 (a) Purpose and intent - The purpose and intent of this section s to ptovcfceand i:'•'•xw'}};{'}}};iv;t•}}}T .• n ::'r-.i}}:::i':'�i{{iv::{.\:.H :•i:e•??;.}:.}; +;n}:.}J•}:•%e:•nk'h?!Ce.. n};:y.};.: -n.}.: 4 ,..'. >crtase prov�•s�.ons:fof tE � gcaon and corucvnrf>seoni#s in •:e:Wii}:}w•}}}i}i:•iv}i };:••?:::•:::?\w:r:.v}isv.?•.::5}.v:.:w:}i:S:ti3.vri}:tv:r}ii::v.wi.w' \nvwWi.:4:W}isairii?J.vmU:tt{L,.;{Wn4iw>::•m:iw:w•ii:. 5 conformance with Section 65852`:2 et seq. of the California Government Code, of 6 . while mill 7 preserving the character and integrity of single family residential zones:In thFeugheut S the County and #o Eto'rn o the policies of the Butte County 9 General Plan. 10 11 s#+e,: 12 13 ASeco `i1ru is a second dwellingjo € t on a parcel ?ear:.»•:;.:::::�;;;.:}::.}}::<.;,}:•} � .. .w,e:•emntw..yv ...!.u:..w.:}:.:;;�:'ni:{:;r,.;r,..,.:...ti:?r..i...:....}:rxc;•:t?:?.:t•:.v.;;at�:.:;:::t;,,:�r.?:.^.:;:aY:r..:'2•'..::a 14 Or lottrtl€tu ;off$ is > :.: .:ar > eettns¢e, which is attached to or detached .......... 15 �o><���in� � St[�g ##e primary residence. 16 47 . 18 19 The definition subsection is proposed to be removed and the definition of Second Unit 20 relocated to the Definition Section of the Zoning Ordinance. 8,125 square feet was added as 21 a minimum lot size since it is a lot size which is sufficient to met the requirements of this 22 proposed amendment 23 24 ( ) -Ts'eAdministFative Permit required: 25 26 A ;SecondSeRieF Citizen IDweiling Unit shall be permitted in t e -A."s F F> l 27 :and::>the;Ff.- <:zones on 28 ttswrth<amcn�tnurof$''>125<s ctarfeet ............:..:4.::. ::::::.v::.v:::::, •r:?•>}i:•}}}}}:•r}}.....n.................:h}:e}:?•}}}}?}:?'}}:^:•}iv:r::::::::x:.::..n....e:i:e:?•iii:4:•}yy:::• wed 29 e +tted-use, subject to obtaining aflseAdministo Permit pursuant to Section 30 24-430. 31 v ::::..:..:..:}::;::....:.},.::.}:t: ....::?t:., ::<: �:::::•:;««,}:.}:?..?.:{. and 32 Second units are proposed to be restricted to the ASF'€ R7'::t Sf#yAl`° ancf?tr ::: 1`-f::zones 33 to parce0ot sizes which would be considered urban. It should be noted that as part of the 34 'quick fid' Zoning Ordinance, we will be proposing to permit an additional dwelling on lots 35 greater than 15,000 square feet, if it does not exceed the density requirements of the zone and 36 the general plan. 37 38 ( d) Standards and conditions: 39 ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94 1 AGENDA ITEM 1evndSeReF GitiZeFl DWelliRg Units allewed by AdFniAiStFatiye Peffnit shall meet all 2 of the following standards and conditions: 3 :it6::i}}i.}:.i.^:.Y.•:.:.;:.5:.:.w.i}}:.}::>::::.: >'•::....... :i.::.................. ;.::.}:.>,•.<:,:.::.::,:<.:.}:.}:,;;•:>:.>Y.?{:!:••:i:•w::>;:.;<.;::«:<:«at•:?.N:?'14:!?+!T? 4 (1) The lot or parcelsalrnnrmurn o x, 25 square feet m sizer contarns an ng } nj::•.' 6 7 eGAtNAS an eAsting single family dwelling unit. 8 9 10 , 11 12 " 13 unit. (610) squaFe feet eF thiFty (aO) peFeent ef the existing single famil 14 dwelling unit 1iAng aFea, 15 16 (a) The Sen-eF Citizen Dwelling Unit is intended fer the sele eeewpaney ef eRe 17 , 18 19 20 te issuanee ef building peFITIRS. Said -affida-vit shall inelude the legal deseFiptiGn 21 ef the let eF paFeel and shall eenstitute a eeyenaRt FWANAg with the 1aAd, biFIdiRg , sueeesssseFs and assigns, limiting th 23 24 seeties�. 25 26 These subsections are no longer necessary since the Second Unit is not a senior or granny 27 unit 28 29 (2.4) The <Seeord Unit shall not be sold as a separate unit 30 N unless+a parcel or lot containing the unit is created in compliance with the 31 existing zoning and subdivision ordinances and the resulting density is in 32 conformance with hap:lcabtzQnn .>re. .utatr..ons:;and the General Plan. 33 34 ) Two off-street parking spaces shall be provided 35 -uM in addition to ;Mase •tie parking spaces required for the .' primary 36 dwelling::-tiffi#: 37 38 @6) Adequate sewer and water facilities shall be provided subje 39 to the-appal--e# the Batt Caunty Environmental Health Department. 40 41 Lam) All site development standards as required by the zoning district rlPM ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94. 2 -AGENDA ITEM - 1 I`:: •Irt.:: t n�>:>fhe<> :on. �::' � •. ,•• 3 ::exceed<:< ><2E)0 s �xare feet for:detached:::Second:EJn,ts:;<ac;;30:> .ercent of:te:>fCao 4 is leeated shall be Fnet ........::::: 5 6 8) The ... Unit :may 4ha8 be a conventionally con- 7 strutted> rwe gb0ldinQ or a mobile home that complies with the jvg 4 National Act:'8 Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Ace keep# 9 "A", " " " 10 Seetien 24 21.28, may be used. Travel trailers and recreational vehicles m4ha8 11 not-be allowed as a ScondSenieF GitizeR DwelliRg Unit. 12 • :: w,v•.vvn:,•'iiiii:i:i•:ti<ti{n••Y;•.y:w.v ;••::;:r•.ii!"l.•iiv;v;..:v,•.v::v,}}}:{.iiiiiii:ryii:•rti:.?:•ii}}:!nvnv:x:L!;..:.•..:....•••:•n:...::i:ti::n:w:.•wbvL::::::.:v w:..:•::w::: .... ..:.:.:....:: .....i:...i':::i..}•:...,'i .'.....;._.. :.:.:..v.:Y,:.:l ...... ;iy:{{•::lir{!i: 13 9 cancewitiCha . er24:does<not>:excuse:::o.f::wa�ve;com rarce>with:>aq::>cther 14. tc�4 a �fia Ca�xR :State ar�d �ede�al a s ani#'r': <:c�atior�s. .::.r-e�ai 15: 16 17 18A) Any proposed grading which will create cuts or fills in excess of 18" for 19 j roads, driveways; building sites, drainage ways or ditches en P^eele shall 20 21 and appFree> pral by the Department of Public Works. 22 23 24 :.rrto�x�.:::E��rne::::irk::nacco.:d�nc�.:::.................ecil. .n........ ...::�...3.........d..:.........3t).....::...:.as:........:e.:. 25 . -a 26 27 (11) The FeqUiFenqents ef all 28 j , shall be- 29 30 31e) SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 32 33 An application for afl s a Permit shall 34 be fie- forms :ecifledb'::> :the <Directo'r <o� 35 peve�o ment5'ees`<'a <Es>d:esi Rafe, including SII supplemental information or : : :::::g.:::::::::.:. 9 ...... pP :<v .; . :.::. 36 material as prescribed. by the eeteF. o • ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94 3 AGENDA ITEM 1 ATTACHMENT B 2 3 SECTION 24-303 FINDINGS AND INTENT FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE HOMES 4 •? 'v��.v v:;;;...�:..K{^'w...rr ..}:K.1•'v...... i?M".::..n�Q:$$$4:!::tititi:nhr.•.�.}%::.}:{?{Crv:•S:M:r...}.:.v...�f•'::....:C {tiM JJ}}':+ 1!'n.. '.3 �:v •.: ...y. ... ;. .Y.:.:n' ::.'i}.. ..�<�\,:. .r^h}1. ..'O.J.tt.'?"..>Y./i4'SN}v ..'W}v.��W�+Rtt'cv H]M! �•.:::vt:w:.vY:{::•:i}};v.r...n•..n.:::.v;:{:in}:•.}iY'i}ii;:�'iiii�ii'{4}:{v:{LO)COi{{YA'JF%wGC[J}}:S+v+M{W:'{v�'{{O:KOC�VAVJvh ' }};•%{{.z{•}v:.�%.}}:}:�:4}}:'r±:�}}:•}:{:::F:{n:4}}}ii}r'v'::{::4{:::::::..;n...' :v.{•.::. .::.i::::v:::$ 6 ..... ......4...:0.........5t....g..�.......d�:c�;.do� t�.:�..::.:.de<>��b..e. ....8 �i]3)Y:iJhV%:VJvY:4Jh{>kKAY:}:{:V{{n\\*>:{JA\Vii6hYWi4....J}.