HomeMy WebLinkAbout77-47B 9jilt 011111 rlx.:,',{;19 col .
ALQUIST-PRIOLO SPECIAL S" UDI'ES ZONES ACT
Excerpts from California Public Resources Cade
(Signed Into law December, 1972, amended Septembar 26, 1974,,
May 4, 1975, September 28, 1979, and September 22, 1976)
DIVISION 1 ADMIN1STRATI.ON
Chapter 2. Department of Conservation
Article 3, State Mining and Geology Board
and the Division of Mines and Geology
660. 'There is in the department n State \lining and Geology
11o,ird consistina �f taint= members appointed by the Governor,
673, The board shall also serve as a policy and appeals board for
the purposes of Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section 2621) of
Du°cion �,
DIVISION 2. GEOLOGY, MIN8S AND ;MINING
CHAPTER 7,05. SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES
2621. This chapter shall be 'known and may be cited as the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act.
2621,5. It is the purpose of this chapter to provide for the
adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and
regulations by cities and counties in implementation of the general
plan that is in effect in any city or county. The; Legislature declares
that the provisions of this chapter are intended to provide policies;
and criteria to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise
of their responsibility to provide for the public safety in hazardous
Fault zones,
This chapter is applicable to any project, as defined in Section ,
2621.6, upon issuance of the official special sfudies zones maps to
affected local jurisdictions, but does not apply to any development
or structure. in existence prior, to the effective date of the
amendment of this section at the 19755-76 Regular Session of the
Legislature:
t
262,1.6 As usod in this chapter, "project" m4
(1) Ally now real estate development which conternplatesthe
Oventu"I construction of structures for human occupancy, subject to
the Subdsw Won Map Act (commencing with Section 66.410 of the
Government Code) ,
(2) Any new real estate development for which, a tentative tract
map has not yet been approved.
(3) Any structure for human occupancy, other than a
single-family woad frame dwvellsng not exceeding.. two stories,
(4) ,Any single-family wood frame dwelling which is built or
located as part of a development of four or more such dwellings
constructed by a single person, individual, partnership, corporation,
or other organization, No geologic report shall be required with
respect to such single-family wood frame dwelling if the dwelling is
located within n ,new real estate development, as described ,in.
paragraph (1) or (2) of this subdivision, for which developsrtent n
geologic report has been either approved or waived pursuant to
Section 2623,
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, a rnobilehome Whose body
width exceeds eight feet shall be considered to be a s4igle,family
wood frame dwelling not exceeding two stories,
2621.7. This chapter, except Section 2621,9, shall not apply to the
conversion of an existing apartment complex into a condominium,
This chapter shall apply to projects which are located within a
delineated special studies zone.
2621.8. This chapter shall not apply to alterations or additions to
any structure within a special studies zone the value of which does
not exceed 50 percent of the value of the structure,
2621,9: A person who is acting as an agent for a seller of real
property which is located within a delinnatedspecial studies zone, or
the seller if he is acting without an agent, shall disclose to any
prospective purchaser the fact that the property is located within a
delineated special studies zone
2622, In order to assist cities and counties in their planning,
zoning, and building -regulation functions, the State Geologist, shall
delineate, by December 31,1973; appropriately wide special studies
zones to encompass all potentially and recently active traces of the
San Andreas, Calaveras, Hayward, and San' Jacinto Faults and such
other faults, or segments thereof, as he deems sufficiently Faults,
e-and
well-defined as to constitute a potential hazard to structures from
surface faulting or fault creep. Such special studies zones shall
circumstances which may require
or less in Width, except. in
ordinarily be one-nuarter
the State Geologist to designate a
wider zone: .
Pursuant to this section, the State Geologist shalt compile maps
delineating the special studies zonesandshall submit such maps to
all affected cities, counties, and state agencies, not later than
December 31, 1973, for review and ' comment, Concerned
jurisdictions and agencies shall submit all such comments to the State
:Wining anti Geology Board for review and consideration within 90
days. Within 90 days of such review, the State Geologist provide
copies of the official maps to concerned state agencie> and to each
city or county having jurisdiction over lands lying within any such
zone.
2
The State conlogtst shall (.rtatitimally rOvit�W new geologic and
seismic data and shite revise thy: speciul studie=s ,zones or delineate
additional special steadies z011es When warranted by new information,
'h - State Geologist shrill submit all revised artaps.and addition rl rriaps
to all affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their review and
Comment, Concerned jurisdictions and agencies shall subinit all such
comments to the State Mining and Geology Board for review and
consideration within 90 days, Within 90 days of such review, the State;
Geologist shall provide codes of the revibed and additional official
snaps to concerned state agencies and to each city or county having
Jurisdiction over lands lying within, any such zone,
2623. The approval of a project by a city or county shall be in
accordance with policies and criteria established by the State ,'V{inirig
and Geology Board and the findings of the State Geolo,gish In the
development of such policies and Criteria, the State Mining and
Geology Board shall seek the comment and advice of affected cities,
counties; and state agencies. Cities and counties shall require, prior
to the approval of a project, a fjeologic report defining rind
delineating any hazard of surface fault rupture. if the city or county
finds that no undue hazard of this kind exists, the_ geologic report on
such hazard may be waived, with approval of the Stats: Geologist.
,after a'report has been approved or a waiver granted, subsequent
geologic reports shall not be required, provided that new geologic
data warranting further investigations is not recorded.
2624, Nothing in this chapter is :intended to prevent cities and
counties from establishing policies and criteria which are stricter
than those established by this chapter or by the State Mining and
Geology Hoard, nor from imposing and collecting fees in addition to
those required under this chapter.
2625, (a) Each applicant for approval of a project may be
charged a reasonable fee by the city or county having jurisdiction
over, the project
ib) Such fees shall be set in an amount sufficient to meet, but not
to exceed, the costs to the city or county of administering and
complying withthe provisions of this chapter,
(c) The geologic report required, by Section 2623 shall be in
sufficient detail to meet the criteria ;end policies established by the
State 1,4ining and Geology Board for individual parcels of land.
2630. In carrying out the provisions of this chap-
ter, the State Geologist and the Board ,hall be
advised by the Seismic Safety Comm'issi'on.
3 _
ON
w
Policies and Criteria
of the State Mining and Geology Board
(With relorence to the
Alouist•Priolo SpeCral btL)dir.m Zr=nos Act
Chapter 7 S, DiviGlon 2. Public riesources Code.
State of Cahlorni(j)
(Adopted Novem4er 23, 1073, revised July 1. 1974, and Juno 26, 1975)
The legislature has declared in the ALQUIST,
PRIOLO SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES ACT that the
State Geologist and the State Mining and Geology
Board etre charged under the Act with the respon•
sibili.ty ofassisting the Cities, Counties, and State agen.
cies in the exercise car their responsibility to provide for
the public safety in hazardous fault zones, As desig,
noted by the Act, the policies and criteria set forth
hereinarter are limited to hazards resulting from sur•
face raulting or rault creep. This limitation does not im-
ply that other geologic hazards are not important and
that such other hazards should not he considered in the
total evaluation of land safety,
Implementation or the ALQGIST•PRIOLO
SPECIAL STUDIES ZONES ACT by arfeeted Cities
and Counties fulfills only a portion of the requirement
for these Counties and Cities to prepare seismic safety
and safety elements of their general plans, pursuant to
Section 65302 (F) and 65302„1 or the Governiitent
Code, The special studies zones, together with these
policiesandcriter►a,should be incorporated into the
local seistoic safety and safety elements til' the general
plan. ,
The Slate Geologist has compiled and is in the process.
of compiling maps delineating special studies zones
pursuant to Section 2622 orthe Public Resources Code.
The special studies zones designated on the maps are
based on fault data rt varied quality, It is expected that
the .Wraps will be revised as more complete geological
information becomes available. Also, additional
special studies ,zones may be delineated in the suture:
The Board has certain responsibilities rgarding review
and consideration of those maps prior to the time that
they are tinnily determined„ Cities. Counties and :State
atgerieies have certain opportunities under the Act to
comment on the preliminary maps provided by the
State Geologist and these Policies trod Criteria, Certain
procedures are suggested herein with regard to those
responsibilities and eomments.
