HomeMy WebLinkAboutZCA 97-03_PLANNING Z
SEPARATOR SHEET
APN
INaN �)
>ao,ERNUMeEa Gc�F `1'l- 03
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
FILE# 'ZCA 97-03 PROJECT TYPE: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
APPLICANT: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ADDRESS: 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965
OWNER: VARIOUS
ADDRESS:
REPRESENTATIVE:
ADDRESS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adding a stream corridor combining zone,-SC
zone. The SC combining zone will specify development standards to be applied alone identified creeks or streams and work in
coniunction with the existine zonine.
PROPERTY ZONED: LOCATED: County-Wide
AP#: VARIOUS TOWN/AREA:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
1. Application complete: Amount: S Receipt#:
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:
State Clearinghouse No: Categorical Exemption-CEQA#
Negative Declaration
Mitigation Negative Declaration
Subject to Fish&Game: Environmental Impact Report
Gen.Rule Ex.-CEQA#15061.(bx3)
Other
8. Stan'Report: Project Video: Release to publish:
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: f w C06009 R
13. Planning Commission Hearing(s): A.). a' /�P L_/ / '
Action taken: ,t;f — — / CID d M' e&d yb M
Special Conditions:
Commission Resolution No.
14. Board of Supervisors'Hearing(s):
Action taken:
Board Resolution No.: Ordinance No: Adopted:
15. Type Use Permit/Send for signature:
16. N.O.E./N.O.D./APPENDIX G: Fish&Game Fees Paid: Yes No
17. Send validated Use Permit:
18. Assessor's Memo:
19. Copy of Use Permit/Variance to Planning Technician:
opp-
F. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule
exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 24 of
the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combining zone. The zone
will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams
and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) (Continued
open from March 13, 1997)
Mr. Sanders said a letter was received from Kate Robinson and Bruce Hicks in favor of the
SC zone. Another letter of support was received from 10-15 people from the Associated
Students Environmental Affairs Council of CSUC. A letter from Harold Galliet suggests
changes in definitions such as "top of bank" and expresses concern that a SC zone could
limit property owners from exercising riparian water rights and installing facilities for
extracting water. Mr. Sanders agreed that if a SC zone is adopted, provisions should be
made to allow for such facilities.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Scott Huber, 12706 Quail Run Drive, owner of streamfront property was opposed to a
blanket application of a SC zone although he enjoys and cares for the creek environment.
He is especially opposed to the arbitrary particulars and said there are sufficient controls
already in place to protect the environment. He said the wording of the zone is very loose.
He showed a diagram of his residence in relation to the creek and said he has planted non
native plants and done pruning within 100 feet of the creek. He suggested providing
information to landowners what invasive vegetation to avoid planting and to provide
acceptable pruning and thinning methods. He said he would be restricted to only 200
square feet of expansion.
Harold Galliett, 2819 Highway 70, said the proposed ordinance does not address the
situations of landowners adjacent to streams and rivers who pump water and need to
maintain and replace structures for pumping water. They might need to put in wells or trim
vegetation. Fences run all the way to the rivers to keep in the cattle. Agricultural
operations include, in addition to buildings, such things as excavation, land leveling, and
f building rice checks. He has suggested the following be exempted from permits or site
plans: farm pumps, wells, fences and agricultural operations on existing pastures, fields.
and orchards. He noted that cattle eating vegetation help keep fire danger down. He said
lots of orchards go right up to the river banks.
Gene Gutt, a canyon resident, supported Mr. Huber's statements. His residence is very
close to the creek as are his doghouses, chicken coops and garden. He said that he
looked up grants for Butte Creek Canyon on the Internet and discovered that since 1993,
$26 million has been spent exclusively on Butte Creek, which is almost 1/4 million dollars
per mile. He has copies of the grants if anyone wants to see them. A news release in
` - BUTTE -COUNTY PLANNING• COMMISSION MINUTES - March 27', 1997
n
AW
1995 said that M&T Ranch is responsible for all maintenance to the fish ladder and now
$850,000 of taxpayers money is being spent to repair the ladder, which should have been
maintained by the people who are using the water.
Mr. Sanders said he would like a copy of Mr. Gutt's information. Mr. Sanders noted Mr.
Huber's residence and garden are outside of the 100 foot setback, which would be
measured from the top of the bank of the normal creek flow.
Commissioner Mooney objected to "top of bank". He preferred "center of creek."
Bill Carter, owner of property on Little and Big Butte Creeks, felt the proposal is put
together badly, takes away private property rights and will not protect the creek or riparian
areas, because it will force last minute development to preserve values before the zone is
implemented. There should be much clearer writing in the proposal.
Bob McClure, owner of property with 500 feet of frontage on Butte Creek, had documents
concerning how bad the proposal is and how it needs to be expanded and how it needs
to be co-coordinated with all the creeks in the County. The landowners and the
Conservancy can provide the information and do the co-ordination and do the writing
properly. He particularly objected to the last sentence on Page 3 that says the combining
zone shall prevail over all other County regulations, which he said was very badly written.
Morris Boeger said not to fix things that "aren't broke." He said the property owners are
the ones who know best how to protect the creek and who are already working on ways
to protect the creek. He said it is "unconscionable" to keep holding meetings which take
up so much of people's time. He suggested taking the item off the agenda for at least 18
months until the studies are completed and good information is available. At this point in
time it is not even clear that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Kell Meagher said he was confused about what the proposed SC zone is attempting to
Y 9 p p p 9
do and if it will be applied to all creeks and rivers in the County.
Mr. Sanders explained that the proposal is for a new zoning district, which would not
necessarily be applied to all creeks and rivers and could be applied to portions of creeks.
The Board of Supervisors would decide, if they adopt the zoning district, where it would be
applied.
Mr. Meagher said the flooding problem is very real and great caution should be taken in
allowing development in flood prone areas.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Mr. Leland explained that the proposed zone would be similar to a commercial, industrial
or agricultural zone, in that-it would be a new type of zone which could be applied to a
_
- . . . ...-BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'MINUTES- _Marcfi 27,, _1997
particular stream. He felt the concerns related to continued development on Butte Creek
need to be clearly identified and distinguished from impacts on the County in general and
people downstream versus private impacts that affect only the homeowner. The risks
people are willing to take by building in flood prone areas should be distinguished from
impacts on other people, such as problems with sewage, drinking water and debris
downstream. The proposed zone does not distinguish between those concerns. He would
like to see the concerns articulated and then a proposed zone which would respond to the
concerns as narrowly as possible. A more detailed zoning ordinance should be prepared
and properties should be given a case by case review. He would like to hear more public
testimony on what the concerns are.
Mr. Parilo said it would be helpful for the Commission to provide staff with direction on how
to restructure the SC zone. Should the focus be on flood protection or riparian habitat
protection?
Commissioner Leland said that, with the exception of Kelly Meagher, there has been
almost no testimony on what the concerns are. If there are problems, they have not been
fully articulated. The problems might include endangered species, limited groundwater
availability, runoff and erosion, emergency services, debris downstream. How can a
zoning ordinance be drafted which responds to concerns which have not been presented,
at least at the recent meetings?
Commissioner Mooney was concerned that an unnecessary level of government would be
added. Constraints are already in place to control development. He would want to see
how the zone would address something that is not already addressed.
Commissioner Leland said that general building restrictions address many items, such as
location of septics and types of construction.
Commissioner Cage said that traffic is a major concern in the canyon. She suggested that
a parking area might be helpful. She felt the Watershed Conservancy would have
information that would be useful in making a decision.
Chairman Lambert asked staff to define the options at this point.
Mr. Parilo asked if the Commission is more interested in flood protection or riparian issues.
It appears that the proposed ordinance is oriented to protection of riparian habitat.
Flooding issues could be addressed by a form of setback. There was no intention for the
proposed ordinance to control existing agricultural operations, and exemptions could be
provided for that purpose. Expansion of existing dwellings could also be handled by
exemptions. The question is- whether residential buildings should be allowed within a
certain distance of the stre4m channel or within the flood plain itself. Would the
Commission be interested in an ordinance to address flooding and flood protection issues?
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING- COMMISSION" MINUTES - `March 27, 1997
Chairman Lambert said both flooding and protection of riparian habitat are important. The
ordinance only deals with stream protection. Butte Creek Canyon has other areas of
concern such as traffic and fire.
Mr. Sanders noted the Board of Supervisors has agreed to become a participant in the
MOU for the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy which has significant resources
available.
Chairman Lambert thought the issues in the canyon might be better addressed as part of
the Conservancy.
Commissioner Leland said that if a more comprehensive procedure is already in place to
address all of the problems in the canyon including environmental issues, parking, and
emergency services, then Commission proceedings could be integrated with those
proceedings or deferred until legislation is proposed.
Mr. Sanders suggested vacating the hearing and putting it back on the agenda at an
appropriate date in the future.
'i
Commissioner Cage was in favor of staff and the Conservancy and the Board of
Supervisors working on the issues and bringing them before the Commission in the future.
It was moved by Commissioner Mooney, seconded by Commissioner Leland, and carried
unanimously to vacate the hearing .
i Mr, Sanders said staff or the Commission could bring back the item back on the agenda
at such time as it seems appropriate and more information is available.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING-COMMISSION MINUTES' - March 27, 1997
T
A. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule
Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill
Recreational - 5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre
parcels) for various parcels located on, both sides of Honey Run Road
between Skyway and the Honey Run Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek
Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800 acres of land. (CS)
(REZ96-02) (Continued open from December 12, 1996)
B. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule
exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter
24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combining
zone. The zone will specify development standards to be applied along
identified creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing
zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) (Continued open from December 12, 1996)
Mr. Sanders said that Alan Harthorne of the Butte Creek Conservancy was unable to be
present at today's meeting, but could be present on March 27, 1997. Mr. Sanders gave
an overview of why the rezone and code amendment have been proposed.
Commissioner Leland said that different criteria are being used'for two different concepts.
Commissioner Mooney said it would seem that the SC zone would tend to negate the
effects of other zones.
Commissioner Leland said that"taking" should not be an issue as long as the owner's right
to build is preserved.
Chairman Lambert read a letter by John Farhar dated March 13, 1997, in favor of both the
proposed rezone to 20 acre minimums and the SC combining zone.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Bob McClure, owner of property north of the covered bridge, said most of the problems in
the canyon are due to tourists and tubers, not the residents and landowners. He said the
SC zone would be superfluous and the landowners should be able to make the decisions
concerning the canyon, for example, through the watershed conservancy.
Renee McAmis spoke about the history of her property which had 20 acre minimum parcel
sizes imposed. She was not in favor of placing such restrictions on other properties.
Morris Boeger, member of the Butte Creek conservancy and a volunteer fireman, said the,
issue is really the people with .5 acre lots who want to use the McAmis property as a park.
He said the proposed rezone and SC zone would be "takings" and would be Socialism at
work. He was opposed to the rezone and the SC zone. He submitted photos showing cars
parked in the roadway. He said day use is the biggest problem and parallel parking should
not be allowed on the road.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING. COMMISSION MINUTES - March 13, 1997
Mr. McClure said there is a sanitation problem because of a lack of toilet facilities for all the
day use people.
Rob Cheal, owner of property above the covered bridge, said the rezone should be
considered separately from the SC combining zone since they are completely different
issues. He submitted an aerial map showing his property. He said there is lots of money
available for purchase of property to protect stream corridors, but the rezone would
devalue the properties even for people who might wish to sell them for stream protection.
He said flooding is not a problem and property is being taken away from the owners. He
said Commissioner Nelson has a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Nelson did not think he had a conflict of interest, but said he would discuss
the matter with County Counsel.
Mr. Cheal said he lives in a 600 square foot mobile home along the creek and might not
be able to enlarge it because of the proposed restrictions. He said the economy could be
hurt by the proposals and property value lowered.
Chairman Lambert said there seems to be three separate issues: 1) the 20 acre rezone,
2) the SC combining zone, and 3) the conservancy.
Commissioner Nelson explained that the concept of conservancies is to include all the
landowners in the decision making process. He noted his only involvement with the
conservancy is to draw their maps.
Linda-Meyers, owner of ten acres of property above the Okie Dam, spoke against the
rezone. She said there are already sufficient restrictions in place for anyone wishing to
split their property. For example the Health Department has certain restrictions. The
creek itself has washed out trees. She said the rezone would accomplish nothing except
cut her property value in half.
�It was moved by Commissioner Cage, seconded by Commissioner Mooney, and carried
f to continue the hearings OPEN to March 27, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Mooney, Cage, Leland and Chairman Lambert
NOES: Commissioner Nelson
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING- COMMISSION..�MINUTES - March 13, 1997
B. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule
Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational - 5
acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels
located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run
Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800
acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from December 12, 1996)
Mr. Sanders read a letter from John Farrar, in favor of both the rezone to FR-20 and the Stream
Corridor Combining zone, because of the "highly dynamic and unpredictable hydrological aspect
of rive rine/riparian environments" as resources to protect for their biological value and for flood
protection functions. Mr. Farrar felt properties should be considered individually and apply for
rezoning for something less than 20 acres on a case by case basis.
Chairman Seegert said the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain may have changed recently.
Mr. Sanders said the 1989 FEMA maps are the most recent information available. During the
recent floods, several videotapes were taken in the canyon.
There was a discussion of needing updated information in order to have an accurate map of the
flood zone after the recent floods in the canyon.
Mr. Sanders said the proposed SC zone would be 300 feet measured from the top of either creek
bank. The flood zone may go beyond that, and building is allowed in a flood zone at or above the
high flood level. If the creek bank changes, the 300 feet would change with it. He said the SC
overlay zone would apply in addition to the base zone, which is currently FR-5. He said 100' from
the creek bank would be a No Development Zone. From 1 00' to 300' from the bank, a detailed site
plan would be provided at the time of building permit application to allow Public Works, Planning
and Building staff to review earth removal and changes to vegetation and to work with applicants
to minimize impacts. Depending on the topography, requirements could be waived by the Director
of Development Services. Mr. Sanders noted that the SC zone could be used countywide, and in
order to be applied to a particular stream, public hearings would be held.
There was a discussion about parcels which have unique circumstances such as being on a bluff
above the creek, without riparian vegetation, which would allow certain requirements to be waived.
Mr. Sanders said requirements could be waived to allow building within the 100 foot setback.
Commissioner Lynch said it would be helpful to know where the top of the bank actually is.
Commissioner Nelson said the concept of an SC zone can be considered without actually knowing
where the top of the bank is.
Chairman Seegert said large parcels would not necessarily protect people from flooding.
Mr. Sanders said the number of people affected by flooding would be less with larger parcels.
""` � � BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9, 1997 -
Commissioner Cage said there is no room to build levees since some properties are developed
right up to the creek.
Commissioner Lynch said levees are not in this commission's purview and are not practical. The
natural stream course is the bottom of the canyon where development is occurring. Levees can
create a worse situation if they are breached. The canyon walls are the natural levees. He said
the overlay concept should be considered in light of the recent floods in order to see if such a zone
would have any merit and actually do some good.
C. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule
exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code-Amendment to Chapter 24 of the
Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combing zone. The zone will
specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams and
will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03) (Continued open
from December 12, 1996)
HEARINGS "B" AND "C" OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Kelly Meagher said the flood plain of the canyon should be a No Development zone totally. He
opposes the proposed rezone, although it is a step in the right direction. He agreed the natural
levees are the canyon walls. The exhibit map is incorrect. At his home above the Covered Bridge,
the current of the creek has moved from near his house to 60 or 70 yards away. In the flood of
1986 the water was higher because of being dammed up, but this year the water was faster and
took out more of the bank by his house. It is foolish to consider development in this flood plain.
There was flooding this year without water being dammed up. The proposed setbacks are
ludicrous. The tops of the banks change.
Matt Kidder distributed diagrams to the Commissioners. He said his property is indicated as being
in the flood plain on the FEMA map, but it was not flooded this year. His property is affected by
some water that comes from the Baldwin property. There is a manmade problem that needs a
manmade solution. Mr. McAmis should be allowed to plug some problem areas and eliminate the
problems the people have on the other side of Kidder's place. Environmental and safety issues
need to be balanced. The local flooding problem of several inches of water in some houses can
be solved. The issue of density in the canyon should be separated from the flood issue. Flooding
concerns should not be used to control density.
Commissioner Nelson noted that a flooding situation can be created by a tree damming up the
creek and flooding a property that might not otherwise have been flooded.
Mr. Kidder said the proposed 20 acre rezone is oppressive. He might not be able to do a boundary
line modification.
Mr. Sanders said that might not be accurate. A substandard parcel can be part of a boundary line
modification under certain circumstances.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997
Mr. Kidder asked who people can go to if they want to become proactive about the flooding
situation.
Commissioner Lambert asked if he meant a Specific Plan for the canyon.
Mr. Kidder said he meant specifically adjustment of conditions on the McAmis property, who is
restricted now from being able to fix some situations. If he wouldn't have done what he had done
before he was stopped, some people would have been flooded much worse than they were this
year.
Commissioner Lynch thought that in the absence of a reclamation or levee district, the Army Corps
of Engineers might be the agency to contact.
Chairman Seegert described how someone who improved a levee on their own, was subsequently
sued by his neighbors when their property was flooded.
Commissioner Lynch said that solving a problem in one location might create a problem in another
location.
Mr. Kidder said that walking the actual property can be very informative. There is a relative easy
"fix" in his situation and water would not be backed up the canyon.
Euell Holliman, a neighbor of Matt Kidder, agreed with what Mr. Kidder said. He said the work by
McAmis did help lessen the flooding situation. He noted the water in Butte Creek Canyon does
not come from Paradise, Magalia or Stirling City. Mr. Holliman was in favor of 5 acre zoning,
putting things back the way they were, working with the contractor, and putting in a levee and
opening the creek up like it should be. He suggested walking the property. He said the miners and
Butte Creek Rock have worked the land over and over. There is a bottleneck that needs to be
fixed. The water goes into a big hole which was manmade.
John Merz, Chairman of the Board of the Sacramento River Preservation Trust, asked if the SC
zone is still at the conceptual stage.
Commissioner Nelson said it would be the adoption of a zone, but not actually applying it to a
location.
Mr. Merz asked if the recommendation to the Board would include also specific locations.
Mr. Sanders said the Commission could recommend specific areas along with a recommendation
for a SC zone.
Mr. Merz said the SRPT supports the concept of the overlay zone. He said Shasta County has
been working on a similar mechanism. He said the setbacks depend on the size of the stream
course. He said, if a zone is established, he hopes it will not take 2 or 3 years to implement. He
asked where Butte County is, in the process of implementation for specific streams.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ---January 9 , 1997
Mr. Sanders said the overlay zone came about as an alternative to the FR-20 rezone, so a portion
of Butte Creek Canyon would be the steam it would probably be applied to. Other specific water
courses have not been identified at this time.
Commissioner Lambert said the overlay zone could also be used in conjunction with FR-20 zoning.
Mr. Sanders said that is true, and another option that could be explored which is done for the
Watershed Protection Zone above Paradise, is that the standards for the Zone were adopted by
Resolution which allows the standards to change within each Watershed Protection Zone. For
example, standards could be different for the Magalia and Concow watersheds. A Stream
Protection Zone for the Sacramento River could be different than for other water courses.
Commissioner Cage said that Stream Protection Zones are still in the discussion stage.
Mr. Merz recommended the process to move along quickly. A lot of mapping has already been
done. There are prototypes in place. He supports the goals of the Stream Protection Zone and
says it is important that the protection be put in place, both for riparian/wildlife habitat values and
the flooding nature of the streams. Butte Creek is not the only water course that should be
protected. Decisions should be made not just in emergencies, but on the realities of the streams
over time, relative to development pressures. He recommended that on determination of the "top
of bank", the County should be involved in that decision, not just the Department of Fish and Game.
Mr. Seegert suggested that the property owner could be part of the debate as to "top of bank."
Mr. Sanders said the intent was that the Department of Fish and Game, as the "expert" would be
the final opinion if there is a dispute between the property owner'and the County.
