Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072282July 22, 1982 8 2- RECONVENE: The Board July 22, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. pursuant to recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler. Eleanor M. Becker, County Clerk, by Cathy Pitts, Assistant Clerk to the Board: CLOSED SESSION: The Board recessed at 10:03 a.m. to hold-a closed session on litigation. RECONVENE: The Board reconvened at 10:27 a.m. following a closed session on litigation. No announcements made at this time. PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS MCCREADY APPEAL OF LOUIS CAMENZIND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP The public hearing on Thomas McCready appeal of Louis Camenzind proposed negative declaration and tentative parcel map, AP 40-06-64, 65 & 66; dividing 9.8 acres plus or minus into four separate parcels, ranging from .5 acre to 6.6 acres in size, located on the north side of the Oroville-Chico Highway, approximately 1,200 feet east of the Midway. Was held as advertised. John Mendonsa, public works department, set out the background of the appeal. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Tom McCready, 4 Rosemary Circle, Chico. Mr. McCready stated the reason that he filed an appeal on the property was because it was in a sensitive area between the coalition line and the Planning Commision line. When he first read of the action that had been taken, he was concerned that it would create a precedent at the time this decision was being considered. There were two points involved in the appeal. One of these involved a request that the action be deferred until the Board had made a decision on the greenline so the impacts of the split could be considered in light of the greenline decision. The second point was he had asked that the negative declaration not be issued because of the cantroversial nature of the area in which the parcels were located. He felt that there could be environmental impacts. He did not have to make the argument of repeated splits on agricultural land. He asked that the Board consider this with the effect it would have on the coalition greenline that the Board is in the process of adopting. The engineer for the property owner had met with him and advised him that the owner's intent was to create a new one-acre parcel to put. in the financing for Kiwi trellises. The 60-foot easement is of such a length that it would make further subdividing oaf the back parcel almost impossible. He was trying to present all the facts that seemed to be pertinent to this issue. He was not sure what to recommend. 2. Russ Croninger, Riegel and Associates, representing Louis Camenzind. Mr. Croninger showed the Board two different maps. One map is the original parcel map on the property that has two one- acre parcels and a remainder in the back. Parcel two has been sold. What they are proposing is to increase one parcel by deleting one-half acre and making it an acre with a 60-foot easement to parcel two. They are creating one more parcel and eliminating a one-half acre parcel that now exists.. When this parcel was originally split it ended up being in the shape of a flag lot. He felt that the new parcel map was creating abetter use in division of the property. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Moseley, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and unanimously carsie~, the appeal of Thomas McCready was page 244. July 22, 1982 82 1184 - - -_ _Ju_ly, 2_21 182 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ levied finding-the proposed project could not have a signifcant effect in the environment, a negative declaration was adopted; tkze tentative parcel map for Louis Camenzind, AP 40-Ob-64, 65 &'66, dividing 9.8 acres plus or minus into four separate parcels, ranging from .5 acre to 6.6 acres in size, located on the north side of the Oroville-Chico 3ighway, approximtely 1,200 feet east of the Midway was approved finding it in conformity with the General Plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Provide two-way traversable access RS-B-LD-II to each parcel from a county maintained road or state highway. 2. Access to be reserved in deeds as per county ordinance and offered for dedication on the final map. 3. Show 50 ft. building setback line measured from centerline of access easement. 4. Provide road maintenance agreement. 5. Deed to the County of Butte 30 ft. right-of-way from the centerline of Oro-Chico Hwy. 6. Indicate a 50 ft. building setback from the centerline of Oro-Chico Hwy. 7. Show all easements of record on the final map. 8. Provide street name signs per requirements of the Dept. of Public Works prior to recordation of the final map. 9. Pay off any assessments. 10. Provide cul-de-sac at the end of the street. 11. Obtain encroachment permit and construct standard road approach providing adequate sight distance at the intersection of access road and Oro-Chico Hwy. 12. Pay any delinquent taxes. 13. Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Dept. 14. Provide an area for wells and a 100 ft. leachfield free setback around those areas on parcel 3. 15. Provide a 100 ft leachfield free setback around existing wells either within the property or within 100 ft. of the property boundaries. 16. Omit the original proposed well site as previously shown on parcel 1. 17. Provide the usable sewage disposal area on each parcel as required by the Butte County Subdivision Ordinance. DISCUSSION OF APPEALS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OE SUPERVISORS Supervisor Saraceni wondered if the Board should not have some type of mechanism for fees for appeals that are made. Page 245. July 22, 19.82 July 22, 1982 - Supervisor Dolan felt that they should make-it equal. This might be something that the Board might want to look into. If they are going to have an appeal she felt this must apply to whoever made the appeal. Chairman Wheeler advised this was an issue that should be taken up with the Planning staff and discussed in length. 