�LW:[AVAIV%Awi}V�.}hVhtidi:4:•n4.w}:%:WA.0.tY•hVN:tA•ih}.<::xhv"}%{J00.iCLIXLiL3:KJ 7 , 8eften beseme neeeseaFy; #ef aait# Q the care of a persons who by reason of old 9 age, disease (either mental or physical), infirmity or other cause, s ,afe unable, 10 unassisted, properly to manage and take care of -SM.' v i e set '~^^��^'�•^� or 11 would benefit from familial assistance, aic1 to allow 12 such persons 13 tai41 Fiet haye to be institutienalized, bUt FatheF ea reside near 4h& close relatives 14 who can help care for YEnse(f'<ar-teseif them: The abili to care for 15 E 'l s r er will not only result in better car%.11Pr-yaGy di t 16 a c e`p8 elect f9F vm'cei;i but will also negate in many situations the necessity r:.rrNn �:r.. 17 for public assistance which many citizens find degrading and damaging to the pride 18 of the persons concerned. 19 and digRity feF Pe Felatiye as well as independeFiee., 20 desepAng: 21 22 SECTION 24-304 PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE HOMES 23 24NeWthst PF9,,AsieFi to the , 25 a mobile home certified under the g`74 National Mobile Home Construction 26 and Safety Standards Act X74; may be placed on any legal lot`ai' arsi in ,,..' residential 27 zones subject to ee n the following 'pr v s o eeFiditieFisl- - 28 29 (a) Conditions: 30 31 (1) Adisra : tts2-pE?ermit has been approved 32 Gem Y in accordance with Bute 33 Geunty Cede Sections 24-4 34 35 (2) Occupancy of the mobile home., +ss limited to a close friend, or a relative 36 by blood or marriage. aad—aAn affidavit attesting to the relationship of the 37 involved parties shall be submitted with the lus` Permit application. 38 39 (3) Ne-F>�ent sl all' of a+s charged. te the eeewpant ef the Fnebile heme. 40 41 (4) The mobile home may be owned by either the owner of the [otif :::arcel ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94 1 AGENDA ITEM 1 on which it is placed, or tt a -by person residing therein. 3 (5) The ..` si#e shall ei##ef be served by adegcat'e eFy sewers-ef .........::............... 4 5 6 `araferafacrtit�es>> as:::>:detecrnrned::::b: r:>th.e>: utte :.. 7 e`''arttrtient 8 9 (6) The %fin i p � of the mobile home shall tee# bea `pt froi t't a s }ee# 10 site requirements of the residential zoning district, ezceptas ;ii:^?}:.i:?{4:•L'i:;iii:J•);::4ii>..:'...;•:t::^::�.':{a:;n i'::;ii:;i>c?:::y;><C;;:r:v':.:::.�.F;;�:{L:i:'.iii::"?:±,uiY.'i:;?:....:;.:'::::iii/;ii:•i:;i'.'.i}i:;i:'iiiL: 71 Ee;:�rrr::ec� b>::;:�h�s�:S.eGtor:��<andthe :Untfor�t�;B.u7drn ;:;Code; 12 13 (7) The mobile home isc'ecredtobe a temporary use on the property, accessory 14 to the primary unit and shall' not be placed on a permanent foundation. ::..:::..::..... ..::::.:....:::::::.::::.:::::::.::.:::::..,.::.,.:::::...::.:.. ...:::::.;:;.i:;;.>:;<.::.::::.;' .. . ...� , ;.i:.i• :'.;.::.....i: : .6 i 5 l ::::: :::: m< .c >::ni obEle::::ham°s>sha l>'r�oi aae...................rmi. ec :Qrt a<1'>.<ar: :andel : dd....ona. ..,::....e.......o..a.. . Q......:::::. :.::::::.:.:.:.:.:.:::.::::::::.:::.::.::.::.i:.iiiii:::.::.:::.i'::::.::. Pii:;.ii:ii:.>i.::::.::.iii:.;:ii:.:::::.i'.:::. .:::.......P.:ii'.ii':.:;..:: ................ Y..................P.::::.::.is .........:..:.................... .:::::.:::.:.......:.::::::::.::::::.:::.:.:...........:._:::::.........::::._..:..:.:::..:...........:..:..::..:.. 16 � �re<thece,.iis:;a�:;;a -17 18 (8b) The 4se,permit gFanted heFe nder shall be.'-..... fora 4he term of two years. 19 The Planning Ge 1pen applie-atie-ri ef *h 20 en-e Extensions of<tf ter (gr F e :hermit 21 feFpefieds ,not exceeding one yea ::a .ea...h.::ex ens.:o.:::�.irnay b i::g:arf.:ec a:,tfie :.i>i:.:.<:':..i:.;iii:.:.:.>:.i:':.;i::.ii:.;_:.::;;:.:.i::.::i>:: ........ 22 APRrcatian<for::the:.exensonis:f�e`f.:wr::fiQ.:catendar.:da s:..::rtar:#o.the::da....::Qf ex::�rat�;on 24 25 eF is deceased, 26 and the Fnebil�- he-Me shall be FeFrie,oedwithin ene hURdFed twenty (120) 27 days ' 28 29 '^ theeyes +The mobile home.:shaIt" .. e.vacated.;u.:on;etc irati:o.,n:;of::the:F:e rn�t :. . .:.. , .: p p . .. . . ...:.:... ..'.: 30ndred>fwen '::::::>t>24.>:d' . s»after::::the>:�x ratton::o# :.:e .:::....::..:... C...:..... ::.:..... .:..:::...:._:.....::..:::...:.......:::::..:.:::..::::::..::::<fh.i. .:::.i,i:..:ij:::::: .:::::::.::::::::::::::::.:::::::::: .:::::::::.:::.::::.:...:::::.:: 31 Permit'" is not removed within one hundred twenty (1 20) days PUFSuant4e 32 the County shall remove said mobile home and store 33 it at the owner's expense. 34 35 0 A deposit or bond sufficient to cover the :::: ;;:.. :>;: i:; :::.:..::. .,+ ♦�,,. +a,,,� +tip 36 removal expense s ajl`> e> i" :sted; ..rion:..t ff :;ijssuance<:of P :..P ........ P.....:. . ... .. ................ 37 applieatien fef the ttse- Permit. . 38 39 Fequest feF the use peFM*t shall be signed by beth the applieant and the Felatiy 40 eF etheF peFSeA te eF itendeF assistanee, and shall pFeyide that 41 s``'`;lcart shall<''"rant Butte County ive�-a tf .e ri ht to enter the propertyo tY+s--g 9 o ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94 2 AGENDA ITEM •xox�:a+:w.iaaLca..w:a::• •wa.:.xcc.;::;xw;. ' 2 3 4 , and store 6 game at the sole cost and expense of the applicant. 6 7 The-use- - mit may be revoked if any of the terms or conditions of -SU" 8f ermit are violated or if any acts or omissions of the permittee in connection 9 with the use authorized by said permit constitute a public nuisance. 10 11 12 "Seeen 13 14 ■ Butte County Zoning Ordinance ■ 3-24-94 3 Code Amendment: Butte enty Planning Commission, #94-02 v COUNTY OF BUTTE INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. BACKGROUND A. Applicant and/or Project Name: Butte County Planning Commission B. Project No. (If applicable) and AP No.: Countywide C. Address of Applicant and Representative (if applicable): 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 D. Project Description and Location: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Sections 24-202, 24-303, and 24-304 to remove restrictions regarding Senior Citizens Dwelling Units in favor of restrictions for Second Units, and to modify the regulations and requirements for Temporary'Moblie Homes(Aunt Minnies) in order to simplify the approval process. This amendment eliminates from the Zoning Ordinance the restrictions on age, requires the approval of a use permit instead of a administrative permit, and narrows those areas where Second Units, in accordance with state law,are allowed. The amendment would clarify the purpose and intent, add the requirement that an Aunt Minnie could not be placed on a parcel or lot if there is as a Second Uii Code Amendment: Butte &ty Planning Commission, #94-02 • e. Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? No X Response: The proposal will not cause erosion of the soils. Mitigation: None required. . f. Changes in'deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of any lake? No X Response: The proposal will not affect any watercourse. Mitigation: None required.. g. Loss of prime agriculturally,productive soils outside designated urban areas?° No X Response: This proposal will have no affect on prime agricultural soils. Mitigation: None required. h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud-slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? No X Response: All construction of Second Dwelling Units will be to Uniform Building Code standards that will provide adequate protection to occupants in case of seismic activity, or be HUD approved mobilehomes. Mitigation: None required. . 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? No , X Response: The proposal will not affect air quality because the increase in the number of vehicle trips is not significant. Mitigation: None required. b. The creation of objectionable odors? No X Response: The proposal will not create objectionable odors, smoke or fumes. Mitigation: None required. c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? No X Response: The proposal will not affect the local or regional climate. Mitigation: None required. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in fresh waters? No X ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ . 2 Code Amendment: Butte Oty Planning Commission, #94-02 • Response: The proposal will not affect any watercourse. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff on-site or into any water body? No X Response: This project will ultimately result in the creation of minor new impervious surfaces such as roads, structures, and driveways. A minor.increase in surface water runoff can be expected due to the reduced absorption rate created from the impervious surfaces. Adherence to drainage standards of the Butte County Public Works Department will eliminate possible impacts to the drainage system. Mitigation: None required. c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert installation? No X Response: This proposal will not significantly affect any drainage systems. Mitigation: None-required. d. Alternations to the course or flow of flood waters? No X Response: The proposal will not significantly affect any flood control channels or watercourses. Mitigation: None required. e. 'Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration or surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?. No X Response: The proposal will not result in any impact to water quality. Mitigation: None required. f. Alteration of the direction of rate of flow of ground waters? No X Response: The proposal will not affect the direction or flow of ground waters. Mitigation: None required. h. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? No X Response:. The proposal will not directly affect any aquifer. Mitigation: None required. L Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? No X Response: A substantial reduction in public water supplies will not occur as a result of this proposal. Mitigation: None required. j. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? No X ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 3 - Code Amendment: Butte lenty Planning Commission, #94-02 . Response: The proposal will not expose people or property to flooding. Mitigation: None required. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? No X Response: The proposal will not result in any changes in plant life. Mitigation: None required. b.' Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? No X Response: This proposal will not directly affect any rare or endangered plant species. Mitigation: None required. c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? No X Response: Approval of this request may result in the introduction of exotic plant species into the area. Because the non-native vegetation is not expected to be extensive, the proposal should not be significant. Mitigation: None required. d. Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? No X Response: This proposal will not cause any substantial loss of agricultural crops. Mitigation: None required. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, reptiles, fish, shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? No X Response: The proposal will not result in a substantial change in animal habitat. Mitigation: None required. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals? No X Response: The proposal will not directly affect any unique, rare or endangered species of animals. Mitigation: None required. c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? . No X Response: This proposal may cause the introduction of domestic pets into the area. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division . Environmental Review ■ 4 Code Amendment: Butte C* Planning Commission, #94-02 S d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? No X Response: This proposal will not directly affect existing fish and wildlife habitat. Mitigation: None required. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increases in existing noise levels? No X Response: The proposal will not result in a substantial increase in noise. Mitigation: None required. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No X Response: The proposal will not expose people to severe noise levels. Mitigation: None required. i 7: Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? No X Response: The proposal will not result in a substantial increase in light or glare. eq Mitigation: None required. g 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area? No X Response: This proposal will allow for a second dwelling unit to be placed on parcels that are currently zoned for only one single family dwelling unit. However,the California Government Code Section 65852.1 and 65852.2 stipulates that, the county facilitate the location and.construction of second units to provide quality affordable housing without regard to current land use and density controls. This proposal, in meeting this requirement, will permit Second Dwelling Units in those areas recognized by LAFCo to be in the Spheres of Influence of the incorporated cities in the County and meet Environmental Health regulations for sewer and water service. The increased densities in these areas will not present a substantial alteration of the planned land use in the County. Mitigation: None required. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial increase in the rate of use*of any natural resource? No X Response: The proposal will not affect any natural resources. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? No X Response: The proposal will not deplete any natural resources. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division Environmental Review ■ 5 Code Amendment: Butte Coty Planning Commission, #94-02 • 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? No X Response: The proposal will not involve the use of hazardous materials. Mitigation: None required. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? No X Response: The proposal will not affect any emergency services. Mitigation: None required. 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? No X Response: See Response in section 8. Mitigation: None required. 12. .Housing.- Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? No X Response: Although the proposed Code Amendment altering the Senior Citizens Dwelling Unit status will have an impact on the availability of PERMANENT Second Units throughout the County, the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies stated in the Butte County General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element states in Section 2.1-13,that the"County will evaluate its present zoning code requirements for second units to make these alternative housing options available to a wider variety of households." In compliance with this goal, the County will allow Second Dwelling Units in LAFCo recognized Spheres of Influence and on parcels with non-conflicting zoning and General Plan designations. This will regulate PERMANENT Second Units while continuing to permit Temporary Second Dwelling Units in the remainder of the County. Mitigation: None required. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? No X Response: This proposal will not generate a substantial addition to vehicular traffic to the local area. Mitigation: None required. b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? No X Response: The proposal will not affect parking. Mitigation: None required. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation services? No X ■ Butte County Planning Division . Environmental Review ■ 6 Code Amendment: Butte County Planning Commission, #94-02 Response: This proposal will not affect existing transportation systems. Mitigation: None required. d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? No X Response: The proposal will not.alter the present pattern of circulation in the area. Mitigation: .None required. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? No X Response: The proposal will not affect rail or air traffic. Mitigation: .None required. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? No X Response: This project will not result in traffic related hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. Mitigation: None required. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon or result.in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire Protection. No X Response: This proposal will not substantially affect the current level of fire protection in the area. Mitigation: None required. b. Police protection? No X Response: This proposal will not affect the current level of police protection. Mitigation: None required. c. Schools? No X Response: This proposal will not impact the any school facilities. Mitigation: None required. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? No X Response: The proposal will not result in any increase to demand for park and recreation facilities in the area. Mitigation: None required. e. Maintenance of public facilities including roads? No X Response: The proposal will not result in an increase in the need for maintenance of roads and other public facilities in the area. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 7 Code Amendment: Butte County Planning Commission, #94-02 f. Other governmental services? No X Response: The proposal will not directly result in any increase in demand for other governmental services in the area. Mitigation: None required. 15. Enerav Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? No X Response: The proposal will not effect the use of fuel or energy. Mitigation: None required. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require. the development of new sources of energy? No X Response: The proposal will not effect the demand for energy. Mitigation: None required. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural-gas? No X Response: The proposal will not affect electrical power or natural gas distribution systems. Mitigation: None required. b. Communication systems? No X Response: The proposal will not affect,communication systems:* Mitigation: None required. c. Water? No X Response: The proposal will not affect public water systems. Mitigation: None required. d. Sewer or septic tanks? No X Response: The proposal will not directly effect any sewer or septic systems. However, the additional units if built, will be required to meet the requirements of the Butte County Environmental Health Department. Mitigation: None required. c. Storm water'drainage? No X Response: This proposal will not directly result in any significant impacts to the drainage system. Mitigation: None required. ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 8 Code Amendment: Butte Coty Planning Commission, #94-02 • d. Solid waste and disposal? No X I Response: The proposal will not affect solid waste disposal. Mitigation: None required. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental-health)? No X Response: The proposal will not create any health hazard. Mitigation: None required. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? No X Response: The proposal will not expose people to any health hazard. Mitigation: None required. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the.creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? No x Response: The proposal,will not affect any scenic views. Mitigation: None required. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? No X Response: The proposal will not effect existing recreational opportunities in the area. Mitigation: None required. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? No X Response: The proposal will not affect archeological sites. Mitigation: None required b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to the prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? No X Response: The proposal will not affect historic sites. Mitigation: None required. c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No X ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 9 Code Amendment: Butte AtPlannin Commission, #94-02 9 Response: Although this proposal may partially restrict the use of Second Dwelling Units in some areas, creating philosophical debate concerning the need to maintain rural family values, this proposal will not affect any unique ethnic cultural values. Mitigation: None required. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No X Response: The proposal will not affect religious resources. Mitigation: None required.e- . Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 10 I • Code Amendment: Butte County Planning Commission, #94-02 III. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No X Response: As discussed in Section II of this document, this project will not significantly degrade the quality of the environment. 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure will into the future.) No . X Response: The project, as discussed in Section 11 of this Initial Study, will not result in short-term benefits of the expense of impacting long-term environmental goals. 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) No X Response: This proposal will not have a significant cumulative impact on the environment. 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No X Response: As discussed in Section 11, 12.& 20 (c) of this Initial Study, this proposal will not have any substantial impact on human beings. IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project COULD HAVE a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 4 April 1994 Prepared-by: tephe Lucas, Planner Reviewed by: Paula Leasure, Principal Planner ■ Butte County Planning Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 11 r Code Amendment: Butte JW Planning Commission, #94-02 • i ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE MATERIAL 1. Butte County Planning Department. Earthquake and Fault Activity Map 11-1. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 2. Butte County Planning Department. Liquefaction Potential Map 11-2. Seismic Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 3. Butte County Planning Department. Subsidence and Landslide Potential Map 111-1. Safety Element. Oroville, CA CH2M Hill,-1977. 4. Butte County Planning Department. Erosion Potential Map 111-2, Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 5. Butte County Planning Department. Expansive Soils Map 111-3. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 6. Butte County Planning Department. Noise Element Map IV-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 7. Butte County Planning Department. Scenic Highways Map V-1, Scenic Highway Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. ' 8. Butte County Planning Department. Natural Fire Hazard Classes Map 111-4. Safety Element. Oroville, CA: CH2M Hill, 1977. 9. Butte County Planning Department. Archaeological Sensitivity Map. Oroville, CA: James P. Manning, 1983. 10. Butte County Planning Department. School District Map. Oroville, CA. 11. Northwestern District.Department of Water Resources. Chico Nitrate Study Map, Nitrate Concentration in Shallow Wells. The Resources Agency, State of California, 1983. 12. Butte County Board of Supervisors. Agricultural Preserves Map, established by Resolution No. 67-178. Oroville, CA: Butte County Planning Department, 1987. 13., National Flood Insurance Program. Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1989. 14. USGS Quad Maps. N/A 15. Soil Map. Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 16. Soil Survey of Chico (1925)/Oroville (1926) Area. United States Department of Agriculture. 17. Butte County Planning Department. Butte County Fire Protection Jurisdictions and Facilities Map, Butte County.Fire Department and California Department of Forestry, 1989. ■ Butte County 9 Plannin Division ■ Environmental Review ■ 12 � • utte ount �- •: ^ PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 96965.3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538.7601 FAX: (916) 538-7786 ADJOURNED MEETING BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 20, 1994 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Board of Supervisors' Room County Administration Center 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL - Commissioners Bergman, Nelson, Lynch, and Chairman Lambert 111. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA (Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staff comments. The hearing will be opened to the public for proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public and discussion confined to the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item. It is requested that public initiated presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation,please print your name and address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate. The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been considered by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office. B. Staff recommendation - Approval 9:00 a.m. - Butte County_ Planning Commission - proposed Negative Declaration regarding environmental impacts and Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-81: BUTTE;COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION' _ AGENDA-Auly.20, 1994 .. Page 2 A proposed- ordinance,amending-the Butte;County.Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen,Dwelling Unit, and".Sections 24-303 and 24-304,• ` regarding temporary mobile-homes. The amendments to-Section 24-202 ; would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and,allow: second units for general occupancy, subject to specified,regulations,'in the • A-SR, RT-1, S-R, •A-R, and R-1 ,zones'only; an&require a use'l5 ermit rather than an administrative permit. The amendments to,Sections 24-303 and 24-.. , 304 would: - -modify the.'regulations,for TdmporaryMobile. Homes and . simplify the permitting''process to require.an administrative permit rather than a•use permit; I (BKH) (Continued open from July 14, 1994) C. Staff Recommendation: Approval 9:00 a.m. - Butte ;Cou, ntY• Planning Commission proposed Negativeative Declaration regarding environmental irriPactsand Code;Ame. ndment amendinQ. Cha er � 24 94-80, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, .ofthe Butte County Code. , . The amendment is to codify past�zoning interpretations, update'definitions,- , r, wording.-nand uses, simplify permitting procedures,•-and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment' would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. (CBS) (Continued'open from July •14, 1994) , VII. s PLANNING MANAGER ITEMS: S VIII. COMMISSION ITEMS 1., Resolution.of appreciation for Commissioner Ferguson IX. 'ADJOURNMENT MEMORANDUM TO: . Carol Roach, Clerk of the Board FROM: Barbra Duncan, Planning Division SUBJECT: Code Amendments DATE: August 31, 1994 Please find attached the legal for the two=Code Amendments.- Please set for hearing and publish an 1/8th page display ad. Call me if you need additional information. 