Mr. Merz suggested that regarding the waiver of requirements by the Director of Development
Services, the results of any and all waivers should be reported to the Planning Commission at some
point, so there is some notification to the public that the waivers have occurred and why.
Morris Boeger, of Butte Creek Canyon, asked. if the overlay zone would be applied to the entire
length of Butte Creek or just a portion in the canyon.
Mr. Nelson said the discussion is not about specific locations at this time.
Mr. Boeger said it is erroneous to say there was more water backed up at the Covered Bridge in
the 1986 flood. He said only cemented gravel or bedrock were not moved by the creek. The creek
straightened out wherever it could and went right through gravel bars. The channel is deeper than
it was before; the creek bottom was scoured. With the 100 foot setbacks which have been in place
on lots developed since the early 1980's and the creek width, there is already a 260 to 300 foot
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997 -
riparian corridor in place. He said there are already adequate protections for the creek and a study
is being done by the Butte Creek Conservancy which will provide information on what more needs
to be done to protect the habitat. He suggested eliminating parallel parking on Centerville and
Honey Run Roads to eliminate day use on the creek because there are no toilet facilities. There
are hundreds of people that use the creek every day in the summer and leave trash. The road is
blocked by parked cars and people. The houses of canyon residents are not the problem. The day
use needs to be corrected. He objects to the overlay zone and said it is a "taking."
J. D. Zink said the overlay zone might be a good idea, but maybe some of the definitions in the
proposed zone need to be "rethought." He agrees with Mr. Boeger's concerns. He considers the
zone a "taking". If he cannot build within 100 feet of the creek on his lot, which was created in the
1960's, his lot would be valued 75% of its current value.. He agrees day use of the canyon is a
problem for the residents and a hazard for fire protection. The overlay zone would give too much
power to the County bureaucracy regarding building locations.
Rob Cheal, of Helltown Road, said that hundreds of people would be affected by overlay zones
without knowing about it. It would be an extra layer of bureaucracy and a weapon of
environmentalists. His property values would be affected. The overlay zone would spread
throughout the county on other streams and would be very divisive. It would be very expensive for
people who develop their property to make maps. Mr. Cheal submitted some letters from other
property owners who are opposed to an overlay zone and said that other people would be here to
speak if they knew about the proposed overlay zone. The rights of people to use their property for
the purposes they bought it would be taken away. The Department of Fish and Game pays for
stream corridor easements and the option to sell them would be taken away.
Mr. Sanders noted that setbacks of 100 feet from streams have been required of newly created
parcels since the 1980's.
Mr. Boeger said mapping of trees would be costly, add another level of bureaucracy, and add to
the price of homes. He objected to the restriction to 10% for home additions. It is ludicrous to talk
about 4" trees when trees of 30" to 36" have been floating down the creek.
Alan Harthorne, of the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy and Butte Creek Management Project,
said they are in the process of an extensive management planning process for Butte Creek and
doing extensive mapping. They have been identifying areas within the lower canyon related to the
proposed rezone from FR-5 to FR-20 and have come to realize that out of 800 acres in the rezone
area. almost 300 acres are riparian areas owned by Fish and Game. Other parcels are in the
process of being purchased for riparian areas by various agencies. Only about 5 or 6 parcels
appear to be subject to division into 5 acre parcels. There needs to be more information about
exactly where the flood plain lies. They are commissioning an air photo survey of Butte Creek from
Skyway to Butte Meadows. It should be possible to identify the high water mark and provide
information to the County to better make decisions on whether a rezone is really necessary and
which parcels would be affected by the rezone. He asked for continuance of these hearings and
more public involvement and perhaps a public forum on how an overlay zone might be applied in
different areas, which are all different. There needs to be better information before proceeding.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997
Mr. Nelson asked if Mr. Harthorne is in favor of an overlay zone, but is concerned about its
implementation.
Mr. Harthorne said that is correct. The overlay is unclear and general at this time. There needs
to be more information and more public involvement and finding out what other counties have done.
Commissioner Lambert asked how soon Mr. Harthorne would have more information available.
Mr. Harthorne said he is working on identifying the parcel owners with the proposed rezone area.
He has identified the Fish and Game properties and will soon have all the parcels identified which
are splittable within the area. The air photo survey should be completed within 30 days but it will
take up to 6 months to do the work necessary to identify the high water mark. He said that in
locating a stream protection corridor, it should be identified more clearly where it would be applied.
There are very different conditions in the upper and lower parts of the canyon. He suggested
different types of corridors for the valley, the lower canyon areas and the upper canyon areas.
Commissioner Lambert said that flooding should be distinguished from riparian/wildlife habitat.
She suggested obtaining information from other counties and Mr. Harthorne and discussing one
specific area, such as the lower canyon, for the time being.
Mr. Harthorne said he could provide information on the lower part of the canyon in about 3 months.
Commissioner Cage asked if the aerial study would include other creeks besides Butte Creek.
Mr. Harthorne said the study is only for Butte Creek, above the valley floor area which has already
been mapped.
Renee McAmis said that she has been informed that the work which was done on her property has
kept people's houses from getting flooded any worse than they were in 1986. It appears that the
building pads on her property have not been flooded. Although her property is being restricted to
20 acre parcels, it would not be fair to other people to be restricted to 20 acres as long as they build
out of the flood zone.
John Merz clarified that the streamside corridor protection program established in Shasta County
was a process initiated by Fish and Game and supported by Shasta County and Redding. It has
not been adopted by the County, but has been used to complement their CEQA compliance
process relative to specific developments. Mr. Merz is not sure if implementation of the protection
zone is within the County General Plan. The City of Redding will address the streams that flow
through Redding using the data collected as part of the streamside protection program. He
suggested contacting the Fish and Game representative in Redding. He also suggested that
public health and safety issues might be brought more to the front as reasons for a stream corridor
protection zone. People living near streams need to understand the risks. Public responsibility
and costs need to be balanced against private property rights.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - _January 9 , 1997
Chris Bowman, resident of Butte Creek Canyon, objected to the concept of public rights over
private rights. He objected to the ambiguity of the terminology in the report for the overlay and
the lack of day issues being addressed. He has 3.25 acres with 350 feet of creek frontage and a
home on a bluff about 80 feet above the creek. He was concerned about not being to add on more
than 10% to his home.
Mr. Nelson read Paragraph 4 about requirements of the stream corridor zone being waived due to
topography, lack of riparian vegetation and other physical characteristics. He said the restrictions
would not apply to Mr. Bowman's parcel.
Mr. Bowman was concerned because of the word "may" and that a determination would be made
by an individual. He built his home with the intent of future expansion for a larger family. He might
be forced to raise his family in a one bedroom, one bath home and not be able to sell the property
for what he has into it. He felt the waiver clause is very vague and "grandfather" rights should be
included to protect property rights of people who have been there for years. His home is set back
100 feet from the 100 year flood line and his property is not in a flood zone, but the overlay does
not differentiate. Protection of riparian habitat and areas that are flood prone are combined, and
affect his property although he is not in a flood zone.
i
Mr. Nelson felt that Mr. Bowman, being on a bluff, would be out of the riparian vegetation area and
would be exempt from the restrictions.
Mr. Bowman said he is within 100 feet of the edge of the bluff: The definitions of bank and bluff
are not clear.
Commissioner Lynch said that an overlay zone should take into consideration the issue Mr.
Bowman is raising, which is that Mr. Bowman's intended expansion of his house would become a
discretionary action by someone in the Planning Division. He said a restriction should be based
on what is the "public good."
Chairman Seegert asked whose "public good" is being discussed -- that of the property owner or
another public?
Commissioner Lynch said restrictions placed by Planning and Zoning are based on the State's
police power which is for the public good. When dealing with property rights, the finding needs to
be made that a restriction placed on someone's property is justified as being for the public good.
If protection of riparian habitat for the public good can be justified, that is fine, but the Commission
should be careful when placing a blanket restriction on someone's property. He did not feel that
100 feet from the streambank or a waiver is adequate.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 9 , 1997
Mr. Sanders said Mr. Bowman's property being on a bluff with no riparian vegetation might not be
included in a stream corridor zone. Also Mr. Bowman has already complied with the 100 foot
setback and thus would not be restricted to a 10% increase.
Commissioner Lynch said Mr. Bowman is raising a point that would apply not only to his parcel, but
other parcels that might be in a similar situation.
Mr. Sanders said that a stream corridor zone should be applied where appropriate and there may
be sections of the canyon where the corridor would not apply.
Commissioner Lynch said that "either/or" alternatives should be included before a stream corridor
zone is adopted.
Mr. Bowman asked if the zone would be applied to deal with flooding or riparian habitat or both?
Mr. Sanders said the 300' line is not the flood zone, because the flood zone extends beyond 300
feet.
Mr. Bowman said his parcel has water rights. The overlay would put him in violation of zoning laws
if he were to pump water out of the creek and cut vegetation and install a pump. There would be
a conflict between precedence laws and zoning laws resulting in litigation. Conflicts within the law
have not been addressed by the overlay zone.
Rob Cheal said he owns a parcel of 160 acres with 2 or 3 acres on one side of the creek where
he has a mobile home and is trying to build a home, but has to keep repairing the bridge which
keeps washing out. The building area is about 100 feet from the bank, which goes straight up from
the creek. If he was to move out of his mobile home, he would not be able to replace it or build a
regular home, but would have to build across the creek. There is no problem with flooding on his
property or his safety. It would be a "taking." He eventually wants to build a small house where
the mobile is now and another house farther in.
Morris Boeger said that health and safety is being used to impact property. The sensible thing to
do is look at the riparian watershed which is now gone. The actual streambed was scoured. Once
something is 5 feet out of the flood plain, health and safety rules should not apply and should not
be used to "slam dunk people." There is a lot of the "Not in My Backyard" syndrome taking place.
Mr. Boeger bought 20 acres with the intent of creating 4 parcels for retirement funds, and a 300 foot
setback would devalue the property by 80%.
William Herferth, from Centerville Road, said zoning might condemn existing lots.
Mr. Sanders said property cannot be condemned to keep people from building homes. He said
there is no proposal for a.300 foot building setback, but rather a 100 foot building setback. From
100 to 300 foot, the property owner is asked to show excavation and vegetation removal in
conjunction with building a home. Parcels that only have a building area within the 100 foot
setback, would qualify for the waiver.
Mr. Herferth said if the value of property is lessened or destroyed, the property owner would have,
to be compensated.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997. :.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Commissioner Lynch felt there was not enough information to act on either the rezone or the
stream corridor zone.
Commissioner Nelson felt there was enough information to make a decision on the stream corridor
zone, although it could use some refinement. He was in favor of moving forward on the stream
corridor zone. Regarding the rezone from FR-5 to FR-20, if very few parcels would be affected,
that might not be a good idea.
Commissioner Lynch was in favor of more study rather than moving forward.
Chairman Seegert was concerned about the retroactive effect of the stream corridor zone, and the
fact that virtually all of the people who would be affected by it are opposed to it.
Commissioner Nelson said most of the speakers are developers.
G
Commissioner Seegert was concerned about protecting the "public good" of a public that doesn't
want the protection.
Commissioner Nelson said there is a health and safety issue when the public agencies have to go
in and rescue people in floods.
Commissioner Seegert did not think people would want to give up personal rights for public safety.
There was a discussion of the County's obligation in protecting people versus placing restrictions
upon them.
Commissioner Cage said changes have taken place since these rezones were first proposed,
information has come forward from property owners, and there is a study being made of the
canyon, so the discussion should be continued.
Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Parilo how Nevada County handles stream related issues.
Mr. Parilo said Nevada County zoning requirements specify that the 100 year flood plain be
defined, which is not the same as the "top of bank." Normally FEMA elevations are used for the
boundaries of the flood plains on significant waterways in more urbanized areas that have been
mapped. In rural areas there is a 100 foot setback from the 100 year flood plain, which is
determined by a hydrologist, and is costly but might provide more protection than what the overlay
zone is apparently meant to accomplish. Stream channels change as well as the tops of banks.
The objective of having a stream corridor zone should be clearly defined -- protection of riparian
vegetation or flood protection. The Department of Fish and Game as arbiter, would tend to be
thinking more in terms of riparian vegetation than flood protection. In EI Dorado County and
Nevada County there is concern about limiting exposure to natural hazards such as flooding and
wildland fires. In river canyons and streambed areas there is an effort to reduce exposure to
additional structures that might impede or exacerbate a natural hazard. There is the issue of
reducing that exposure and the issue of how much reliance can be put on standards to mitigate.
The Commission should feel comfortable with their information when making a decision.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997
Commissioner Lambert said the concepts of the FR-20 rezone and the stream corridor rezone are
good, but more information would be useful.
Chairman Seegert said the main problem of the existing property owners seems to be the
retroactive effect.
Commissioner Nelson said the riparian area would tend to be the same area subject to flooding.
Commissioner Lynch said the proposed stream corridor zone needs more refinement, and since
more information will be available soon,he was in favor of continuance of the discussion.
Commissioner Cage was also in favor of a continuance.
It was agreed that information on what other counties are doing such as Shasta, EI Dorado and
Nevada Counties would be useful.
Mr. Sanders said the goals should be clarified. The main purpose of a stream corridor zone is not
really concerned with development within a flood plain, but rather such things as riparian protection
and water quality protection. The flood plain extends more than 300 feet and development is
allowed in a flood plain.
Commissioner Lambert suggested that if both proposals are objectionable to the residents of the
canyon, there might be another alternative such as a Specific Plan. She asked if fire, homeowners,
and flood insurance could be required.
Mr. Parilo said flood insurance cannot be obtained unless the County's program qualifies under
FEMA. The Ordinances in place need to meet the requirements of FEMA. Apparently building is
allowed in the flood plain, but it must be floodproofed. In allowing people to build in flood plains
it should be understood that the FEMA 100 year flood boundary is different from the historic high
water mark or tops of the banks. There is the issue of private property rights being balanced with
larger public interests. He described zoning tools which can be used, such as not allowing
subdivisions within a particular zone, restriction of building locations, and lower density zoning
standards. If it is felt that private property owners are being denied reasonable use of their
property, the proposed ordinance provides for exceptions. How far does the County want to go in
protecting those interests? Transfer of development rights is a tool that can be used. In the more
significant stream zones, a more comprehensive approach could be taken to include more issues
such as day use, land use issues and fire hazards. The SC overlay zone is limited with regard to
the broader issues. The General Plan or special studies could look at important stream zones
where higher degrees of protection are needed or multiple interests are competing.
Commissioner Lynch noted that problems can be created downstream from development
upstream.
Commissioner Nelson said the consensus is for staff to work on the stream corridor,flooding
concerns, and the problems in the canyon during the summer.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997
Mr. Harthorne said he could supply information on the riparian corridor in six months and could
identify sensitive parcels in the lower canyon in a month.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Cage, and carried
unanimously, to continue the hearings on both items to March 13, 1997.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - January 9 , 1997
C. Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item determined to be a General Rule
Exemption from environmental review) Rezone from FR-5 (Foothill Recreational -
5 acre parcels) to FR-20 (Foothill Recreational - 20 acre parcels) for various parcels
located on both sides of Honey Run Road between Skyway and the Honey Run
Covered Bridge, in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone will affect approximately 800
acres of land. (CS) (REZ96-02) (Continued open from October 10, 1996)
G. Butte County Planning Commission - (Item determined to be a general rule
exemption from environmental review) Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 24 of
the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor (SC) combing zone. The zone
will specify development standards to be applied along identified creeks or streams
f and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. (CBS) (ZCA97-03)
I
Mr. Sanders said that concern was expressed at the previous hearing on the proposed rezone
from FR-5 to FR-20 since some parcels had minimal frontage on the creek and only small areas
within the flood boundaries. He said an additional exhibit was prepared indicating the 300 foot
stream corridor protection zone. He noted that the proposed Zoning Code Amendment for a
Stream Corridor combining zone would be a new countywide zone and would require public
hearings for application to any particular piece of property. A recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors to initiate a Stream Corridor combining zone could be made.
Commissioner Lambert said that the SC zone only relates to stream protection for 300 feet on
either side of the creek and does not cover density of development in Butte Creek Canyon.
Chairman Seegert said the SC zone is supposed to address the issues that are the driving force
behind the proposed 20 acre rezone.
Mr. Sanders said the issues would be addressed in part -- such as flood hazard. Development
in the zone would not be precluded.
Chairman Seegert said that development in the SC zone would be subject to more stringent
review.
Mr. Sanders said development which is proposed in the flood zone must be built with the finished
floor at or above the flood level. Typically on discretionary permits, the requirement is for the
finish floor to be one foot above the flood level. He said that the SC zone would require more
detailed plot plans than what is normally required for a building permit, to show grading and tree
removal. He said the intent of the zone would not be to make a parcel unbuildable, and certain
requirements could be waived in order to develop the parcel.
Commissioner Lynch said that the County should not be in the position of telling someone they
cannot develop their property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996
i
Mr. Sanders explained the difference between the 100' foot No Development setback which is
currently in use and the proposed 300' protection zone. Development could take place in the 100'
setback if there is no other developable area. He suggested that some combination of a rezone
and stream corridor zone might work.
Chairman Seegert said the rezone almost needs to be done on a parcel by parcel basis.
Commissioner Lynch said the SC zone could be applied, leaving the zoning unchanged.
Commissioner Lambert said leaving the zoning as is would not address the density issue.
HEARINGS ON ITEMS "C" AND "G" OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
i
J. D. Zink said he owns a parcel on Butte Creek above the Covered Bridge. The parcel is 130'
wide fronting on the creek and about 490' deep. The parcel has a bluff area and the building area
There are existing dwellings nearby is within the last 100 of the creek front. The g g y which are built within
100' of the creek. Restricting his building area away from the creek would devalue his lot. Lots
which were created and bought with the idea of building near the creek would be devalued by the
proposed SC zone. Mr. Zink said he has $80,000 into his lot and the value would drop to $20,000
if the only building area is away from the creek, which would be a "taking" of his property. The SC
rezone could expose the County to a tremendous liability and would be unfair as well.
Chairman Seegert said at this point the lots above the Covered Bridge are not being considered
for a rezone.
Mr. Sanders said the Director of Development Services could waive certain restrictions.
Mr. Zink thought the SC zone was to be a countywide proposal. He said he could build closer to
the road, but the view of the stream would be gone which is the value of the lot.
Commissioner Lambert thought there are restrictions currently in place on building within 100' of
the creek.
Mr. Sanders said the Building Division could approve building within 100' of the creek.
Tom Wrinkle, of Sierra West Surveying, said that if the 20 acre zone is implemented, people with
lots less than 20 acres would not be able to do boundary line modifications. Regarding the SC
zone, the wording is vague, and he sees lots of problems with such a zone. There would be
problems defining which areas are "sensitive." Riparian vegetation extends beyond 300' and
covers a lot of the canyon floor. "Special scenic value" is vague. "Areas subject to erosion" needs
further definition. The settlement of disputes by the Department of Fish and Game leaves no
room for appeal. The requirement to submit a site development plan will add $1500 to $2000 to
the cost of developing a parcel. There is no mention of fees to be charged by the County.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996
Mr. Sanders said the hourly rate would be charged and the site plan need not be complicated.
Mr. Wrinkle said there needs to be more clarification. The 100' No Development Zone is already
being applied on new parcels. "Flood control purposes" should be more clearly defined. Why
should expansion of a home be limited to 10 percent? If the requirements can be waived by the
Development Services Director, the requirements should not have been there in the first place.
The proposed SC zone overlay needs to be defined, clarified and thought out.
Commissioner Lambert asked how septic and leach areas affects the creek.
Mr. Wrinkle said a leachfield cannot be within 100' of the creek. There would have to be a tight
line away from the creek: A leachfield cannot be within a ten year flood zone. A home could be
built near the creek, but the leach area would have to be away from the creek. There are already
rules and regulations in effect and there does not need to be another layer of government.
Commissioner Nelson said the regulations don't seem to be working.