185 PUBLIC HEARING: M.W. BALKEN PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REZONE The public hearing on M.W. Balken proposed negative declaration and rezone from "TM-5" and "TM-10" {timber mountain - 5 and 10 acre parcels) to "TM-3" (timber mountain - 3 acre parcels), property located on the west side of Coutolenc Road, approximately one-half mile north of Skyway, identified as AP 65-22-4, 65-22-6, 65-23-01, 65-23-04 and 65-23-06, north of Paradise was held as continued. Bettye Kircher, of the rezone. Originaly had no concerns relative have voiced additional. co reservoir. There have be septic tank. planning director, set out the background the irrigation district had commented they o this. project. Since that time, they terns on the siltation problems. with the n some concerns as far as the location of the Hearing open to the public. Appearing: i. M.W. Balken. P4r. Balken stated that before he applied for the land division he want to P.I.D. and they were concerned about the leachfields and the subsurface drainage. The map was set up so that everything would be subsurfaced drainage toward the west branch. After he had gone to the Planning Commission hearings, the problem of surface drainage came up. Since that time, there has been a meeting between Environmental Health Department, Public Works Department and PID concerning this matter. The percolation is excellent. Everyone has agreed upon the percolation and that they will have a paved driveway and there will be a certain amount of runoff. A representative from Public Works has given the opinion that the runoff will be insignificant. There will be only four additional driveways. They have agreed to 50-foot. of leaching on either side of the driveways. There was discussion about putting drains under Coutolenc Road, which would be very involved It was Public Works opinion they would never get a right-of-way from Southern Pacific. He was willing to put in deep restrictions that there would be leachfields on either side of the driveways. The property will be residential property. These are not small parcels since they are three acres in size. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. Supervisor Fulton stated that PID currently had a moratorium on their meters and were concerned about the increasing density on the east side. He has discussed this matter with Mr. Kelly from PID, who is not satisfied with the mitigations proposed for surface drainage. The Planning Commission approval predates the concerns that have arisen on the surface drainage. Lynn Vanhart, environmental health director, stated he had met with Mr. Balken, PID, and the State Health Department. The recommendation of the State Health Department is that the surface water be diverted from the Magalia resoxvior. This is for portions of the development outside the watershed. The water, even if it is diverted from this property, turns and goes back into the Magalia ,watershed through culverts. There is a feeling that it could be Page 246. I July 22, 1982 July 22, 1982 82- reversed and put back into the west branch. It might be difficult with ~' the Southern Pacific facilities, but possibly this could be done. He ad no objections to the zoning itself, but he would want to condition ', the project when it came forward during the map process. They have the proposal of putting in leach trenches for drainage, which would suffice for a temporary solution. These tend to silt up. ', Supervisor Dolan stated the culverts would be a permanent solution. This is a xezone and there are items discussed as part of the environmental review. How would the Board be aware of the conditions so that they are placed on the parcel map? There are already smaller parcels. This is an area wide solution and cost. Mr. Vanhart advised the development at this point is to take five existing parcels and divide them into twelve. This would mean seven additional residences and they are not dealing with a large ', development, but there are cumulative effects. if Paradise had a complete treatment facility, it might be another story. John Mendonsa, public works department, stated in the past, Southern Pacific would not grant rights-of-way to individuals, but would do so to counties. It can be a very long process. When this ', project comes forward under the Subdivision Map Act, it would be considered a subdivision and could be conditioned to obtain a right-of-way. Supervisor Fulton stated he had discussed this with PID and until they are satisfied, he could not support the project. He was hoping a solution to the problem would have been found by now. ', The hearing was continued to August 31, 1982 at 10:00 a.m. 1186 PUBLIC HEARING: ROBERT A. GLUSMAN APPEAL OF TENATIVE PARCEL MAP The public hearing on Robert A. Glusman appeal of advisory agency condition 8(to provide permanent solution for drainage) on a tentative parcel map, AP 42-34-00, three parcels, on Cussick Avenue on the south side of Dead End Court, Chico area was held as advertised. John Mendonsa, public works department, set out the background of the appeal. On December 9, 1980 the Board heard an appeal on the condition of providing a permanent solution for drainage on a map that created this parcel. The Board upheld the appeal and required that a note be placed on the map that no further division of parcel 4 be done until permanent solution for drainage was provided. They are appealing the drainage condition. Hearing open to the public. Appearing:. Tom Edgar, representing Mr. Glusman. Mr. Edgar acknowledged that there were actually two conditions. One was previously recorded that says that when and if a drainage district is formed applicant would participate-. Mr. Glusman agreed that this is a good idea. He also acknowledged the recorded condition that no further splitting be done until permanent solution be found. This is a parcel that is larger than three acres which is proposed to be split three ways. This is very good soil and like all ulna loam, it percolates quite nicely. There is no special concern that water will drain off any one of the parcels. On one parcel in the area, another house had problems because of construction. That is a construction problem. His contention was that a one acre parcel with internal drainage would fit the conditions. Page 247. July 22, 1982 8~ 1187 July 22, 1_982 Hearing closed-to the public and confined to the Board. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and unanimously carried, the appeal of Robert A. Glusman was upheld and condition number 8 was deleted from tentative parcel map, AP 42-34-00, three parcels, on Cussick Avenue on the South side of Dead End Court, Chico area. PUBLIC HEARTNG: FREDA E. HART MARTIN APPEAL OF COPELY ACRES UNIT N0.2 SUBDIVISION CONDITION The public hearing on Freda E. Hart Martin appeal of condition 6 to Copely Acres Unit N0.2 Subdivision, AP 36-54-18,20 and 21, which requires an RS - 2B standard per public works was held as advertised. John M~ndonsa, public works department, set out the background of the appeal. The condition was originally approved as RS-3-A standard. After approval, it was discovered this was within the designated area and required curb, gutter- and sidewalk. They sent the applicant a correction letter. The subdivision that exists now has no curb, gutter or sidewalk. It was approved 13 or 14 years ago. It was in the urban area when it was approved. In this area, there has been rolled curb with the exceptions of the main road. With the subdivision for Oakvale, the Board did away with the sidewalk in the subdivision but-left the curb. Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Cal Bachman representing Freda E. Hart Martin. Mr. Bachman advised that when the project was first approved the applicant felt that.a rolled curb would be a good idea even though they did not have the requirement. They felt it would make everything work better in the development. With the new condition that was added, a sidewalk is required and there are no sidewalks anywhere in the area. They object to the vertical curbs which would require designing the homes and driveways now. He asked that the Board uphold the appeal. 2. Robert 'Martin. Mr. Martin stated they borrowed money to build the subdivision based on approval to build with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. They agreed to a rolled curb. Hearing closed to the public and confined to the Board. 1188 On motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and unanimously carried, the appeal of Freda E. Hart Martin on condition 6 of. Copely Acres Unit No. 2, AP 36-54-18, 20 and 21, which requires a RS-2B standard per Public Works requirements was upheld. RECESS: 11:22 a.m. RECONVENE: 11:33 a.m. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN D. DRAKE AND HOWARD IS OM REZONE Tire public hearing on John D. Drake and Howard Isom rezone (item on which an environmental impact report was previously certified) from "A-2" (general) and "S-H" (scenic highway) to "PA-C" (planned area cluster) to allow a residential development of 109 parcels of one- half to three acres each and a common open space with public facilities to be maintained by a homeowners associaCion on approximately 1,050 acres located on the east side of State Highway 32 and Humbolt Road, approximately five miles northeast of Chico, identified as AP 46-71-17, 46-71-18 (portion), 46-35-4 and 46-35-23 ..was held as continued. Page 248. July 22, 1982 B 2- a July 22, 1982 Chairman Wheeler read the letter from Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board dated July 21,-1982, into ttie,record. The applicant has indicated the project would 'be refexred back. to the Advisory Agency for action on the tentative subdivision map. ' Lynn Vanhart', environmental health.director, advised that the applicant is proposing levees and riprapping were necessary for possible flooding. He was concerned about the depths of the cuts since the ponds will be on a slope. Some of the levees will be 22 feet in height. All of them will have to be water tight. There will be assurances through state water quality control permits and there will be control over the situation. Supervisor Dolan questioned the comments on page 3 and did not understand the statement about pending anticipated projects coming in. Steve Streeter, planning department, advised that this project was submitted in September, 1980 and since that time, other projects have come about and last December they had a pre conference on Bidwell Heights. They are wondering about the proposal for the Ison-Hall property. There are other land activities to the east in Butte Creek Canyon with the Environmental Development Company. . Supervisor Fulton had a number of objections to the project. He felt that this was the first step in a series to portion off this particular area, which is relatively unpopulated. He felt that there should be a regional study done po all the impacts that are going to take place on a cumulative basis are addressed. He felt the Board owed this to the people who live in the area already because if the sewer system does not iaoxk the county has bought into it. The people who will pay the price are the people who live in Stilson Canyon now. He has heard there are from three to twelve projects being proposed for this particular