538-7784. Thank you. • BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, May 12, 1994, 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 ON WHICH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Planning Commission -Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-02: A proposed ordinance amending the Butte County Code Section 24-202, regarding Senior Citizen Dwelling Unit, and Sections 24-303 and 24-304, regarding temporary mobile homes. The amendments to Section 24-202 would: remove restrictions limiting occupancy to senior citizens and allow second units for general occupancy, subject to specified regulations, in the A-SR, RT-1, S-R, A-R, and R-1 zones only; and require a use permit rather than an administrative permit. The amendments to Sections 24-303 and 24- 304 would: modify the.regulations for Temporary Mobile Homes and simplify the permitting process to require an administrative permit rather than a use permit. 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Planning Commission - Code Amendment amending Chapter 24, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, of the Butte County Code. The amendment is to codify past zoning interpretations, update definitions, wording and uses, simplify permitting procedures, and modify certain provisions regarding allowed uses. The amendment would apply to unincorporated areas County-wide. The above mentioned applications, maps, and Negative Declarations are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. Comments may be submitted in writing any time prior to the hearing or orally at the meeting listed above or as continued to a later date. 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 BARRY K. HOGAN, PLANNING MANAGER To be published on Thursday, April 7, 1994 in the Paradise Post, Oroville Mercury, Chico Enterprise Record, and Friday, April 8, 1994, in the Gridley Herald. Display Ad, Dark Border 1/8 page. FILE NO: APPLICANT: C' `2C OWNER: V G f� -► C.O�ti �,.� c�P qGodes Gw�a:ndw -, 4-o REQUEST: se- acrnN 4X70 V-e-� ye Y�S�'► -cA n s Y-," S-em va is G�_1-2 . t)"IT i n 'PrA Vu v- o cho- s .r. 5e_� alvA .L ne4u AP NO: - SIZE: LOCATION: ILA w EXISTING ZONING: y G'y-1 oJ) ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: I SURROUNDING LAND USE: uTA- SITE HISTORY: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: `fS APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: ' (R Attachment C SECTION 24202 IS ' € I ` T ........................................................ .................. When a Second Dwelling Unit is allowed in a zone district subject to applicable permitting requirements, the requirements of this section shall apply. (a) FPurpose and intent - ;:::``e>' .d � ::>::;::>::>::>:;;<::;::.:»; int f 1� 5�; �3ns tdd ;;clx ane .::.:::zs�a .......z'.:. :.....................: ± s€ :s .::due. ..:. .: iii::i::i:::ii:�ii:::i::i:'?}::::.i::::.�:::::::.:i}ii:.:4ii[r.:".iii::'::•iiiii'.:ii[i�ii�i{i}.i;{:.:......:..:..n"1�:i.}iii::'.i::::•::::::::..:.}::..y:.::u:.:�:v}}iii.:....i:::::::::.i??}iwy:.: n::,i::•....V:::....,.... '::.:�T.ii:.::-' :Gi±:V .r:. �r:::.'''.i...:. >...:•..:::::i. .; .:rz c..:: tl.; ..:.:............:..::::::::::.::.:.:.....: :the:: ........ ..... v z i :.+Cbd....: ' :.:.:::::::::::'....:...;:.;:.i:.;:.;::;.;:.;:.;:;.>:.: ::. .;:.;i:.;:.;:.;:. :;.:i:.i:.i:.ii pa 4 Ike tr €€ :::'� %. :B:t>:,:: .::::.....:.:. . :.. � � u ate n + ur . "ln.. ..........................................................................................................................................................................::......:..................... (b) Definition- A intended for- the sale i F ene adtAt aged si�" twe (62 yeafs or- , er- twe (2) adult per-seas, ene ef whem is six�',' twe (62) years of age er- . listed in Chapter- 24 of the Bttfte County Gede whieh aRew a'sifi& family (b) Standards and.conditions: Second Dwelling units shall meet all of the following conditions and standards: 1. The Second Dwelling Unit shall be attached to the primary residence on site and there shall be interior access between the two dwellings. The Second Dwelling Univ shall.not have a separate exterior access. 2. The Second Dwelling Unit shall be architecturally compatible with the primary residence and the appearance of the building shall be that of a single family dwelling. 3. The size of the Second Dwelling Unit shall not exceed 640 square feet or 30% of the size of the primarydwelling, whichever is greater, in no case shall the Second Dwelling Unit exceed 1200 square feet. I 4. The parcel or lot upon which the Second Dwelling Unit is to be located must meet the minimum acreage requirement for which the parcel or lot Js zoned. 5. In addition to the off-street parking required for the primary dwelling, one off street parking space shall be provided for Second Dwelling Units of 640 square feet of less; two additional off street spaces shall be provided for larger units. 6. An attached or detached garage or carport with a maximum exterior dimension of 12' by 20' is permitted for Second Dwelling Units of 640 square feet of less. A garage or carport with a maximum exterior j dimension of 20' by 24' is permitted for larger Second Dwelling Units.. 7. Adequate sewer and potable water facilities shall be provided as determined by the Butte County Environmental Health Department: 8. A Second Dwelling Unit may not be placed on a parcel or lot where a temporary mobile home, in accordance with Section 24-303 and 304, has been,approved or on a lot that has more than. 1 dwelling unit located upon it. :.: 0"Z� uO.WaS '° PWAOD ` TVI:l--Hwff fig 'jaw OR fflaqs IsifEmao TTT]TTn nrnNEd TTA nnrTAifp 49 nAT•• /19 TA \nn'1 Tn 4TTTTTTTA \ r•A;p A T Tr �nTTfA i 3vT IIAT TA ssaaxp U! nTTTT T/1 "(_pa owp4•1 TTTM TTITTTM 5TTTTR 4s pos de)A (AT) !:BTT9 9TT/19Vo ;aq A9 ATTrA fgAlgidd:g1 T\1;C•Ti 1TTTT T•1A 9-fgj jO f:BAe Idd:8 ;D T (6) • • • • • 11 11 11 11 ',,JV,, WODN;aL TAIAT T1 nTiA.1 CTTTTTAT9TT/�•TT lln T1 /�%1 TT99TTn 9TTT/l 4TTTTTOA-,a iT/1^}T1 i!1 TTl�rATnATTT (A` • •\ (�TTT • • T4jS • ;;Ilh1 T IM SP.IRS ��aTT dgjQ f ;alfs TTT 1 (t;) TT/1^IT TATT�,T1P[� /�TT1 siyT TAT;A /1A TTTf TTS C•�1.1TfAC 9iiiV T'rfd JQ7 DjJS JO GA alau ll iTT nTRRCC�ITnrr•1TSV�JriT1TTT1Vn�l/�rT ;aq pHU SpgUHTTTTTA TTA'TCnITTQATQTIgfJSnT'lTIT U:L2 S;TVITITA?_gHfjSfK;a 9TTT /9997 T99ll�n 17 se TTAC .1A 9ATT T»i i/1 4TTT /\M• LS 9TTrTOZ 99 40!9; S /1TTT • • ' •\ Attachment D SECTION 24-303 FINDINGS AND WTENT FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE HOMES ;. ::.:.. ..:......:.::....:.......