Mr. Wrinkle said the focus is on one property owner and there is not a problem throughout the
County or in Butte Creek Canyon. The rezone to 20 acres is not warranted either. The grading
ordinance already addresses many of the concerns for protecting the environment.
Morris Boeger said he owns 20 acres which he bought knowing it was zoned 5 acres minimum,
with the intention of subdividing. He has done a lot of work to protect the watershed. He said
PG&E has done a tremendous amount of irreparable damage. He objects to having his property
rights taken away-- it is Socialism and Communism. There is already adequate protection for the
watershed. With current regulations, 35 percent of his property is controlled by the County. A
300' setback on both sides of the creek would control 90 percent of his property. Ten feet away
from the stream, the vegetation is the same all the way to the canyon rim. Current laws provide
plenty of protection. PG&E does the most damage. There are lots of problems from the city
people who come out and use the creek and trash it. The problems of impact on the creek are
not from development. The proposed SC zone is a "taking"and would devalue property and lower
tax revenues. The local residents protect and police the canyon and creek.
Garry Cooper, a landowner, real estate broker and developer, said the 300' setback would be a
"taking" by not being able to be near the creek. He is in favor of the 100' setback area to protect
the creek, but the large setback would change the property to "non creek front" property and lower
the value to one third of its former value. Most of the lots that were created prior to the 100' No
Development Zones have already been built on. There are some old lots that are narrow and
would be severely impacted by a 300' setback and should be completely exempted from any sort
of control.
Commissioner Nelson said the overlay zone does not prohibit structures within the 300' protection
area, and even allows development within the 100' setback if there is no other area available.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12; 1996
Mr. Cooper was worried that if a parcel is 500' deep, development could be limited to the last 200'.
Mr. Sanders said development would not be limited to areas outside of the 300'.
Mr. Cooper felt that existing regulations are effective in protecting the creek and riparian habitat.
He objects to "taking" of private property and government intervention. Locating each 4" tree
would be as expensive as setting property corners. He feels his American rights are being
infringed upon. Fish and Game can work with each individual land owner on sensitive issues
rather than making blanket requirements.
Commissioner Nelson said that basically Mr. Cooper is talking about protection of the environment
and there is not really a disagreement that Butte Creek needs protection.
Mr. Cooper said that protection of the environment and development are not mutually exclusive.
He lives in the canyon and cares about it. He felt that restrictions are appropriate on new parcel
creations, but not on existing parcels, which might be devalued.
Commissioner Lynch left the meeting at this point, and said he was in favor of continuing
discussion of both items.
Commissioner Cage asked if there are conditions placed on his parcel map (which was approved
by the Development Review Committee) on October 10, 1996, which Mr. Cooper does not agree
with, or is he just talking about what is on today's agenda.
Mr. Cooper said he feels comfortable with the conditions imposed on his parcel map. He said the
conditions are concerned with the canyon environment, not just the creek. He said he is
concerned about older lots which he owns, one of which has a building site and well overlooking
the creek and is within 100 of the creek, although above the floodplain. He would not want to
p
move the building site 50' back. He bought the lot believing he could build near the creek.
Commissioner Cage said generally development is not allowed within 100' of a creek.
Chairman Seegert said the 100' No Development area is not a retroactive requirement.
Mr. Cooper said that if this new zone is enacted, the No Development area would be retroactive
and subject to the whims of some official.
Scott Huber, 12706 Quail Run Drive, said his home is within 100' of the highwater mark. He is
concerned about the restrictions on non-native plants, vegetation removal, and the 10% limit on
increased living area. Recently he has trimmed trees, planted non-native plants and constructed
a garden box and campfire ring in the 100' area. He is concerned that he would be violating a
zoning restriction by such activities if the SC zone is enacted. He may wish to add a bedroom or
family room to his home and would be restricted by the 10% limit. He thinks the proposal is well
intentioned, but too broad and too limiting. He is in favor of considering things on a case by case
basis.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12 1996
• •
I
Chairman Seegert asked where the 10% limitation originated, and how would a garage be
considered?
Mr. Sanders said Bill Farrel, the Development Services Director, was in favor of the 10% limit.
The question of accessory structures was raised by Mike Vieira, Building Division Manager, but
was not resolved.
Allan Hawthorne said he is the Chairman of the Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy, owner of
7 parcels in Butte Creek Canyon, a resident for over 20 years, and Project Manager for the Butte
Creek Watershed Project which will be doing a watershed plan on Butte Creek. He said he was
involved in the 1970 rezone of the canyon which created the current zoning of the canyon. He
said the residents of the canyon should be making the proposals, not the Planning Commission.
The rezoning of FR-5 to FR-20 is motivated by the McAmis property situation. It should be up to
the canyon residents if they want that zoning applied to the entire canyon. If the people working
on the watershed planning process want something like a SC zone, they will let it be known. They
are mapping the riparian corridor and developing base maps and will identify the problem areas
and will be making recommendations, at which time the County should get involved. The
residents will let the County know if regulations are needed. Planning should be done from the
grass roots, letting elected officials know what is wanted. Both proposals should be tabled and
the residents should have more input and have the opportunity to examine the proposals. The
residents of the canyon should be included in the planning process for protecting the resources
of Butte Creek Canyon, especially the salmon and trout.
Renee McAmis, said 20 acre zoning was imposed on their property, and she feels badly that
everyone feels the proposed rezones have come about because of what they wanted to do with
their property. They met all requirements and did expensive studies to create four parcels. She
agreed with Mr. Boeger that tubers cause lots of damage and bring in garbage. Creation of the
four parcels was so expensive and troublesome, that they would have asked for 4 parcels (instead
of 14 parcels) from the beginning, if they had known how much money and time would have to
be spent, and they would have saved everyone this hassle.
Matt Kidder, 1054 Honey Run, was concerned about the abstract representation of the flood zone
and the reality of what exists in the canyon. He asked what the gray area on the Exhibit indicates.
Commissioner Nelson said the gray area is the 100 year flood zone according to FEMA.
Mr. Sanders said no depth has been established for the flood zone.
Mr. Kidder felt the map was an abstract image and decisions should not be based on the map in
blanket fashion and eliminating his right to build based on a map that was not intended for that
use. The images are very abstract.
Commissioner Nelson said that a standard mitigation is to construct buildings above the flood
zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12; 1996
Mr. Kidder said if someone can build above the flood plain, they should be exempt from the 20
# acre rezone, if that is a reason for the rezone in the first place.
IMr. Sanders noted that the McAmis's had their own study done, and it was found the flood zone
on his property was different from that depicted by FEMA; in fact it was larger than depicted by
FEMA.
Mr. Kidder said that applications for parcel splits should be dealt with individually, rather than with
a blanket approach.
Mr. Sanders said that in the McAmis hearings there was a great deal of testimony about flood
hazards, exposing more people to flood dangers, concerns about evacuation and what the proper
density should be.
Mr. Kidder said that disclosure laws would inform buyers they would be buying into a FEMA flood
plain, so why add onto that? People who were against the McAmis development might have
"trumped up" some issues. It is too easy to assume the map abstraction is valid.
Commissioner Nelson disagreed that FEMA would draw abstract maps without scientific basis.
Decisions have to be made with the best information available and public safety is a concern.
Commissioner Lambert was concerned about notification for people who buy property in a flood
plain.
Mr. Kidder's main concern was the use of.the particular FEMA flood map relative to a rezone.
Rob Cheal, 13631 Helltown Road, said the 300' line would be larger than what is represented by
the map. There is a problem with not being able to identify the highwater mark. It would be very
expensive for people to figure out where their property is affected and how to map their area.
Since Butte County is the only county considering this type of rezone, it may be a little out of line.
Mean-spirited people on small parcels have attacked the McAmis project and tried to create
problems. If an SC zone is implemented countywide, fights will be started everywhere. The
residents of the canyon should be the ones to request zoning changes. There are enough
regulations already and a Watershed Conservancy. The proposed zone is divisive and was
instigated by owners of small parcels against their neighbors. Many people who own property on
the creek may be willing to negotiate with agencies to sell riparian habitat corridors. The proposed
zoning would take away the opportunity to negotiate with agencies for fair compensation for the
use of their land. The residents of creek areas should be allowed to develop their own concepts
of how their area should be developed.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12; 1996
Dan Gesick, a canyon resident for 30 years, said the flood issue is blown out of proportion
because of the McAmis project. The only bad flood was caused by Baldwin Contracting because
of a levee. The McAmis property should have been allowed to have 5 acre parcels. Flooding is
not a big problem in the canyon. There is probably a worse problem in Durham. There is no
depth indicated for the gray area of the Exhibit map.
Mr. Fermin, a resident of the canyon since 1952, said he has seen lots of high water in the canyon
and doesn't know if it has even had a 100 year flood yet. The gray area on the Exhibit map could
be 50 feet under water. He is favor of the gray area for informing the public that they would be
buying property in an area that might flood and they can build their homes accordingly. He has
been flooded out many times himself. People fought the McAmis development because until
McAmis purchased the property it was available for people to use freely. He would have
appreciated knowing about the flood area before he built his house.
Gary Smith, owner of a 2 acre parcel above the Covered Bridge was concerned about restrictions
in the 100' setback protection zone since there is a need to clear vegetation for fire protection.
He has taken out dead trees and brought in sand. The people in the canyon take care of the
creek. More government regulations are not needed.
HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC
Chairman Seegert said he could not support either proposed rezone, due to his participation in
the Development Review Committee and the hearing on the McAmis property. He did not know
what would be the objective of continuing the discussion of these items.
Commissioner Cage said there could be input from the Bureau of Land Management.
Commissioner Lambert said if the idea of an SC overlay is eliminated, appropriate zoning for the
canyon should be addressed. If 5 acre zoning is retained, would the SC overlay be retained?
Commissioner Cage was in favor of leaving things as they are since that is apparently what the
canyon residents want.
Chairman Seegert said that at a previous hearing, the speakers were predominantly in favor of
the proposals, and at this hearing those in opposition to the proposals are predominant.
Commissioner Lambert did not feel there is a need for a stream protection corridor, but a position
should be taken on the 20 acre zoning. There should be more than just the McAmis parcel in the
20 acre zone. Five acre parcels may be too small in the area below the Covered Bridge, taking
into consideration the concerns for flooding, fire and traffic.
Commissioner Nelson asked how current the FEMA maps are.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — December 12" 1996
Mr. Sanders said the FEMA maps were adopted in September, 1989, and are the most current
available. Upstream from Skyway the maps were not done with a detailed study making a
determination of actual flood elevations, which would be a Zone AH, as was done downstream
from Skyway. Engineers can be hired to do more detailed studies as was done by the McAmis's.
Such a study would be submitted to FEMA to be included in their information.
Commissioner Lambert was concerned about density, traffic, and fire, and not just flooding
concerns. - - - -
Commissioner Nelson was concerned about the creation of 5 acre parcels in an obvious flood .
zone.
Chairman Seegert said that information was provided to the Development Review Committee for'
a 14 unit tentative subdivision indicating that potential problems could be mitigated by conditions,
such as building above the 100 year flood plain. The Development Review Committee approved
the project based on the information available. The same information could be applied to any
parcel.
Commissioner Lambert said the Board of Supervisors must have had reasons why they felt the
density was too great (and approved only 4 parcels for McAmis ).
Commissioner Cage was in favor of continuing the discussion.
Commissioner Lambert said she would appreciate more detailed maps showing individual parcels.
Mr. Sanders said that one of the Exhibit maps actually shows the individual parcels. He said each
parcel has a mix of developable area, riparian habitat, cobbles, mine tailings and such.
Commissioner Nelson asked how a request for a ten lot subdivision would be considered, with the
5 acre zone currently in place and in the flood zone.
Mr. Sanders said it would be necessary to show that there are buildable areas outside of the flood
zone, and in providing such elevations, that the flood level is not raised on neighboring properties.
Commissioner Nelson said the flood zone may already accomplish what the proposed rezones
are attempting to accomplish.
Commissioner Lambert was concerned about the build-out potential with the current 5 acre zoning
in place and the impact on fire, flooding, roads and other concerns which are normally addressed
in a rezone.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12; 1996
I
Mr. Sanders said there are 67 potential lots which could be created below the Covered Bridge with
the current 5 acre zoning. That may be a 25% to 30% overestimation because of physical
constraints and maybe 40 or 45 lots would be more realistic.
Chairman Seegert said that 40-45 parcels would not have a big impact on traffic or fire safety or
being flooded out.
Commissioner Nelson said he would like time to think about these issues, and to talk to the
Watershed Conservancy as to their future plans and activities.
Chairman Seegert asked what the objectives of further discussion are -- to fine tune the
combining zone? He said much of the discussion has been about how the SC zone would affect
people retroactively.
Mr. Sanders asked if more information is sought, or changes to the SC zone, or a different
proposal?
Commissioner Lambert said there should be clarification about what could or could not be done
in the 300' setback area.
Commissioner Nelson,noted the reason for the proposed overlay zone is because of previous
testimony by people who thought it was a good idea.
Mr. Sanders said the people in favor of the overlay zone at the previous hearing, were people who
had the potential of their property being zoned to 20 acre parcels, and who saw an overlay zone
as a better alternative for their situation. He said existing 5 acre parcels would not be affected by
a 20 acre rezone.
Chairman Seegert said existing parcels would be affected by an SC protection zone.
- ------- - --- ---- --- ------ -- ---
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Cage, and carried
unanimously to continue the open discussion of these items to January 9, 1997, at 9:00 a.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - December 12; 1996
DEPARTNIEk OF DEVELOPtiIE r SERVICES
BUTTE COUNTY UNIFORM APPLICATION
APPLICANT: .Aeent information to he provided is on other side:
APPLICANT'S NAME( If applicut is different from owner an affidavit is requimi ( ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:
( T e UAXT- GAN >Qt McAISScOL5 VA2iou
ADDRESS. CITY.STATE&ZIP CODE FILE NUMBER: (FOR OFFICE USE)
vev Cktj L �2 Yzv vAv� Gi 7-CA C37D
NAME OF PROPOSED PROJECT(If any TELEPHONE
LOCATION OF PROJECT(Major cross stxeets and Add=& if any)
uNT •- W►t �
GENERAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ....:'.;•: '
OWNER'S NAMETELEPHONE
- ADDRESS: CITY.STATE 3t ZIP CODE
ZONE GENERAL PIAN EXISMNG LAND USE SITE SIZE(in Square Feet or Acres)
FJQS•MG STRUCTURES(m Square Feat) PROPOSED STRUCTURES(in Square Feet)
(Check One) (Check One)
�=
C3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE SEVERED [3PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON PUBLIC WATER
[3 PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON SEPTIC [3PROPERTY IS OR PROPOSED TO BE ON WELL WATER
::�.... ;�: i: a:.�: • - APPLICATION REQUESTED .. .
❑ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
❑ REZONE ❑ TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
❑ USE PERMIT ❑ WAIVER OF PARCEL MAP
❑ MINOR USE PERMIT ❑ BOUNDARY LINE MODIFICATION
❑ VARIANCE ❑ LEGAL LOT DETERMINATION
❑ MINOR VARIANCE ❑ CERTIFICATE OF MERGER
-= ❑ ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT ❑ MINING AND RECLAMATION PLAN
❑ DEVELOPMENT AGREEWNT ( OTHER ZoiQj hi& 60t* AAAPtjOM�N'�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT(Attach necessary sheets. If this application is for a land division,describe the number and
size of parcels.) &-N pMK--N o C~Tle4l9u t Tee Coo ri24 Co
7i IVr, AA Ce nn N N N-e SG -Zo nr . TH t
C o ZON t_t. S u c�PFJ e l a n1t S cL✓
ck-e-y4JIek reav^- wv✓�G 1✓1 Con UAC+l1';---)
LAj
�kt +►� In
a v 21
: OWNER CERTIFICATION
1 CERTIFY THAT I AM PRESENTLY THE LEGAL OWNER OR THE AUTHORIZED AGENT OFTHE OWNER OF TIM ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.
FURTHER.I AC)LNowLEAGETHE FE.L;G OFTHIS APPLICATION AND CERTIFY TMT ALL,OFTHE ABOvE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
ACCURATE (If an agent is to be authaved,exuute an affidavit u(authoriration and include the airtdavit with this application.)
DATE: SIGNATURE:
AGENT AUTHORIZATION
To Butte County, Department of Development Services;
Print Name of Agent and Phone Number
Mailing Addn=
is hereby authorized to process this application for
on my property, identified as Butte County Assessors Parcel Number
. This authorization allows representation for all applications,
hearings, appeals, etc. and to sign all documents necessary for said processing, but not including
document (s)relating to record title interest.
Owner(s) of Record: (sign and print name)
Print Name Print Name
Signature signature
Architect and/or Engineer.
Print Name of ArchitecdEngineer and Phone Number
Mailing Address
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
verif)-
Date received: Total amount received:
AP Number(s) Legal Description
Owners
Authorization . r Zoning requirements
Project D_escripdon.. Copies of plot plan
Taken by Receipt No. a E.H. LD Plan FD
t ` Payment of the currently required Application Fee and/or Deposit,(Any unused;portion of a•
deposit) will be returned upon final action.
Current fee for this application is S as of
Make check payable to "Butte County Treasurer".
c f
P'r
HAROLD H. GALLIETT, .JR.
CIVIL ENGINEER
SURVEYS 2819 HIGHWAY 70
INVESTIGATIONS OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 95965
REPORTS (916)532-0985
March 12 , 1997
Butte County Planning Commission
County Center Drive
Oroville , California 95965
Subject : Proposed Stream Corridor Combining Zone,
Amendment To Chapter 24 Of The' Butte County Code
Dear Planning Commissioners :
The proposed• Stream Corridor Combining Zone is unnecessarily
broad and indefinite.
I recommend that the Planning Commission revise the proposed
Stream Corridor Combining Zone before recommending that it be
adopted by the Board of Supervisors .
Ordinary citizens and the Board should know where this
proposed combining zone is to be . applied before it is recommended
to the Board for adoption:.
The proposed 3001 . from the top of bank of a river, stream or
other watercourse . is too wide and indefinite as to location.
Without an identification of each watercourse, this combining
zone could be interpreted to cover the entire county and each
property therein. : A map or other specific descriptio of each
river, stream o.r other watercourse is needed.
The "top of bank" is- an -indefinite description. I suggest
that the boundary should be a boundary previously defined by
statute or case law. Such a boundary would be the riparian
boundary.
In 24-227 . B. , fifth line, the word "of" has been left out .
The following provision should be inserted in 24 -227 . C. ,
Combining Zone Requirements And Standards in order to continue
existing county policy protecting agriculture :
r
r
r
(
r
T f
i,53.an*i:.on-
�r•
"No permit or site development plan shall be required under
this Section '24-227 for (1) the installation, alteration or repair
of agricultural water pumps or wells used solely for agricultural
purposes and for (2) agricultural operations in existing pastures ,
fields and orchards . ''
(Please refer to Section 27 ' 3 for an example of .existing
county policy in `this regard)
Section 24-22.7 . C . 2 . c . , should be deleted or revised. It
appears that only if the. 100 ' "No Development Zone" renders the
entire property "undevelopable" may the property be developed
subject to a conditional use permit
Very truly yours ,
Harold H . Galliett, Jr .
I
I
- 2-
I
I
.. r
r,
�.. � _
� . . � r - .. ;�� X
i* �T ' � � .. � ..1.
. �•• r
� s
: , . � � ,
Y t �„
'{ -
� , .
'. � ti,.r-''' � ., ' �
� '�` ♦ `�
r• � -
., t � '�
i_ -
V
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner
DATE: November 21, 1996
REQUEST: Amendment to chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a
Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone. The zone will specify
development standards to be applied along identified creeks or
streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning.
RELATED
ITEMS: Butte Creek Rezone.
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 1996
SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend areas in the
County to which it should be applied.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In response to concerns raised by both the public and the
Planning Commission regarding development in Butte Creek Canyon, staff has developed
a Stream Corridor overlay zone that could be applied to portions of Butte Creek as well as
other sensitive watercourses within the County. The overlay zone will work in conjunction
with existing zoning designations and will not affect the uses allowed in any zone. When
applied, the zone will impose stricter development review procedures within 300' of a river,
stream, or other watercourse. Attached is a copy of the proposed Stream Corridor (-SC)
overlay zone.