area, and once it begins to be partitioned, those people, who own land, who had not thought of it will be more or less forced to do the same thing. When the Board asked for a supplement to the EIR, it was in a legal nature in some way, but he felt that what should be done is an EIR that takes into consideration the cumulative effects, not in the generalized way that was done by the applicant even with all the material on the holding ponds and the sewer system that'wi11 be 22-feet high. That height brings concerns because this is a scenic highway. What type of mitigations had been considered for that time? The surrounding- structures will be set back and retain their vegetation. He was not satisfied that the extreme Eire hazard had been dealt with. They are going to somehow build a fire station in that area. Given the worse circumstances with the Bounty budget, they will be doing all they can to retain Eive of the twelve current fire stations. He did not feel he had to go over the Sheriff's Department problems. Given the budgetary problems, they could have fewer deputies that they have now. There will be an increase in traffic on Highway 32, which he believed the ETR was suggesting to hold to a maximum of 15,000 cars per day. This will increase from 2,000 to 11,000 and that is not right. Mr. Streeter stated that he figured seven to ten trips per dwelling, and taking into account what type of residential project they were looking at, they multiplied 109 units and the figure was between 800 to an excess 1,090. Page 249. July'22, 1982 ~~~ B 2- b July 22, 1982 _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ Supervisor Fulton knew there was. an argument on the Board as to whether development made money or cost :money. He felt that centain kinds of developments had a negative impact on the county fiscally. He still felt this was a leapfrog development and would require services being brought to'it. Given the county's problems and one-half the number of Sheriff's deputies, he felt this project could prove to be fiscally irresponsible down the road. The disposable income has been suggested to be $100,000 per year, which is ludicrous. He was assuming that this was primarily a market for retired people from southern California on limited incomes. When the sales tax is plugged in, what is being derived is not going to be anywhere near that kind of figure. Usang the $100,000 disposable income, staff has suggested that the tax revenue would be $1,800 and the cost would be $1,400. In order to shore up the fiscal impact analysis, the applicants hired a consultant. He felt the study was not adequate in any way. As far as he was concerned, it did.not consider the real question, which is whether these kinds. of developments are making or breaking the county. There is a need for an objective study that cannot be attacked from either side as to whether rural subdivisions are costly or profitable to the county. He was concerned about the road, because the Public Works Director has indicated there was a permit for the road to Bidwell Heights, but there seems to be a legal cloud over the so-called jeep trail road on the project at this point. Chairman Wheeler advised that she had spoken to the District Attorney concerning the piece of paper that was turned over to him and the Grani3 Jury. He indicated that he will do nothing about it until he is able to present hard facts to substantiate the charges. The Public Works Director took a look at the road and could make a comment on the roads for the benefit of the Board. Supervisor Fulton stated in terms of the documents that the Board was just handed, it tends to speak to the concerns brought up yesterday or the day before with suggestions of doing a fiscal impact analysis for the entire region. He would like to see that done before they begin to divide this area up. There is some argument about just how many lots will be there with the potential number being from 620 to 480 lots. He felt with further research the numbers would be closer. Steve Streeter, planning department, advised that they did not look into that extensively but took the map that was submitted on Tuesday, and did an overlay with the Planning Department map. They were looking primarily at the larger projects.' Supervisor Fulton stated he was concerned about the sewer system since he has learned that the ponds will be 22 feet high and there will have to be a storage tank at least that high and probably higher. They would be getting into visual problems since this this is a scenic highway area. Tn conclusion, the things he would like to see done are a regional study of the overall area to see what it would look like and be able to handle the development in terms of building density and percolation. An even larger question is the fiscal impact analysis that would provide the information of exactly what section developments such as this would be costing the county. Chairman Wheeler recognized Supervisor Fulton's concerns and she agreed with some in part and did not agree with others. At the last meeting, they spoke to the fact that a regional study of land use county-wide should be addressed. She felt ,comfortable that it was Page 250. July 22, 1982 July 22, 1982 8~ a being addressed in this particular area because of the implementation of the specific plan. Along with the study, there should be a fiscal impact study done, not just in the rural areas, but also in the sphere of influence because that would Have an effect on the rural areas, .county government and available funding for providing services. She suggested that the cities and county do a joint effort and contract with a consultant on a county-wide basis, including the incorporated areas, to determine the fiscal impacts. No one could tell her that