Please note that the .act is not retroactive (Section
2E+2I.5 oaf the Pubiic Resources Code). it applies to ev-
ery proposed Iteit. rent estate devt lrtpntcnI or structure
tier hunattn occup�►nr �� that ctinstitutti~5 ,t "protect'” [IS
defined under S'eeui.jn '_621.6 tit the'"PublicRest,iii-co
C`odu„
Review of Preliminary Maps
The State iVlining and Geology B(iard Su99esis that
each reviewingguvrrnt::entttl tt�,eiaty 111&,e the follov,anct
steps ill reviewing the preliminary iiwpK suhlliittcd for
tht:lr tic,[ ideraliott:
d ,c Cal1"lis l°lwa��„f75 i,ait':
DEC 2of Ci
I All property owners within the pre iniinary
Special studies zones nitipped by the State Geologist
sliould be notified by the Cities orad Counties of the in.
elusion of their lands within strict preliminary special
studies zones by publication or other means designed to
inform said property owners. Such ilotillcation shall
not of necessity require notification by service or b}
mail, This notification will permit affected property,
owners to present }3,eologic evidence they night have
relative to the preliminary maps.
2. Cities and Counties are, rncouraged Io examine
the preliminary snaps delinc, g Spam'[ studies zones
and to itiake reconiniendiv acconapan►ed by sup,
ptrrti'ng data and discussions, to tiie State Mining and.
Geology Board for modification or said zones in aWir-
dance with the statute stud within the time period
specified therein,
3, For purposes of the Act. the State Mining. raid
Geology Board regards faults %thiel, haNc had surface
displacement within Holocene little (about the last
11,000 years) its ttctive and hence as conslitutingat pet-
tent►til hazard, Upon submission of sittisfaetors
geologic evidence that a fault shown within a specu�l
studies zone has not had surf -tee displacement 'within
Holocene time, and thus is nt,t deemed ,roti+, e, the Min-
ing and Geology Board may recolpIllend tri the State.
Geologist that the boundaries ofthe special studies
zone be appropriately Illodified.
The definition ;tfttctive fault is intended tit represc^t
minimum criteria only for all structures, Cities alid
Counties may wish to impose more restrictive defini-
tions requiring a longer Lillie period of demonstrated
absence oruispiaeentents for critical structures such ,is
highrisc buildings. hospitals, and schrmis.
SPecific Criteria
The 1'011ow�ing specific and detailed criter"I shall ap-
ply withinspecial studios zirncsandshalthu, mcludod its
Iniy planning program, orf[inailee, rule ,ind regula
dims adopted by Cities and Counties pursuant tit1-,aid
SPECIAL S'f ubws ZONES ACT -
A. N"ti structure l'or human ii.cup,til". public tir pre-
vette, Shull be permitted to be placed acioss the truce of
nit ttctive fault. Furthermore, the arc,t withiat iiftt Iasi
feet fit atrl active fault shill[ he a4suilled to bQ unol rlain
hs active brunches tit that lault unit,:tis and until para en
others iso h} -►n appropriate geologic. Im s rt,a11(tn acid
suhlilistisiia i;t a report try it geologist re?;istcretd_ir the
Stott: fit Culiforma. This 50 -blot suindord is intert";�d it,
rePrel�:itt minimum t:riteriattiil%. for ,itlr,truLt,t
the opinion of tltt; Board thttt certain eisentizi or crib-
cal structures, such as high-rise bul,.lings, hospitals,
and schools should be subject to more restrictive criw
teria at the discretion of C1ties and Counties.
B. Application for a development permit for any
project (as defined in Section 2621,6) within a special
studies :zone shall be accompanied by a geologic report
prepared by a geologist registered in the State of
Cali III, and directed to the problem of okential
surfaces, fault displacement through the pro�cct site,.
unless such report is waived pursuant to Section 2623,
C. One (1) copy of ail such geologic reports shall be
filed with the Ftate Geologist by the public body having
jurisdiction within thirty days following acceptan *e by
the approving jurisdiction, The State Geologist shall
place such reports on open file,
D, A geologist registered in the State of California,
within or retained by each City or County, must evalu.
ate the geologic reports required herein and advise the
body having jurisdiction and authority,
E, Cities and Counties may establish policies and
criteria which are more restrictive than those
established herein. In particular, the Board believes
that comprehensive geologic aild crigincering studies
should be required for any "critical" or "essential„
structure as previously defined whetht:r or ftot Itis lo»
cited within a special ;studies gone,
F. In accordance with section 2625 of the Public
Resources Godo, each applicant for approval of a pro-
ject within a .deli"eatedd special studies zone may be
charged a reasonable foe by the City or County having
jurisdiction over the project.
As used herein the following defjnitlontt apply.,
1. A "project" includes any structure for human occu-
pancy or new real estate devolopine,nt as defined under
Section 2821,8 of the Public Resource! Code,
2. A "structure for human occupancy" is one that is
regularly, habitually or primarily occupied by ht
mansi 4x-
eluding therefrom freeways, roadways, bridges, railways,
airport runways, and tunnels. The excluded transportation
structures should be sited and desJgnbd with due con.
sideration to the hazard of surface Vaulting. Mublie homes,
whose body width exceed eight (a) feet, are considered as
structures for human occupancy.
3, A "new real estate development" is defined as any
new development of real property which contemplates the
eventual construction of "structure! for human oceupan-
cy "
x
S"ItT�"tJF"CAUMIRNiA THE AMIJACCS AOCNCY DCr'itRTMCNt OF CONSISNAVON
ALF I LIVIS
U1vIHEADQUARTERS
RESouRc15S
BUILDING
EC 10►6
MINES AND GEOLOGY
ROOM 1341
1115 NINTH STR55T
SACRAMENTO
1
ACA 95814
CDMC NOTA
NUMBER 49
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE HAZARD OF SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
These guidelines are to assist geologists
faulting W ony and others, 1973),
who investigaterelative tothe
Stated,faults f
historic11attivityyduring thelast4r200
quent to the passage of the Alquist-Priolo
years, as a class, have a greater proba-
Special Studies Zones Act (1977.), it has
bility for future activity than faults
become apparent that -fault investigations
classified as Holocene age (last 11,000
conducted in California. are frequently
years) and a• -much greater,probabi•lity of
incomplete or otherwise inadequate for the
.future, activity than faults classified as
purpose of evaluating thi3 potential of
� rpuakerrary aye (last.2-3.mi11'on years.).
surface fault rupture. It is further
Moreover, future faulting generally *is
appa,rent•that statewide stapdards For
',expected to recur along pre-existing
investigating faults do not exist.'
faults (Bonilla, 1970, P. c6$),.,i4o doubt
there are and will be exceptions -to this,
The investigation of sites- for the
because it is not possible to predict the
possible hazard of surface fault, rupture
precise surface location of a new fault
'is a deceptively difficult geologic task,
where none existed before.
,Jany active faults are complex, consisting
of multiple breaks. Yet, the evidence For
As a practical matter, fault investi-
identifying active fault traces is gener-
.gations should be di.recred at the problem
ally subtle or obscure and the distinction
of locating existing faults and then
between recently active and long -inactive
attempting to evaluate the recency of
faults may be difficult to make. Once a
their activity. it is pointed out that
structure is sited astride an active Faui
;data are obtained both From the site and
the resulting fault -rupture hazard can,•rot
outside the site area. The most direct
be mitigated ;unless the structure Is re-
method of evaluating recency is to observe
located, whereas when a structure is placed
(e,g. In a trench or road cut) the young -
on a landslide, the hazard from landslidirig
rest geologic unit faulted and the oldest
often can be mitigated. Further, it is
unit thar is not faulted.• Recently active
impractical fr'cm •sn-economic, engineering,,
faults also may be identified: by direct
and architectui.— point of view,to design
`observatiorr-of young,, fault -related topo-
a structure to withstand serious damage
A- graphic features in the- field, on aerial
under the stress of surface fault rupture-,
photographs, or on remotely obtained
Thus, thre'evaluation'of a, site for the
t,•`''images - Other •indirect and more inter-
` - 'r°'`�
r
hazard of surface fault rupture s a�
p r"etive methods are identified the-
hedifficult
difficultand delicate procedure.
outline below,, Some of these methods are
•;
,r;bdiscussed in Taylor, and Cluff (1973),
�"
Because of the complexity of evaluating
5herard and others (1974), Slemmons (1972),
surface and near surface faults and because.