The proposed zone is consistent with the Butte County General Plan and will aid the
County in implementing several policies in the plan including the following policies from
the Land Use Element:
2.4a Maintain quantity and quality of water resources adequate for all uses in the
County.
.2.4c Control development in watershed areas to minimize erosion and water pollution.
6.4c Encourage compatible land use patterns in scenic corridors and adjacent to scenic
waterways, rivers, and creeks.
1
i
V
w�
`'
L_ _ -.__ _. _ __.__ __ _ __-_ _
7.3a Limit development in areas with significant drainage and flooding problems until
adequate drainage and flood control facilities are provided.
Implementation of the zone will also serve to further some of the goals and policies in the
Conservation element regarding the County's waterways. Butte Creek is classified as a
premium waterway and should receive special protection. As proposed in this report, the
width of the zone will be 300' from the top of the bank, on both sides of the stream to which
it is applied. However, the Commission may wish to define the limits of the zone
differently. Another option, especially for streams and creeks that have significant
associated flood plains, would be to apply the zone to the flood hazard boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This project is exempt from CEQA review under
section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states:
"CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."
Adoption of this zone will not result in any physical changes to the environment and when
applied will result in a higher degree of site sensitive planning.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be
advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in local
newspapers for all areas of-the County. As of the date of this report we have received no
public comment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the
Board of Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend
areas in the County to which it should be applied.
Attachments: A: Proposed Stream Corridor combining zone
2
EXHIBIT A
Stream Corridor Combining Zone
24-227 Stream Corridor (-SC) Combining zone
A. Purpose and intent. . The purpose an intent of the Stream Corridor (-SC)
combining zone is as follows:
1. To protect the County's surface water resources..
2. To ensure compatible, site sensitive development within designated
floodplains.
3. To preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources.
4. To protect identified streams and creeks from erosion and loss of riparian
habitat.
B. Applicability. The -SC combining zone shall be used as an overlay zone in
conjunction with existing zone districts along streams and creeks that have been
identified as having sensitive habitat or requiring protection. This combining zone
shall be apply to the area within 300' of the top of bank along identified sections
rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to either:
1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife
species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource;
2. Have special scenic value; or
3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or
other environmental impacts.
The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of identified watercourses.
If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a dispute as to the location,
the determination on the location shall be made by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
C. Combining zone requirements and standards. The following requirements and
standards shall be applied to land uses within this combining zone as well as the
standards of the underlying or base zone. If conflicts arise between the combibig
zone and the base zone, the combining zone requirements shall prevail.
3
1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval
of a site development plan by both the Departments of Public Works and
Development Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any
building permit or septic permit that shows:
A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and
driveways,
B. Location and species type of any of trees greater the 4" in diameter
d.b.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal;
C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and
leachfields. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan may be
required by the Department of Development Services Department
prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No
structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant
species or vegetation removal is permitted within the "No Development
Zone" with the following exceptions:
A. Vegetation removal done for flood control purposes or work done for
streambed enhancement and under permit from Department of Fish
and Game;
B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No
Development Zone" may be granted through the Conditional Use
Permit procedure. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10%
increase in habitable floor area.
C. If, when applied to an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No
Development Zone" renders the property undevelopable, the parcel
may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve such a Use Permit but may condition the
permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct
specific locations for development on the site.
3. Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or
improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures,
septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the development
of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or new right so of way
created as part of a parcel map or subdivision map approval shall not be
4
r
f
l
v
s
subject to any review or permits not normally required for the activity.
4. The Director of Development Services may waive any of all of the
requirements of this zone if, because of topography, lack of riparian
vegetation, lack of erosion potential, or other physical characteristics of the
site, the provisions of this section are not applicable.
` 5
i
a
I
'�i
If streamside vegetation must be disturbed, Remember also that nearly all storm sewers,and Exercise care when using any As much as possible, avoid taking water directly
replace it quickly,preferably with native species(see the materials carried by them, feed into a local pesticides, herbicides, or from streams,especially during the dry season when
the next section on Addressing Streambank stream—maybe yours. A few ounces of paint fertilizers. natural flows are at their lowest. If you must pump
Problems). In many cases, this may require thinner or used oil dumped down one of these Many yard and garden chemi 7 from the stream, then cover the intake diversion
professional advice and County approval under the drains may not seem like much, but the cals are extremely toxic to aquatic organisms and pipes with small-mesh hardware screen to keep from
Riparian Corridor Protection Ordinance. consequences can be far-reaching, especially when inhabitants of the riparian corridor, such as birds. sucking up aquatic life. Each year large numbers of
multiplied by the many households using these =' Even small amounts of these compounds entering juvenile salmon and steelhead trout are lost to
Avoid building in the flood common substances. streams in airborne droplets as you spray or in unscreened water diversions.
plain. t. storm runoff can affect stream life. Never apply Practice water conservation.Every drop of water
4Any structure built within the Control pet and livestock herbicides or pesticides within the streamside zone you save, whether by landscaping with drought-
reach of flood waters is not only access to streams and the and exercise caution when applying them on tolerant plants, reducing personal consumption,
subject to damage or loss,but may actually decrease riparian corridor. adjacent areas as well, taking care to minimize any installing drip irrigation,or other strategies,directly
the stream's ability to safely accommodate floods by 6Domestic animals and livestock possible wind drift. contributes to maintaining a viable stream
removing protective vegetation and destabilizing can easily disrupt the stream environment. If un- environment. Legally,you must leave enough water
vulnerable slopes. In keeping with the value of the controlled,pets can terrorize wildlife in the riparian Avoid diverting water from the to fulfill the needs of legitimate downstream water
riparian zone,avoid building any structures there— corridor, spook fish, and muddy stream waters. stream unnecessarily. users. In any case,it is illegal to pump a stream dry
even decks or patios. Livestock can quickly destroy streambanks, trample Water diversions affect the life for any reason.
Residential and commercial development streamside vegetation,and contaminate local water of your stream in the most 8
throughout County watersheds has increased storm supplies. Prohibiting livestock access to stream fundamental of ways. In fact, without adequate Avoid removing natural debris
runoff in many areas, raising the risk of flood. zones or even intermittent waterways is a good idea. water flows,especially in the summer,your stream from the stream channel unless
Creekside structures are thus likely to become more A buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation between can't support much life at all. Second to sediment, it poses an erosion or flood
vulnerable over time, not less so. Recognizing this pasture and stream will also help control sediment. low water flows are the greatest cause of fish habitat hazard. 9
flood hazard, County ordinances regulate all loss and consequent fish declines. Woody debris, such as fallen logs and stumps,
building in the flood plain. The safest advice, for r provide an important source of cover, food, and
your property and your stream, is to maintain the shelter for fish and other stream dwellers. For
flood zone in its natural state. �. , example, areas of accumulated woody debris have
� been found to support the highest number of� Dispose of wastes properly— juvenile steelhead in local streams. A moderate
not in or near the stream. amount of such debris can also provide natural
5
Your stream and its surround protection for streambanks. In general, don't
ings are not a garbage dump. remove these materials unless they have or will
Disposing of any material there—even clippings or cause a problem.
garden wastes—can harm streamside vegetation In cases where fallen logs or debris are causing
and cause problems both for the stream itself and rapid erosion by directing stream flow into the bank,
your downstream neighbors if flood waters carry ;r + � '" or where logjams or debris piles pose an imminent
it away. "` • -`' flood threat or an insurmountable barrier to
Remove old tires, domesticarba a and litter
g g y spawning fish, removal may be in order. County
that others may have dumped on your land. Most t staff will assess and remove such major logjams or
especially, don't dispose of antifreeze, waste oil,
debris accumulations free of charge. Contact the
paint, solvents, detergents, or other chemicals
<, Resource Section of the County Planning Depart-
anywhere near your stream or any waterway, no 1 y ment for details on this service or for general advice
matter how small or intermittent. Even though you on handling debris accumulations(see Getting Help
may dump these materials some distance from the at the back of this booklet).
waterway, rain waters will likely carry them into Improperly located or managed corrals may degrade All water diversion intakes should be screened to protect
the creek. water quality by elevating sediment and nutrient levels in juvenile salmon and steelhead.Unscreened intakes annu-
nearby streams. ally kill large numbers of these species.
S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E
fills. Removal of the dam in the fall should also be Permits Section of the County Planning Office,or an
done slowly to prevent downstream erosion due to erosion control professional for help. Erosion
rapid and uncontrolled water flows. problems can be persistent and complex, but
Installation of new flashboard dams is discour- addressing them is essential to protecting your
aged. Though proper management of these property as well as your stream.
structures reduces their harmful impacts,the safest ¢
--- approach to good stream care is to avoid modi- Check your septic system fre
fying the stream course in any way unless the quently and pump it regularly. Riparian Corridor ° e
modification is needed to resolve an existing If you live by a stream and use-a 2
streambank problem. septic system, you have a special 4 o
o responsibility to make sure it is functioning oa v
v /_ o
Assess the condition of your efficiently. Some County watersheds contain more
o streambank regularly and than 100 septic systems per square mile—a higher
�j address problems quickly. density than any comparable area of the state.
`� vo• Examine your streambank and Because of this density, massive loads of bacteria
stream channel for the following: and dissolved nutrients can enter nearby streams
Woody debris in the stream channel is necessary for a ■ bank failure or erosion, especially undercutting from poorly functioning systems. Replacement of
healthy f sb population.
on the outside of curves where the stream's leaking septic tanks or inefficient leach fields and In times of flooding, swell-vegetated stream
Minimize the use of temporary erosive force is highest; timely pumping of all systems can help keep this bank is your property's best protection.The plants
10 or"flashboard"dams; if used, ■ stripped or damaged streambank vegetation; substantial source of stream contamination in check. growing there are uniquely adapted to surviving
install and remove them slowly If either of these problems exist,you may need to flood conditions, providing erosion protection at
to reduce their impact on take action to restore your streambank to good Leave streamside vegetation high flows and recovering quickly when flood waters
the stream. health.See the next section,Addressing Streambank intact. subside.
Each year, many streamside residents erect Problems,for suggestions on what to do and how to Avoid "improving" your creek-
smallseasonal dams to create temporary ser erect
obtain the proper permission and assistance to do it. side area by mowing, clearing, or
3
P y A stripping vegetation unnecessarily. A healthy x
lakes for recreation, water diversion, or aesthetic streambank needs undisturbed soil and vegetation;
purposes during the summer months.Most of these streamside trees, vines, shrubs, grasses, and reeds
structures are "flashboard" dams, consisting of are an essential part of the stream ecology.
separate wooden members set in a supporting Riparian plants not only provide critical wildlife Y
frame. All in-stream structures such as flash- habitat,they also directly affect living conditions in
board dams require yearly permits from the the stream itself. Streamside plants provide shade, ..,
State Department of Fish and Game to build and lowering water temperatures and creating hiding
maintain, and dam owners must comply with cover for fish and other organisms. Leaves and . ,
Department of Fish and Game regulations insects dropping from nearby trees and bushes
concerning these structures. supply food for many stream dwellers, while plant
To avoid interfering with the fall-winter roots stabilize the bank, preventing erosion.
migration of salmon and steelhead trout, A healthy riparian corridor can also act as a
flashboards should not be set in place before April sediment and nutrient "screen," filtering silt from
15 and should be removed by October 15 or after 1 adjacent property and absorbing some nutrients
inch of rain has fallen.In addition,flashboard dams i released by septic systems.To be an effective screen,
should be assembled slowly—one board at a however,this zone of vegetation must be sufficiently
time—to lessen their impact on the stream below wide, and the shrubs, vines, and grasses of the A healthy streamside "riparian"area contains a diversity
the dam.Raising the dam too rapidly can harm fish understory—not just the trees—must be present. of moisture loving vegetation which acts to filtersedt-
and other aquatic organisms downstream by cutting ment from surface runoff and provides habitat for
off stream flow for lengthy periods while the pond numerous wildlife species.
S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E
Guidelines Streams are constantly
The immediate goals of reshaping their routes
stream care are to: through a process of Addressing Before-
for Stream Care active scouring on out- °
o minimize erosion or t undercut bank with o0.
• side curves and deposi- Streambank o
contamination from property adjacent to 5 �� shallow rooted grass.
streams ' tion of sediment bars on o
inside curves.This natu- o °
C3 preserve the stream and the riparian zone ,� ` fit. Problems ° 0
bordering it in as natural a state as possible;and f`r ral tendency for the
stream course to chane or meander may lead to
G repair disturbed sites by stabilizing the stream *s^i :° 1 g y
bank and restoring streamside vegetation. � problems on your streambank property.
These goals recognize that it is always easier to
_ - . Increased runoff volumes due to urbanization in After-
' the watershed may aggravate this natural process graded slope with ws p
prevent erosion and decline of the stream than to -•N•�,. •,- � .
creating erosion problems on banks that used to be deep rooted o►
restore the waterway once it is damaged. Several � _ .•, _ ._ .
general guidelines flow from these goals: ; , � stable. In addition direct disturbance of the vegetation and o O
¢Q streambank through construction or stripping of the rocks keyed in °
Check for sources of erosion natural vegetation may have occurred, leaving the at base. oo '
"r bank in an unstable condition. 0
on your and adjoining prop- —<'' ` • - :�;; �� _ � p _ 0' -
er and treat them promptly
�- <` In all of these cases, you may need to stabilize
tY P Pth -,1.. .,
Any spot where flowing water - ; 4 �:. - your bank to protect your property and the stream.
".- Unstable banks can lead to extensive bank failures these are listed below:
meets unprotected soil is a potential erosion •'• --�} ' --L••k=-s
problem. Typical examples include dirt roads, If left unattended,bare soils and uncontrolled runoff can that result property loss and add large volumes of ® Stone riprap consists of large rocks that are
driveways or parking areas, earthen drainage result in erosion and the contribution of sediment to sediment to the stream system. dumped or hand placed along an appropriately
ditches, overgrazed pasture or corrals, or any downslope waterways. However,streambank stabilization is usually not sloped bank and often interplanted with
patches of bare or sparsely vegetated earth— a simple matter. Changes in stream flow due to vegetation.
perhaps even your vegetable garden. permit for any large-scale soil disturbances,and the stabilization work can occur and are difficult to ® Gabions are large wire baskets filled with rock
In these areas your goal should be to reduce the County Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance predict.Actions taken to protect your bank may have and wired together to form a somewhat flexible,
force of runoff against the soil by slowing its speed, requires you to use approved erosion control unforeseen consequences downstream, with the permeable barrier useful where banks are steep
redirecting it to stable,vegetated areas,or shielding methods to prevent movement of soil into local result that you may simply pass your erosion or space is at a premium.
,the soil with protective materials such as gravel, streams.Smaller soil disturbances may benefit from problem on to your neighbor. For this reason, ® Retaining walls or revetments of redwood or
rocks, mulch, or other substances. these professional erosion control techniques as well. County ordinances require a permit for any work other materials are engineered for locations
Properly installed water bars, drainage ditches, Under the County Riparian Corridor Protection done to your stream bank or stream bed, and you where dwellings abut the stream or space along
and culverts will help keep the soil on your road Ordinance, you must obtain a separate permit for should consult a qualified professional in planning the bank is scarce.
where it belongs. Culvert mouths should be any building, clearing, improvement, or other any streambank project. o Log or concrete crib walls are constructed of a
stabilized with rocks, and a lining of rocks can activity that might affect the stream or the riparian Streambank stabilization usually involves one or rectangular framework of logs or precast
also stabilize eroding ditches and small gullies. In zone. Before beginning any work near your stream, a combination of the following activities: concrete members keyed into the bank and filled
steeper areas, small checkdams may be needed to contact the California Department of Fish and Game M regrading and revegetating the streambank to with soil or cobble in which vegetation can be
retain sediment. and the Environmental Permits Section of the eliminate overhangs and attain a more stable planted.
Replant disturbed soils as quickly as possible.On County Planning Department for help in obtaining
slope; ■ Post and wire revetments consist,essentially,
ground that is not too steep,a covering of straw over the proper permits (telephone numbers listed s armoring the bank to control further erosion; of a wire fence constructed at the bank and back-
newly bared earth will help prevent erosion until under Getting Help at the end of this booklet). and occasionally filled with cobble,which can then be planted.
vegetation has returned. Pasture or corral areas Solving erosion problems can be complicated, i ■ deflecting the water flow away from vulnerable ■ Vegetation alone is sometimes used to armor
should be bounded by strips of undisturbed and mistakes can further aggravate the problems. sites. thestrbank to Live cuttings l willow driven into
vegetation to act as a silt-catching"filter." Before taking any action, consult the references in Armoring the bank takes a variety of forms,some the bank to root or bundles of live cuttings
The County has adopted several ordinances to the back of this booklet and contact the local Soil of -them structural and most incorporating secured to the bank are two among many
protect its waterways. You must obtain a valid Conservation Service office, the Environmental revegetation as a necessary component. Several of possible vegetation schemes.
S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E
Ground Cover sufficient summer flow; and lush streamside
Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei or azusa) vegetation to stabilize banks and provide shade `
Wild Ginger (Asarum caudatum) and food.
Dwarf Coyote Bush (Baccharis pilularis) The health of the stream environment thus _ f:
Moneywort (Lysimachia) depends on several physical factors: water quality; _ =
Violet (Viola) the character of the stream bottom(whether gravel,
Baby Tears (Helaine) sand, or fine silt); water temperature and the
~ Shrubs amount of sunlight reaching the stream; and the
volume and timing of water flowing through the
fi Oregon Grape (Mahonia aquifolium) ; stream. Human activities can influence all of these.
California Holly Grape (Mahonia pinnata) A stream in good health provides prime
Pink Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguineum) habitat—a place to live,feed,and rear young—for
Snow Berry (Symphoricarpos albus) a great variety of aquatic life.At least 25 species of
California Huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) fish and an ahnndance of insect species, tiny
Coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) plankton,and other organisms inhabit local streams.
In addition, many animals and plants make their Erosion and Sedimentation from upland areas can
-. Trees home in the narrow corridor of streamside severely affect our streams,resulting in a significant
Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) vegetation known as riparian habitat—the moist reduction of species diversity and aesthetic value.
White Alder (Alnits rhombifulia) area immediately adjacent to your stream.This high-
Rock-filled gabian baskets may be useful for streambank California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) moisture environment, which covers onlyabout 1
protection purposes. The baskets can be stacked steeply to Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) state. In 1964, an estimated 20,000 steelhead and
help conserve the area offlowing water. percent of the County's watershed, provides food
Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga Menziesii) and shelter for a greater variety of wildlife—from up to 10,000 silver salmon made their way up the
Red Willow(Salix laevigata) blue jays to banana slugs—than any other habitat San Lorenzo River and its tributaries. But by 1979,
All of these armoring techniques
White Birch (Betula verrucosa) the steelhead run had diminished to 3,000, with
q require type. This zone is also critical as a migration corridor for man animals es eciall where nearby silver salmon reduced to hundreds.Today,no more
specialized knowledge to apply and should never be While the plants on this list are generally suited Y >
P g PP Y than 2,000 steelhead perpetuate the age-old cycle,
attempted without professional help. Again, the for use adjacent to streams,it is recommended that development acts as a barrier to overland travel.
P P P g
soundest advice is to seek advice. You seek expert advice prior to making a final many of them reared in fish hatcheries to combat
the river's impairment.
If no stream bank damage has yet occurred,but selection.
