HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes of PCA1130.06
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 1 ■
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
November 30, 2006
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m.
II. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Lambert, Marin, Wilson and Leland
and Chairman Nelson
ALSO PRESENT:
County Counsel Felix Wannenmacher, Deputy County Counsel
Robert MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel
Development Services Pete Calarco, Assistant Director
Chuck Thistlethwaite, Planning Manager
Stacey Jolliffe, Principal Planner
Mark Michelena, Senior Planner
Carl Durling, Associate Planner
Meredith Williams, Associate Planner
Chris Tolley, Associate Planner
Chris Thomas, Associate Planner
Gwyn Benedict, Office Specialist, Senior
Public Works Eric Schroth
Environmental Health Doug Fogel
Agricultural Commissioner Richard Price
III. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA - Commission members and staff may request additions,
deletions, or changes in the Agenda order.
Commissioner Lambert asked to add a Resolution for Lynn Richardson.
Chairman Nelson read the resolution for Lynn Richardson into the record; the resolution was signed
and adopted this day November 30, 2006.
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR ON ITEMS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA
(Presentations will be limited to five minutes. The Planning Commission is prohibited by State Law from taking
action on any item presented if it is not listed on the Agenda)
None.
V. CONSENT AGENDA Consent items are set for approval in one motion. These items are considered non-
controversial. No presentations will be made unless the item is pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Any
person may pull an item from the consent agenda.
The Chair will ask if any Commissioner or member of the public wishes to pull a consent item for discussion.
None
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 2 ■
VI. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. Any items pulled from the Consent Agenda
will be considered.
None
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS The Chair will call for staff comments. The hearing will be opened to the public for
proponents, opponents, comments, and rebuttals. The hearing will be closed to the public and discussion confined to
the Commission. The Commission will then make a motion and vote on the item.
It is requested that public initiated presentations be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes so that all interested parties
will have an opportunity to address the Commission. Following your presentation, please print your name and
address on the speakers sheet so that the record will be accurate.
The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been considered
by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office
A. UP 05-10 - Continued open from November 9, 2006
Name: Michael Ballou Project: Use Permit UP 05-10
Planner: Carl Durling APN: 041-190-051 Zoning: U, S-H
Location: On the west side of Clark Road, (SR-191), approximately 1.8 miles north
of SR - 70
Proposal: Use permit to allow equestrian training, education, and event park.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Carl Durling gave a description and summary of the project, with an explanation of the changes that
had been made to the Conditions of Approval to strengthen the mitigation measures for protecting
the agricultural land.
Mr. Durling stated that he intended to read into the record the changes so that it was very clear in the
record what the changes were and why. Mitigation Measure #2 Monitoring will read: “The
monitoring language now requires that a report be submitted to the Department at the start of each
agricultural season. The report will specify the type of agricultural activity to be pursued by the
applicant during the upcoming season beginning each October 31st. This declared activity must be
fulfilled by the applicant in order to qualify for the off-season activities permitted by the Use Permit.
The applicant will be billed for the staff time necessary to review the report and monitor the
agricultural activity. The Department will consult with the Agricultural Commissioner and the
LCAC as needed”. This change was discussed with the Agricultural Commissioner and it was agreed
that the Agricultural Commissioner would bill the applicant for his time also. Next change Condition
#16 to be Condition #18 on the Use Permit Conditions of Approval stating: “The ability to obtain a
Special Events Permit under this use permit is dependent upon compliance with conditions of
approval and mitigation measures. The Permittee shall obtain a Special Events Permit for each of
the twelve three-day events from the Butte County Fire Department ($100.00 fee payable by check
to the Butte County Fire Department). Be prepared to address the following: site plan, tent and
canopy safety, portable generators/heaters/lights, outdoor cooking, campfires, outdoor electrical
wiring, hazardous materials (propane), emergency vehicle access, standby medical team, parking,
fire extinguishers, fire suppression water sources, fire breaks, smoking, standby personnel,
housekeeping. The Butte County Fire Department shall consult with the Department of
Development Services regarding compliance with conditions of approval and mitigation measures
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 3 ■
prior to issuing a Special Events permit”. This condition now makes it clear that the applicant must
have adhered to the conditions of the Use Permit in order to obtain the Butte County Fire
Department’s Special Events Permit.
Chairman Nelson asked if the applicant would be able to present a calendar of events with specific
dates for the events and be able to obtain one permit for all of the events listed.
Mr. Durling replied that each event would require a separate special events permit by the Fire
Department. He also mentioned that he added Condition #1 which had previously been omitted by
accident from the draft conditions, and that Condition #11 was added to make it clear that all the
temporary facilities would be removed by October 31st of each year.
Commissioner Leland responded that he was opposed to the new Condition #1, and that he was
under the impression that the Commission could revoke a Use Permit if the condition were violated.
Stacey Jolliffe agreed with Commissioner Leland and stated that the intent of the condition was for
the Commission to have the ability to comeback and apply additional mitigation measures or
conditions of approval as necessary.
Commissioner Leland asked that Condition #1 be deleted.
Commissioner Lambert stated that she was concerned with the Motion of Intent regarding the
compliance with findings of the California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) meeting that dealt
strictly with horse riding trails, and the Commission would be approving not only the trail riding, but
also all of the equestrian events and included activities. She was concerned about adhering to the
intent of the CLCA motion.
Commissioner Leland replied that it was his intention to approve of all the activities as described
and that the horse back riding would be limited to the existing cattle trails.
Mr. Durling addressed the Commission and read a brief excerpt from the CLCA minutes, and
reiterated that the CLCA was concerned that the horse riding be kept to existing trails, and that the
committee was aware of all the other activities including the camping and equestrian events.
Commissioner Lambert read a portion of the minutes from the CLCA meeting and it did not mention
any of the other events of the project.
Chairman Nelson asked if the project was presented to the CLCA the same way it was presented to
the Commission, and that they approved the package with the same knowledge of activities that was
before the Commission today.
Commissioner Leland agreed with Chairman Nelson and referred to page 32 of the CLCA minutes
which mentioned the camping, parking and other ancillary activities.
Mr. Price stated that the biggest issue was criticism from the Department of Conservation (DOC)
concerning compatibility of both spatially and temporally events regarding impact on existing
agriculture and CLCA main purpose is to keep agriculture as the primary use and secondary uses to
a minimal impact on the Williamson Act Contract. The CLCA was aware that ancillary events would
be taking place – the committee did not know to what extent those activities would be, and that they
would defer to the Planning Commission to put a cap on those potential impacts on existing
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 4 ■
agricultural uses. The main concern of the CLCS was that the riding trails be limited to the existing
trails. Also the DOC was concerned with having an adequate monitoring plan in place.
Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Price if he looked at the proposed monitoring plan requiring that
the permit holder would submit an annual yearly report predicting what was to be planted and that
Development Services in conjunction with the Agricultural Commissioner and CLCA would
monitor the agriculture on an occasional basis. He also inquired if the report and minimal monitoring
would satisfy the DOC and CLCA concerns.
Mr. Price replied that typically when a chemical permit or operator ID is applied for at the
Agricultural Commissioner, then the Agricultural Commissioner is aware of the type of crop to be
grown based on the permits requested.
Commissioner Leland responded that whatever type of monitoring program was selected, it needed
to satisfy concerns of the DOC and the CLCA.
Mr. Price indicated that his department had not yet reviewed the monitoring program, it would be a
new process for the Agricultural Commissioner, but as long as there was a means to recoup the cost
of the monitoring plan then they would be amenable to it.