Bonilla 0 970),,,and Wesson and, others
OF the infinite variety of site conditions,
, (1975), but, no, comprehensive -manual, on
no single investigative method will be the
the subject of Fault investigationand
best, or even useful, at all sites. 'clone-
evaluation exists at this time. Other
theless, certain investigative methods are
specific and,- general guidelines on fault
more helpful than others in locating faults
investigatiorns and evaluations are listed
and evaluating the recency of activity.
in, the Selected References below,
Thp evaluation of a given site with
The following annotated outline
'i
regard to the potential hazard of surface
provides guidelines for a complete fault
fauit rupture is based extensively on the
i nvesti'gatton that may be applied to any
concepts of ,recenc..and recurrence of
project site, large or'smali. Fault in -
faulting along existing faults,. In a
vestigotions may be conducted in conjunc-
general way, the more recent the faulting
tion with other geotechnical ir,vpst;igations
the greater the probability For future
(see C01iG Notes 37 and 44). Although not
Y
all Investigative techni s need or can aconomies of a o tcte but also on the
be employedin evalutating a givon site, level of rtak ;Acceptable for tht proposed
the outline provides a check.rliat For Structure; or dcavelopment (Joint Committee
preparing complete and well-documented on Seismic Sarety, W14, "p, M. Obviously,
reports, Since most reports on fault a morck detailed Investigation Should be:
investigations Tire: fired with and reviewed made for hosplti ls, high-rlso brrildi,ngs,
by local or State gov!rnment agencies, It and other critical or seitsitlYd structures
is necessary that the; reports i)e z1de(lu.)tr„1y than for low-density structure$ such as
ducumented and carefully wrlttcri to facile woad -Frame dwellings that are winparati'vely
itata that review, The Importonce of the safe, The conclusions drawn frrarr any giver
review process is stressed here, because set of data however, must be consistent
it is the reviewer who must evaluate the and unbiased. Recontmend,at:ions must be
adequacy of reports, intFrpret or set clearly separated from conclusions, since
standards where they are unclear, ,and' recommendations are not totally dependent
governingadvise agency on geologic factors. The nal decision
acceptabilli><age as to their final
as to whether, or how, a given project
should be developed dies in the hands of
The scope of the investigation is the owner and the governing body that must
dependent not only.on complexity and review and approve the project,
Suggested Outline for Geologic Reports on Foults
The Following subjects should be addressed, or at 'least considered, in any geologic
report on Faults. some of the investigative methods listed below should be carried out
well beyond the site being investigated. However, it is not` expected that all of the
methods Identified would be used in a single investigation.
1. Text
A. purpose and scope of Investiga;tion
B. Geologic setting
C. Site description and conditions. Include information on geologic units,
graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing structures, etc., that may affect
the choice of investiig4 tive Methods and the interpretation of data.
D. Methods of investigation
1. Review of published and unpublished literature and records -concerning
geologic units, Faults, gr .,end -water barriars. etc.
2. Interpretation of aerial photographs and other remotely sensedimages-
to detect fault -related topography, vegetation and soil contrasts, ;and
other lineaments of possible fault origin.
3. Surface, observations inc)
topographic features springs,uding mapping of geologic units and structures,
y , deformation of man-made structures, etc.,
both on and beyond the site:
4. Subsurface investigations
a. Trenching and other extensive excavatians to permit detailed and
direct observation of continuously exposed geologic units and features
which must be caref4ily logged (see Taylor and Cluff, 1973).
b, Borings and test pits to permit collection of data on geologic units
and ground water at specific locations. Data, points must be sufficient
in number and adequately spaced to permit valid correlations and. inter-
pretations.
5. Geophysical investigations; These are indirect methods that require a
knowledge of specific geologic conditions for reiiable interpretations:,
They should seldom, If ever, be employed alone without knowledge of the,
geology.' ue whysical methods alone never prove the absence of a fault nor
do they identify the recency of activity, The types of equipment and
techniques used should be described.
a. Seismic refraction
b. Magnetic intensity
c. Other (e.g. electrical resistivity, seismic reflectlon,'gravlty)
6. Other methods should be included when spocial condittons permit, or
requirements for critical structures demand, a more intensive Investigation.
a. Aerial reconnalssance overflights,
b, Geodetic and straln measurements, microseismicity monitoring,,, or
other monitoring techn'iquos.
c. Radiometric analysis (e.g. 04, K -Ar), stratigraphic correlation
(foss Iis, mineralogy), soil profile devolopment, pal eomagnertismi
(magnetostratigraphy), or other age -dating techniques to izientify
they age of faulted or unfaulted units or surfaces,
�.,. x. .':', r.. + . ;ivy. ,;.. �' • i!r�� '•„`L r
E. Conclusions
Y
I. Location and existence (or absence) of hazardous faults on or adjacent
to the site. + p. ,. •, .•,:... :^.
2. Type of faults and natare of anticipated offset: direction of relative
displacement, and maximum displacement that is possible ,
3. Probability of or relative potential for future surface displacement.
The likelihood of future ground rupture cats seldom be stated mathematically,
but may be stated in semlquantita'tive teras such as low, moderate, or high.
4. Degree of confidence in and limitations of data and conclusions.
F. Recommendations w.
1 Set -back distances from h,�zardous faults,, if appropriate. State and
local law may dictate minimum standards (e.g,, see -Hart, 1979).,
Y y A7
2. Need for additional studies,
3.. Riskevaluations relative to the proposed development -.opinions are
acceptable. But remember that the ultimate decision as to whether the
risk is acceptable lies with the governing body.
11. References
A. .Literature and records cited and reviewed. _
B. Aerial photographs or usages interpreted --list type•, scale, source, index
numbers, etc.
C. Other sources of information including ng wel i records, personal communications,
and other data sources
111. illustrations --these are essential to the understanding of the report and to
reduce the length of text;.
A. Location maps -identify site locality, .significant faultso geographic
features, seismic epicenters, and other pertinent data; 1:24,000 scale is
recommended;
B. Site development map --s how site boundaries, existing and proposed structures,
graded areas,. streets, exploratory trenches, borings, geophysical traverses, and
other data, recommended scale is 1 inch equals 200 feet, or larger,
3'
rte,
C. Geologic reap --shows distribution of geologic unite; (if more than rsn(t),
faults and other structures, geomorphic features, aerial photo lineomcents,, end
springs; on topocJmphlc map 1;24,000 Scale or lorgrar; can ba combtriod with
1 I 1 (A) or III W.
D. Geologic cross-sections, if needed to provide 3-dimensional plehure.
E Logs of exploratory trenches And borings --show details of observed feaCures
and conditions, should not be generalized or diagrammatic;.
F Geophysical data and geologic interpretations
1V. Appendix --supporting data riot included above (e,g, water well ebta),
V: Signature and registration number of Inv,rstigating geologist.
Selected Re9fereiicess ,
Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973; Geology and earthquake hazards -- Planners
guide to the seismic safety element; AEG, Southern California Section, 44 p,
(See Section li on Evaluating the Problem.)
Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects in Wiegel, R.L, (Edit,),
Earthquake Engineering, Prentice -Nall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., p. 47-74.
(Contains an extensive bibliography on surface faulting, Fault patterns and types,
width of Fault zones, creep, etc.)
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973, Guidelines to geologic and seismic
reports; CDMG'Notes 37,
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975, Recommended �4,uidell'nes for preparing
engineering geologic reports, COMG hots 44,
Hart, E,W., 1975, Fault hazard zones in CaliFornia; California Division of Mines
and Geology, Special Publication 42,-3`7 P. (revised yearly; 'information on state
Iaw and zoning program for reguIattrig development near hazardous Faults).
Joint Committee on Seismic Safety; California Legislature, 1974, Meeting the earthquake.
challenge! California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 45,, 2z3 P.