because a home is built in the city there will tie less of an impact on the services the county provides. She agreed there should be a study done. This county has an agricultural economic base and the county needs to limit ,the growth in agricultural productive areas. This project has been in the legislative process since September, 1980. She felt that this was a well planned residential development in an area previously designated for further development. As far as the environment is concerned, she felt this was an excellent example of development that could be used as a model for further growth in the area. The specific plan was already approved, which sets forth the minimum development standards. The type of sewage disposal system was selected after thorough study of the area. It is capable of total control in monitoring and will be funded through a county service area. LAFCO approved that county service area. The CSA will assure perpetual maintenance, no contamination, and no financila burden on the county taxpayers. The sewage system design is undergoing further scrunity by the controlling agencies.' The cluster design was recommended by the draft foothill strategy from the Office of Planning and Research.. This allows 44 acres for building, 12 acres for streets and utilities, and approximatley 1,000 acres remaining in permanent undisturbed open space. The open space will be maintained in a perpetual land trust for the protection of the scenic view. The Department of Fish and Game agreed the design will have a minimum impact on the wildlife.resourses. Because this project is anew project, construction of all structures will meet minimum residential standards and is designed to conserve energy. It is located away from agricultural soil. The project is not growth inducing. It does not provide the physical facilities that can be used by other develop- ments. The EIR has discussed the cumulative effects and there are suggestive mitigation measures. Vegetation will be cleared from all roadways and around all structures. This project will be a volunteer fire system utilized for the first response service. This project will become part of a fire assessment district. There will be police protection afforded to the residents through security patrol from a private firm. Through formation and cluster of the development, this will reduce the incidents of vandalism. Road maintenance, sewage disposal and recreation will be payed for by the property owners through a homeowners association. In addition, the county service area will insure the maintenance and operation of the sewage system at no cost to the county. The project with new homes will raise the county revenue and will enable the county to keep their level of service faster than it would have deteriorated. The assesed value itself indicates an infusion of new monies into the county. She did not feel that the project would be a leapfrog development. It is located in a rural setting with rural services for people who seek a rural lifestyle. In seeking this type of lifestyle, people know they will not be provided with urban services. The developer has acknowledged the post proposition 13 constraints by assuming the responsibility to pay for the needs of the development. The Office of Planning and Research recognized the project is an indication of future land developments. Page 251. July 22, 1982 8: July 22, 1982 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Supervisor Saraceni stated he had gone over each and every r item and agreed with Chairman Wheeler. The erosion, water quality, county service area maintenance, water availability, and fire hazards have been spoken to. There is a mitigation measure for the wildlife. Humboldt Road will be improved for traffic. As far as public services are concerned, there will be a security patrol and fire protection for this project. On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley and carried: A_ Finding that the Environmental Impact Report was previously certified as complete for the specific plan by the Board of Supervisors on April 13, 1982, and the EIR is hereby recertified as supplemented for the PAC rezone in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines and the Butte County Environ- mental Review Guidelines for the Canyon Park Estates project; and B. Further finding that the project may have a significant affect on the environment and this significant affect can be reduced, not eliminated, by the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth below and by this reference made a part hereof the impacts identifed as being potentially significant for which mitigation measures are proposed to reduce, but not completely eliminate the factors listed on the Planning Staff's memo dated July 22, 1982, which address erosion, water quality, water availability, fire hazard, wildlife growth induce- ment, traffic, public services and utilities, aesthetics, loss of open space, health hazards, sewage oxidation ponds, as follows: 1. Erosion - erosion control measures would be enforced up through filing the final subdivision map, but individual residences may generate erosion and sedimentation as part of homesite preparation and usage. water quality - erosion control measures and the County Service Area to operate and maintain the proposed sewage disposal ponds will help to minimize the risks. However, there is always the possibility of occasional turbility or sedimentation occurring on the project site that would affect the creek. The design and construction of the levees for the sewage ponds would also be required to comply with the mitigation measure regarding adequate lateral reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. 