Commissioner Leland read the monitoring language for Mitigation Measure #2 as follows: “The
Permittee shall report in writing to the Department of Development Services (DDS) which
agricultural activity it will pursue at the start of the agricultural season. The Butte County
Department of Development Services, in consultation with the Agricultural Commissioner and the
CLCA, shall periodically monitor the property for compliance. Monitoring and site visits will be
charged at the hourly rates consistent with adopted fees for Butte County.” He asked Mr. Price if his
department was agreeing to the monitoring language.
Mr. Price replied that he would feel more comfortable entering into a “compliance agreement” with
the property owners. A compliance agreement fee would be charged to the applicant that would be
sufficient to cover the Agricultural Commissioners cost of monitoring the agricultural production
and satisfy the monitoring for Mitigation Measure #2.
Commissioner Leland asked if Mr. Price would be amenable to changing the monitoring language of
Mitigation Measure #2 to read: “The Permittee shall enter into a compliance agreement in a form
acceptable to the Agricultural Commissioner to govern inspection, timing, frequency, and
reimbursement of the monitoring program.”
Stacey Jolliffe reminded that Development Services would most likely still be required to monitor
the other activities outside of the agricultural production and that would need to be indicated in the
mitigation measure.
Mr. Price agreed with Ms. Jolliffe and replied that between the two departments they should
satisfactorily cover the concerns of the DOC and the CLCA.
Mr. Wannenmacher asked if it was Commissioner Leland’s intent to add the language to the
monitoring of Mitigation Measure #2 and not to change the existing language.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 5 ■
Commissioner Leland replied that Mr. Wannenmacher was correct.
Mr. Wannenmacher suggested adding a condition after Condition #9. Condition #9 deals with the
location of the horseback trail riding. If the Commission wanted to they could add a Condition #10
that would say: ‘All uses other than horseback trail riding shall be confined to areas that have no
ability to have agricultural uses.”
Chairman Nelson and Mr. Price agreed that it would answer CLCA issues.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Connie Ballou addressed the Commission. She informed the Commission that there is an area
designated for cross country events in the off season that would also be used for hay production
during the agricultural season, which would make the new language that Mr. Wannenmacher
suggested inaccurate.
Chairman Nelson replied that as long as the applicant was satisfying the intent of the condition that
it would be sufficient.
Ms. Ballou responded that they were applying for a ‘Special Event Park’ as described in the use
permit application, but that they were being required to obtain a special event permit for each three
day event they host. She understands that the Butte County Fire Department would want her to
provide safety information, site plan, water etc for the first event of each season. The fire safety plan
should remain the same for the entire season and that one Special Event Permit and one $100.00 fee
would be adequate, and that there seem to be excessive monitoring measures and she would like to
know why.
Commissioner Marin spoke to Ms. Ballou and indicated that he agreed with her on the excessive
monitoring issues and hopefully at the end of today it would all be behind her and she would have
her approval for the Use Permit.
Mr. Wannenmacher informed the Commission that there wasn’t a representative from the Fire
Department and that he could not say if the Fire Department would or wouldn’t be willing to accept
one special event permit for the entire event season. However, there are different types of events and
that would indicate that each event would not be the same.
Stacey Jolliffe addressed the Commission. She responded that each subsequent event would be
easier to monitor as time goes on and as the applicant learns how to maintain the mitigation
measures. The question would be if there is a problem when would you have a re-opener to say that
didn’t work so well in the last event and how could it be done differently at the next one. The intent
of the individual Special Events Permits would be for the applicant to indicate any possible changes
from the previous event and if any changes would be needed for the mitigation measures. Since the
fee is only a hundred dollar fee, it wouldn’t be too onerous for the applicant and it was a way of
tightening up the monitoring measures to satisfy the requirements of the DOC, CLCA and Planning
Commission concerns.
Chairman Nelson asked Ms. Ballou if she had a specified calendar of events and dates or if they just
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 6 ■
occur.
Ms. Ballou responded that it was possible to schedule certain events for particular days, but that at
any time they could be requested to schedule an additional event. Ms. Ballou indicated that perhaps
she needs to contact someone at the Fire Department and see if she could get a single Special Events
Permit for a series of events and then apply for additional ones as needed.
Chairman Nelson inquired of staff if the Special Permits Events requirement could be made more
flexible.
Ms. Ballou replied that she thought that the Health Department instead of the Fire Department would
be interested in the changes in the events due to the size of an event considering that there would be
more port-a-potties and food trailers at larger events versus smaller events.
Ms. Jolliffe asked if it would be possible for the applicant to present a schedule of events for specific
dates to the Fire Department and obtain one special event permit for those events and then apply for
additional special events permits as needed.
Ms. Ballou wanted to know if she applied for the special events permit for 6 events at one time
would she have to pay one fee of $100.00 or would she have to pay $600.00.
Ms. Jolliffe replied that each special event permit was $100.00, but the Commission was trying to
see if the Fire Department would be flexible and only charge one fee if Ms. Ballou came in with a
schedule of events with the appropriate site plans for each event.
Commissioner Lambert had a question about a reference made to a club house and bird watching
that was indicated in the Agenda Report and was wondering what that was about.
Ms. Ballou replied that she had no intention of having a club house or doing any bird watching and
didn’t know why that language was in there. She also indicated that there were not any building
plans associated with this use permit.
The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Commission and staff.
Mr. Thistlethwaite made a recommendation to the Commission to create a condition that would
specifically restrict the cross country use to an area that was specifically shown on the site plan that
is included in the staff report and would be approved with the Use Permit.
Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Thistlethwaite to clarify if the condition would be for during the off season or
the growing season.
Mr. Thistlethwaite responded that it was his intention for the restriction to be effective during the
event season.
Commissioner Leland commented that the language could state: “All non agricultural uses shall be
confined to areas or times that have no ability for agricultural uses.”
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 7 ■
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, and seconded by Commissioner Marin, and passed by a vote
of 4-1. Ayes – Commissioners Leland, Marin, Wilson and Chairman Nelson, Nays’- Commissioner
Lambert to adopt Resolution PC06-64 approving the Use Permit for Michael Ballou subject to the
findings and conditions of the staff report with the following changes: Mitigation Measure #2 add
the following language to the monitoring plan - “The Permittee shall enter into a compliance
agreement in a form acceptable to the Agricultural Commissioner to govern inspection, timing,
frequency, and reimbursement of the monitoring program.”. Delete Condition #1, and add the
following sentence to Condition #9 “All non agricultural uses shall be confined to areas or times that
have no ability for agricultural uses.” Lastly add a finding that the monitoring language is equal to or
better than the existing language.
* * * * * *
B. UP06-0022 - staff recommends approval
Name: Clearwire, LLC Project: Use Permit, UP06-0022
Planner: Chris Tolley APN: 042-070-197 Zoning: A-5
Location: 1110 West-East Avenue (on the north side of West East Avenue, 0.25
miles northeast of the Highway 32, West East Avenue intersection), on the west side
of the City of Chico.
Proposal: Use Permit to collocate four panel antennas and four microwave dishes at
a height of 113 feet on an existing 130-foot communications tower and the
installation of ground equipment including radio cabinets and a Global Positioning
System antenna within the existing compound.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Ms. Jolliffe addressed the Commission. She wanted to point out that Item H on the agenda today was
for a Zoning Code Amendment that would change the zoning code in relation to how Use Permits
and Minor Use Permits for the collocation of facilities were handled due to some changes in State
law and that staff would go into more detail during that portion of the meeting today.
Chris Tolley gave a description and summary of the project.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Dave Wiltsee, representative for Clearwire LLC was present to answer any questions from the
Commission. Mr. Wiltsee stated that he had some objections to Condition #12 with regards to the
performance security in the amount of $2,500.00. He asked if Condition #12 could be deleted
because it was not necessary. Clearwire had already submitted a RF report on the emissions, and the
emissions from this type of facility must comply with FCC standards and that the FCC standards are
quite stringent. This project complies with the FCC standards, and the idea of putting down
$2500.00 for each tower does add up in the long run. Mr. Wiltsee also stated that there are sufficient
conditions to make sure that the facilities will be removed in the event that they are no longer
utilized.
The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 8 ■
Commissioner Lambert inquired if the upcoming changes would only be to the processing of the
permits and asked if the Ordinance would not be changed.
Mr. Thistlethwaite addressed the Commission. He stated that the existing Ordinance standards
would still need to be met, but that collocating antennae on existing towers would become a
ministerial action and would not require a hearing. New antennaes and towers would require a
hearing and would be heard by the Planning Commission. He also stated that staff would go into
detail during that portion of the hearing today.
There was a brief discussion on the proposed changes to regulations on wireless communications
facilities and what the upcoming changes would be.
Mr. Wiltsee responded to the discussion to reiterate that his company had done several noise
emissions studies on the site and that they all met the FCC standards, and that the performance
security just wasn’t necessary.
Commissioner Leland stated that the tests were just projections of what the noise emissions was
going to be, and the performance security was to enable a test to be conducted after the antennae was
erected. Somewhat similar to having a building inspector inspect your house after the permit was
issued to make sure you are in conformance with the approved plans.
Mr. Wiltsee replied that Commissioner Leland was correct, but he would like to see the results of
some previous tests that had been conducted. He indicated that he did not think that there were any
previous tests done and that the money was just squirreled away and left there.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Marin and unanimously
carried to adopt Resolution PC06-65 to approve the Use Permit for Clearwire LLC subject to the
findings and conditions.
* * * * * *
C. UP06-0023 – staff recommends approval
Name: MetroPCS Project: Use Permit UP06-0023
Planner: Chris Tolley APN: 041-430-012 Zoning: AR-2.5
Location: 2822 Clark Rd, approximately 600 feet north of Butte Campus Dr. and
2700 feet north of the Clark Rd/Durham-Pentz Rd intersection, in the Butte Valley
area.
Proposal: Metro PCS requests a use permit to colocate six (6) panel antennas at the
height of 42 feet on a previously approved, communications tower and the
installation of equipment cabinets on a new concrete pad adjacent to the tower.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Chris Tolley gave a description and summary of the project and showed a power point presentation.
The hearing was opened the public.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 9 ■
Mr. Crouse, the applicant’s representative was present to speak and answer any questions the
Commission might have.
The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Leland and unanimously
carried to adopt Resolution PC06-66 to approve the Use Permit for MetroPCS subject to the findings
and conditions.
* * * * * *
D. UP 04-06 - staff recommends approval.
Name: David Murray Project: Use Permit, UP 04-06
Planner: Carl Durling APN: 063-250-039 Zoning: TM-20
Location: At the easterly end of Village Drive, approximately 0.75 miles from the
intersection of Crown Point Road; approximately 1.4 miles from the intersection of
Crown Point Road and Deer Creek Highway (Highway 32), south of Forest Ranch.
Proposal: Use Permit to allow continuation of an existing dog kennel for 18 dogs
including outdoor cable runs.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Carl Durling gave a description and summary of the project, and he showed a power point
presentation. Mr. Durling explained that this project came to the attention of Development Services
through a citation by Animal Control, and that there were several violations that needed to be
cleared up before the applicant could apply for a Use Permit for the kennel.
Chairman Nelson inquired if Animal Control had looked at the project.
Mr. Durling replied that Animal Control has been out to the site and initially thought that the
applicant would need to apply for an exotic animal permit due to the dogs appearing to be wolf
hybrids. Upon testing by a veterinarian it was discovered that the dogs were of Husky or Malamute
descent, therefore an exotic animal license was not needed. The applicant would be required to apply
for a kennel license that would monitor the vaccinations of the dogs, within 30 days of the approval
of the Use Permit.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Dave Murray addressed the Commission. He was here to answer any questions concerning the dogs
and the kennel permit. Mr. Murray stated that it was his intention to maintain the dogs on 20-foot
cable runs with individual dog houses, but Animal Control did not like that setup so he was going to
erect a kennel consisting of 18 cages. In addition to the cages he wanted to maintain 5-6 runners to
provide exercise for the dogs.
Commissioner Wilson asked how long the cable dog runners were.
Mr. Murray replied that they vary in length with the shortest one being 18 feet and longest one at 35
feet.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 10 ■
Commissioner Wilson asked if the dogs roamed on the property or if they were contained at all
times.
Mr. Murray responded that they were contained and if a runner happens to break the dogs usually
stay around the other dogs and do not roam around.
Commissioner Wilson asked the primary breed of the dogs.
Mr. Murray replied that the vet had stated that they were a Husky mix. He also indicated that last
year he had a veterinarian come to his property and vaccinate all of the dogs.
Brett Gonzales addressed the Commission. Mr. Gonzales stated that he is a neighbor of Mr.
Murray’s and that this project was brought to the attention of Animal Control by way of complaints.
His property is over 1800-feet away from Mr. Murray’s property and that there is considerable noise
from the dogs at all hours of the day. Mr. Gonzales read Mitigation Measure #2 as follows: “The
applicant shall modify the application by reducing the number of dog cable runs from 18 to 10,
limiting their use to daylight hours, and confining them to the area west of the entrance drive way
and north of a line between the kennel and the future “granny” house. The applicant shall revise the
site plan to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager prior to establishment of the use.” He said that
part seemed odd due to the fact that the west side of the driveway was toward the more inhabited
area of neighboring properties and that to the east side there are not any inhabited parcels. He felt
that it would be less of an impact to the neighbors if the dogs were located to the east side of the
property. Mr. Gonzales stated that he was opposed to the kennel, and that when he first moved into
the area he was quite surprised at the level of noise created by the dogs.
Tonya Lynch addressed the Commission. Ms. Lynch indicated that she was an adjacent property
owner to the west of Mr. Murray and had been in residence for 14 years. She stated that the dogs
were on dog runners in close proximity to the joint property line. Ms. Lynch stated that she is
definitely opposed to the kennel; she had sent a letter with pictures to the Planning Department. Her
concerns are the noise level, in the Noise Study it stated that the dogs only barked at strangers or at
feeding time. The dogs actually bark day and night, anything will set them off – wildlife, cars,
anything. Another issue is the junk cars and abandoned vehicles – the report stated that “all” of the
junk cars and vehicles had been removed. That was inaccurate. Ms. Lynch stated that she had sent
pictures to Development Services showing an abandoned bus and several junk trailers, including a
burnt out trailer. There is also a building directly on the mutual property line that is an eyesore, the
siding has been removed and the insulation is in direct view from her property. The dogs are also on
runners situated next to the property line. Ms. Lynch stated that she cannot go near her property line
without the dogs going crazy. In addition to all of the other issues, while clearing near the mutual
property line Ms. Lynch discovered a well that is on her property with piping running over to Mr.
Murray’s’ property; and if that is the well that Mr. Murray intends to use for his kennel then there is
a really big problem. Mr. Murray does not have an easement for his well to exist on her property.
The Initial Study also indicates that the runs would not be any closer than 150-feet from neighboring
property lines, currently the dogs are right up to the property line. Ms. Lynch also stated that she has
a shallow well that is down an incline from the kennel site; she is concerned with the feces run-off
contaminating the ground water. The Initial Study also indicated that there would not be an odor
issue because the applicant would be required to clean the kennels daily; she said that is not
happening at this time.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 11 ■
Ms. Lynch also stated that she has personally witnessed some of the dogs that have gotten loose
from the cable runners, stalk and kill several of her chickens inside her chicken coop. She also
indicated that she is concerned about the dogs getting loose and coming onto her property as she has
small children and is concerned for their safety.
Mr. Wannenmacher asked Ms. Lynch who she had sent the letter and pictures to.
Ms. Lynch indicated that she had the letter with her and had sent the letter and the pictures to Butte
County Planning Division at 7 County Center Drive in Oroville.
Commissioner Leland asked Ms. Lynch if the letter stated anything different than what she had
discussed today.
Ms. Lynch stated that it did not; the letter was basically the same and went into greater detail about
her opposition to the kennel permit.
Mr. Murray addressed the Commission. He referred to the vehicles on his property; he stated that
the tanker vehicle was running and would be used in the construction of the kennel; the school bus
was also a running vehicle and that there weren’t any burnt out trailers anywhere. Mr. Murray also
stated that he was not finished with the cleanup process. He also stated that he did have the property
lines surveyed and the survey showed that the well was on the neighbor’s property, and he is trying
to find a new source of water. Mr. Murray also stated that his intention was to try to consolidate all
of the kennel and dog runners towards the central area of the property. His goal was to keep the dogs
for the rest of their natural lives and to avoid having them go to the pound or be put to sleep.
Commissioner Lambert asked for a description of the type of cable runners being used.
Mr. Murray replied that it was a plastic coated cable tied between two trees with a 20-foot chain
attached to the cable and then the chain was attached to the dog’s collar.
Commissioner Lambert asked if it would be a problem to move the runners to the east side of the
driveway instead of the west side.
Mr. Murray responded that it was his idea to condense the kennel area closer to the existing, now
legally permitted house, and that he would use just a few runners located nearby to exercise the
dogs.
Chairman Nelson asked if Mr. Murray was still collecting dogs, or intended to have more dogs on
the site.
Mr. Murray stated no – he was actually hoping to diminish the number of dogs. Occasionally one of
the dogs will get loose and then he will end up with a litter of puppies. He also indicated that it was
his intention to turn the existing structure that is situated close to Ms. Lynch’s property into a granny
flat, but in all reality it would most likely need to be torn down and moved due to the setback issue.
Commissioner Marin asked if Mr. Murray had any objections to tying the cable runners on the east
side.
Mr. Murray replied that he did not; he would prefer to keep them in the center of the area.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 12 ■
Commissioner Lambert asked Mr. Murray what alternate source of water would be available.
Mr. Murray responded that he would need to have a new well drilled, but that he is limited with
funds and available time.
Mr. Durling informed the Commission that Mr. Murray was cited for the junk cars by Butte County
Code Enforcement, and that he conducted a site visit with a Code Enforcement Officer to verify that
the junk cars that had been cited were removed, and they had been.
Commissioner Lambert stated that she would have appreciated Animal Control being present to
answered questions.
Commissioner Wilson asked for clarification on whether it was Animal Control or Code
Enforcement that brought this issue to light.
Mr. Durling indicated that it was both agencies.
Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Durling if Animal Control’s concerns would be addressed if the Use Permit
were to be approved.
Mr. Durling replied that Animal Control would be satisfied through the issuance of the Use Permit
and subsequently the kennel license.
Commissioner Wilson asked if Animal Control regularly inspected licensed kennels.
Mr. Durling indicated that he did not know if there were regular inspections, but that Animal Control
is aware of this kennel and is requiring a kennel license and a use permit be issued.
Commissioner Wilson asked if this kennel would be monitored closely to see if the applicant was
complying with the conditions of the Use Permit.
Mr. Durling responded that the monitoring would be done by Development Services and Animal
Control would be doing yearly monitoring of the dogs for vaccinations.
Commissioner Wilson asked if the monitoring would include the monitoring of the animal waste
clean up.
Mr. Durling replied that there was a condition of the Use Permit that would address the issue.
Commissioner Wilson replied that cleaning up after 18 dogs would be a pretty big job.
Chairman Nelson replied that he was not in favor of this project and that all they were doing was
allowing the applicant to have more than 5 dogs and calling it a kennel. He would like to find a way
to allow Mr. Murray keep his dogs, but not approve the Use Permit.
Commissioner Leland indicated that he would be inclined to grant the permit, and that dogs make
noise regardless of number – dogs bark and are noisy.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 13 ■
Commissioner Lambert replied that she did not see a problem with the location of the kennel, but
she really would like to hear from Animal Control regarding the condition of the kennels and the
quality of care that the dogs were receiving.
Commissioner Marin concurred with Commissioners Leland and Lambert, and the parcel was a 21-
acre parcel and the applicant should be able to obtain a permit that would allow him to maintain his
dogs rather than have them impounded and put to sleep. Animal Control and Development Services
would be monitoring the kennel to insure compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions
and that should be sufficient.
Commissioner Lambert stated that she would like some feedback from Animal Control on the whole
issue.
Commissioner Marin responded that he agreed with Commissioner Lambert that it would be ideal to
hear from Animal Control, but if the Use Permit was not issued Mr. Murray would be open to being
cited again and why would the Commission want to keep him out of compliance in the meantime.
Mr. Thistlethwaite addressed the Commission. He reminded the Commission that this project has
been ongoing for some time and that it would not be a problem if the project was continued, which
would allow for some feedback from Animal Control. Mr. Thistlethwaite reminded the Commission
that regrettably, the letter submitted by Ms. Lynch had not been received and therefore the concerns
had not been taken into account or addressed. This information could be considered additional
information that should have been included as part of the environmental review. It would be prudent
to direct staff to address the letter from Ms. Lynch, in particular the issue of the junk cars, noise and
especially the situation with the well.
Commissioner Marin asked what meetings were being scheduled for December.
Ms. Jolliffe responded that there was a December 14th meeting scheduled and that a quorum had not
been confirmed for December 28, 2006, there was a possibility that the December 28th meeting
would be cancelled.
Commissioner Marin stated that a continuation to the December 14th meeting would probably be
insufficient time for the applicant to remedy some of the issues, in particular the issue of the well.
Commissioner Wilson commented that it would appear that Mr. Murray has lived his life the way he
wanted to for many years and that progress has finally caught up with him, and now that he is in the
system Animal Control will not let this issue drop nor will Code Enforcement just forget about him.
It may take Mr. Murray some time to come into compliance, but at some point he will have to.
Commissioner Leland concurred that Animal Control will have to conduct at minimum, yearly
inspection of the animals and their vaccination records.
Commissioner Lambert stated that a continuance would give staff time to include the letter from Ms.
Lynch in the environmental review.
Mr. Thistlethwaite responded that Commissioner Lambert was correct, and that quite frankly he was
concerned that there was testimony heard today that indicated there was a serious issue with the
well, and it was an important part of this project that the applicant now appears to need a new well.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 14 ■
There was a brief discussion on the fact that there was an illegal well for the project site.
Doug Fogel addressed the Commission. He said there is information in the Environmental Health
file that Mr. Murray and his department was aware that the well was insufficient prior to this
hearing. Mr. Fogel stated that since Mr. Murray admitted that the well was not his and the neighbor
has confirmed it is on their property, he will need to drill his own well to provide water to his parcel.
He also said that a continuation would be appropriate since Mr. Murray would need the water for the
animals as well as his personal residence.
Commissioner Lambert commented that it was relatively hard in that area to find a good source for
water.
Mr. Fogel responded that to ensure a good supply of water that Mr. Murray might need to drill up to
700 feet deep, and that will be a considerable expense.
Commissioner Wilson asked if it was part of the Use Permit to have adequate water on the property.
Ms. Jolliffe stated that currently it was not a condition of the Use Permit, but it could be added.
Mr. Fogel replied that it would most likely be a condition of the kennel license and that Animal
Control would require adequate water be available.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Wannenmacher if he would feel comfortable with a motion to approve
this project, or would he feel more comfortable with a continuation.
Mr. Wannenmacher replied that his main concern was that staff did not get comments to the
environmental document and could not address those comments, and he did not know if that would
change the document with regards to the new information about the noise level.
Commissioner Marin again asked if the December 14th meeting was appropriate or if more time was
needed to evaluate the project.
Mr. Thistlethwaite indicated that it would be more reasonable to continue the project to the first
meeting in January which would be January 11th. He also indicated that additional site inspections
would be needed and his recommendation would be to continue it to the January 11th meeting.
Commissioner Lambert asked Ms. Jolliffe if the January 11th meeting was acceptable.
Ms. Jolliffe replied that it would be fine.
It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Commissioner Marin, and unanimously
carried to continue Use Permit 04-06 for a kennel for David Murray to the January 11th meeting, and
directing staff to take in the additional information brought forth by the neighbors including the
issue of the illegal well and address those issues before the January 11th meeting.
* * * * * *
Chairman Nelson called for a short break.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 15 ■
The meeting reconvened at 11:00 am.
* * * * * *
E. UP 06-07 – staff recommends approval
Name: Allen and Lisa Renville Project: Use Permit UP 06-07
Planner: Chris Thomas APN: 041-120-113 Zoning: “U” (Unclassified)
Location: 2554 Lake Hills Drive, about a quarter of a mile north of Durham-Pentz
Road (Butte Valley).
Proposal: Use Permit to allow a private hobby kennel for up to twelve dogs
(Australian Shepherds) owned by the applicants.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Chris Thomas gave a description and summary of the project; he also showed a power point
presentation. Mr. Thomas also mentioned that the staff report was incorrect in regards to the number
of dogs on site; the maximum number of dogs on the site would be 12. He indicated that he had
received two calls from Karl and Valerie Robinson; they were opposed to the project due to noise
issues and proper containment of the dogs.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Al Renville, the applicant addressed the Commission. He gave a description of his dogs including
the location and condition of the kennels. He also informed the Commission that the dogs are seen
on a regular basis by a local veterinarian for vaccinations and health checkups.
Valerie Robinson addressed the Commission. She stated that she was an adjacent property neighbor
to the north of Mr. Renville and has had issues with the dogs being too close to the property line.
She also indicted that Mr. Renville has 8 dogs that are warehoused next to her property line and the
fencing is inadequate as her husband was almost bitten when they were checking the property line
fence. After notifying Mr. Renville of the incident with the dog, the dogs were moved about 10’ off
of the property line. Ms. Robinson also stated that from November 17th until after Thanksgiving
there were actually 18 dogs total on the property. She also witnessed a fight between 5 dogs in one
kennel where one dog was left wounded and bleeding. Ms. Robinson also stated that the dogs bark
all day long and she complained to Animal Control about the noise and the number of dogs which
started this kennel process.
Matt Jackson addressed the Commission. He stated that he is a colleague of Mr. Renville’s, and that
Mr. Renville has first quality kennels, the dogs are treated like children, and are very friendly.
Animal Control has visited the kennels and has not had a problem with the condition of the dogs or
the cleanliness of the kennel.
Jack Hite addressed the Commission. He thanked the Commission for ensuring the quality of life in
Butte County. Mr. Hite stated that he has known the Renville’s for 13 years, and their property is
one of the cleanest on the street. Mr. Hite said that he does not hear the dogs barking from the
Renville property with the exception of when the Renvilles are out of town, and that his
grandchildren walk up and down the street by the Renville’s and they even stick their hands through
the fence to pet the dogs. The dogs are very friendly and have never caused a problem.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 16 ■
Valerie Robinson addressed the Commission. She spoke about the noise level from the barking dogs
and that the Renville’s do not clean up after the dogs on a daily basis.
Mr. Renville addressed the Commission. He spoke about the dogs near Ms. Robinson’s property,
and when she complained about them being too close to the property line, he went out the very next
day and moved the dogs 20-feet away from the property line. Mr. Renville also stated that he tries to
be very accommodating with his neighbors and sensitive to their concerns with the dogs.
The hearing was closed and comments confined to the Commission and staff.
Commissioner Lambert asked if Animal Control became involved due to the number of dogs, or if it
was because of complaints that were received.
Mr. Thomas replied that a complaint was made by the Robinsons to Animal Control, and at that time
the Renville’s became aware that they needed to have a Use Permit for a kennel license. He also
stated that he had made three site visits, 1 announced and two unannounced; visited with the dogs,
viewed the kennels and noted that they were in very clean condition and that there was no sign of the
refuse that has been indicated by Ms. Robinson.
Commissioner Leland responded that he was inclined to approve the project subject to the findings
and conditions.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland to approve Use Permit 06-67 for Allen and Lisa Renville as
set out in the Staff Report dated 11/30/06, part of which is adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and approving the resolution.
Mr. Wannenmacher stated that there is no Mitigated Negative Declaration on this project.
Commissioner Leland said Mr. Wannenmacher was correct, this is a categorical exemption and he
amended his motion to reflect that.
Mr. Wannenmacher said the Commission needs to make a determination that the testimony they
heard in no way would require them to consider additional information.
Commissioner Leland said he has heard nothing that would require additional environmental
examination.
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, and seconded by Commissioner Lambert, and unanimously
carried to adopt Resolution PC 06-67 and approve the Use Permit for Allen and Lisa Renville
subject to the findings and conditions.
* * * * * *
F. UP 06-14 - staff recommends approval
Name: Don Sakal Project: Use Permit UP 06-14
Planner: Mark Michelena APN: 065-171-043 Zoning: AR-2-1/2
Location: On the East side of the Skyway, 650' North of Woodward Dr. (14664
Skyway).
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 17 ■
Proposal: A medical clinic in the Magalia area.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Mark Michelena handed out a revised site plan from the applicant, and then showed a power point
presentation along with a description of the project. Mr. Michelena indicated that he had a few
changes to the conditions of the project: Conditions #9 and #10 were to be deleted per Public Works
and to renumber the following conditions.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Don Sakal, the applicant addressed the Commission. He provided a summary of the project and
stated that his current clinic had been sold and he would no longer be able to provide medical care at
that site, so he decided to construct a clinic on his own property to avoid abandoning his patients.
Commissioner Wilson had a question about the lower driveway shown on the revised site map and
asked where it ended.
Mr. Sakal indicated that the driveway went across the property and ended at Elmwood.
Commissioner Wilson asked if there would be access to the clinic off of Elmwood.
Mr. Sakal stated that the lower driveway was gated off and they do not wish to provide access to
Elmwood.
Mr. Michelena responded that he had made a site visit and that particular driveway was just a dirt
path that did not look drivable.
The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff.
Commissioner Wilson asked Mr. Fogel if the existing well would serve both the residence and the
clinic.
Mr. Fogel replied that the yields from wells in the area were quite high and it would not be a
problem.
It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously carried
to adopt Resolution PC 06-68 and approve the Use Permit for Don Sakal subject to the findings and
conditions, and deleting Condition #9 and #10 and renumbering the rest of the Conditions
accordingly.
* * * * * *
G. TPM 06-05 – staff recommends approval.
Name: Gerald and Michelle Nelson Project: TPM 06-05
Planner: Mark Michelena APN: 055-370-035 Zoning: FR-20
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 18 ■
Location: At the end of York Road, approximately 2,650 feet south of Wayland
Road, south of the Town of Paradise.
Proposal: Tentative Parcel Map to divide a 60.38-acre parcel (+/-) into two parcels
(30.05 acres and 30.33 acres). Both parcels will have access off of York Road (a
private road). Water will be provided by on-site individual wells. Sewage disposal
will be handled by on-site individual septic systems. Proposed parcel 1 is already
developed with a single-family dwelling, accessory structures and access driveway.
There is a 10-day appeal period on decisions with the Clerk of the Board.
Mark Michelena gave a description of the project and showed a power point presentation. He made a
correction to Condition #12 and #13- changing the ‘Oroville Municipal Airport’ to ‘Paradise
Skypark Airport’, he also handed out a letter from the owners along York Road, which dealt with the
existing Road Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Michelena also passed out a letter that he had received
the day before from Mr. Glover.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Michelena if a second unit was allowable in an airport zone.
Mr. Michelena stated that it was.
The hearing was opened to the public.
Tom Wrinkle, from Sierra West Surveying, addressed the Commission. He asked for an explanation
of Mitigation Measure #3, which refers to the removal of trees – and there is a possibility that no
trees will be removed.
Mr. Michelena replied that staff had started included this mitigation measure to protect oak trees,
and if in the construction process no trees were removed then this measure would not apply.
Ms. Jolliffe added that Mitigation Measure #3 would come into effect upon removing or encroaching
upon oak trees at the project site.
Mr. Wrinkle responded that perhaps the addition of wording that indicated the mitigation measure
would not apply if no trees were removed would be appropriate.
Mr. Michelena read the following sentence from the measure: “Prior to issuance of any grading,
building, septic, or well permit, or the approval of any improvements plans, the applicant shall
submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan prepared …………”
There was a brief discussion on the wording of the mitigation measure and the applicability of the
Oak Tree Mitigation Plan.
Ms. Jolliffe proposed that a sentence be added to Mitigation Measure #3 that would state: “An Oak
Tree Mitigation Plan will only be required upon encroaching upon or removal of oak trees”.
Commissioner Leland suggested that the note match the language of Mitigation Measure #4.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 19 ■
Mr. Wrinkle addressed Mitigation Measure #4-1 which refers to the Oak Tree protection measures,
and that the subsection of the condition did not make sense to him. He wanted to make sure that his
client understands the entire scope of the Mitigation Measures.
Ms. Jolliffe read the beginning of Mitigation Measure #4, and said that the applicability of the
measure was stated in the first sentence.
Chairman Nelson confirmed that if the measure was applicable then you would go on to the
subsequent subsection.
Mr. Michelena read a section from the measure reiterating that it was asking to put a fence around
any oak trees that were close to a building site or driveway improvements.
Commissioner Leland asked how it would be decided that the mitigation measure would need to be
enforced.
Ms. Jolliffe replied that there is aerial photography available and they ask for site plans for
comparison and that when oak trees are close to building sites they ask if the oak trees will be
impaired upon and so forth.
Commissioner Leland inquired if, when the applicant applied for building permits, the site plan was
routed through planning to check on the proximity of the construction to oak trees.
Mr. Thistlethwaite replied that Commissioner Leland was correct, and that all building permits were
routed through Associate Planners prior to issuance and that the planners will review each of the
conditions of approval for compliance with the recorded map and at that time if an Oak Tree
Mitigation Plan was required the applicant would be notified prior to the approval and issuance of
the building permit.
Commissioner Wilson commented that Butte County was known to be very thorough in the Building
and Planning Departments.
Chris Glover, an adjacent neighbor to the project site, addressed the Commission. He was present
today representing the other owners along York Road and to bring their concerns to the
Commission. Mr. Glover referred to his letter and that the current property owners all had a Road
Maintenance Agreement attached to the title of their property, except the Nelsons. It concerned all
the other residents on York Road, and they are all requesting that the resulting parcels of the
tentative map have a Road Maintenance Agreement recorded on their deeds also.
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Michelena about the Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) that he had
mentioned earlier. He commented that even though the existing RMA was recorded in Butte County
in 1986 that it still would be applicable today.
Mr. Michelena replied that the RMA stated in the conditions was applicable to the resulting parcels
only and that if the existing RMA was applicable to the current parcel that it would also be
applicable to the resulting parcels.
Mr. Glover responded that it would be great if the current RMA was applicable to the Nelsons’
property, but it was not.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 20 ■
Ms. Jolliffe asked Mr. Glover if it was his understanding that the existing RMA currently does not
apply to the subject parcel.
Mr. Glover concurred, he had researched both the recorded RMA and the title of the subject parcel
and he could find absolutely no record tying both together.
Mr. Michelena stated that a RMA was required for all non-publicly maintained roads to a County
maintained road, and that Public Works is present to answer those questions. He indicated that he
was not sure if a separate RMA would be required for the new parcels and an additional one for a
fair share of the improvements and maintenance of the existing portion of York Road.
Mr. Glover commented on the existing RMA, he stated that it is for 2591-feet of York Road and
basically it ends at the beginning of Mr. Nelson’s property. He would like to go on record
representing all the owners along York Road in stating that their commitment to York Road ends at
Mr. Nelson’s property, and that if there was an extension added to the road with the name of York
Road they would not be agreeable to any part of that road maintenance agreement. Mr. Glover also
stated that since the resulting parcels would be using York Road for access purposes that they
should join the current RMA and assist in the maintenance of York Road. Mr. Glover also indicated
that there is a restriction of a gate approximately 600’ from the end of York Road, which is actually
at the beginning of Mr. Glover’s property. He stated that Mr. Nelson had put the gate up for privacy
during the construction of his residence, and that previously it had not bothered the neighbors, but at
this time they would like the gate removed and the road to be open.
Commissioner Lambert asked if the gate was part of the RMA.
Mr. Glover replied that it was not, and he and the neighbors would not mind if Mr. Nelson moved
the gate to the beginning of his property. Lastly, he would like to bring up the fact that York Road is
in poor repair. The majority of wear and tear has been a result of the construction on the Nelson’s
property. The dust is unbearable in the summertime and Karen Painter whose house is on the
opposite end of York Road bears the brunt of the dust problem. Their residence is inundated with
dust from the construction equipment going down to the Nelsons. Since Mr. Glover is representing
the neighbors, they wanted him to mention that this may continue for another two years after
property is split and another residence is constructed at the end of York Road. He stated that Mr.
Michelena said there will be a 15 mph limit on the road for the construction equipment, which will
help, but there is no gravel on the road. The neighbors want to put new gravel on the road, and that
the Nelsons should contribute to the cost of building York Road up to a reasonable County standard,
and that the neighbors would like to make it a condition of the parcel map.
Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Glover where exactly the gate was located on York Road.
Mr. Glover with the assistance of Mr. Michelena pointed out the location of the gate on one of the
power point photos.
Chairman Nelson asked Eric Schroth if he was familiar with the RMA.
Mr. Schroth replied that RMA’s are confusing to understand and the primary purpose that Public
Works requires it is so that it gets on the title documents so that all future property owners are aware
that they live on a private road and will be responsible for maintenance. Public Works does not seek
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 21 ■
to create a legally binding agreement by setting the condition. The RMA that is in effect will remain
in effect for the neighbors, and the new RMA will require that the new parcels created will be
responsible solely for the road easement on their property and also for a portion of the access of the
non-publicly maintained road out to the existing York Road.
Chairman Nelson stated that under the RMA that has been recorded, it is still between the parties to
go work out issues in court if they have problems and can’t come to an agreement.
Commissioner Leland replied that it was a question of who was a party to the existing RMA, and
there was only one signator on the copy that he had, and the legal description does not indicate that
the Nelsons property would be included in the agreement. He also mentioned that Mr. Glover had
researched the Nelsons title and the RMA was not an exception listed, which would indicate that this
RMA was not binding on the Nelsons.
Commissioner Leland asked Mr. Schroth if Public Works would require a RMA relating to the
stretch of road that would be used to access the publicly maintained road.
Mr. Schroth replied that his department does require that, and it is a condition of the parcel map.
Commissioner Leland asked if the neighbors would need to enter into a new agreement with Mr.
Nelson for the maintenance of the portion of the road under the existing RMA that is not applicable
to the Nelsons’ property.
Mr. Schroth stated that the Nelsons are not bound by the neighbors agreement to fulfill the
conditions of the RMA requirement to record the parcel map.
Commissioner Leland inquired how that would work, because usually an agreement is between two
people to agree, and if you are requiring an agreement with whom do they have to agree.
Mr. Schroth stated that he had not read the County form for the RMA but that he believes that it is
an agreement between the County and the person dividing the property that acknowledges that they
are responsible for maintaining a share of the road.
Commissioner Lambert thought that perhaps the RMA was an agreement to be part of a road
maintenance agreement.
Commissioner Leland stated that he thought it was requiring an agreement with the other property
owners that rely on the access, but in fact it is an agreement between the County and the developer.
Chairman Nelson commented that if it was a condition that requires them to continually maintain the
road, then the County would have an RMA that the applicant would be required to sign.
Mr. Schroth stated that Chairman Nelson was correct. The main purpose being that the RMA gets
recorded on the title and that it is carried forward.
Commissioner Leland stated that basically they would be leaving the neighbors to their own devices
to allocate the cost of maintaining the road.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 22 ■
Chairman Nelson asked Mr. Schroth if before the parcel map could be recorded would the Nelsons
have to have an agreement with their neighbors for maintaining their portion of the existing section
of York Road.
Mr. Schroth replied that they do not have to resolve an actual agreement with the neighbors; it really
is left up to them to work out how the costs were to be shared. They would be required to
acknowledge that they had a responsibility to have a share of the maintenance cost.
Commissioner Lambert asked if it was Condition #14 on page 15 of the Conditions of Approval.
Mr. Schroth confirmed that it was.
Commissioner Leland asked if Civil Code Section 845 was the one that allocates maintenance
according to use.
Mr. Wannenmacher was not sure if that was the particular code section, he thought that perhaps it
was the code sections that referred to private roads. He indicated that this approach is the standard
way they approach this matter, and the applicant still has to prove legal access along the road.
Mr. Schroth replied that according to the title paperwork that had been presented to them, the
applicant had proven legal access to York Road. Mr. Schroth stated that he had been asked to
comment on Condition #20. The road condition that will be required is: “Gravel will only be
required on the parcels to be divided, the specification is gravel as needed on the road out to the
publicly maintained road.”
Mr. Glover addressed the Commission. He indicated that an easement had been granted to the
Nelsons’ property that had been recorded in 1992, but there was no mention made of the RMA. He
also stated that he could provide Mr. Michelena a copy of the easement if desired.
Gerald Nelson addressed the Commission. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Glover regarding
the new road that would be put in for the new parcels, and that they did not want to call it York
Road. He also stated that the new road would be on a separate maintenance agreement and that they
would maintain that part. As far as the gate is concerned he would be happy to remove the gate, it
was put in place originally because kids were partying down there at the end of York Road and
leaving their beer cans and other debris lying around. Mr. Nelson also indicated that he had no
objection to being a part of the RMA but that he has always tried to participate whenever someone
had asked him about maintaining York Road. He stated that he did not believe he was more
responsible for the condition of the road, but he would be amenable to paying a fair portion of the
costs involved in the rebuilding of the road.
The hearing was closed and comments were confined to the Commission and staff.
Commissioner Wilson asked if Mitigation Measure #1 would take care of the dust problem during
construction.
Mr. Michelena stated that any further development on the subject property or resulting parcels
would be required to follow the dust mitigation measure.
Chairman Nelson addressed Mr. Nelson and asked him if he had anything further to say.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 23 ■
Mr. Nelson addressed the Commission, and said that he is just about done with the construction of
his residence and that if he had known there was a mitigation measure for the dust then he would
have followed it.
Mr. Michelena informed him that the proposed mitigation measures would not have been applicable
to the construction of his residence and would apply to future construction after the parcel map has
been recorded.
Commissioner Lambert asked for clarification if Mitigation Measure #1 would apply only on site
and not to the roads.
Mr. Michelena responded that Commissioner Lambert was correct it would be applicable only to the
construction site.
Commissioner Lambert stated that if the construction equipment was traveling down the road
creating dust then they would not have to abide by Mitigation Measure #1 and would not have to
sprinkle the road.
Chairman Nelson commented that Mitigation Measure #14 reads: ‘Prior to or concurrently with the
recordation of the Parcel Map, provide a fully executed road maintenance agreement for all non-
publicly access roads on the County approved form. A note shall be placed on a separate document
which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an additional map sheet of the Parcel Map
stating; “In accordance with Civil Code Section 845, maintenance of the road as shown heron shall
be shared by those properties with a legal interest in it.”
Commissioner Lambert stated that the Nelsons were not sharing property with legal interest unless
the road qualifies as the shared property. York Road leads up to the subject parcel and then you have
the mitigation measures that would apply to the new road and resulting parcels, and traveling on
York Road is what the rest of the neighbors are concerned with.
Commissioner Leland stated that the Civil Code section would address that and that everybody who
uses an easement has to pay a pro-rata share according to use.
Tom Wrinkle addressed the Commission. He stated that Condition #1 would cover the dust along
York Road, the condition reads “Dust generated by the development activities ……” and that would
include activities that would involve traveling along York Road and any future development on Lot
2. Mr. Nelson has agreed to assist with dust control and that this is a normal condition that is a part
of almost every parcel map and subdivision.
It was moved by Commissioner Marin, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously carried
to adopt Resolution PC 06-69 to approve the Tentative Parcel Map for Gerald Nelson subject to the
findings and conditions with the following changes: in Conditions #12 and #13 change ‘Oroville
Municipal Airport’ to ‘Paradise Skypark Airport’ and changing Mitigation Measure #3 to read:
“Place a note on a separate document which is to be recorded concurrently with the map or on an
additional map sheet that states: Prior to any development activity or the issuance of any permit or
approval removing or encroaching upon oak trees on the project site (this generally includes the
canopy drip-line of trees within the area of ground disturbance and trees subject to changes in
hydrologic regime) an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, registered
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 24 ■
professional forester, botanist or landscape architect shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Director of Development Services or his/her designee.”
* * * * * *
H. ZCA06-0003 - staff recommends approval
Name: Butte County Department of Development Services Project: Zoning
Code Amendment
Planner: Dan Breedon Location: County-wide File #: ZCA06-0003
Proposal: Zoning Code Amendment to Butte County Code section 24-262, which
regulates wireless communications facilities. The purpose of the proposal to amend
section 24-262, is to provide for a ministerial permitting process in the County,
which would replace the existing discretionary permitting process regulating
proposed installations of “collocation facilities” on, or immediately adjacent to a
“wireless telecommunications collocation facility,” as that term is defined in Senate
Bill 1627. It is necessary to replace the existing discretionary permitting process
regulating proposed installations of collocation facilities on, or immediately adjacent
to a wireless telecommunications collocation facility with a ministerial permitting
process, in order to comply with requirements set forth in Senate Bill 1627, which
was recently enacted by the State Legislature and signed into law by Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger, and which will become effective January 1, 2007. The
proposed ordinance would define specified terms and set forth required standards,
both development standards and performance standards, with which collocation
facilities, as defined in Senate Bill 1627, would be required to comply.
Chuck Thistlethwaite gave a summary and description of the proposal to amend Section 24-262 of
Butte County Code regarding wireless telecommunication facilities.
Chairman Nelson reiterated that the process for new poles would stay the same and would be heard
by the Planning Commission, and that co-location on existing poles would have the same statute and
standards but they would become ministerial permits and not be heard by the Commission.
Mr. Thistlethwaite indicated that Chairman Nelson was correct.
Rob MacKenzie addressed the Commission. He stated that the legislation is difficult to read and
there are a number of places where it is vague. The goal of the ordinance is to take the two major
categories in the new legislation and flip them around; the interpretation of the legislation means that
if there are facilities in the County that have already been authorized pursuant to a discretionary
permit by the Planning Commission and gone through the CEQA process then any collocations that
are added to those facilities have to be processed through ministerial permit process with a one size
fits all set of requirements. If a collocation is proposed on a facility that has not gone through a
discretionary permit process then that whole facility would be opened up to a discretionary permit
process to be heard by the Planning Commission. The legislation is vague on the definition of a
collocation facility, and he felt that a specific definition was needed to prevent somebody from
bootlegging in an antennae farm. The facilities are exempt from both the Subdivision Map Act and
the Subdivision Ordinance; and what was provided on the proposed Ordinance was that
‘immediately adjacent’ would be defined as: ‘on a small piece of ground that is exempt from the
Subdivision Map Act.” The accepted spelling of collocate would include two l’s, which matches the
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 25 ■
spelling in the new legislation. Another change would be if a company stated that we were
precluding them from providing service which is one of the things that we cannot do, instead of
having a hearing by the Board of Supervisor we would have the hearing conducted by a hearing
officer – similar to the hearings held by the Code Enforcement Division for Nuisance Abatement
Hearings, which have worked very well. After the hearing the project would come before the
Planning Commission instead of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. MacKenzie indicated that the Ordinance was created in a short amount of time and he has found
a deficiency in subparagraph (f)(3) that should have been pulled out and put into the new portion of
the Ordinance. If the Commission would approve this Ordinance today subject to that modification
so that all of the performance and development criteria were in the new part of the Ordinance instead
of some of them being in the new part and some in the old part, he would appreciate it.
Commissioner Leland had a question about existing antennas that were approved with a ‘stealth
design’; what criteria ministerially would be used to make sure the new one would match the stealth
design of the existing one. He also noted that there were some general design standards in the old
portion and (g)(3) that states: ‘The use of best available technology and/or construction to achieve
maximal visual unobtrusiveness is mandatory.’ That criterion would need to be added to the
collocation criteria.
Mr. MacKenzie stated that it was in (f)(3), (c) that Commissioner Leland’s concern would be
addressed and that language could be changed to read “The antennas and pole shall be painted to
match the color of the existing antennas and pole or tower, or shall be painted and constructed to
blend with both the prevalent architecture and natural features existing on the subject site, as
determined by the Director of Development Services.”
Commissioner Leland asked if the General Standards were incorporated in the (f)(3) collocations.
Mr. MacKenzie replied that in the new Ordinance they refer back to the entire existing Ordinance,
and that in subparagraph (k) (3), (b) indicates that they have to comply with all applicable
requirements of the Section 24-262.
Commissioner Leland inquired if it would include all of the General Design Standards.
Mr. MacKenzie replied – “Absolutely.”
It was moved by Commissioner Leland, seconded by Commissioner Wilson, and unanimously
carried to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the Ordinance ZCA 06-0002 with the
change that the design criteria of the old section be added to the new section and on (f) (3), (c) take
the two ‘or’s’ out and put ‘ands’ in, so that all of the requirements of (c) must be met instead of
some of them.
* * * * *
LUNCH BREAK - 1:05 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
* * * * *
1:30 P.M.
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 26 ■
I. MIN 96-03 – staff recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report and approval of the project.
Name: M&T Chico Ranch Mine Project: Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Mining Permit and Reclamation Plan , MIN
96-03).
Planner: Pete Calarco APN: 039-530-019, 039-530-020.
Location: On a portion of the M&T Chico Ranch approximately 1.5 miles east of
the Sacramento River and approximately 5-miles southwest of the City of Chico in
an area north of and adjacent to Ord Ferry Road, east of and partially adjacent to
River Road. Access to the site would be provided by River Road.
Proposal: The project consists of a long-term, off-channel gravel mining operation.
The mining would take place on 193-acres of a 235-acre site over a 20 to 30–year
period. Reclamation would occur incrementally and would consist of the creation of
open-water wetland wildlife habitat and agricultural uses. The aggregate would be
processed (washed and screened) on a 40-acre area at the site.
An Environmental Impact Report is proposed for this project.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), A forty-five
(45) day public review period for the DEIR was previously provided. This review
period began on October 10, 2002, and ended November 25, 2002. The Planning
Commission had considered certification in 2003; however, an additional issue
regarding the California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) needed to be
addressed. As a result, the applicant filed a request for immediate cancellation from
the Williamson Act contract for a portion of the property. The immediate
cancellation request will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at a later date.
Copies of the Final EIR were available for review on November 20, 2006 on the
Butte County Department of Development Services website
www.buttecounty.net/dds/planning and various County libraries. The Planning
Commission will first consider certification of the FEIR as consistent with the
requirements of CEQA and then take action on the project.
Please see attached transcript for the minutes of this item.
* * * * *
VIII. GENERAL BUSINESS - This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and
Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been
directed to do research and bring back to the Commission. Items A, B, & C may not always be addressed at
every hearing, but will always be listed as part of the agenda.
A. Directors’ Report
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ MINUTES, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 ■ PAGE 27 ■
None.
B. General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Update
None.
C. Legislative Case Law update
None.
D. Planning Commission Concerns
None.
IX. CLOSED SESSION
X. MINUTES – None
XI. COMMUNICATIONS - Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are
available in the Planning Division Office.)
None
XII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Planning Commission adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
_____________________________________
Chairman Nelson