Sherard, J.L,, Cluff, L.S., and Allen, C.A., 1974, Potentially active faults in dam
foundationst Geotechntque, v..24, no. 3, p. 367-428, Institute of Civil Engineers,
London
Siemmons, D -,B., i972, Microzonation for surface faulting in Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference on M%crozonation, Seattle, Washington, October 30 November 3,
1972, p. 348-361.
Tayor, C.L,., and Cluff, L.S., 1973, Fault activity and its ,significance assessed by
exploratory excavation in Proceedings of the Conference on Tectonic Problems of the
San Andreas Fault System: .'Stanford University Publication, Geological ,Sciences,
v. Mill, September 1973, p. 239-247.
Wallace, R.E., 1975, Fault scarp gebmorphology and seismic history, north -central
Nevada (abstract); Geological Society of America, Cordilleran Section, 71st Annual
Meeting -- Abstract with Programs, v. 7, no. 3, P. 385.
Wesson, R.L,, Helley, E.J., Lajote,G.R., and Wentworth, C.M., 19750 Faults and Future
earthquakes it, Studies for Seismic Zonation of the. San Francisco Bay region U.S
Geological Survey Professional Paper 941-A, p. A5 -A30,
2iony, J.I Wentworth, C.M., and Buchanan, J,M., 1971,`Recency of faulting; A'widely
applicable criterion for assessing the activity of Faults: World coriferened.on
Earthquake Engineering, Fifth (June 1971), Rome, Italy, p,. 1686`-1653:
4 EWH 10175
tyre _
Spatial Studies 'Zones
',pedal studies zones are delineated on topographtc base maps
at a scale) or 1:211,000 (1 inch equals 2000 feet) The zona boundaries
are straight-line segments defined by turning points.
The intent of the Alquist-Priolo Act is to provide. for public
safety from the hazard of fault rupture by avoiding, to the extent
possible, th-- construction of structures for human occupancy astride
hazardous faults. The precise location and identification of hazardous
faults within or near a_zone of potentially active faults can be
determined only through detailed geologic investigations. Thus, this
Act establishes the concept of a Special Stud!°es Zone -- an area of
l imi C�-.j extent centered on recognized faults. f'aul'ts other Char. tr ose
depictedon the maps may be present within the Special Studies Zones.
The zone boundaries delimit the area that the State, Geologist believ,:s
warrants special geologic investigations to detect the presence or
absence of hazardous faults.
Locations or special studies zone boundaries are controTled by
graces of potentially active NL" Y (defined below), which are,
based on the bust reports available at the time the map was compiled.
However the faults shown on the Special Studies Zones maps were riot
field checked during the compilation of these maps. Because the
available reports are highly varied in quality, and the locations of
some faults are known imprecisely, the zone 'boundaries have been
positioned at a,reasonable distance (about 660 feet or an eighth of
a mi Te) from the trace of the nearest potentially active fau',. However,
zone boundaries ge-eral ly are more or less than 660 feet away from
mapped faults because of 1) curved ^r multiple foul. traces, 2) of
the need to keep the number of turning points to a reasonable minimum,
or 3) the qu;A 1 ty of the data di ctr,tes a narrower or wider zone.
Definitions of Fault Ts,.r„
Fault, fault zone
A fault is defined as a fracture or zone of closely associated.
fractures along which r'ock's on one side have been displaced with
respect to those on the other s'de,. Most faults are the result of
repeated displacement. which may have taken place suddenly and/or b
slow creep. A fault zone is a zone of related faults which commonly
are braided and subparallel, but may be branching and divergent. it
has significant 'width (with respect to the scale at which the fault
is being considered, portrayed, or investigated), ranging from a few
feet to several miles.
Fault trace
A fault trace is the line formed by the intersectler-,n of a fault
and the earth's ,surface. It t. the representation of a fault as
depicted on a map; including. maps of the Special Studies Zones.
Potentall, active faults
I;or the purpos..s of del i neat i ng Special Studies Zones, any fau l C
considered to have been active during Quaternary title (last to 3
mill ion years) ori the basis of evidence of surface d.solaienaer;t - is
-3-
considered by the State Geologist to beptential act:, ive. An
exception is a Quaternary fault which is determined, from direct
evidence, to have become 'inactive before Holocene time (last 11,000 years).
Such faults are presumed to be inactivo and have been omi'tte ' from the
map in most cases. Although potentially active faults shorn on the maps
may have been active during any part of or throughout, Quaternary time
evidance for the recency of displacement is incompletely preserve:; and
often is equivocal. in Contrast, the State Mining and Geology Board,
In their policies and Criteria (adopted November 21, 1973), has defined
any fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time as
11actfve and hence as constituting a potential hazard.tl
The surface ruptures associated with historic earthquake and creep
events are identified where known. No degree of relative potential
for future surface displacement or degree of hazard is implied for -
the faults shown.
The following geologic time scale is provided for reference and
perspectives
Geologic time scab
GEOLOGIC AGE YEARS BEFORE
Era Period Epoch PRESENT tostimated)
"Ffbtn t�' ;UO Faults alpng which movement ha; oecUrrrd ,
during This rnierval are ee(u»d as xt�.e aj
Holrxane Polletea Ind CtItarla of the State Mining Arid
QUATERNARY t 1,Ott Geology Board,
n Nluntrxrne potentHa/l , eerivs ton the Pru.
5 polol o dallnaat n9 IPaowl ofudtw zonas
u
`"' _',Ut5t1f)00 � 3aiiiQ,INNr ,'
P1ru:ena
ThitT1RRt
;Utltl,tNm ,. Io,tititl,rklU `
- ;�---trt,UttU,l3d1)
pre -CENOZOIC tfiirF
-- —{ Ik�innurg nt #!tolugri un+e a.hUti W1U,ikt41
' 4,
.!rr� Gfifl"rPi'' �r¢.4 s i,�i Gats.
A is -1 1977 0
California Slite Univershyj Chico `,ei(''1+r,-L x y r •
Chico, California 95926
The Vibe President for Academic Affairs
Janual.-y 3 1977
Mr. Bob Gaiser
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965
Dear Bob
I have read through the preliminary draft of the Noise Element
for the Butte County General Plan and offer- the following comments
for your consideration:
Page 1, Section 1.1, paragraph 3
In this paragraph it states, "Noise measurements were made." I
assume that these noise measurements were made in dBA. The document
from this point on seems to confuse the various ways in which we talk
about noise. Later on we come to LDN and CNEL. To the unitiated and,
in fact, to the 'initiated, this can be very, misleading; and T thank
the documient does tend to mislead: one as it now reads.
Page 1,, Section 1.1, paragraph 4
There is a recommendation that the county adopt a comprehensive
noise ordinance. 1 would propose that the first sentence 7:.''i this para-
graph be changed to read: "This Noise Element recommends that the
county adopt a comprehensive noise ordinance following the format of
the California Office of Noise Control's Model Community Noise
Ordinance no latex.{ than eighteen months after the approval of this
element."
Page 2,, Second Basic Goal
11 -ds goal states, "to avoid' incompatible land uses:" Such avoid-
ance will require that prospective purchasers I be provided with infor-
mation which is ,easily understood and which will give them an under-
standing of not only the type of background noise they can expect,
but also the type and frequency ofoccurrence of individual noise events.
The California State University and Colleges
Mr.. hob Gaiser
January 3, 1977
page 2
Page 2, Fourth Basic Goal
The fourth ,goal, X think, is not a satisfactory one. fjord the
specification is for insulation of hordes to reduce the outside noise-
level
oiselevel to an acceptable level by the time it enters the home. In this
part of northern: California where outdoor living is an important part
of ones Quality of life, we Should protect -the outside level as well
as the inside level. The adoption of a CNBL (or LONA of 60 dB is, or
at least can be, misleading. ,An environment in which individual noise
events of 90 dBA and 15 second duration occur once an hour during the
time from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 P.M. would yield a CNBL or LDN reacting
of between 50 and 55 decibels.
On page 3 the indication is than a 50 to 55 decibel. reading is
not particularly loud when in effect the individual occurrences in
this situation would make living less than desirable.
Page 3, Table l
Again we have the confusion, because these noise levels are peak
dBA levels and not the CNBL or LpN type of measurement that is discussed
in other places.