>...:.... :.ose''and: tent<>»»Thi:€:€ :.e:>and>'�aten<� :::: s........................... QQ...w...:.:; :. :..::::.:.......... ::...:::::....... ::>:::::::::»»::::::>::::::>:.::>::::>:<>:.......... tttza<: € latah>oil ` d >+axtlottd >ite< ee €er tof the care of persons who by reason of old age, disease (either mental or physical), infirmity or other cause, aie unable, unassisted, properly to manage and take care of themselves or would benefit from familial assistance, a to allow such persons *t"6 w i1 fie` have t6 be reside near close relatives who can'help care for slloIi< The abilitY care to for steT ' < ``'"` sn ems .; tsnx, will not only result in better care -y E'> 'epe. , but will also negate in many situations the necessity for public assistance which many citizens find degrading and damaging to the pride of the persons concerned. and their- kiiaediafe relatives. This w i whieh these people are deseMng.- SECTION 24-304 PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARY MOBILE HOMES . ....:..::... ............ .:....... .: tx t: ....a .: .: ::.: € :: .......: Xs- (a) Conditions: ::::: :;.:;::: ::.:: :::b.:::::::: ::::::::::::::: ..;.;be ;zndula4.:::: .Q ;a. pr .;: oe :.:::bn .s::.:::::.: .::.;:.:.::::::. :: .and . a .>: :;: in 'T�e..t�.�npo�� (2) Occupancy of the mobile home ;fie is limited to a close friend, or a relative by blood or marriage. and-an affidavit attesting to the relationship of the involved parties shall be submitted with the permit application. (3) 1Tent sl> t > is charged. to the eeettpetat of the fnebile he .... . ............ (4) The mobile home may be owned by either the owner of the o prepefty on which it is placed, or by person residing therein. (5 The rnie s4* shall either- be served b d `<; sewers ..... Y Vis:c I. ..::c (6) The s plaeement of the mobile home shall not be a ± subjeet to the addifienal site requirements of the residential zoning district a . :.t> s :: tttd >tltZso <= n ><de>< zfatJ€ . ............... (7) The mobile .home is de a temporary use on the property, accessory to the primary unit and shall not be placed on a permanent foundation. ��.az�€ :..::: :: :::.::.;<.:« Qbl < €3eh �t3oe (8b) The use permit shall be a d for the term of two years. ate-extension-$ of t .:. .....:..::.. . :<°k perrrut ,not exceeding one year: _die,; that event the use per-mit granted her-ein aittematieally expires and the fnebile heme shall be r-emeyed within ene hundr-ed twenty (120) days-. in the eyeftt4T-he T.. ♦L. . �.....� tl.. mobile h :.:::1:�� t� :� t�:�:::;P��` t::<;� �t is not removed within one hundred twen (120) days the County shall remove said mobile home and store it at the owner's expense. t#} `> deposit or bond sufficient to cover the removal expense :: «>:: : >;:;;>:_;::>;:: .::;::> ;,;>::>::.x;»::;: >;` : :;::<::,,i::.:::..:;,;:.::.;: ::. :: t the fifne the xp sh ..be pos€�d:.�© ::.ssu� the use-permit. of bend sha4l be deter-mined at the tifne of the heafing fer- the ase pe.—k. The r-equest fer- the ttse peffrAf shall be signed by beth the applieant and '` ca ':ani Butte Coun e right to enter the prop :::e i1 < ax ' , and store t., same at the sole cost and expense of the applicant. 7 " The permit may be-revoked if any of the terms or conditions of did sueh-permit are violated or if any acts or omissions of the permittee in connection with the use authorized by said permit constitute a public nuisance. • INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL OVN Opinion No. 94-032 TO: Stu Edell, Manager, Land Development Division BY: Neil H. McCabe, Assistant County Counsel SUBJECT: Legality of Portion of Property Shown on Subdivision Map As "Not.A Part" DATE: October 20, 1994 You have asked for our opinion whether a parcel of property originally created by the Probate Court and then shown as "not a part" on a Subdivision Map is a legal parcel. As further discussed below, our conclusion is that the parcel is legal because it was shown on the Subdivision Map. DISCUSSION In 1981, the Probate Court gave effect to a will provision which divided certain real property into two parcels, one with an existing residence and the other an agricultural parcel. Subsequently; in 1989, both the residential and agricultural parcels were shown as "not a part" of a Subdivision Map which was approved. The parcel in question now is the agricultural parcel, which is five plus acres in size. The zoning at the time of the Probate Court order and the Subdivision Map approval was A-5. We previously concluded in Opinion 88-006 dated March 25, 1988, that parcels were created in violation of the Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance when, pursuant to the intent of the decedent to divide his property and the active role of his beneficiaries, the Probate Court in the Hardy case divided the property into specific parcels for distribution. In reaching that conclusion, we considered and distinguished the case of Wells Fargo Bank v. Town of Woodside (1983) 33 Cal.3d 379, where the Probate Court, pursuant to its mandatory duty under the Probate Code, set aside a probate homestead for a widow. Here, the situation is closer to that in Hardy than to that in WellsFargo, and it is our opinion that the Probate Court decree in and of itself did not effect a legal division of the property.' Compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and the County Subdivision Ordinance was still required to complete the process. As indicated above, a Subdivision Map was filed showing the parcel in question and designating it as "not a part". At the time the subdivision map was approved, the Subdivision Map Act provided in Government Code Section 66424.6(x) that "When a subdivision...is a portion of any unit or units of improved or unimproved land, the subdivider may designate as a remainder that portion which is not divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing. Subsection (b) provided that "A designated remainder may subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the filing of a parcel map or final map, but the local agency may require a certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance." Here, the parcel in question was shown within the boundaries of the Subdivision Map and a portion was dedicated for a road traversing and serving the subdivision. Although, the parcel was not specifically referred to as a "remainder", that is the legal effect of it being shown on an included within the Subdivision Map. Subsection (b) of Government Code Section 66424.6, which has now been redesignated and amended as Subsection (d), made it clear that parcels shown in this manner are to be treated as legal parcels, because it provided that they could subsequently be sold without any further requirement of the filing of a map. The requirement for a certificate of compliance was, and is, optional under this subsection.) Thus, we have concluded pursuant to Government Code Section 66424.6 that the five plus acre parcel is a legal parcel by virtue of it having been shown on the Subdivision Map as a reminder. NHM/slt (g:\docs\opinion\ede113.opn) PLANNING STAFF AGENDA