The story of these species' decline provides a
riparian vegetation has been depleted or removed, good example of how important proper stream care
you may be able to help reestablish or augment this Streams can be.Steelhead and silver salmon are particularly
vegetation on your own. Consult the local office of Sediment, sewage, and sensitive to the effects of stream sediment. Too
the Soil Conservation Service and the Resource reduced water flows are In Decline much At can irritate their sensitive gills,cover over
Section of the County Planning Department for the greatest enemies of gravels where they feed and spawn, suffocate their
assistance in determining which plants to use on Santa Cruz County streams. Together they have eggs,and fill in pools where juvenile fish reside for
your particular site and how to plant and care for caused tremendous declines in the productivity of up to two years before they make their way to the
them. For reference, a list of native plants suitable area waterways by destroying the habitat of local ocean to live.
for revegetating streambanks in Santa Cruz County fish and the tiny plants and insects they feed on.For But a decline in stream health need not occur.
follows. t instance,excessive sedimentation has decreased the Good stream care combats erosion and works to
available fish habitat by 80-90 percent in the San insure adequate stream flows, preserving area
Lorenzo River basin. Increasing water diversions streams from further decline and directly benefiting
have further reduced what habitat remains. This is local fish populations.
reflected in dramatically lower fish populations,
especially steelhead trout and silver salmon.
The local steelhead run was once among the most
productive and popular among fishermen in the
S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E
minimize erosion and pollutants and preserve the Though they don't come from a single In many cases,common
natural stream habitat. concentrated source, these "nonpoint" pollutants, sense, as well as local Getting Hep Additional
The principles of proper stream care are simple, taken together, pose the greatest danger to the ordinances, will guide
but they require your active participation. This county's streams. For instance, erosion of fragile you in caring for your stream.But sound advice can Reading
booklet seeks to stimulate that participation and to soils dumped over 400,000 tons of silt into the San never hurt. Below are listed several agencies and
guide you in your stream stewardship.With a little Lorenzo River in 1973, enough to fill the county information sources to help you with the details of Drainage Improvement Guide for Unpaved Roads,
care,you can preserve and enhance your streamside building three times over. Much of this was erosion control and streambank management and to Santa Cruz County Resource Conservation District,
environment and protect Santa Cruz County's heri- deposited on the river bottom, filling in pools aid you in obtaining the proper permits, if needed. 1988,12 pp.3233 Valencia Ave.,Suite B-6,Aptos,CA
tage of productive streams, flowing free and clear. and covering the gravel many fish species require ,, 95003. (Available by mail at no charge)
for spawning. In the years since 1973, the annual Resource Section, 425-2860
silt load in the San Lorenzo River has likely risen Santa Cruz County Planning Department Ground Cover: A Planting Guide for Erosion
even higher, due to increased building activity in Environmental Permits Section,• 425-2853 Control in Santa Cruz County,Santa Cruz Resource
the San Lorenzo Valley. Santa Cruz County Planning Department Conservation District, 1986, 41 pp. 3233 Valencia
The life of a stream
Moreover, discharge from septic systems U.S. Soil Conservation Service 688-1562 Ave.,Suite B-6,Aptos,CA 95003. (Available by mail
reflects conditions routinely raises nitrate levels along the San Lorenzo Santa Cruz County 688-1562 for$5)
Healthy throughout its water- River to unhealthy levels and causes rapid growth Resource Conservation District (,round Work: Marin Count Resource Conserva
shed not i just those of algae clogging the channel and depleting the California Department 1-649-2870 y
Watersheds I water's dissolved oxygen content which is vital to of Fish and Game tion District, P.O. Box 219, Point Reyes Station, CA
along its banks. These aquatic life. For Emergencies 425 2355 94956 (Free through the mail)(415)663-1231
conditions, in turn,
reflect the varied natu- Streams are resilient and can recover from
Healthy Streams Road Building Guide for Small Private Roads,
ral 'processes and occasional pollution.But chronic contamination and
p sedimentation pose a much greater threatWhile Mendocino County Resource Conservation District,
.
human activities that occur there. 1982, 72 pp., 405 Orchard Ave., Ukiah, CA 95482.
The amount andattern of rainfall are obvious you may have little control over many of the
p activities in the watershed,your diligence and that of (Available by mail for$5,or call(707)468-9223.)
factors affecting the stream, but residential
development,road budding,logging,a agriculture and your neighbors can do much to control the harmful
p g' g effects of these activities on your stream. Note: Many other pamphlets and flyers on erosion
grazing,and recreation activities are also significant control and revegetation of the riparian corridor are
forces.Without careful planning,these practices can also available from the Santa Cruz Resource
harm streams by contributing sediment from Conservation District at this address.
erosion,and by releasing an array of contaminants,
such as septic system outflow, oil and debris from The Living
roads, or agricultural runoff. A stream is more than
Stream lust a channel for rain-
Silted-in stream bottom water in its passage to
the sea. It is a complex, living system where the
Reduced insect population characteristics of the stream bed—its composition,
Reduced egg survival shape, and elevation drop—interact with the
L dissolved nutrients and organic matter in flowing
Sedimentation o water to create a dynamic environment rich with d
o°o, plant and animal life. -
0 A number of conditions typify area streams in
Z7'o"o :Q'0o. ^•�•.i:.;• '::i >'. v OQo• their pristine state. These include cool, clear,
�O;o'oQQoq.o .o,:.:o,• •
o• :.• • : aoJ ,00•e� o�O00
4'• oxygen-rich water free of contaminants and excessoQa 'o
algae; plenty of clean gravel for fish spawning and
Sedimentation greatly reduces habitat area and J"rsb aquatic insects; a balance of fast water riffles for
populations. spawning and feeding and slow pools for rest;
S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E S T R E A M C A R E G U I D E
- --- - - -- -treams—largeorsmall—touch-the
lives of every resident of Santa Cruz
County. More than 770 miles of
waterways drain the county, so no
one lives too far from a creek,
stream, or river. Providing water
1 supply, wildlife habitat, a conduit
for flood waters, and a host of
AGuide aesthetic and recreation values, our
waterways comprise an invaluable
for Streamside resource—but one that can be
easily damaged by careless actions
Property Owners or improper land use.
Since the great majority of
streamside acreage is in private ownership,much of
the responsibility for the life and health of our
streams lies with you, the streamside resident or
property owner. Proper management of your
stream bank and its vegetation can prevent or
minimize erosion, preserve water quality,
contribute to the survival of the area's fish and
wildlife, and help avoid flood losses.
The stream you share lies within one of the
county's several major watersheds, or natural
drainage basins. These include the San Lorenzo
River, the North Coast creeks, Soquel Creek,Aptos
and Valencia Creeks, and Corralitos Creek. Even if
you don't live along one of these larger waterways,
the streamside management-you practice will likely
Since 1978 the Resource Section of the Santa Cruz affect a much greater area than you think.The health
County Planning Department has been actively of your waterway will reflect your efforts to
working to protect and improve local stream
environments. These efforts have included
completion of watershed and water planning i 1
studies, development of stream protection
ordinances, and an ongoing logjam removal and
stream enhancement program.
This publication was developed by the Resource
Section of the Santa Cruz County Planning
Department.Funding was provided by a grant from
the Urban Stream Restoration Program of the State c O
Department of Water Resources and from the
Planning Department's Resource Section.
S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E S T R E A M C A R E G U 1 D E
r
u
u y.
a
' s
i.
D'
r F
rl
}
0
r�
G
v �
f
Santa Cruz County g P Planning Department
Resource Section 4
701 Ocean Street Room 406B .
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408)425-2860
r
• a '
a
•`syn r:'
Y'c 6 �•�•c f
.. ♦ � �. > • �+�"r��k�� _!�f_ V'^Yap _ - � �:. -s
AhW
u. kt V
t+
IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY: v
Ni
Streamside
Property
wn
f '
y�a
_ � Q
e 4.
y ` R
v
MAR 10 '97 04:06PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.1
SHASTA COUNTY
Qfi S DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Planning Division
V � 1855 Placer Street,Redding CA 96001
Phone#(916)225-5532 or FAX# (916)245-6468
<< � FAX Cover Sheet (Pae 1 of )
DELIVER TO: �� 1 AT FAX#:
FROM: V rt` ��' DATE: 3 1,o
Does your office have N)SSSAGE: ,LLF.�-aj
its psr w recycled?
Call our Community
Edaccatfon Section @
225-S789forfree
pickaiip prognm to
recycle your pWepiAutAv+ Livv
'V, ,
PJ-2.0_.
F" 9 LI vision
4 v4i4
Orovillt;, �:auror�ud
RECYCLE This FAX mcssagc waS sent by tha Shasta County Department of Resounx ManagcmeK Planning
Division.Please mpmt any proWeme with tmnsmission roWpL
� f
�, .
r r
MAR 10 '97 04:06PM SHASTA CO. BLDO.DIV. P.2
REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY BOARD OF -SUPERVISORS
SUBJECT ADOPTION OF INTERIM WATERWAY BOARD AGENDA
PROTECTION PROGRAM MEETING NUMBER
DATE
12/18/90
DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of supervisors adopt a
resolution approving the Interim Waterway Protection Program as contained
in Exhibit "A".
SUMMARY: At it's December 13, 1990 meeting the Planning Commission
recommended, that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Interim
Waterway Protection Program. The Board had previously directed• that an
interim waterway protection proposal be developed 'at its November 13, 1990
meeting.'
DISCUSSION: Background to the development of the interim waterway
protection measures is found on page one of the December 5th memo to the
Planning Commission. A discussion of the proposed interim measures is
found beginning on page two of the same memo. A copy of the Board
Resolution is found at the end of this report. Minor editing changes
recommended at the Planning Commission's December 13th meeting are
incorporated into Exhibit "A" .
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT: City of Redding, City of Anderson, Department of
Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Soil Conservation
Service.
FINANCINS: There will be no impact on the County's General Fund as program
costs are to be borne by the Department of Fish & Game. Costs associated
with implementation of grading and sediment control standards will be
incorporated into the application pe t process.
APPROVED BY:
Staff Au hor HUNTER, Dire r
ommunity Development
M. Radabaugh:ja
BOS 12/18/90
MAR 10 '97 04:07PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.3
OF
SHASTA COUNTY
v is COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
n �P PLANNING DIVISION
<<F0 1855 Placer Street JOE HUNTER
Redding.CA 96001 DIRECTOR
(916)225-5532
INTERIM WATERWAY PROTECTION PROGRAM
GUZDELINES for DSVELOPMEn PROJECTS
Adopted by the Shasta County Board of Supervisors
Effective December 18, 1990
I. BACKGROUND AND PURPO8-1
Based on citizen concerns and input from local, state and federal
agencies in the South Central Region of Shasta County, the county
has determined that the protection of the Sacramento River and its
tributary streams from degradation is a high priority. These
concerns and inputs have lead to the California Department of Fish
and Game, with strong interagency cooperation, to begin intensive
mapping and analysis of area waterways under the Waterway corridor
Protection Program. The objective of the waterway protection
program is to guarantee the long-term protection, maintenance,
enhancement and restoration of sensitive aquatic, riparian and
wetland habitats associated with various tributaries of the upper
Sacramento River. Because protection measures are urgently needed,
the County has adopted the following interim waterway protection
measures.
11 it JUyUJ&ANXkW
The interim protection measures shall be applied to the to the
watersheds of Churn Creek, Sulphur Creek, Salt Creek, Middle Creek,
Olney Creek, Stillwater Creek, Cow Creek, Clear Creek, Canyon
CreeK, Boulder Creek, Cottonwood Creek and Jenny Creek. Projects
that would be subject to the interim protection measures include
land divisions, major use permits, planned developments, rezones
requiring a development plan, specific plans and any other projects
deemed by the Director of the Community Development Department to
have a potential impact significant to any of the designated
streams or their tributaries.
Interested parties should consult the Planning Division of the
Shasta County Community Development Department as to whether a
project proposal is subject to these interim protection measures.
1 Exhibit RV
;.
f `
MAR 10 '97 04:07PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. . P.4
III. REVIEW PROCEDIIRE
The following is a brief summary of project review procedures for
the Interim Waterway Protection Program. These procedures follow
Shasta County's existing project review procedures, except that
standards of these interim waterway protection measures shall be
applied to applicable projects.
2. Early Consultation Recommended
The Department of Fish and Game has committed its staff to working
. with potential applicants or their representatives whose projects
may be affected by these interim waterway protection measures.
Applicants are encouraged to' contact the Department of Fish and
Game to discuss any issues and concerns they may have while
preparing their application for submission to the County.
2. Application Completeness
State law requires that the planning agency (Planning Division)
determine the completeness of each development project application..
Any applicant whose project is determined to be subject to these
interim measures shall submit information about the project as
required in Section IV, below. Any application not containing the
necessary information will be deemed incomplete for processing by
the Planning Division until such time adequate information has been
submitted.
3. CEOA Review
All applications will be reviewed for compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) after they have been
deemed complete for processing.
4. Proiect Conditions
The Planning Division and the Department of Fish and Game will
utilize these interim waterway protection measures as standards for
proposing conditions for each development project subject to this
program.
. 2
MAR 10 '97 04:07PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.S
i
IV, DSSI3N_ ArMCATIQN SUBMITTAL-REQUIREMENTS
The following are design and submittal requirements for applicants
whose projects are subject to these interim waterway protection
measures, An application not containing the elements in this
section will not be deemed complete for processing or any further
review until the necessary information has been submitted.
1. The project map shall show the centerline of all streams,
springs, watercourses and seasonal ephemeral drainages. The
banks of the streams or watercourses shall be delineated as
shall the outside edges of associated riparian habitat. The
direction of water flow shall also be delineated.
2. A riparian-habitat buffer shall be delineated on the project
map sufficient to protect the vegetation from encroachment..
All lots and roads, excluding stream crossings, shall be
located outside of the buffer area. The minimum acceptable
buffer is 50 horizontal feet from the edge of the riparian
vegetation, but upon recommendation 'of CDFG and/or other
agencies, the buffer may be widened to a width not exceeding
300 feet.
3. In instances where modification of a waterway or floodplain
is needed to contain a 100-year storm event, improvements
shall accommodate the potential impacts of increased water
flows due to future development upstream from the project
site. Flans to alter a waterway shall not require the
elimination of existing vegetation by dredging or other means
but may require the use of levees or other mechanisms such as
lot-line adjustments to protect the riparian habitat and
passage of floodwaters.
4. Depending on the slope and erosion characteristics of lands
adjacent to streams, a nondevelopable "filter strip" may be
required. The following information shall be provided in
those cases where slopes exceed five percent within 200 feet
of the bank of any stream or drainage:
a. A reproducible overlay map prepared at the same scale as
the project map which identifies the slope
characteristics of the project within 200 feet of the
banks of the streams or drainage. The percent slope
shall be clearly identified by the following intervals:
0 - 5%
6 - 10%
11 - 15%
16 - 20%
20% +
3
..`
I
MAR 10 '97 04:08PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.6
b. A reproducible overlay map which .identifies all portions
of the entire property with slopes exceeding 20 percent.
This may be the same map as required in (1) above.
C. The publication "Soil Survey of Shasta County Area,
California,, (USDA) shall be utilized to prepare an
exhibit from which the erosion hazard of the project site
can be determined. The exhibit need not be of the same
scale as the project map. A table shall also be provided
which identifies the soil types found on the site as well
as their erosion characteristics.
5. The project application shall provide preliminary grading
information indicating existing and proposed contours. The
contour elevations must be clearly indicated. All fill areas
over one foot in depth shall be identified by shading. When
a grading plan is required, it shall also identify proposed
erosion-control measures.
6. The applicant shall show how the project will be phased such
that earth disturbance is limited only to those portions of
the project where building ' is likely to occur the same year
as the grading is accomplished. Review of the project will
consider whether the proposed phasing or lack there of is
consistent with this intent. Phasing other than that proposed
by the project proponent may be required by the County to meet
the intent of this section.
7. The applicant shall delineate a readily identifiable reference
point on the project map as well as on-the-ground at the
project site to provide an adequate orientation for field
inspections.
V. POLIOY STANDARDS OR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONT OL
Each application covered by these interim waterway protection
measures shall show compliance with the following performance
standards, as they apply to the proposed project.
1. Vegetation removal for any construction or access purpose
shall be prohibited between October 15 and May 15 of each year
unless the applicant has prepared a winter period erosion
control plan and had it approved by the County, CDFG and the
Central valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and all
perimeter erosion control measures are in place.
2. Cut and fill slopes shall ' be constructed two to one or
flatter. All fills shall incorporate measures to prevent
gully erosion. Run-off from adjacent areas shall be directed
away from fill slopes. Completed fill slopes and building
pads shall be mulched and equipped with erosion control
devices as necessary to prevent rill and gully erosion.
4
.. , . -
r
• i
MAR 10 '97 04:08PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.7
Partially completed fills shall be left in a condition that
directs run-off away from the fill slope.
3. Sedimentation basins or traps shall be constructed where
possible to catch turbid or sediment-laden run-off from
disturbed areas. Basins shall be designed to. catch a particle
size .03 mm or larger. The outflow from the sediment basins
to the watercourse shall be resistant to erosion (i.e. ,
conduits, fabric or rock--lined channels) . Sediment -basins
used to treat more than five acres shall be fully engineered
and approved by the County prior to construction.
4. Access roads without gravel or asphalt surfaces shall have
water bars and/or rolling dips spaced and installed in
accordance with the attached chart. The discharge from water
bars shall be to nonerodable vegetated or rocked areas.
5. Drainage control devices, such as plastic pipe and lined
ditches shall be of adequate size to convey collected run-off.
All surface run-off shall be conveyed over nonerosive
material.
6. Erosion control measures shall be applied and maintained
either singularly or in combination on any graded slopes that
drain to- or are adjacent to any watercourse. Such erosion
control measures or devices shall include, but not be limited
to straw mulch, silt fences, - ditch lining, berms at the top
and/or toe of slopes, check dams, sediment basins and traps.
7. All erosion control facilities shall be 50 percent complete
by September 1, 80 percent complete by October 1, and 100
percent complete and fully operational by October 15 of any
year. In addition, all facilities shall be maintained fully
operational until May 15 of the following year. The erosion
control devices shall be inspected during and between rainfall
events and repaired- as necessary. identified sites
experiencing erosion shall be scheduled for corrective action
no later than the next day.
8. Between the period May 15 to October 15 of each year, erosion
control measures shall be installed at the construction site
at the end of the day or prior to weekend or holiday shutdown
periods if the U.S. Weather Service forecasts a 303 chance or
greater of precipitation. This shall require readily
implementable perimeter erosion control measures during all
intermediate grading phases because they will be needed under
the above short notice of shutdown conditions.
5
P
t
Y
• �.
• � _ �
ULC
•s2ut:ie.i pxzzeu uoXsoxa put sausTpes8
adols snoZxen zo; $u-peels x-eq xaien'=myexs+ri 'ST—IIIA aznSTZ
M IN31-OVUD UOIS
09 OS 00 OE OZ 01
0
01
1 I 02 r
0£
' �• ' •{ �4btlg) 11101 �
(aloraatu P ) :Vin 103W 05
08VZVN NOIS083 09
�; :-:5' �;! •� � of ' •. � -
08
_ �i;!>'•�� ..�:"r.i�.r c..-n:'-:: — - _ cti: :f{..:,, yam•" � '�;,y^3.>
—`i :�:i3:: a%'C. _ •^':r -v i i�:'� �i:'.i••• ..:.t��-w:• =1m.'F ''' 'p3{i�'•" 5!?4y;
.c ii •..i.,'ic�G':� ���: i. ;a�;�.;:�E`tS7.:1;;�:�'.'.. _ .yam ^rt� -moi•"'moi•.
Q�r}}..•� .J.,s;. - .!•v :i ..�•�ypr-.x`:%'rK.•�:-.'y:'Z� +�'F�•'�!=�( :r,l..
z?T'P�. '.c. ,- S•• - - - -•[.•,iy J•'•4i�•"... r�(.•�rJ�,.q ((Y, M�yC1 f� .��i�`i:.t;•�.• AA.
.. .-�•:. •��: .. • � art:•-/••r,l:`i_'�r '�Vyq%' �• �'.�T-...13'� �. ::,•'�'
• .. 'LIQ S '0� tf1Sd�?� �_d��: •. •=`�- ::�• •,E:.��"'•����
170
MAR 10 197 04:09PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.9
BOUNTY -OF SHAS A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
1855 PLACER ST.,REDDING,CA 96001. JOE HUNTER,DIRECTOR PHONE 225-5532
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 5 , 1990
TO: Planning Commission
. FROM: Mark Radabaugh, Senior Planner
sURJECT Waterway Corridor Protection Program / Draft Interim
Protection Measures
I - 5ummarY
An interagency effort to identify and 'protect critical waterway
resources in Shasta County has be the focus of the waterway
Corridor Protection Program since April , 1990 . Formal proposals
resulting from this Program are still eight to twelve months away,
however , interim waterway protection measures are being recommended
to help reduce adverse environmental impacts to area waterways
until a more. formal protection plan is in place. Attachment 1
contains the text of the interim waterway protection proposal .
II Background
At its November 13 , 1990 meeting, the Board of Superviors directed
staff to work with the Department.of Fish and Game ( DFG) to develop
interim protection measures to be applied to development projects
that potentially impact waterways in the South Central Region and
vicinity . This direction was the result of a DFG request during
an update on the status of the interagency waterway Corridor
Protection Program, which the DFG is• leading. In its November 5th
letter to the Board, DFG described the status of the Program and
the need for interim protections until more detail mapping and
analysis of sensitive waterway corridors is completed by DFG in
eight to twelve months (see Attachment 3) .
Since then, staffs of the DFG, County, City of Redding, the
Regional water Quality Control • Board and the Soil Conservation
Service have worked together to prepare draft interim waterway
protection measures. These proposed measures are described in the
attached letter from the DFG to the Community Development Director
dated December 3 , 1990 (see Attachment 2 ) .
The DFG also requested the Redding City Council to consider
adopting similar interim protection measures at the Council ' s
November 6th meeting. Draft interim measures were recommended by
the Redding Planning Commission at their November 27th meeting and
subsequently adopted by the City Council on December 4th ,
MAR 10 197 04:10PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. _ P.10
i
Imo. Discussion of Proposed Interim Protection Measures
Attachment 1 contains the' proposed Interim Waterway Protection
Program for Shasta County. .. The proposal 's basic components have
been recommended in the December 3rd letter (Attachment 2) from the
DFG. A key consideration in developing the Attachment 1 proposal
is that it be easily understood while informing the public and
potential development project applicants of the requirements of the
program. It is the intent of the Planning Division to make
Attachment 1 generally available to the public and applicants who
are considering submitting projects subject to the Program.
The interim program provides sections on its purpose, applicability
and how its review procedures are linked to the County's existing
project review system. Section Iv provides direction. to the
applicant regarding completing an application for a project subject
to the Program. This information will be necessary for determining
what potential impact may be caused by the proposed project and to
what extent that performance standards found in Section V must be
incorporated into the project.
In the interest of clarification, the proposed interim program is
exempt from CECA as a Blass 7 categorical exemption which involve
actions of regulatory agencies for the protection of natural
resources.
IV. Recomm ndg atio�
It is recommended that the Planning Commission, by consensus,
recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt by resolution on
December 18th, the proposed Interim Waterway Protection Program.
:waterway.pcl
= MAR 10 '97 04:10PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.11
REVIEW DRAFT
THE UPPER SACRAMENTO RIVER STREAM CORRIDOR
PROTECTION PROGRAM
Criteria for Development of Stream Protection Zones
Prepared by:
The Upper Sacramento River
Stream Corridor Protection Committee
In Cooperation with:
California Department of Fish and Game
City of Redding Planning Department
Shasta County Community Development
U. S. D. A.' Soil Conservation Service
Department of Water Resources
Regional Water Quality Control Board
City of Anderson
MAR 10 '97 04:10PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.12
COU NTY SHASTA COUNTY
OF
SHASTA P/' S 1991
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Planning Dept.
DATE May 8* 19 91
TO Joe Hunter, Community Development Department
FROM R. W. CURRY BY
SUBJECT Comments on the Inter m Waterway. Protect'fon Program
We have not reviewed the first three -pages of your draft because
they appear to be apple pie and motherhood. But beginning with
page. 4, we have .some • real concerns. because . it - appears , that the
intent of these guidelines is to- prevent development within or near
streams. There seems to. -be. no way that you can totally avoid
development near small - streams., and there are going to be .-times
when developing an urban area that we will have to channelize some
streams or that we will have to build roads or facilities near some
of- the streams. Provisions need - to be made so • that this can
happen. We agree in concept that it will be much -better if.-we can
leave the streams natural and keep development -out of them. - . We
should try to do that, but you also need to recognize that some
facilities will have to be built in - these areas. When they are
built in these areas CEOA will require as much mitigation as
possible.
The requirements for. information in order to obtain a completeness
ruling are exceeding the intent of the tentative map/final map
process or the preliminary application process in the case- of use
permits for development. The contour information .is very. detailed.
Now that we have classified every little waterway. as a stream. t-he
detail contour information will essentially be required on almost
all tentative maps. In fact, I suspect that if you .could draw maps
that show all the streams in the county and lay out the- 300-foot
buffer zones and the 200-foot filter strips there may not be any
room left in the county for development. The -requirement that show
all fills of one foot in depth with an application -is almost
impossible, and no one will know that at the application stage.
The requirement to show •how the project will be staged in great
detail should be something that would come with the grading plans
rather than at the application stage. - It may be necessary to have
just a general timing schedule on large projects.
The combined requirements of - the - application process for t-he
grading ordinance, hillside development and waterway protection
will require final design at the tentative map or application
i
0 P W :
� ,i
��
t
. r
' ,
Y.
• � - _ t
r.
i ,
it ..
�. MAR 10 '97 04:11PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.13
stage. This much detail at the tentative map stage is not
envisioned by the Subdivision Map Act and that is a complete and
radical departure from the project approval process applied in the
past. Normally projects a•re submitted with sufficient information .
to make reasonable judgments and conditions are placed. on the
projects which require them to conform with the various ordinances
that• control. development. In this case a1•l of that information is ,
being required at the application stage instead of being placed in
the conditions.
We are concerned with who is going to maintain the waterways,. the
buffer• zones and the filter strips if they• are not allowed to be
contained within• any lots.• • •These - areas typically become dumping
grounds, fire hazards- and mosggito breeding grounds if they are not '
maintained by someone. '
Generally speaking, we• are creating a whole • new process • in °•#
processing development plan's. I dont think there. i•s •that • much
wrong with the process we -now have if everyone participates,-in it•,
including Pi•sh and• Game and• •Water Quality. -• I think you need -to
meet -with the development people before we• adopt •this plan -or take
it to anybody. I I believe we are building a monster that the A
developers cannot live with, and our county staffs cannot
administer.
RWC/bc :I
.t
' I
f
l
r•
i
- 1
is
1
• a�
• ,;
.�
�.
r,
MAR 10 '97 04:11PM SHASTA CO. BLDG.DIV. P.14
C;TY OF REDDING, CALIFORNIA -~
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT RESOLUTION POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
NUMBER NUMBER DATE y
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
INTERIM STREAM PROTECTION POLICIES. 1704 12-4-90 1 of 3
BACKGROUND
s
Based largely on citizens' concerns and input from the California Department of Fish arm! Game
(CDFG), the City Council has determined that the protection of the Sacramento River and its Nbutary
streams from degradation are a high priority. This is evidenced by Council action to form ft Churn
Creek Preservation Task Force and the soon-to-be-convened River and Waterways Com.nission.
Further, the policies and goals of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Gerlsiall Plan
include such Items as 1)maintenance of fish and riparian habitat;2)limitations on grading;3)p Meting
water quality; and 4) providing access to the Sacramento River and its tributary streams. TFACcuncil
has also endorsed the efforts of CDFGs Stream Corridor Protection Program. The ultimate gild,that
program would be the establishment of specific policies or an ordinance dealing comprehentW4-with
stream protection.
The issue to be addressed is: Should the City adopt interim waterway-related requiremerft tied to
subdivision review and approval until such time as CDFGs Stream Corridor Protection Plfem is
complete and it recommendations implemented?
PURPOSE
it is the purpose of this policy to establish guidelines for the submittal of tentative subdia®mrl map
applications which will focus on issues of maintenance of water quality and riparian habitat in md-along
I
streams within the City.
POLICY
.I
The following shall be the policy of the City of Redding with regard to tentative subdivision nupdesign '
and application requirements and shall establish'review criteria related to stream and riparimmhabitat
protection:
The information listed below shall be provided with all tentative subdivision map appliegi:ns
and is in addition to the submittal requirements of Section 17.20.020 of the City's Subdiftian-
Ordinance. A tentative-map application which does not contain those elements staitl be
deemed incomplete.
It is advisable that, in addition to undertaking preapplication discussions with the staffs of dire•City's
Planning and Public Works Departments, the California Department of Fish and Game (.CWG) be
consulted regarding issues relating to the existence of rare or endangered species of plants aranimals
' and attaining the goals referenced above: The City will consider the recommendations of thgagency
when reviewing all subdivision applications. Other agencies involved may include the imbsquito
Abatement District, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
CR 0049
�• �.
,. ,.
a,
,.
� ..
,n
�, ��
.. )-.. �
i ..t i �
1
. Yr � • � ..
E . . . i
n � '
-may ...' .. ,_... ._.,,,;...t. .:.::..:i.':."a:."w,`.T� — .C[L4C�•L�..�v...+. _. - — —
OUNTIf flF I NI CRUZ
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
701 OCEAN STREET, ROOM 420
SANTA.CRUZ, CA 95U60
.-GUIDELINES FOR RUNOFF CONTROL - SMALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION
'Rooftops., paving, and other impervious areas of 'developed land
generate much higher stormwater' runoff rates than most undeveloped
land. -This increased runoff can lead to accelerated erosion where
on or offsite drainage facilities are inadequate. The Erosion
Control Ordinance requires that runoff be properly controlled
to prevent erosion. The purpose of this pamphlet is to outline
various runoff control methods available, to aid in the decision
. of which methods to choose, and to act 'as a guide in how to
utilize them. The information presented here is primarily. intended
to aid in controlling the additional runoff produced by devel-
opments. These methods are intended to be used in conjunction
with other typical erosion control measures such as gully control,
mulching, seeding, and general ongoing landscape maintenance.
' In smaller development projects, such as single family dwellings,
there are two preferred -methods of runoff .control. The first
has two steps: A) Onsite retention; ' and 'B) Controlled release
of runoff from the site. The second method which should be used
only when onsite retention is not feasible, is to only provide
Step (B) ,' controlled -release of runoff.
Following is a detailed discussion of each of these steps. The
information presented here should be an effective guide to
providing runoff control on most small developments. However,
on certain sites with highly erodible soils or other extreme
'features;- additional measures may be .required .to control runoff.
In 'such situations, County staff should be consulted.
A. ONSITE RETENTION
Onsite retention is a method of reducing surface drainage from
a development by storing a portion of the stormwater onsite and
i
allowing it :to percolate into. the ground. It also aids in
rechargingb groundwater aquifers . Onsite retention is .noz _feasible
in certain areas where groundwater is high or the: soi.1 contains
much clay, since both of these conditions limit percolation.
It should not be used where soil permeabilities are less than
2, inches/hour. In addition, retention basins should not be
located near unstable slopes where they could saturate soil
causing landslides and other damage. Where onsite retention
is not feasible, sheet flow (dispersal) is generally recommended
for additional runoff as discussed in Section B.
Retention is required by the Erosion Control Ordinance where
it is feasible. Retention can be achieved by constructing a
retention basin such as a rock-filled trench (french drain) or
pit (seepage pit) (see attached -typical plan) .- For .an average
single. family lot, 250 cubic feet of basin volume is required;
thus, an .8' wide x 8' long x 41 deep seepage pit , or a 21. wide
x 16 ' long •x 8' deep french drain would be adequate. Several
smaller pits, such as one for each downspout , can also be
constructed as long as the total volume is still 250 cubic feet.
Drywells , rock-filled bore holes (usually three to four feet wide
and 20 to 40 feet deep) are also sometimes used for retention
and percolation where space is limitedor where a highly permeable
soil . is located beneath a surface layer of impermeable soil such
as clay. The rock which is used to till the retention areas
should be .clean (free of fines) and of uniform .size ( and 3,4"
washed drainrock are typical, but pea gravel and other similar
materials can also be used) . On sites where soil around the
retention area is. unstable and could potentially migrate into
the rock, a 6 mesh (6 x 12) or .8 mesh (8 x 16) sand filling is
recommended in place of the rock. . The basin can also be lined
with soil stabilization fabric instead of using sand. _. Retention
basins should generally be located a minimum of ten feet from
foundations and septic leach fields , but can sometimes be closer
if they are properly designed.
(2)
Because retention basins rely on the "void volume"` between
the rocks or sand particles' to store the stormwater` (250 cubic
feet *of rock or sand provides approximately 100 cubic feet of
void volume) silt must not be allowed to enter the basin.
Construction and landscaping in the vicinity of the basin, in
addition to construction of the basin itself, must proceed
carefully to avoid this problem. If possible, retention basins
should be installed after grading is complete and landscaping
is established. Grease also reduces void volume slightly but
is detrimental primarily because it reduces percolation rates
by clogging soil pores around the basin; fine silt will also
have this effect .
If silt and grease are present or potentially present in storm-
water, they should be removed before the water enters retention
basins to avoid reducing the storage volumes and percolation
rates. An effective way -of avoiding this problem is to collect
stormwater directly from roof downspouts and drain inlets in
silt and grease free paved areas and channeling it by lined
swales or pipe to the basin (4" PVC is generally sufficient) . '
If this is not possible, stormwater can be filtered through a
silt -and grease trap before it enters - the basin (see- the attached
standard detail) . It should be noted that silt and grease traps
must be cleaned periodically to prevent clogging. Another
alternative is to utilize a landscape filter, a lawn, or some
other stable landscape area, to trap silt and- grease. Using
this method, stormwater is allowed to sheet flow across the
landscape filter before entering the basin. It is important
that a landscape filter be fully established- (and that it receive
ongoing maintenance so that overland flow will not pick up silt)
before any storm or irrigation water is allowed to enter the
basin.
Stormwater can be introduced into the retention basins either
by allowing the water to run across the top of the rock and
soaking in, or by placing perforated pipe into 'the rock. Usually
. o.
it is best to utilize a combination of both methods (see the
attached standard plan) . * For a typical single family lot it
ig—usually sufficient for all roof drainage -to be.. .chanueled
into the retention basin, while the remaining portion of the
site can be "free draining". However, if there is more than
500 square feet of paving (driveways and patios) in addition
to the"house, then it is advisable to channel the runoff from
this area into a second retention basin.
Finally, because retention basins usually will not hold all the
stormwater which is directed to them, they must be constructed
to allow overflow. French drains placed along contours (with
a level surface) can sometimes be situated to allow overflow
to sheet flow out of the trench. Other times , and for other
types of retention basins , swales or other facilities must be
provided to carry away overflow water. If retention basins are
covered by soil stabilization fabric and topsoil, a bubbler
must be provided for overflow. A bubbler is an overflow device .
which allows water -to "bubble" out .of the retention basin.
Concentrated flows should be dispersed in accordance with Step B.
B. CONTROLLED RUNOFF RELEASE
Concentrated runoff is generally the most damaging and hardest
to control. The higher velocities. askociated with concentrated
runoff greatly increase its ability to carry sediment and cause
major erosion. The best way, therefore, to control drainage
on small developments is to avoid collecting runoff. Ditches
and swales should only be installed when absolutely necessary.
Collection of runoff can sometimes be prevented or minimized
by providing separate retention basins or discharge points for
each gutter downspout . The ' amount of overflow which occurs from
one of these smaller basins can usually be discharged to a well
vegetated area without problem. Driveways and patios can often
be cross sloped to release runoff as sheet flow if adjacent
slopes are stable and well vegetated.
(4)
In-.some-cases, concentration, of runoff is unavoidable. I•Concen-
trat.ed runoff leaving retention areas, roof gutter downspouts ,
and other onsite facilities, should be released from the site
in a controlled manner. Also, the runoff should generally be
released from the site in the same location after development
as it was before development. If adequate drainage facilities
(manmade or natural) exist adjacent to the site, concentrated
stormwater should be directed into thein using grassed or paved
swales, pipes, flumes, or other approved channels. If necessary,
downdrains, energy dissipators , and riprap should be installed.
Where no drainage facilities are available, concentrated water
should generally be released as sheet flow. Sheet flow can be
achieved by causing concentrated stormwater to run over a weir.
A weir is a low dam (4" to 6" high and 10 ' to 40 ' long) with a
constant surface elevation. It can be a concrete curb, a treated
redwood 2 x 6, or some similar material which will provide a
uniform surface and long service life. Earthen-weirs are discour-
aged except in areas with gentle slopes because they are difficult
to construct at constant elevation and they are too easily damaged.
If earthen weirs are used they must be planted with a dense grass
to stabilize them.
CONCLUSION
Because of the highly erodible nature of much of the soil in
Santa Cruz County, and the high stormwater runoff rates generated
by today's .increasingly dense development, stormwater runoff
control is more important now than ever. By controlling runoff
and erosion at its source on individual parcels , we can provide
the major step necessary to control the large erosion and silt-
ation problems which plague this county today.
9
• i.
n (5)
J 1
SE.W 57AsluZE0 W/TURr 6RA 5 OR EQUAL-•--- :
rAgEAOED CLEANOUT PLUG W/ `
� I/Z"BLEcDER HOLE - .
INFLOW
MAX
"T" FITTINC - RL%i0VABLE TO
;;LL•OW LEANING OF OUTFLOW PIPE
CIUTr L0W
At 1.5 x ttt
RFE DIAN
�, 4 =
I= NECESSARY COVER COYER, --- IB MIN --- I�2" GRA(NACCK ON
OUTSICE OF '100LE W/ 111V'6ALY) 4 4 FLUR 5!Cd.S
WIRE MET}TO KE? OU i
ROCK. nr 10
nr —
t�r a 9 4"TYPICAL a 4 ��f
... MOTES
I. WHEN' CF3;INX^: ARF"..=5 ExCEDE 0.5 ACRES ANO/dA LFRGc PiM0UNT5 OF SILT AAE
AN T ICIP.q I ED) LARGEA 'ZaOX OIMEIN5ICN5 MAY BE RECIUIRED.
2. SILT # r-7-se. TrcAPS MUST BE CLE-NED OUT PE.AICOICALLY TO MAINTA(N -rr.0 -NESS
ANO TO PREVENT CLOGCsING OF Tri, QUTrUW PIP_. RENOVED SILT t GREASE MUST EE
DISPOSED OF IN A MP?INcR WHICH WILL PREVENT THc.M FRO`A REENTERING STCRtit WA?ER.
3. r• Fi LF;nC:E DE'lELOFMVT5 OR INAERE 11171 CREASE RAE CONCENT-KF'T clZ 'COU3LE
CNPMS:Fi TRAr-S 5HCULD S1. U-50.
4. TIRE '$OX SHRLL SE A U9,I571 V U ZI Y//CRnTc OR AN AFPMVM E7UF.L MQQlFIED AS S�*WN.
SILT 4 GREASE TRAP
ST?NG�hQ CET?1L
Ia,1-0••
. if ..
t
LAWN ARe.R
ry
C" EERM c'E IVC E. h0U5
'f
107's.
rrY�Sc.K�E�z ,
PLAIN VIEW
RAIN cru-TER i
DOYINSPICUf I
:R (OVEAFLOVY
4"�=veur RISER SUSSL= _
rn,
W/iilRErCM ;LuCs s 1 6„1V91Py.
ram
or'PYC PIF=
PVC Pl%c fG'mlN.
Id
vi
arr�lllS!/JAI/Jy!/13 rl^rI/�ff�'e' Ut=/r/ lZr><l2~ Ar-woos SDA Wf SC,1
214~DRAIN KICK !7
or, Ill aJf'i�,-au�L�I OR EaUI'1.
CRAM) PROFILE
�rr�ar 4 r d
NOTES �rt_rr� :I •7 Fvc
rrr=rrr IBJ ° a !o O'U NYOM
I. ales t nUCT A L'oll 17iL-rI o'ZRM MOVE THS I;ET ITIM SP!l,'Y r�r ��'IA aLL16)
TO PREVENT SCRM AND IRQI64AMO 1 WATER F-RCM pr o
I RRYING 5_=;.IMEN7 MM THE LANDSCAPE AREA INTO
THE EASIM. rr.E BZ- tiM-5r ALL EE 1,1r1`d=A7L�•STAG tJ:rn err 51
SY-MljL�INC- P40 F%ANTINC 'NIT'-; Fr -1
Z. -ME SLOFF B.--UW 711E RT'i i:"MON F=1l5IN IS A S7AELE fit,
UNQISTURSEM,�:'criV1LY ,VE!r-L ATEM ARICn. 7;,SREFORS'
!!r a
MIN 0A/ERFL^W 15 CONTROLLED SY PROVIDING 51?cErp.AW il��//I�nr;ir!-►I
L�IRFLTLY FROM 7HE TRFRCY.(MAMY PL�,l�1S WILL REQUIRE
DETAILING O nOY�INORl7INS,WfcRS RIC ENEi�iY M 5�IPi`►70RS SEEY1GN P���
5E_=USc
ME= KkE=T FLOW U/ILL NOT ISTYPICAL STEN T ION 2PSIN
SCALE: PS 5HOWN
415 15 A SAMPLE CETn1L ONLY. 1
PLCu-lls FQR Si-EUF;G'?^RCE:.S Rc1U;R;= O>_TPIL5 CF ALL A57 T10N
__SrrlS [IMNSFOU 15,PIPES)_TC. wmy ccr'"lS TVILL'BEMIRE: ^_ETAIL!NG ANO USE Cr"' =ODITION!;L
P.94n 6 1mi.;sur 5_5LC:•1r 5:"Q0�'1�1��:4RINSKFiaR,9E7,Z N710r 01ER7LOW A5 015CIM;S3 1H THE.'NR1TfZM
ti
..
Date 04/23/97 Development Services Department
Time 11:52 am Applicant Billing Worksheet - Page 3
ZCA 97-03 * Butte Co. Planning Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
In reference to : ZCA, AP#Various
Rounding : None
Full Precision No
Last bill / / Last aging
Last charge : 04/17/97
Last payment : 04/23/97 Amount $1,332. 15
Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL
11/18/96 Paula A. / C 0.50 17.00
#10271 Clerical 34.00
11/18/96 Lynn R. / C 2.00 90.00
#10287 Clerical 45.00
11/18/96 Craig S. / P 4.00 236.00
#10322 Processing 59.00
12/02/96 Lynn R. / C 2.00 90.00
#10376 Clerical 45.00
12/03/96 Craig S. / P 1.00 59.00
#10425 Processing 59.00
12/03/96 Diana S. / C 1.30 44.20
#10460 Clerical 34.00
12/16/96 Diana S. / C 0. 10 3.40
#10510 Clerical 34.00
12/30/96 Diana- S. / C 3. 75 127.50
#10573 Clerical 34.00
12/30/96 Lynn R. / C 0.50 22.50
#10609 Clerical 45.00
01/27/97 Diana S. / C 3.00 102.00
#10827 Clerical 34.00
03/10/97 Diana S. / C 1.60 54.40
#11163 Clerical 34.00
03/10/97 Craig S. / P 0.50 29.50
#11195 Processing 59.00
r-
Date 04/23/97 levelopment Services Departfnt
Time 11:52 am Applicant Billing Worksheet Page 4
ZCA 97-03 * :Butte Co. Planning Commission (continued)
Date/Slip# Description HOURS/RATE AMOUNT TOTAL
03/24/97 Craig S. / P 0.50 29.50
#11219 Processing 59.00
03/24/97 Diana S. / C 1.20 40.80
#11275 Clerical 34.00
04/07/97 Diana S. / C 2.50 85.00
#11347 Clerical 34.00
i
TOTAL BILLABLE TIME CHARGES 24. 45 $1, 030.80
Date/Slip# Description OTY/PRICE
12/02/96 Teri B. / $C 1 153.28
#10981 Publish Legal Notice in Chico 153.28
Enterprise Record
12/03/96 Teri B. / $P 1 100.87
#10987 Publish Legal Notice in Paradise 100.87
Post
12/04/96 Teri B. / $G 1 47.20
#10984 Publish Legal Notice in Gridley 47.20
Herald
TOTAL BILLABLE COSTS $301.35
TOTAL NEW CHARGES $1,332. 15
PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS
04/23/97 Fees Waived ( 1,332. 15)
TOTAL PAYMENTS/REFUNDS/CREDITS ($1,332. 15)
NEW BALANCE
TOTAL NEW BALANCE $0.00
Planning Department
MEMORANDUM MAR 131997
Omville,Cali-iomia
DATE: March 11, 1997
TO: Butte County Office of Planning and Zoning.
FROM: A.S. Environmental Affairs Council
RE: Stream Corridor Zone Ordinance
CC: Butte Environmental Council
Dear Local Office,
As suggested in the counties General Plan we support the birth and
implementation of amendments that create measurable protection for
wildlife habitat. Resource conservation around water sources such as
streams is an effective practice that is adopted by many communities in the
state and country. Stream corridors are very important for diverse wildlife
habitats as well as numerous plant species. Additionally, another benefit.
would be public safety. Homes and other structures that occupy land
extremely close to flowing water bodies are often threatened by natural
occurring activities such as floods. Please,be assured that adopting a stream
corridor zoning ordinance would be a great benefit for nature and the
public. We ask that you congider our recommendations to the fullest extent.
Sincerely,
s
. e
f - NN
- A 'k
t_i !- il;;` -,.s. 3'- x, it a'4r .�-y� ;;zr:,`- y... �j-�....� r-aa S r.•: zx+ . �- r a-
..t � �• rt�'lf's. l.�S•?t .!...>Y Y..r�-{u t.:�. ., e.? �,. �.iit•!i'�s....C•.:':r�T a-tniW�'t: t i,F9N•r '�lare`r �r.`I."t :�� .
. .�>1.�.?�i?pis> ,'A:':e.iIs•'a «':yr':.•'�c�,3i;:, i•�.,.iR.tp,t �; c• �r:se y�.,-•;�•�.. � � � _
I..:f �.:. ,��. f>_a i. �,=p .�.�.Y•l. y.-s E,:iy. r�L< �i3`nom _
i.+'...c8�i..i.l.i.44-� rialr •�r✓ ? 13th S "a {{Y�� .��.�i•' 3. f"�.'.i': CRI winer! ,,i7 h{•°k,� ::.¢,t!:. + �.y•.,�..;, T
'i, �i � §i'.•��s F' }�,� ++A >, it:.,S« yR, �;.' <r:. ,�� ,... :. .�:.�... -! .ty. .M.-. ,� -irp ��,
F: i'St : s,`r`+' E.e tfy t�1 %L f•t,.�i•� b.y3r?S!�1? i.#' :tyt " o ZPACUNEZ p ._rS ..:cuC. w 17uq .
1 2
OR ^.r t - :} Jia <; 't �:•'•r, .+ f � f1'r,. s
_. ._:{a..e v� .);y }•E�,Di;. F'�:_ ..., �:�� t..r�'* S :�it l`i� �l�iE"ij���?yam. t� „{
r i �'J..: J
��•e,ez- `;ist-; - T5 �• }'-x••`yU• t, ; "'2' i.`a.,.t!" ir 's•�`['N'� s✓?. a7.2 _.:'. z'+�. ;3 9Y.
' �.,.,f""�`az'.� i- C �'? .f.• X; , jj Qi')"t P t!'t i:. ..,.•.!1..�. t":' R.. '� .>'x: s
- .:�- ad �r.s et ,�R,i '�-.��_ ��` ���. 'e: n,.Fi ;.;.::��. .:r, r'•.r:i::.,at.��� fy.E _ ..b:i e.. .r,�..:z%�?'l;.e °' � f ,.t!.r
- .i:2i :�:���'' r°tf.?1{?+xi ,i:•�'•,�`�S.`::r.a+�`r=,-.::�>� .r'�^t'' "rS.4.d� .;r... i).cF' - E:;`St.t.�,t�r q'' "-i
�� t:. �{•��syr� -Ck }�:'� l?� .:f vet fy. •� �u-�, 5j•.- >,"i C'.: r`T a.�.-FL h7 .j"' .'� -.+ _
.t :,?.: 3 -a 1�_;:�' . �� .:i).F cR.- .. •.x� �.x .'�r�7t•,, s h�..:J_ <L,t i1
MOM-M tpc �.,v q
.fir• c F y.t
' ,��'c_t ^����'�.x`,. .q.;�::?���.� `-,:?�e'_. +fi'� •fit'<±,:*y•..��
!�' '•`��.���::y3�+'�',�_3i_1.��s;�,'',^- zip:: `�'z.'�:�r'si?s�.�• � '
F�....;'.."l.��T{`�..y rA• •. �ht-..2ju•�Y'+�.,.;.��il L..':3 F2'-i•� iSy.tit �� �' M\•s�;2••'1j � •
�+•r y
� t. nF' •l � `'rte' •
G ;•il} ':`'.�1 ...l '`s 5,•. : >�1.�� 'ii-:R ,+_ti'.:=r�S : it�, r�`•'f.5,"j• ,
To: Honorable chair and Planning commission
From: Kate Robinson & Bruce Hicks, Butte Creek Property Owners
Date March 19, 1997
Having read your proposal for adopting a Stream Corridor combining
zone, we would like to express our enthusiasm for the idea. We
commend you on the thoughtful way in which the proposal has been
written and feel that it will only enhance the Butte County General
Plan. It is our hope that this proposed amendment to chapter 24 of
the Butte county code be adopted as written.
We would like to add however, that we agree with some of the things—
some
hings some of our neighbors have been saying on the subject of trespassing
i
and drunk drivers in the canyon. It would be nice if a grant could be
written for a resident deputy to cover the Butte Creek Canyon area
during the busy summer months. We know of other local
communities who have such a deputy and believe that the impact is a
positive, proactive approach which is very beneficial.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
Kate Robinson
Bruce Hicks
12428 Centerville Rd.
Chico, CA 95928-8320
345-6645 '
ea-
Planning Division
MAR 2 6 1997
Oroville, CauYornia
.� ♦ �� 1
6 � _ L.
v. ` �
0
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner
DATE: November 21, 1996
REQUEST: Amendment to chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a
Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone. The zone will specify
development standards to be applied along identified creeks or
streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning.
RELATED
ITEMS: Butte Creek Rezone.
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of December 12, 1996
SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend areas in the
County to which it should be applied.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In response to concerns raised by both the public and the
Planning Commission regarding development in Butte Creek Canyon, staff has developed
a Stream Corridor overlay zone that could be applied to portions of Butte Creek as well as
other sensitive watercourses within the County. The overlay zone will work in conjunction
with existing zoning designations and will not affect the uses allowed in any zone. When
applied, the zone will impose stricter development review procedures within 300' of a river,
stream, or other watercourse. Attached is a copy of the proposed Stream Corridor (-SC)
overlay zone.
The proposed zone is consistent with the Butte County General Plan and will aid the
County in implementing several policies in the plan including the following policies from
the Land Use Element:
2.4a Maintain quantity and quality of water resources adequate for all uses in the
County.
2.4c Control development in watershed areas to minimize erosion and water pollution.
6.4c Encourage compatible land use patterns in scenic corridors and adjacent to scenic
waterways, rivers, and creeks.
1
� s a
7.3a Limit development in areas with significant drainage and flooding problems until
adequate drainage and flood control facilities are provided.
Implementation of the zone will also serve to further some of the goals and policies in the
Conservation element regarding the County's waterways. Butte Creek is classified as a
premium waterway and should receive special protection. As proposed in this report, the
width of the zone will be 300' from the top of the bank, on both sides of the stream to which
it is applied. However, the Commission may wish to define the limits of the zone
differently. Another option, especially for streams and creeks that have significant
associated flood plains, would be to apply the zone to the flood hazard boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This project is exempt from CEQA review under
section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states:
"CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."
Adoption of this zone will not result in any physical changes to the environment and when
applied will result in a higher degree of site sensitive planning.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be
advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in local
newspapers for all areas of the County. As of the date of this report we have received no
public comment.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the
Board of Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend
areas in the County to which it should be applied.
Attachments: A: Proposed Stream Corridor combining zone
2
x
� r
EXHIBIT A
Stream Corridor Combining Zone
24-227 Stream Corridor(-SC) Combining zone
A. Purpose and intent. . The purpose an intent of the Stream Corridor (-SC)
combining zone is as follows:
1. To protect the County's surface water resources..
2. To ensure compatible, site sensitive development within designated
floodplains.
3. To preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources.
4. To protect identified streams and creeks from erosion and loss of riparian
habitat.
B. Applicability. The -SC combining zone shall be used as an overlay zone in
conjunction with existing zone districts along streams and creeks that have been
identified as having sensitive habitat or requiring protection. This combining zone
shall be apply to the area within 300' of the top of bank along identified sections
rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to either:
1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife
species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource;
2. Have special scenic value; or
3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or
other environmental impacts.
The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of identified watercourses.
If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a dispute as to the location,
the determination on the location shall be made by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
C. Combining zone requirements and standards. The following requirements and
standards shall be applied to land uses within this combining zone as well as the
standards of the underlying or base zone. If conflicts arise between the combibig
zone and the base zone, the combining zone requirements shall prevail.
3
•
1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval
of a site development plan by both the Departments of Public Works and
Development Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any
building permit or septic permit that shows:
A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and
driveways;
B. Location and species type of any of trees greater the 4" in diameter
d.b.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal;
C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and
leachfields. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan may be
required by the Department of Development Services Department
prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No
structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant
species or vegetation removal is permitted within the "No Development
Zone" with the following exceptions:
A. Vegetation removal done for flood control purposes or work done for
streambed enhancement and under permit from Department of Fish
and Game;
B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No
Development Zone" may be granted through the Conditional Use
Permit procedure. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10%
increase in habitable floor area.
C. If, when applied to an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No
Development Zone" renders the property undevelopable, the parcel
may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve such a Use Permit but may condition the
permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct
specific locations for development on the site.
3. Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or
improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures,
septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the development
of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or new right so of way
created as part of a parcel map or subdivision map approval shall not be
4
subject to any review or permits not normally required for the activity.
4. The Director of Development Services may waive any of all of the
requirements of this zone if, because of topography, lack of riparian
vegetation, lack of erosion potential, or other physical characteristics of the
site, the provisions of this section are not applicable.
5
January 7 , 1997'
Butte County
Chico Planning Committee
To Whom- It May Concern
I am a landowner in Chico and I attended the meeting that
was held on December 12,. 1996 from 9°AM until 1:30 PM.. I
own two parcels (011-520-01.8--000 - }louse and 011-360-021-
000 - Lot) .
I disagree on the zoning changes that have suggested . I
did not speak at the meeting. The first speaker was. an
attorney from Chico, .then Morris: Boger and my neighbor,
Gary Cooper . Everything. that .they said was 'exac.tly how
r✓
I felt. I would like the zoning to remain as is, with
no changes.
Thank :you,
John F. Bessolo
133.86 Centerville Rd.
Chico, CA 95928
510-7994371
I
i
01/07/97 13:46 TX/RX N0.4771 P.002 ■
r�.
1�..
t
-.`
.�t
� ! �
zt �.
� � _ � _ _ __
a;12;199b 16:41 4084755161 RICK BRESSLER PAGE 02
cluJim 1114 ell
P. C.
b;
nTb�er 11, 1946
Sa
senna �, ,Calif.
TO: Chico County Government
Planning Commission
Chico,California
FROM: Rick Bressler /`3Za0 C,.,AvTerv1uE
REGARDING: Proposed Stream Corridor combining zone amendment
i
Having Tema received and read a copy of the proposed SC memorandum I:would like to
respectfully offer the following comments regar g its impact on my property and other
property owners in Butte Creek Canyon.
The analysis potion states that this amendment is in response to"concerns"
"development"in the canyon but does not say what the concerns are or what velo=jent
refs to. Is"development"the creation of new par is or does itaMly to any,improvementson existing parcels? It would seem to me that there are presently in effect tnar'y many.layers of
laws,regulations,and restrictions from several county and state agencies that e:ovcr every
conceivable aspect of development.Is this amendment another"shotgun" ch to solving a
specific
scenic park-1-like corridor the lern on a specific�i? for this
use without the n an togovem oven emit havingcreate
compensate the property owners at all. So much for the concept of"private pjWftty"!
About twice each month I walk the portion of Centerville Road that fronts my;prvperty and
pick up all the trash dvown there by the bikers,hikers,etc. Then I walk my grunt property
and again pick up trash left there by people who trespass on their way down to Buttz creek.
Finally I go along both banks of the creels and rrmove all the bottles,cans,pa��,broken
glass,discarded clothes,and other garbage left there by tubers,kayakers,and others. This
almost always results in at least two garbage bags full of trash that I haul home to dispose of.
although this always amazes me and is somewhat annoying,I conclude that it is part of the
responsibilities of owning creek front property and am glad to do my part in k�ping the creek
clean and healthy. As I have gotten to know the canyon and its residents aver the past few
years I have seen the same attitude and responsibilities exhibited in 99.9% of
owners. If you drive up the canyon or float dowry the creek you will see man beau and
lovely family homes and most of them would not comply with the new req . ments of the
proposed SC arondme nt. However for the most part these properties are so ell kept,clean,
and landscaped that they only add to the overall stere beauty and"diversity"Of Butte Creek
canyon. This memorandum seems to sugpe3t that the property owners don't#nderstand the
value,concerns,or responsibilities mgarchng the creek when in fact it is d*=:very property
owners that do the most actual "hands-on"wDr1r Co protect it,not the government or the public.
As this amendment starts through the legal process you are creating a"them `airtst us"
situation in which almost every one loses. are already ferning aroun this issue to
*fight the vwvnent"from"take our land". Sound familiar? Are wil to for all
the legal osts that result in the almost guaranteed lawsuits that will result? Are you Wi ing to
lower taxes of all the parcels that will be devalued by this amendment?(I will ji one of the first
of many to file for a tax hearing). Will you be willing to create yet another la*of county
government to implement and enforce this amendment? Have you even begai to figure out
i
12/11/96 16:42 TX/RX N0.4594 P.002 S
•.�
� q��., r�,,ry (`Ea:a�L"•��l_•'�5�.i;5:.1 i`_ 'c' {j�•vS;@;\
��
� •
YRi �V
G.��
� ��"`�r
� t
I _
k2/12,12996 16:41 4x34755261,. RICK BRESSLER PAC-,E 03
what the potential cost of all this will be and whether Butte County can really afford this
commitment of time,energy,and dollars to what appears to be a"non-problem"? Ali 4 of the
items listed under section A"Purpose and intent"are already well Mlated Oy the county
Planning Department,county Health 1,current zoning and building mgulatioos,
other countydepartments and agencies �fomia Fish and Game,Califumigt of
famstry,other Califonnia state laws and agencies,as well as Federal agencies an�tions.
Instead of this"green for battle,draw aline in the sand,shove it dawn thor throats,were
bigger then you, amtude that government often takes with its citiaats may I suggest that there
are several alternatives that ane available. A few Yea's ago the state enacted the Williamson Act
which intended to help preserve"ulture and timber sensitive areas from new develogmwL
This is a voluntary program in which the property owner agrees to limit or fdrgo any fittther
development on a parcel and in tum is granted tax reductions and other benefits. Each party
makes concessions but eacd party(including the public)comes out a winner. It is
accomplished with minimal coat and little litrgatiom and almost everyone cones out feeling they
have been treated fairly. Have you explored some form of co-operative appybach as an
alternative to the"shot-gun"tactics of the Stream Corridor amendment? Another method for
you to have absolute control of these parcels is for you to simpl buy them. kf you want total
control over a 600'wide strip of my land(both sides of the )then step Tight up and pay
me for it! Thune are several parcels far sale along Butte Creek tit the present time. Buy them
and be done with it. 'That is fair,and certainly more honest then trying to*deme and
confiscate pdvate property without compenothm to the owner.