3. Water availability/fire havard - One well has been test pumped at three hundred fifty (350) gallons per minute with one additional well drilled to date. Additional water supplies will be developed for domestic use and fire protection if needed. The fire hazard can be reduced by incorporating the measures recommended by County Fire Warden along with the eventual creation of a Fire Protection Assessment District for the subject area. 4. Wildlife - While the project will have an impact on migratory wild- life, the Department of Fish and Game, realizing that residential development is allowed on the site, believes the project, as designed, is acceptable in minimizing wildlife impacts. 5. Growth inducement - While this project would encourage additional residential development in the area, the General Plan criteria and specific site constraints will be taken into account for sub- sequent projects. The existing General Plan map and text provide for eventual residential growth in the area. All projects to Psge 252. July 22, 1982 8'e a July 22, 1982 create new residential parcels would be subject to public hearings and modification of the projects in accordance with pertinent data and input from agencies and the public. 6. Traffic - Humboldt Road will be improved along the project frontage to facilitate traffic flow. Input received from Caltrans indicates no severe traffic hazards posed by this project in relation to Highway 32. 7. Public services and utilities - increased demands for public services can be reduced by the provision of a security patrol, on-site fire protection and other services that might be provided as part of the Homeowners Association. The cost to extend utilities to the site will be borne by the applicant and/or future residents. 8.' Aesthetic/loss of open space - The visual character of the project site would be modified though to a lesser degree than would occur with a conventional subdivision and randomly situated residences. The clustered homesites and the longterm maintenance of an open space (proposed via a land trust by the applicant) will assure the visual quality and open space character of the site will 6e retained. 9. Health hazards/sewage oxidation ponds - review and monitoring for the. proposed sewage pond system will occur by the Health Department and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. The County Service Area will assure a greater level of control in operation and maintenance of the segge disposal system that would occur with the proposed Homeowners Association. C, And, further find that the alternatives to the proposed project discussed on pages 32 through 34 of the ETR are being rejected for the Following reasons: 1. The no-project alternative is unreasonable in that the zoning and the General Plan provide for residential development and division of the land on a parcel map or subdivision basis would potentially be more environmentally damaging. 2. A modified site plan from the present proposal is not deemed necessary since it already represents a modification From the original proposal and the layout of the 109 parcels has been accomplished in an environmentally sensitive manner. 3. The higher density alternative though potentially allowed by the General Plan is not reasonable due to the type and quality of development sought by the applicant and due to an increase in the magnitude of the impacts on wildlife, water quality and other factors would occur with such a density. In fact, 109 parcels represent a reduction from as many as 220 parcels that were being considered at one time. 4. The lower. density alternative would further reduce the magnitude of impacts, but is not considered reasonable since the proposal represents an overall density of about one dwelling unit per ten acres, and the cluster arrangement of homesites effectively reduces the environmental impacts well providing over 700 acres of open space. 5. The recreation ranch alternative is not considered a viable option at this location in long term, though elements of such a proposal - Page 253. July 22, 1982 62 July 22, 1982 - - horse corrals and other recreational facilities - may have merit in conjunction iwth a residential project. D. And, although there may be significant adverse environmental effects resulting from approval of this project there are overriding considera- tions which justify project approval. Those overriding considerations include: 1. The project as proposed is environmentally superior to develop- ment which can occur pursuant to the previous A-2 (general) and S-H (Scenic Highway) zoning. There are advantages provided by the cluster development which include less utility line extensions, fewer lineal feet of roads, easier provision of public services and the provision of over 700 acres of open space designated for wildlife habitat. 2. The project as proposed appears to be the least environmentally damaging, alternatively capable of achieving project objectives. 3. The project will result in the construction of a. paved road linking Humboldt Road with Little Chico Creek Canyon area. This road could be opened up for public use during an energency providing an alternative escape route for canyon residents to the north and to the east. 4. This project will provide up to 109 additional residential units in an area that does not have prime agricultural soils, thus reducing the impetus to build in the areas of the county with prime agricultural soils. 5. The project will provide jobs during the construction phase and the project residents will contribute to the local economy. E. The PA-C division is in conformance with all elements of the Butte County General Plan; and Having found the above i move that the Board of Supervisors adopt an ordinance rezoning the property to PA-C to allow the creation of 109 parcels as shown on the development plan for AP 46-71-17, 46-71-18 (a portion of), 46-35-04 and 23 subject to the thirty-one conditions recommended by the Planning Commission in their minutes of April 15, 1982, meeting as follows: ~ ' 1. Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for approval and install the required facilities. 2. Indicate a 20 ft. building setback line from the edge of the roadways. 3. Street signs shall be provided by the developer at all street intersections .per County requirements. (Submit 5 alternate street names for each street to the County address coordinator for approval of street names.) 4. Construct full street section on Humboldt Road frontage to RS-3-B geometric standard. Minimum structural section to be 2" AC and 8" AB, SC 250 '.prime, fog seal and 95~ compaction. Subbit design to County Department of Public Works for approval. "R" value determinations and other data may be required to support section design. Page 254. July 22, 1982 // 82 a _ _ _ _ '~____-__=====Jul=22, 1982 ______________ S. Provide monumentation as required by the Department of Public Works in accordance with accepted standards. 6. Street grades and other features shall comply with the Butte County Ordinances, design resolution and other accepted engineering standards, 7. Provide permanent solution for drainage. 8. All easements of record to be shown on the final map. 9. Meet the requirements of the Butte County Fire Department or other responsible agency. 10. Street lighting shall be provided in accordance with Butte County requirements, accepted design criteria, and recommendations of PG&E for the area between the project entrance on Humboldt Road and Highway 32. 11. Provide circulation. (Access road fromHUmboldt Road plus deeded right to use two emergency access roads to the north.) 12. Obtain state encroachment permit and construct standard public road approach on Humboldt Road at Highway 32. 13. Meet the requirements of the utility companies (i.e., PG&E, Pacific Telephone, water sewer.) 19. Pay any delinquent taxes. 15. File a tentative and final subdivision map and pay appropriate fees. 16. Developer shall provide all required traffic safety signs including stop signs. 17. Provide a community domestic water supply that complies with the California State Safe Drinking Water Act and the Code of Butte County. 18. Provide community sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities that comply with California State Regional Water Qualtiy Control Board, the Coee of Butte County, California State Health and Safety Code and other applicable codes and regulations governing the design, construction, and operation of the facilities. 19. Provide a service and maintenance district or other legal entity or entities adequate to insure the construction, maintenance, repair,. or improvements of the domestic water supply system and the community sewage collection treatment and disposal facilities. 20.- Record a covenant, running with the land, agreeing to inclusion within a Fire Protection Assessment District which may be established by the Board of Supervisors at a future time. 21.- Applicant must also comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. MITIGATION MEASURES: 22. Utilize standard erosion control and construction practices to minimize erosion and other construction impacts. Page 255. July 22, 1982 t r_ , 82 1189 1190 July 22, 1982 23. Design and construct the structures with adequate lateral reinforce- ment to withstand an earthquake with intensity VIII on the Modified Mercalli Scale per the Uniform Building Code. 24. Minimize potential damage from rockfalls by: (a) Locate dwellings and other structures away from the base of steep bluffs. (b) Avoid probable areas of future rockfall activity where concentration of rockfall debris occur. (c) Construct low walls of native stone on the uphill side of dwelling sites where the area shows evidence of occasional rockfalls of small boulders. 25. Mark the important archaeological site by survey monuments during the road construction phase. 26. Grant an easement for archaeological site CV-1 to the Society for California Archaeology OR if preservation of the site is not feasible, an extensive scientific investigation is required prior to filing subdivison map. 27. Locate roads and dwellings units so as to minimize the amount of vegetation removed or disrupted, avoiding habitat interfaces whenever possible. Locate dwellings and roads 50 to 100 feet from street channels except at bridge or culvert crossings. 28. Restrict fencing to homesites to provide corridors for wildlife movement. 29. Limit the construction of dwelling units within 350 feet from the centerline of Highway 32. For dwellings proposed to be located within that setback area, architectural design of the buildings and placement on the parcels to conform with the landscape. 30. Obtain streambed alteration permit from California Department of Fish and Game for creek crossings. 