Page 4, paragraph Z
The auto racetrack at the fairgrounds is, in fact,, a .source of
noise. The fact that there have been few noise complaints from the
racetrack Goes not mean that the noise should not be abated. The role
of the supervisors in the development of the General Plan should be
to take the initiative and leadership in improving the quality of life
for the citizens of this county.
As far as I know, no noise readings have been taken in the vicinity
of the racetrack. The track will be inoperable until•somedne in April;
so there is no chance to get readings for this element,. tam sure that
readings have been taken at other tracks that could be `used It is my,
understanding that about two years ago the track began requiring
mufflers on the cars; but it still is a very significant source of
noise in our. environment.
Mr. Bob Gaiser
January 3, 1977
Page
nage 21, Table 5
This table lists amber noise monitoring sites and then lists the
noise level in "DN►s. The City of Chico ordinance, the Model Cities
ordinance, and most oxdinanCes, talk about ambient noise level not in
terms of LDN but in terms of background noise for various times of
day. This then gives a different ambient for the nighttime hours than
for the daytime hours and is not the average level. It seems most appro-
priate that Butte County should use the ambient which is normally deter-
mined over a. 15 -minute period, ignoring identifiable noise sources and
some requirement for a certain number of readings taken during the
15 -minute period depending upon the range of decibels in the ambient,
This is an ambient level that can easily be determined with inmxpcnsive
instrumentation. The LLN Levels require much more sophisticated cquip:
ment and do not in fact represent the type of background noise that
one can expect at various times of day.
Page 26, Figure 11
These are dBA readings at a specific time and not the average type
of reading that is used in other parts of the document. Again, Z want
to emphasize the :Fact that these levels will be misleading if they are
used together as they are in this document. At no place in the docu-
ment are these levels defined. At no place in the element is there
any indicationill that open hearings tbe held, at which time various
noise levels will be demonstrated. We are asking people to make judg=
ments about units that they do not understand, and we are further
confusing the situation by using what appear to be the same type of
units but in fact are very different. To further emphasize this point;,
on page 28 another type of noise measurement ls introduced, the LSp
which is a,'noise level that one coir".d. expet:t to have exceeded 56 of
the time. Again, this type of unit does not address sufficiently the
environment in which people will find themselves'in the various areas
of the county.
In the large map that was attached, which I assume is pigure 2,
the reis no indication of what the large numbers mean along some of
Mr. Bob Caiser
January 3, 1977
Page
the roads, 1 assume this has to do with traffic count, but it should
be so indicated.
Fare 17
14ere we talk about the 65 CNEL line while in other places in the
document it says that we should be considering the 55 CNhL line as
the contour that emcompases that portion of land which is not satin -
factory for residential use. There is no reason why the 55 CNFL line
should not be included on all of the maps. In the development of the
noise levels along the highway, alolig the railroads and in the vicinity
Of the airport there is no indication given as to the assumptions that
are made; assumptions such as increase in traffic, installation of
new traffic control devices, types of equipment that will be used on
highways, railroads or airports. Without this type ofuiformatdon
it is impossible to make any assessment of the validity of the projec-
tions that are being made.
Oil page 29 it says in the second paragraph from. the top, "Continuous
sounds of more than 15 minutes duration should not exceed the levels
given on Figure 13." Figure 13 lists the noise levels in LsoIs.
There is no explanation of how many disconnected 15 -Minute periods
during the clay the noise could exceed the 60 dBA level and still fall
wit.iin the L50 levels given in Figure 13.
Page 290 Section; 2.2.1.2
In the discussion of sleep interference, it indicates that 40 dBA
is a maximum peak for undisturbed slt;ep. At the present time there is
a large area of northeastern Chico that is subjected to a much higher
peak than that at some time from 10:30 to ll -130 as the Air West plane
takes off. it should be noted that the Air West planes at the present
time do not follow the :flight pattern that is designated which would
have them take off and land along the northern edge of the built up
area. When the new flight plan was first :inaugurated, they tended to
make this turn to the east, but at the present time they take offin
a Muchmore southerly direction, which puts them directly over a
larger segment of the present residential area.
Mr. Bob Gaiser
January 3, 1977
Page
Page 30, Section 2.2.1.4
It is my understanding that when Cal. Trans does somethingwith
a highway that results in a. peals noise level of over 5o dBA in a
school room, Cal Trans has to insulate the building. (I recognize
thatwhen we say Cal 'Trans we are talking about the people of Cali-
fornix.) It would seem reasonable to expect as quiet an environment
in our homes and in the school buildings in Chico as this requirement
imposed upon Cal Trans. This means, then, that ha.Ss and new schools
cannot be built in the vicinity of the airport or in that area between
,Ae airport and the present buildings, because this level will be
exceeded. It would seem that the place for the next growth in Chico,
based upon a noise consideration, would be to the southeast and not
the northeast because of the vocation of the airport
Page 31,
In the middle of the second paragraph it says; "These roads are
not Compatible with residential use, and residential development
should only be permitted when sound insulation of interiors of res-
dentes, hotels,, and motels is adequate, i.e., so that maximum peak
noise -levels do not exceed 45 dBA in living areas, and 35 dBA 7n
sleeping areas." Would this not be an idealistic goal for all noise
sources, i. e., require a 45 dBA, inside residential areas and 35 in
sleeping areas regardless of what the noise source is?
Also on page 31, it says buffering of yard ,areas should be pro-
vided, so that outside r),oise levels are significantly reduced.. It is
virtually impossible to buffer yard areas because of the wide diffrac-
tion angle that walls are
g we find withsound waves. >ences .and stone
just not adequate. Houses must be built away from the noises or else
Mr. Bob Gaiser
,January 3, 1977
Pa 'e G
Pae 36
This page is a good summary of noise -living confla.cts and steps
should be taken to provide this kind of information.
Pa_ ge 37
Here we talk about S decibels above the ambient. That is, I
presme, the ambient as determined over a 15 -minute period for various
times of clay rather than the LDN type of measurement that it talked,
about before.
Page 38
Any noise regulations should control the level of noise emitted by
air conditioners. This would require either quiet air conditioners or
insulated housing around them that would reduce the noise transmitted
to other people.
?awe 4.2
The county mid other municipalities should specify in their contracts
for equipment a noise level that would be acceptable. The only way
that construction equipment and maintenance equipmert'wil.l be developed
having a reasonable noise level is for government agencies to specify
this in their contract for such purposes.
Page 45
A paragraph "w" should be added which would read something like
this,
"Insure thtit information is readily available #.hP present
and potential noise levels to all would-be of land
or buildings."
This could be a requirement imposed upon real estatw
or title
companies or in some other way so''that -no one will be put in the
position of buying a piece of land in between air flights or train.
passages and then discovering belatedly that their quality of life
is far below what they had anticipated. It is true that most people
enter into this very expensive operation of buying a home without
adequately researching the environment in which they are buying. It
seems to behoove our local governments to provide some protection For
these purchasers.
Mr. Bob Gini seT
jant al, 3, 1977
Page 7
I do not consider these continents to be in a well edited forpt,
They do, however,reflect the thoughts that i have had as I read
through the document. If 'there are specific points that Z have
raised that you would like to discuss or specific points in the
docutnent that I have not made any comment about that you would like
to have me comment on, please let me know: I'wi11 be interested an
il
seeing the next draft and hope that you w.1 feel free to share it
with me.
sincerely,
14�y l
Robert L. 'IT 4T�s
Associate Vice Pr
for Academic Al
nc
cc John Hoole
rred Davis
Jim Lawson
BUTTE COUNTY
REPORTED
DIRE
INCIDENCES,
LOCAL
ZONE FIRES
Vegetation
Structural
Vehicular
Improvement
-
Refuse
Total
1071
�
3 3
155
73
30
`.�
49
650
1972
353
138
94
38
45
151
60
�•
°n
1971
�t
, 87
124
83
26
a✓
36
1 \ 1
7
'�jy
1��
129
83
LP5
41,
656
'1976
10
. 1.52
Wr
38
Z� cAz
a26
X351
535
F37
r1
28'?
7%
1179
AWMA4x'M„3
378
142
40
.89
48
STATE
ZONE FIRES
Lightning Cam_nfire
Smakina
Debris Arson
Equi,
Use Railroad
May
W/Fire
Elect.
Power Misc.
Undet.
l 171
1,,
5 7
t�6
27
6�
35
21
` 33
a
30
_
30
Total
304
72
a 7
20
23
36
19
5
26
7
22
33
206
1973
12 6
29
21
57
27
3
33
15
36
60
304
1974
S 6'
31
31
94
29
13
27
6
51
53
34c)
4 1975
a 8
31
40
64Q
33
23
�5
$
65
52
3�7
1976
46 '�
2j�
33
56
56 '
2
IP?
12
I 71
46
400
TOTAL03
87 14
ift
175
369
199
67
206
56
2?,5
274
1930
AVERAGES
15' 7
30
29
62
33
11
34
9
46
ANG
3221
TOTAL FIRES
IN LOCAL AND STATE ZONES,
1971-1976
ANNUAL AVERAGE IN LOCAL AND STATE
ZONES
01
gm'
OTX s 1976
INFORMATION TRRU 12/20/76p
-17
; �
?
0 rj
I q
cry
W
e
i.!
counigy
r1M'
4AhJ1) t)r NATURA1 WVAITl1 At -if) !,,IAA
PLANNING COMMISSIO!J
L.AWRENCI~ J. LAWSON
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
7 COUNTY CENTER ORIVE-OROVILLS, CALIFORNIA. 95965
T010011666! 534.4601
Tt,9.W
FrRON Bob Gaiser, Butte County Plannin«
SUBJECT: Draft filelse Clement
DATL: DOcembur 281, 197E
Enclosed Please find a coley of (I nrel imi nary draft Of a
i101se Element for the ButtO County rienoral Ilan. The draft
has been Prepared by the firm Of C112,fl hill after review of
existing materials, discussions with local interests, noise
1rlonitorinq, and nuidanl;e from State anencies,
Please review this draft carefully and send your writt'n
comments to me a soon as possible. Another drart will
then be Prepared next week, a draft Environiuent♦ l Im tict
`?ePOrt will be prepared, and the draft elemcn,* and Envirotlw
mental Impact Report will be distributed for a 30»fay
comment Period before tale Plannina Commission can act on
the matter.
/na
cc: City of Orovi l l e John Nolan
Cit,Y Of Chico - Fred Davis
City of Chico : John Hoole.
C dC w Office of Academic Affairs - Dr. Robert FrredQt.burq
Public Works Dept
Public Works Dept. _- Hal McDonald
Jim Lawson - Planning Director
Cf�2w 11`i11, X55 Capitol "fall, cuitO 1290, Sacramento CA D�t;14
MEETSRZOULAR`LY ON THE FIRST FOUPI 'THURSDAYS OF EAOH MONTH
f W= IF - - 49.BAVieL�A ----- .
N N
n 19
GO'VERNOR'S OMCE
�" »r OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
h
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 95014
EC. 3UND G, BROWN Jtl,
aavan++on
September 16, 1975
Mr. Larry Lawson
Planning Director
County of Butte
7 County Center Drive
uur% 00"ri' PLAR xp rn i
SEP 8 197;
0"OVILI.,P, RAt_ 1,
Qruville, CA 95965 v �'
,
Dear
Completi n of General Plan Elements
The California Council on Tntergovornmental Relations
granted an extension the completion deadline for
your jurisdiction's Noise, Safety, Seismic Safety, and
Scenic Highway Elements to September 20, 3,975i
This office must receive a :> ormal indication that these
elements have been adopted in accordance with the
work program you submitted to us A letter from your
office certifying adoption of the required elements,
indicating the date of adoption and adoption resolution
number, will serve this purpos Although not mandatory,
we would appreciate a copy of each adopted element for
our files,
If you have any questions or if we can )e of any further
assn s,ir,ance, please do not hesitate to contact your area
representative, Laurence Mintier, at (916)' 322-6312.
Si e ely,
Gre y 1V. aiding, Chief
Ad in stra i n and Community
As 'st c
M
H� w 4 %� It'�"'�:f �%� y.�� �y L'kYYi1• k.. `i'�'; ��+e.�'�:'�ni .� 1.. °.:x `Y.,: im'Idu d,.� ie l'✓� '�
r, nJrti lrJad}i Yir .:.r.my+,;''r. 011,140 cou* cow.e►
r.
JUL 2 6 1976
!
IRAN! OFFIC98 OF
Ora�lilU, Ca!ifo,:aik
M. BROOKS HOUGHTON
2
0000MAN HpU3
)Oki? Yslr 17.5KANA09
P() Box 101
CHICO, GAUFORN1A 0921
S
r
`t;
T 4GWHQNF' (9181 5 1 9tS i' a r s 4 0
C".e omens for L'a l..L' imer a a, I'i r`.. a.. M:.. MIX A��N :L.SCN,
r /l v'+riwwil! Vlvl rt
7
SW REOR CIDUIC OF CALTE 11A, C OMTY OF BUTIE
1
-
10
ERIEN.M OF BLUE CO=, art }
vn i.r oorporated association
Petitioner,
12'
VS. ) PEMIC N FOR WRIT Off' Mt;�MfiTc:AND
3
) Iri�IiJIJC.TniE
COUNTY OF BU7 , a polir"icalr )
14
slabdivisim"
15
.L espondenta..
16_
I7
Pew ti carer petiti ms this CxA=t: for a Writ of Manc3ate di:rec -od to
18
P-espondent Mf.TN'T'Y. OF BU=, and by t]-ii.s verified pe t m all' s:
19
PIPET CSE OF ?1CI'IC�V
.
20
21
)?etitcmer, FRD24M OF BUTM C{7[MY, its now, and rat al.l, t :ztr._s herein
22
m -ant med was, an un ;nccrporated association having ,its membership and meting
I
23
plat in Butte County, Cal-iforr ,a. Its mmber-hip is carlpri.sed of resident=,
24
�! trxxpayers County, Califon -iia, ubo use the. open
� �� �ii7P..eL's and of Btlt� Cpun Cal�.f0 ,-
�.
25
�,°�ca and: envir ntal. resources of Butte County, California_. At all rims
2 �
hereY n mmtic ned, FRI>~ m OF IF3U'r= Cot= was, and now is, forrmd and existing
for the pz ncipal. object of itc letr rttirg the following goals and objectives:
27
28
r ,......
_>: ,.. ., .:i.r- y.*."*' R ,'-.. ..r rwr ,f..Y.. r .. .«. rn.R r :.•y.=..- :, i ..
j
I. PtOtect a er&=ce the quality or- IifeAutLe County to the
2 grey 9t; extent possible.
3 2. Seek to continue agricultural use Ott prim soils and build the eco
4 nomic base of Butte County by increasing the efficiency and productivity on a
5 penranent basis of agricultural and forest lands._
6 3. Pro mte efficiency in local govexr ent and thereby prevent , ascn-
7 able tax increased through careful and rational long -,range planning of urban
a and eccnani.c development.
9 4 Provide infotmti. nal, service to the public and local,. gove nt
10 officials concerning the need for planr&z g and care in the Mumi.tnent of our
11 land resources and in cxapLiancn- with 1..elatsd laws.
12 5. Assist all organizations in Butte County which shard', our goals.
l3 Ix
z4 Pespc ndent County is now and at all tires rrent-ioned heroin was a political
15 subdivision ref the State of Cali.forn a.