One last suggestion. This weekend would it be OK if 30 or 40 scientists and environmentalists
show up in the backyard behind YOUR house to we if they could find an ingesting bug,a
strange weed,an archeological tidbit,or perhaps a geological speck they would like preserved,
and if so we could then draw a 100 foot rick around it to be Protected by a new "Back Yard
Corridor combing none Amendment'In which all the SC actions wMuW" y plus the
elimination of all patio furniture,barbecues~clothes lines,and toys(protect the"scenic
resources"don't ya know).7be government would of course sand someone but occasionally
to inVoct all the backyards=aft
nelrabready
bothood to'protect'the corridor. fiidiculous you
say? They can't change the bought nth►house you say? Them is already
enont tt regulation to cover back you say? An invasion of privacy you say? It's OK to
do this scat of thing b ottreres property but not to MY back yard you sAyy'?t What if next
year they want 150 feet and my les
room you say? What if next yearbht to make it
open to the public you say?But who is going to compute me for my and how am I
going to afford to fight the government you say?
I ask you to please read this amt again and ask yourself what exactly is the problem it is
"g to address? Is there any? What exactly will it cost? Is it a fair and holiest way to deal
withppnn owners? Do property owners need to be compensated for their loss of value?
Are therebeau
alternatives. Would you like these tactics used against you and your family?
7tla nk you for your considerations in these matters,
Respmetfuuy,
12/11/96 16:42 TX/RX N0.4594 P.003
t 1 ,s
CJ
Memorand m
746
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission C01. &Mrs. R. D. McClure
FROM: Craig Sanders. Senior Planner OniecMccc�1 95 28 safRet
DATE: November 21, 1996
REQUEST: Amendment to chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adopting a
Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone. The zone will specify
development standards to be applied along identified creeks or
streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning. r
RELATED
ITEMS: Butte Creek Rezone. 710
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of 9e ' ,
SUMMARY: Staff re ommends the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of
Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend areas in the
County to which it should be applied. 6 ,,
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In response to concerns raised by both he public an
Planning Commission regarding development in Butte Creek Canyon, staff has developed
a Stream Corridor overlay zone that could be applied to portions of Butte Creek as well as c�
other sensitive watercourses within the County. The overlay zone will work in conjunction
with existing zoning designations and will not affect the uses allowed in any zone. When
applied, the zone will impose stricter development review procedures within 300' of i `rivet,
stream_, or other watercourse. Attached is a copy of the proposed Stream Corridor (-SC)
overlay zone.
The proposed zone is consistent with the Butte County General Plan and will aid the
County in implementing several policies in the plan including the following policies from
the Land Use Element:
2.4a Maintain ntity ani quality of water resources adequate for all uses in the
County. LL'1
2.4c Control development in watershed areas to minimize erosion and water pollution.
6.4c Encourage compatible land use patterns incenic corridors and adjacent to scenic
waterways, rivers, and creeks.
1ESI JWYi9Af -fXDPE(�7y
M. / S mrlkGi i �- �i U.- U),-Lc
SC-tloo L- S E _STI) 7�)S' A/5
�•M N,f,"a"
•
7.3a Limit development in areas with significant drainage and flooding problems unt/q
adequate drainage and flood control facilities are provided. ,Cz 2 ✓:. Z
Implementation of the zone will also serve to further some of the goals and policies in the
Conservation element regarding the County's waterways. Butte Creek is classified as a
premium waterway and should receive special protection. As proposed in this report, the
width of the zone will be 300' from the top of the bank, o both ides of the stream to which
Jit is applied. However, the Commission may wis to define the limits of the zone
differently. Another option, especially for streams and creeks that have significant
a�ss9ciated flood4lains, would be to apply th zone to the flood hazard boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: This project is exempt fro CEQA re iew under
section 15061 (3), the general rule exemption, which states:
"CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant
effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."
Adoption of this zone will not result in any physical changes to the environment and when
applied will result in a higher degree of site sensitive planning.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This application requires that a public hearing be
advertised and held. Advertisement of the public hearing was published in local
newspapers for all areas of the County. As of the date of this report we have received no
public comment. 20
o z
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the
Board of Supervisors adopt the SC Stream Corridor combining zone and recommend
areas in the County to which it s.1ould be applied. L � ��. p
ik5wr
Attachments: A: Proposed Stream Corridor combining 3 , /
P 9 zone
N C 77-E o
P3J7 a�
�AUPtM-r1Y Ow
alt Cgt_'L c i.� c AJ
ow
y
Ac, '�nt. P►3�k t rJ'� .�7
i
EXHIBIT A
Stream Corridor Combining Zone
24-227 Stream Corridor (-SC) Combining zone
A. Purpose and intent. . The purpose an intent of the Stream Corridor (-SC)
combining zone is as follows:
1. To protect the County's surface water resources.. ti`, YuJ
2. To ensure �compatibl.e site sensitive development within designated
floodplains. ,, J,, u-04-.c,�C� ,<; ,z
3. To preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources. a' Z
4. To protect identified streamsand creek/s.fr m etosion and loss of riparian
habitat.
,�
B. Ap;i ility. The -SC combining zone shall be used as an overlay zone in
f� conjunction with existing zone districts along streams and creeks that have been
identified as having sensitive habitat or requiring protection. This combining zone
shal be apply to the area within 300' of t —e fo of bank along identified s ctions
� PP Y 9
rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to eit er: 300 2
1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife
species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource;
2. Have special scenic value; or
3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or
other environmental impacts. P
The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of identified watercourses.
If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a q!§piAp as to the location,
the determination on the location shall be made the California Department of
Fishand Game. — & 4-r3
C. Combining zone requirements and standards. The following requirements and
standards shall be applied to land uses within this combining zone as well as the
standards of the underlying or base zone. If conflicts arise between the combibig
ff
zone and the base zone, the combining zone requirements shall prevail.
V � .
1�
1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval
ora—s-i e e y moth the Departments of Public Works an
DgyP nt Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any
building permit or septic permit that shows: =u.vTr
A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and
driveways;
B. Location and species.*type of any of trees greater the 4" in diameter
d.O.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal; 2>6r-k—
C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and
leachfields. Submittal of a grading and drainage pian(ma be
required by the Department of Development Services Department
prior to issuance of any building permits. 40t") �x-d � �.
2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No
structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant
species or vegetation removal is permitted- within the "No Development
Zone" with the following exceptiom , -Z L+44-L - Z
A. egetation removal done for floo control purposes or work done for
streambed en ancement and rider i6ermi from Department of Fish
and Game; /�d[ `D Ls�OSj o� JN_DM
B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No
Development Zone" may be granted through the Conditional Use
Permit procedure. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10%
increase in habitable floor area. M C)RS--P m6 gyp,I �rL,(_ UQ
T'r�x �
C. If�when applied .to:an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No.
Development Zone" renders the property undevelopable, the parcel
may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve such a Use Permit ut may condition the
permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct
specific locations for development on the site.
I Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or
improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures,
septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the development
of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or new right X of way
created as part of a parcel map or subdivision map approval shall not be
4
subject to any review or permits not normally re uired for the activity.
4. The Directo�O!f Develo men- Services may waive any of all of the
requirements of this zone if, because of topography, lack of riparian
vegetation, lack of erosion potential, or other physical characteristics of the
site, the provisions of this.section are not applicable.
e
rl
D -
� s
W0TERSNEO C 0 R S E R U 0 H C V
The Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy was formed in September 1995 to encourage
watershed-wide cooperation and communication between residents, landowners, water
users, recreational users and the local, state and federal agencies working throughout.
The goals of the organization are primarily educational. We must educate ourselves,
and teach others how to be the best stewards possible of this beautiful and diverse
watershed. Our mission is to protect, restore and enhance the Butte Creek Watershed.
The initial board of directors are: Jack Bean, Sierra Pacific Industries, and Canyon
residents, Morris Boeger, Russ Collar, Scott Gailey, Treasurer, Allen Harthom, Chair,
Kit Kerby, Cal Ling, Debbie Merliss, Michael Oliver, Michael Smith and Darin Vicknair.
The group has had five general meetings since it was founded, including meetings in
Durham and Paradise. The Conservancy has also hosted the very successful 1 st
Annual Spring Run Chinook Salmon Celebration at the Honey Run Covered Bridge May
4, 1996 and a Benefit Reception and Silent Auction, Dec. 6, 1996, at Caffe Siena in
Chico. A general membership meeting will be held March 4, 1997, 7pm, at the
Centerville Schoolhouse. The Conservancy will also,be-t►esti the Spring Run
Chinook Salmon Celebration May 10, at the Honey un C ere dge. For more
information, a membership application, to get on th mai ing list, or o logo and
commemorative T-shirts, please call the Conservan at 893-5399.
The Butte Creek Watershed Conservancy has circulate Memo dum of Under-
standing designed to establish cooperative partnerships who will work together on
watershed management planning. The groups and agencies who have agreed to be a
part of this effort include the following and many others.
California State University, Chico California Sportfishing Protection
California Department of Water Alliance
Resources Friends of the River
California Department of Fish and Cal Trout
Game Protect Our Watershed
California Resources Agency Natural Heritage Institute
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Chico Area Flyfishers
U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermans'
Service Association
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Honey Run Covered Bridge Association
U. S. Bureau of Land Management . Chico Velo Club
Sacramento River Preservation Trust .Chico Paddleheads
Sierra Pacific Industries
V
I
1
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given by the,Butte County Planning Commission that a public hearing will
be held on Thursday, December 12, 1996, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors'
Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California,
regarding the following item at the following time:
ITEMS DETERMINED TO BE A GENERAL RULE EXEMPTION
FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
9:00 a.m. - Butte County Planning Commission - Zoning Code Amendment to either
eliminate or change the provisions within Chapter 24 for allowing mobile
homes (1976 manufacture date or older) as dwelling units. Affected zones
includeA-5 through A-160 (Agricultural-5 through 160 acre parcels),AR-MH
through AR-MH-5 (Agricultural Residential Mobile Home - through 5 acre
parcels, FR-1 through FR-160 (Foothill Recreational 1 through 160 acre
parcels), H-C (Highway Commercial), M-R (Mountain or Recreation
Subdivision-Residential), R-N (Residential- Nonconforming), RT-1 & RT-1A
(Residential - Mobile Home), S-H (Scenic Highway), TMA through TM-160
(Timber.Mountain 1 through 160 acre parcels) (ZCA 97-01) (CBS)
9:00 a.m. - Butte County Planning Commission -Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter
24 of the Butte County Code adopting a Stream Corridor(SC) combing zone.
The zone will specify development standards to be applied along identified
creeks or streams and will work in conjunction with the existing zoning.
(CBS) (ZCA97-03)
The above mentioned applications and map are on file and available for public viewing at
the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville,
California. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice
or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the
public hearing.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WILLIAM FARREL, DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1/8 page display Ad, dark border.
To be published in the Oroville Mercury and Chico Enterprise Record on Monday,
December 2, 1996.
To be published in the Paradise Post on Tuesday, December 3, 1996. i
To be published in the Gridley Herald on Wednesday, December 4, 1996.
1
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Craig Sanders, Senior Planner
DATE: July 17, 1996
REQUEST: Review of proposed Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone.
RELATED
ITEMS: Butte Creek Rezone.
FOR: Planning Commission Meeting of July 25, 1996
SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to determine
appropriate boundaries along Butte Creek for the Stream Corridor combining zone and set
this item for a public hearing.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In response to concerns raised by both the public and the
Planning Commission regarding development in Butte Creek Canyon, staff has developed
a Stream Corridor overlay zone that could be applied to portions of Butte Creek as well as
other sensitive watercourses within the County. The overlay zone will work in conjunction
with existing zoning designations and will not affect the uses allowed in any zone. When
applied, the zone will impose stricter development review procedures within 300' of a river,
stream, or other watercourse. Attached is'a copy of the proposed Stream Corridor (-SC)
overlay zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: If brought back as a proposed zoning
amendment the adoption of this zone will require a CEQA determination. It is believed at
this time that the project would be exempt from CEQA review as either a Class 7 exemption
or a General Rule exemption.
PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: This is not an application or project at this time and
therefor does not require public notice. Should the Commission wish to pursue the
adoption of the SC combining zone, proper public notification will occur prior to any future
hearing.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate a zoning
code amendment to adopt a Stream Corridor (-SC) combining zone and direct staff to
prepare recommendations as to which areas of Butte Creek Canyon to apply the zone.
Attachments: A: Proposed Stream Corridor combining zone
e..
EXHIBIT A
Stream Corridor Combining Zone
Stream Corridor (-SC) Combining zone
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose an intent of .the Stream Corridor (-SC)
combining zone is to identify sensitive stream corridors. and protect them from
erosion, loss of riparian habitat, and encroachment from incompatible development,
and to preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources.
B. Applicability. This combining zone shall apply to the area within 300' of the top of
bank along identified sections rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to
either:
1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife
species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource;
2. Have special scenic value; or
3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or
other environmental impacts.
The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of an identified
watercourse.
If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a dispute as to the location,
the determination on the location shall be made by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
C. Combining zone requirements. The requirements and standards that apply to
land uses within this combining zone shall be the same as.required by the
underlying or base zone with the following additions or exceptions:
1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval
of a site development plan by both the Departments of Public Works and
Development Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any
building permit or septic permit that shows:
A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and
driveways;
B. Location and species type of any of trees greater the 4" in diameter
2
d.b.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal;
C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and
leachfields. Submittal of a grading and drainage plan may be
required by the Departmetn of Development Services Department
prior to issuance of any building permits.
2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No
structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant
species or vegetation removal is permitted within the "No Development
Zone" with the following exceptions:
A. Vegetation removal done for flood control purposes or work done for
streambed enhancement and under permit from Department of Fish
and Game;
B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No
'�• Development Zone" may be granted through the Conditional Use
Permit proceedure. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10%
1 1 increase in habitable floor area.
W
' C. If, when applied to an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No
Development Zone" renders the property undevelopable, the parcel
may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve such a Use Permit but may condition the
permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct
specific locations for development on the site.
3. Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or
improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures,
septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the development
of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or new right so of way
created as part of a parcel map or subdivisoin map approval shall not be
subject to any review or permits not normally required for the activity.
3
P
ti
1 � '
I �
1 `
' r -
obi .• 7/ �'^`"'"� �/9� r�
EXHIBIT A
Stream Corridor Combining Zone
Stream Corridor(-SC) Combining zone
A. Purpose and intent. The purpose an intent of the Stream Corridor (-SC)
combining zone is to identify sensitive stream corridors and protect them from
erosion, loss of riparian habitat, and encroachment from incompatible development,
and to preserve wildlife habitat and scenic resources.
B. Applicability. This combining zone shall apply to the area within 300' of the top of
bank along identified sections rivers, streams, or other watercourses determined to
either:
1. Support significant riparian vegetation or a specifically identified wildlife
species that requires the protection of a stream related habitat resource;
2. Have special scenic value; or
3. Are subject to significant potential erosion, water quality degradation, or
other environmental impacts.
The zone may be applied to the entire length or portions of an identified
watercourse.
If the top of bank is not clearly identifiable or there is a dispute as to the location,
the determination on the location shall be made by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
C. Combining zone requirements. The requirements and standards that apply to
land uses within this combining zone shall be the same as required by the
underlying or base zone with the following additions or exceptions:
1. Development within the SC zone will require the submittal to and approval
of a site development plan by both the Departments of Public Works and
Development Services prior to or in conjunction with the application for any
building permit or septic permit that shows:
A. The location of proposed improvements including structures and
driveways,
B. Location and species type of any of trees greate th 4" in diameter
2
i
d.b.h. proposed for removal, and areas of other vegetation removal;
C. Grading or excavation areas including proposed septic tank and
leachfields. . Sub * rading and drainage plan may be
required by th partmetn Development Services Department
prior to issuan of an - ing permits.
2. The area within 100' of the top of bank or outer edge of the riparian
vegetation, whichever is greater, is a "No Development Zone". No
structures, fill material, excavation, introduction of non-native or exotic plant
species or vegetation removal is permitted within the "No Development
Zone" with the following exceptions:
A. Vegetation removal done for flood control purposes or work done for
streambed enhancement and under permit from Department of Fish
and Game;
B. Enlargement or expansion of existing structures within the 100' "No
Develop " may be granted through the Conditional Use
Permit rocd_edpre. Expansions shall be limited to a one time, 10%
increase �itable floor area.
C. If, when applied to an existing unimproved parcel, the 100' "No
PP 9 P P ,
Development Zone renders the property undevelopable, the parcel
may be developed subject to a conditional use permit. The Planning
Commission shall approve such a Use Permit but may condition the
permit to limit the size and area to be developed and may direct
specific locations for development on the site.
3. Regular maintenance of existing or future legally placed structures or
improvements including but not limited to homes, accessory structures,
septic tank and leachfields, bridges, driveways, or roads; or the nt
of roads and driveways within existing rights-of-way or so of ay
created as part of a parcel map or subdivisoin map appro sh of be
subject to any review or permits not normally required for the activity.
3
LEAD - IN SHEET
FILE NO: ZCA 97-03 ' A.P# Various
APPLICANT: Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Dr. Oroville, CA 95965
Name .address
OWNER: Various
Name .address
RESPRESENTATIVE:
Name Address
REQUEST: An amendment to Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code adding a stream
corridor combining zones -Sc Zone- 'D,P cc a mhininc �OriP wills 'ifTa@YE!=ep�:.t
standardc to he applied alMiideFlti ieA c eekS ( - -- ------`"On
with the existing zoning.
SIZE:
LOCATION:
SUPERVISORAL DISTRICT # EXISTING ZONING:
ZONING HISTORY:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
SITE HISTORY:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
k:lforms\lead-in
I
l
COMN MNT DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPLICATION: BULIE COUNZY PLANNING .COMISSION, ZCA 97-03
DATE: 11-26-96
County Ofces and Cities:
_ Chief Administrative Officer –x_ Develop.Services Director X_ Public Works Director
Environmental Health Director _ Building Manager
Sheriff _ ksut�.v ALUC
_X LAFCo _ APCD _ Butte Co.Farm Bureau
Biggs _ Gridley _ Chico
_ Oroville _ Paradise _ Chico Airport Commission
X_ Agricultural Commission
Irrigation District:
Butte Water _ BiggM.Gridley Water _ Durham Irrigation
OWID _ Paradise Irrigation _ Richvale Irrigation
Table Mountain Irrigation _ Thermalito Irrigation _ Other
Domestic Water
_ Butte Water District _ California Water Service Co. _ Del Oro Water Co.
OWID — Thertnalito Irrigation District _ Other
Sewer
Butte Water District _ Themalito Irrigation _ Sterling City Sewer Main
Skansen Subdivision(CSA 21) _ LO.A.PUD
Fire Protection
_X_ California Department of Forestry_ El Medio Fire Protection District
Recreation Districts
Chico Area Recreation _ Durham Area Recreation _ Feather River Rec.&Park
Paradise Recreation&Park Richvale Recreation &Parks
Utilities
_ PG&E North-Chico _ Chambers Cable TV _ Pacific Bell
PG&E South-Oroville Viacom Cable TV
State Agencies
_ CalTrans _ Dept of Water Resources _ Dept of Fish and Game
Forestry(Attn:Craig Carter) _ Dept of Parks and Rec. — Highway Patrol
Central Reg,Water Quality Control
Department of Conservation _ Ol£of Mining Reclamation _ O!£of Governmental&Env.Relations
Federal Agencies
US Forest Service _ US Bureau of Land Management
Other Districts,Agencies,Committees,etc.
Lime Saddle Dist _ Community Association _ Mosq.Abatement Oroville/Butte Co
Drainage _ Butte Env.i Council _ Paradise Pines Com.
Reclamation _ Cal Native Plant Society
Butte Co.Mining Committee _ _