31. Utilize energy conservation measures of the Uniform Building Code and as required by Section 66473.1 of the Subdivision Map Act. 32. Locate the sewage oxidation ponds outside the 100 year flood plain of Little Chico Creek. AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni, Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton RECESS: 12:35 p.m. RECONVENE: 2:09 p.m. ADDITIONAL ITEM PRESENTED BY BOARD MEMBERS Chairman Wheeler stated there had been a meeting with property owners along Highway 32. Caltrans has said they will have to allow for more legal access if there is any more growth in the area and for the Board to apply to the State Transportation Commission. Highway 32 was constructed with field entrances. There is a need to have an EIR done. The matter to be placed on the agenda for consideration of a fiscal study. PUBLIC HEARING: CHTCO AREA LAND USE (GREENLINE) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT mhe public hearing on the Chico Area Land Use (Greenline) General Plan amendment was held a5 Continued. Page 256. July 22, 1982 :o _--------=====JUl~ 22, 1982 ==_______---____- Charlie Floods, planning department, set out the draft-that had been presented to the Board using the coalition proposal and changing the wording in it from ordinance to policy. The draft also shows a commitT meat on the part of the Board to review this every five years. The refer- ence to the five years does not infringe upon an individual's right to petition the Board for a change at any time, since the Board can make three changes to the General Plan each year. Supervisor Saraceni was concerned that no change could be made unless there were no other urban or suburban lands reasonably available for proposed development. He was concerned that there was nowhere else that this type of thing was done in the General Plan. He did not feel there would be time when there would not be suitable development land available. The property located within the sphere of influence of the city could be annexed and utilized as urban use, but if it remained in the county, it would be agricultural use. Supervisor Dolan was in favor of the restrictions, felt the community support for a greenline was to say go some other place to build other than the west area. It does not eliminate the argument about the east side. Chairman Wheeler felt it was very restrictive and the same would apply if it went to the electorate and voted on by the people. Discussion of city-county cooperation held at this time. Supervisor Saraceni did not see the cooperation working both ways. The county has made several concessions in several areas of the county and he did not see a reciprocation by the cities. Chairman wheeler stated when the Board had gone through the hearings and made their decision on Entler and Sacramento Avenues, they were very explicit about conserving agricultural land and gave direction to the committee to meet with the city to come back with a proposal, which was done. This matter. has taken four years since that time. Supervisor Dolan stated since the Ciyt of Chico adopted their general plan, there has been concern in that area that the county also adopt a general plan similar to the general plan of the city. The Board has granted jurisdiction on county lands for two big sewer assessment districts. The previous Board did discuss the sphere of influence. Supervisor Saraceni found if the county is trying to preserve agricultural land along with the city, when a piece of property moves into the city and the city does away with the agricultural use, that is not cooperation with each other on the different lines as far as cooperation in saving agricultural land is concerned. Supervisor Dolan stated for the last 25 years the history has been that the county was approving high density development and the city was trying to preserve agriculture. The reason for the controversy is because of the approval of the high density developments. The county approved apartments along Highway 32 and there were lengthy hearings that were approved on a split vote. If there was to be development in the west area, there would be a need to amend the General Plan and the sphere of influence would have to be changed. The county would have to do something about providing sewer, because this is being provided to the east side and is not planned for the west side. It would have to be a complete turn around in the policy of the city. Page 257. July 22, 1982 t' 8; - July 22, 1982y On motion ofJSupervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler a motion of intent was made to-adopt the policy as presented. Supervisor Saraceni stated under the change it talked about a majority vote to change the location to the Chico area greenline. The change can only be made after written findings of fact. Is that dupli- cated in the other elements? Supervisor Dolan advised it was new, different, more restrictive and harder than normal., which was the intent of the greenline to establish an urban growth boundary. The purpose is to have a restrictive urban growth boundary. Chairman Wheeler stated the intent of the greenline was for the conservation and preservation of agricultural land. She found that the language was parallel to the request for withdrawal from the Williamson Act agreement, which speaks to the preservation of agricultural land. Vote on motion: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Moseley and Saraceni Motion carried, Mr. Woods stated the last step involved in this process was land use designation.. Exhibit G is what the Planning Commission is recommending. The Board has already made some changes that relates to SUDAD. RECESS: 2:46 p.m. RECONVENE: 2:53 p.m. Discussion of the various land use designations held at this time. Mr. woods set out the Planning Commission recommendations for the Chapmantown and the Mulberry area at this time. There were thirty some changes that were made. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, it is the Board's intent to establish a land use designation as recommended by the Planning Commission, except as changed by the Board's intent to establish the greenline. AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: Supervisors Moseley .and Saraceni. Louis Camenzind, Jr., 2194 Oroville-Durham Highway, stated the Board had just overthrown the Constitution of the State and United States. In his opinion, some of the things in this greenline were unconstitutional. He would like a copy of what had been done. RECESS: The Board recessed at 3:05 p.m to reconvene on Tuesday, July 27, 1982, at 9:00 a.m. Page 258. July 22, 1982