TIME: 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM LOCATION: 7 County Center Drive Conference Room DATE: Every Monday FOR: November 14, 1994 I. Planning Staff Issues and Concerns (20 minutes) A. B. C. 11. Follow up on Last Week's Items (20 minutes) A. Calendars , B. Route Slip update C. Reports (Who does them) D. Findings for PMs (Barry) ; E. Interns 111. Manager's Concerns and Issues (20 minutes) A. B. C. D. -�r. -- L A N D O F NATURAL WEALTH A N D 6 E A U T `! '_-a DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH rj 18-B County Center Drive f41 1469 Humboldt Road 7 County Center Drive 744 Effiett Road Oroville, CA 95965 K�• Chico, CA 95928 Oroville,CA 95965 P (916)538-7282 (916)891-2727 (916)538-7281 (� FAX (916)538-2165 FAX (916)895-6512 FAX (916)538-2140 November 3 , 1994 Rodney Peterson P 0 Box 1534 Chico, CA 95927 RE: BLM for Peterson, Cor of Duncan & Troxel Rds , Durham CA; AP# 038-070-047 & 048 Dear Mr . Peterson: This Department has advised the Butte County Development Services , Land Development Division, that we are prepared to act on the above application. Based on present information we can recommend approval or conditional approval . Recommended Conditions of Approval : No Conditions . If you have an uestions lease contact Frieda White at the Chico Y Y q P office between 8am and 9am, Monday through Thursday . Very truulyyo r , C `/G� 2�v Michael Huerta, Supervising R.E.H. S. Division of Environmental Health MH/dd/ land/peterson. con cc LPI'anning Land Division Planning Department Roper Associates N 0 V 0 8 1994 Oroviire,16*0a1ii;) ala �� A CLEAN INDOOR AIR ENVIRONMENT FOR A HEALTHIER TOMORROW (f ``i � rs �N tt� in�.1,7 ter �.1.�.._���r��r'-. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IRS 7 County Center Drive Planning Department Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (916) 538-7601 NOV 0 8 1994 Oroville,California TO: Fire Dept. /CDF DATE: November 1 , 1994 RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION HITTE, THELMA JEWELL - USE PERMIT Enclosed is preliminary data our office has�� recti Ve_a5 or p y generated concerning the following project: Use Permit to allow a mnhi la hnmo aR a temporary second dwelling. . Located on the south side of Crane Avenue approximately 1300 ft.' west of Oakvale Ave. at 130 Crane Ave. , Oroville. Zoned A-R. We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an . environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaratibn with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Please provide any factual statements, - ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts- that this project may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project.. We appreciate any assistance you ..can provide. Sincerely, Larry Pakder Planning Technician Comments: "4j —#-r"et_fi` "�`, �U I Does your agency wish to receive a copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . -i---�- Yes No t '��� r . . ZONING MAPS BY AREA Bangor 15 Big Bar Mtn 2 Brush Creek 8 Butte College 12 Cana 3 Cherokee 12 Chico 12 Chico Airport 12 Concow 12 Cohasset 9 Craig Area 12 Dry Creek 4 Dayton 3 Durham 14 Feather Falls 12 Forbestown 10 Forest Ranch 14 Gridley/Biggs 21 Lk Madrone 12 Lk Wyandotte 12 Nord 5 Oak Grove 2 Oroville 24 Paradise 24 Richvale 1 Stilson Cyn 24 Stirling City 1 Table Mtn 12 Thermalito 8 TOTAL 312 * .50 = $ 156.00 County Zone Map 1 @ $1.50 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION P Ir 7 County Center Drive E U �C ville C —3397 D Oro , A 95965 i (916) 538-7601 NOV - 2 1994 TO: L.O.A.P.U.D DATE: November AREA RE: PROJECT REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION HITTE, THELMA JEWELL - USE PERMIT Enclosed is preliminary data our office has re&oNeA56or generated concerning the following project: Use Permit to allow a mnhila hnmo as a temporary second dwelling. Located on the south side of Crane Avenue approximately 1300 ft. west of Oakvale Ave. at 130 Crane Ave. , Oroville. Zoned A-R. we are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an environmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) . Please provide any factual statements, - ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts. that this project .may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above-noted date. If no response is generated' by this inquiry, then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Planning Department Sincerely, N O V 0 7 1994 orov*7;:,, Lary Pa_. ..er Planning Technician Comments: If the mobile home is allowed there, it must connect to the existing house lateral, not the District main line. Does your agency wish'.-to receive a `copy of the environmental document (initial study for Negative Declaration (with or 'without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project) . xx Yes No ' � . . .� ..a 1 � �� ,. i� ,, . � •�,,•;s 7 �I�f1 �+ _`, ��f�i � . �j, `°uNTY BUTTE COUNTY MOSQUITO JAMES A. CAMY rJ 0 1 AND VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT MANAGER ZPHONE(916)5336038 5117 LARKIN ROAD 342-7350 `r° o`y OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 FAX(916)534 9916 r coNTao� November 3 , 1994 Barry K. .Hogan, Manager Butte County Dept. of Development Services Planning Division 7 County Center Drive Oroville, Ca 95965 Dear Barry: We have reviewed the Nance Canyon Partners, L .P. tentative parcel map (A.P. #040-600-045 ) and would like to comment on the native Oak trees . This area has historically produced Aedes sierrensis, commonly called the Treehole mosquito. This mosquito breeds in water holding cavities within Oak and other trees and is the primary vector of the parasite which causes dog heartworm, warranting dog owners to protect their animals by the use of heartworm prevention. Tree cavities that hold water especially Oak trees, need to be drained by drilling or notching the cavity or filled with sand, dirt or other water displacing material . These comments are consistent with the District ' s adopted policy called "Guidelines , Checklist and Standards for Vector Prevention in Proposed Developments" . If you have any questions regarding our suggestions or recommendations, please feel free to contact our office. d re , Regional Supervisor CP/km Planning Department NOV 0 71994 Oroviile,Caiitornia iip ()ti AJ:,V CTl,..'fU!e Vol", �oil..r., .l7(. .a) 4.. , y - �e t•` J Jpb 5r�� j +1 E , V _ ,1. Gi, .i TC:C ." 1 ;.."� {!:. 1i��jC +. „f� + ,f: i ' Vf',.. •i C.} \+G {, ^i,it r..T TV C4. a(, .�:,.. � z, ��:. _ ij -*� ,-�raY. •� � � ;,pct r .y GG' 5T 1,U, YLJ ri f• �� } {1 fli , A 31 T'lcU0 4.' .1; � 1v� }1 ". �i' 4U ; V.. {` .'I GLbb 7Ify U(Z f jug tiL c I'= L * •{ )'Tc. -0-. 4 ITL' Pf.GC,,!? iJ J -f'.t•-f j' Y 1� IJ T #2VV ) iP '.a ITI) ' It' e 1 .. 4JC IJ j. JU + i'�• 6.if79 , Ji�ii 'i :1(rS.0 [+'!: