HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-09-24 BCGPA; ZO AND DRAFT SUPPLEMTNAL EIRTO: Honorable Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Breedon, AICP, Principal Planner
Butte County Department of Development Services
SUBJECT: Additional Comment, Butte County General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance
Update and Draft Supplemental EIR
DATE: September 24, 2012
The attached letter was erroneously left out of your staff report attachments and provides
comment on the Draft EIR, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan Amendment.
July 13th, 2012
Dan Breedon, Principal Planner Butte County Department of
Development Services 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA
95965
Hi Dan,
Hope you are well. It must feel great to be at the finish line with
the General Plan...a long process!
I am joining this prepared letter of BEC because I agree with their
statement. I also added some text (in caps and italics) to the letter
below. I am very concerned with our having enough water for
those of us who already live here, let alone large new
developments without appropriate mitigation.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
To the Butte County Department of Development Services, I am
writing to provide comments on the Zoning Ordinance (ZO), the
Draft
General Plan Amendments (GPA) and the EIR. I am in support of
the County's goals to protect agriculture lands, forest lands,
resource conservation areas, direct growth to urban areas, ensure a
sustainable water supply, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, I have some concerns that in these documents there is a
divide between the General Plan goals and the actions taken to
implement them.
There are nearly 1,000 parcels being recommended in the GPA for
rezoning, and in many cases they convert agriculture, forest lands,
and resource conservation areas to residential development. I am
concerned that many of these appear to be landowner/developer
driven, that increase environmental damage and more rural and
scattered development. I am also concerned that there are 6,930
newly zoned residential acres, including a 390 acre cluster
development in the oak woodlands, but throughout the EIR there is
an assumption of no increases in development. I feel this
inadequately addresses the real impacts of these rezones and parcel
size reductions related to groundwater recharge and usage,
increased fire danger, degradation of oak woodlands, loss of
sensitive habitat, and irreversible loss of agriculture lands. An
analysis of which rezones and parcel size reductions are county
corrections and which are developer requests needs to be provided
to the public. And as a result these development projection impacts
need to be integrated into the EIR, and mitigated.
Throughout the EIR, related to greenhouse gas emissions, traffic,
air quality, POTENTIAL SALES OF OUR GROUNDWATER TO
ENTITIES IN THE SOUTH and other environmental problems
there are findings of cumulatively significant impacts. Why does
the county continue to recommend changes in land -use that
continue to exceed standards and put pressure on the already
stressed environment and human health? At what point will the
county implement an action plan to stop the increases in pollution
and mitigate the impacts, rather than just document the damage? I
am calling for the county stop rezoning lands residential in rural
and scattered locations that have cumulatively significant impacts
on the environment until there is a plan in place that ensures we
meet standards and restore environmental damage.
Thank you for your efforts in this process and for considering my
comments.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Devereaux