16 TLI
17 SLZ M W OF FACTS
18'by the planning`
Cfi or about Juno 11 1975, an application was received
19 Deparbrent of the Cbunty of Butte for an avendpent, of the county zoning crdi.-
2d na.+ices to rezane certain property, hereinafter referred to as the "Bartram
21 1 property", located cn the wrest side of .Esplanade between Eatca4 Road and Shasta
22 ' Avenue, consisting of 244.6 acres, more or less, from the A-2 (General) Distri
23 to the R-4 (,Maxi 7vm [tensity Dwellings pestricted Service) pesidenti.al District,
24 the C-1 (Light Caan-_rcial) District, and the S-1 (1rL narrnn--Density Suburban
25 FeSident.ial) District. y
26 The E'nVi.= rental Review Committee of the County, acting pursuant to
27 Resoluticn Nb. 75-57 deter that an Envirarrnental Impact Report (17ereina`te
28 "EIR") wr jld be xequ red as provided by the California Dnv:i r ntal Quality
.� t01N:11TC;1 � !#Of)CNTotr _ _
CN`COn'!•(,Ir q•wll:: }IftN
4
Act o � 1970 Oiereina. ' Ir " Cl r')) , Public F :'SC7llX G'S CCSB wtions 21,000, Lt
ll
2
by th'a State Gui inesr California Ac1mi-nis ti ,0Oe;I41.t1.e 7=1, Sections
3
15000, —0t s_ CCS. , artd k)y the county gui.del il"Os 1)4,'sol.utic n Nb- 75-57 A draft
4Jas prepared M"d a Notice o f C `Ple ticn Was fil,� C7[t ��S1v er 17, 3.9 75
5
Hearings on the. draftaIR and tle �pplicaticri for rezoning wpere =Iducted by
6
the Plailning ConnLssiori on January 8, 1976, January z9, 1976 and February 5,
7
1976. 71v, = was approved by the Planning C auiission ,as a Vinal. E -IR on
8
ala. g ,
ruat'Y 5, 1.976 and an said date the Planning mission denied the
9
tion, finding that the proposed rezoning „violates the intent of the General
10
Plan of Butte Cour tY
County, PrcPcsed C>eraral Plan fox; the City of Chico and does
11
not respect the Yntetyrity of the city of ctd.co. "
12
hearings on appeal. of -the Planning omission action were conducted by the
13
Board of supervisors on Marg 23, 1976 and April. 27, 1976, On the latter date,
14
the Board of Supervisors granted the appeal and appzo,,--a rezoning of the Bartz
15
Pyr' from the A-2 District to the R-4, C -J, and s-1 Districts. A Notice at
16
Detenldnation as required by CEQA was filed by Pespondent or, May 26, 1976.
1.7
IV
is
GOVOr meet Code. Sections 65300 and 65301 require each county to adopt a
19
cmiprehensive, long-term general plan, containing specified elements as set
20
forth in Section 65302; Section 65300,.5 sets :forth a stabmrent of legislative
21
intent "that the general plan and elements and part the)-eof ccrraprise
an
22
integrated, internally am.istent and caTpatible statement of Policies for the
�3
adopting agencies."
4
24
V
25
Gove=n-ant Code Section 65860 regizes zoning ordinances to be consistent
26
with the general plan. In order to be consistent, the statute Provides that
27
(a) the county must have adopted such alam and
P , (b) ) that the various lard
28
uses authorized 'by the ordinance are: =pati.ble with. the objectives, policies
i HoUGkTr" 1 HOUGHTO"
II4i i4[ [S.l, 'eSOS
...3r.
91s9iFJ4 'dCJfiIFAM
@f�@��Sbl."d6B!@�91i67Gse1l7�u�e�ei*w - _ ... ..
1 I
general land uses;ad ( xjrmg specified in the; plan, Mnin5 ordinance
i
Trust .be- consistent w.it"h each. required element a Vgener al, x;:in:
l' .
3
The rezoning by Respondent of the Dartx= property is inconsistent with
5
the Butte County O, neral Plan in violation of Goverment CM11-- Section 65560 for
6
the following reasons, inter aLia '
7
1. Paspondent has not a&4:rtad a general plan as defined in GOvenrrnt
8
Cade' Section 65302, in, that YZespondent lir riot adopted a seimni,c safety exevent
9
noise element, scenic'hi.ghways element, or safety elanent as required by said
10
section, and any e_xtensicn ,of time heretofom granted pursuant~ to Government
11
Cbde Section 65302.2 had expired: prior to tip rezoning of the Bartram Party-
12
2. Mv ordinances rezoning the Bartram property y are inconsistent with the
13
"objectives, policies, general land uses and programs" sPeci-fied in the adapted
14
portions of the General Plan, in that, ter alfa,
15
(a) nie'ordim--uices are inconsistent with the open space element of
16
the general plan;
'17
(b) The ordinances axe inconsistent with policies and recannendat i -
18
of the C'neral. Plan: for preservation at agricultural lands, and the prevention
19
of urban sprawl,
20
(c) The ordinances are in=fsistent with the policies and provisions
21
of the General Plan for coordination -of the General Plan with the City of
22
Chico's General Man.
23
3. 11- e adopted_ portions of the BdUM l ^County General Plan are not internally
24
consistent as required by Gove=mait: Coat Section 65300.5.
25
4. Lxplementati.cn of the ordL arsrms rezoning the Bartram property would
26
inhibit, obstruct and preclude IlTlezTmtation o E . the policies articulated in the
27
General Plan for preservati.cn of primo xicultural lands, prevention of Urban
28
sprawl, and coordination of County p a= ng policies with those of the 'cities
*1b%)GNT0M 4 HOU0Mt011
:. ♦rTQrr/ri it I. X
iW 1.k
o- f/ UOf 1•Ai
GNiCby:Cf LfYt)w Mf.'0lf/
.. - . ,-...
Y
.. .:. . . ...,.n +.— —_ ^...-« .. ... +ril ,...— ....:., ..-r.a-..,rte.`.,..-.ice,,,. ^- y«•—»+e..0 .+......Y�• __
t within U-)e Cormty
x
3 The Bartr= rezordng and devolola ntursuant
�' thereto in dose pxcccinu.ty
1 to the City of 0-4co will have siejmti:cant impacts on I erkt.tioh x and it,,
5 M- MILers, including, but not limo. for
6 1. Increase in general. nutte Coup
tY PrcPerf::Y tt�7S, aI'ld%C)jF lda5 of C'X1.St].I'1g
7 =mmality service facilities
,-
8 2« Erosicn of agriculture in and the agri,cciltural—relatedeconomic base
9 of Butte County;
10 3. Env .r=mental dance, including pollution of the
atr ancI 'water,
11 traffic i-nars se, and loan of open space-
12
pace•12 4. Ices of prime soils for agricultural use.
13 VLtz
14 PP-spondesnt has a clear, pr
.esent ministerial duty to a g p
dopa z ena..ra,1, Lin
'
15 cc nt`aix ing al�fied and mandatory ei.errent s, and to acct 7"'ing i g ordinances
16 cxcly if consistent with its general plan.
17 iX
1 agr-cu' tural land and opect apace; and will
nugatory the cmprJmenslve
2 planning 6.rfoxf of the City of C'hz co aril County Of Butte, c'u'rd the ,max Tend
3 Foundation Commi.nsion of the Lbunty.
MMM CALLc .; nr �u °z'zcsr
I
G
Petitioner refers to, and by :;uch references inoo
xporates heroin, Paragra
V 7 I; 11' x21: and V11 of the First Cause of Acti.cxz.
E3
XI
9
'fie Final EIR on the Bartrer►ti mzcxzi n J Project does not
amply wi•tri the
10
requiXerrents of CDQA,, the State Gu delirbes, or the County of But.te
1I.
v =xm
rhe ' ewr Guidelines and is inac ate to provide the
decision -l� body With
12
sufficient ].nforiation to evaltaat:e the
onv•=nenta7, sign-ificance, of the
13
J eL`t in that: pro -
111.
l- It tails to include a "general description of the Project's
� 15
technical,
ecx�omic and envi.a�r��enta7. d�.racteristi,cs, ctxrsde;z-i�g
the principal.. en 9�-n r
16
•
_
� Prc-posals ands L�� ng public service facilities,
il"
17
as xrnc,{uiz-ed by Sectary
1,51.4:1(c) of the S•tat�e. Guide] iz),_s,
•
Is,
2. It fails to include a description of ttle eMrnt in the vicinity
19
of the project frcm ,bath a local and regional perspective, with specific
20
refeznce to related projects, both public and Private,
bath existent and
21
p en d, and, to consider the cumulative ,impact; of such projects
r41
22
as equii-e'I by
Section x.5142 of the State GUI'ii,ne '
23
3. It fails to discuss the direct and indirect mom,
• cts of the project on
24
the envirnt with crnsideraton of both the short• -term
and long-term of facts;
25
fails to describe why the project is being' prcposed notwithstanding
26
unavoidable
adve•rseangaacts ; fails to discuss mitigating measures
praposod to reduce, the
27
adverse impacts of fre pzoject as prcposed; fail, to discuss
2l3
energycxxrsarvation-
asures.- f :LS to adequately discuss alternate vas
au6NTcr s NtlucNTLi!1
to the project, including
114 Y4S'N.i�apG
,. !
1 � VJC
i 2 re U t'i merks 1105 adeqxzte
y rmedy at law. Unless lbspcndent Is restxained
3 .ircm granting develOP"erit approvals pursuant: to xoniryj act iczs prior td aciequ,,E
4 consid7eraUm of the significants envircrumntal cons a
ecpoances t,' ',reof, Vob t.� cner
5 •A11 su,t t er izxepara6lr- i'n-juxy
in that: i.ntens3.ied c1euelopment contiguou,s to
G the City will h"ve ar:Neri
ei,c and scci al: impartrs an. peti-tioner and its
7 McRlbers; will rause an otherwise unnecessary increase in the general Butte
g county P=Perty tax amd/oz" kiss of Qxistu c rnrr�i
5 ty service facilities; will.
9 exbde agr culture in and the ri.cultural-related econcmic base of Eu'%�,Q- County
10 will cause env rcmental damage including air and wat=er pollut icn, traffic
11 Increase, and loss of c
space: will. result in an irrevocable Loss of prime
12 r'cult:ur 11 land and, tapeta space; and wil,], render nugatory the
g ry =-q=ehem ive
13 1?larming effort=s of the City of Chico and County of Butte, and the local, Agency
14 Foundation Camrission of the county.
15 naim CAUSE OF ACITON
t 16 x
sw.
17 Petitioner refers to, and by such reference incorporates herein, Paragraph
18 , zl Ill and Vil of the rirst Cause of Action.
19 YT .
20 Adopti.cm of the ordinances remning
thegar-trayz
p OPertY ccnst:itutLd a
21 PreJUdicial abuse of discretion in that no iawfull. ad
Y equate EIR had been
22 Prepared and cansidered prior thereto, as mandated by law.
23 xl'
24 Adoption of the ordinances rezoning the Bartram propes-t_y constituted a
25 Prejuditial abuse o£
discretion in that adequate findings to support such ac -ti
II
26 i were not made, and n=e particularly:
27 - l: The purported finding that the rezoning is consistent with the land
t, 28 use elerrant for the Butte County General Plan is L-15ufficient to r; t the
' J.lIFor4 � HOUGNTnn -
.wrnwwe+t
+o ear len. v
'.tiiGO,CiLIi Fw w. :Mitt
A",i= 7 VFLkr
t
8
9
10
11.
12
13
14
15
requiremnts of C;Ovei P,it (bde Section 65$60; the'Ozrne.rl
states � k�Mcl bythe
ca-mty states t» the- Z-Ozordnq is ,xnccn.�i;
un>r,� Plan,
the. � space clement of the Caurxt=y C�neral
Plan, and false City
of moo Genet
Plan; no contrl�dlctot , evidence appegrs ,in the
2. �L"Ie Puzportern, findia s
cc2n tairxecl
1976 hearingin xr grad rn i u tes of the
)�
April. 27,
Y the Hoard ' of Sulrva.sor, andtt ��t of said minutes on
"aY 11, 1976 t6 include tf st(atenent of ttle Corm
tY Co uisex are not: f�.i,ngs
wade by the Board of S
UPe.ry sons but rather Camrents of the County CoLmsel,
are. not suPPcrted' , -
�' the. evidence, and are insuftcaent to constitute findings
sufficient to apprise the
Court of the basis and Mode of analysis of t
Boardos ;action;
IV
Adoption of ordinances rezcazirg the B
axe -rpt' prq)erty constituted
prej udi..
cla7. abuse 'of discreticn in that no findings or stater of overriding
cern Terre mases con
by the Boaxti of Supervisors to support 4 is
,ern
16
act-.on as being in
the lest interest the I.
of public health, safe ty and welfare,
17
notwith.
evidences set forth ax, the Count~y's
own EIR that:
1s
"The- major env-r=rental
19
to act would be
Potential level t. ��the o
The cis pening UP Of this
equences land
this Property could be c of any level
20
1. U1 -,e loss of R"Um agricultural so -
and s and J,] 0
and 60
21
acres of
acres of row cz.W. Orchards
22
2• Zhe eVansicn of the Chico Urban
Esplanade fzrxn the level �1plex further north. along the
cPed area
of Shasta and Lasses Avenues
23
ed
3, i cx�ased traffic generation to and from the
Project area.
24
4. of air, noise and grater
area developed to the quality could occur with the
potentials
25
allot under the rezone Prals.
26
5, Iv'on-ccxr���,�,ance w.ilrh the Ci
Plans .and the Cohn City of Olico and Butte Coun t Cenera3.
'�? space
elemzt of the General Plan.
27
*�*
µ 28-T
_...._��
ifGHiOM iIOUdNTOs(
,
LAO
• o .4.�l,
-9-
r
Piny art. 171e H[tVxCElrfxt►17, agw uC� tr1e1 .1' iZlvGl'vet
in the p, action sho ld not be , llp �wd
i
1. LOss of prime a ict17 tore soils
3
z. JtOss of 110 a=es of OrchaCd .and 60 acres of roW
3. ansion of the chi.co Uzban C,M,lex north of Shasta Avenue
5
and along the Westam side of the Erspl anade
C
A, Increased demands tpm the public service area for Pxo]ected
needs
7
5. Loss of ambient - x, noise, and Gaater duality.
8
�_
6. Incased tx-affic generation.
9
7. Non --conform with tj-�. Butte County General; .Plan and open
10
Space F1mlent of ttve General Plan and non -c onfozmanc,e with the
City of OUco Gerrex'al. Plan, it
12
, W„ V
13
Relent has a Clea.:, present and ministerial duty to prep, certify
tai
and consider a final enviro=ental impact report in canpliance Frith CEQA prior
15
to amending its zoning Orth ince, to act a general, plan containing specified
16
.,
and mandatory elements and to adopt zoning ordinances only if consistent with
17
its general plan,
18
VI
19
Petitioner has no adequate re nedy at law. Unless Resident is restrained
20
&cin granting develcpTent approvals int to zoning acti cans which a re
21
inconsistent with its general plan, enolprior to adequate consideration of tip
22
significant envi rental ocnsequences hereof, Petitioner wall suffer
�3
irreparable injury - contiguous airy- in that intensified, dem lnt oont•_i. ous to tt3e city will
24
have a&-erse econanic and social inpaets cn Petitioner and its r-r..xs wi.1:L
25
cause an otherwise uniy(3cessary ixtcrease in the ger-eral. Butte County property
26
en-.< and/or lass of e.�cisting ==Unibj J1C�? faci.l.ities; will erode agricul.tu rci
27'
agricultural -related eooT=ic base of Butte County
n and thea crz.11. cause
28
envz . a
•rcnrentallona e including 9 r and water pollutiatr traffic increase, and
s.Hti7h1 a Hc�krw!
6Ttr�ilafy At LA:.
FIRM PONE C)-tA
r.7C 11, CALtI py'w1A Nfrl:
Iloss o1: open space �rj_L result in an irrc=vo le. a�
2 land and (-Ten cam; and W." ll render m)ga tory yk p1 Jvns, ve plankg t� Ct czr
3 of tiae City of Chi= and County of PuLte, and t1-e Loci,
fiqrncy 1<ounclatisc
C-bT ni Sr-i.on of ,the (,Io=ty.
5 FMR�.U.I.0 A= OF AMON
G
7 Petitioner re EQrs to and by such ra&m nce -Incorporates herein �
x Parr
agza
g x xI, 111 and iv of tha First Cause of Action.
I
9 ..ti
10 7he Bartram property Witains prime agricultural soils and is located
I X within an area of lands cant
ainin9' prirte agricultural soils which is adjacent
12 to north and west bamxlaxes of tl-;e C3ty of Chico, California.
13
14 rhe Butte County Cenral Plan violates awernnent Code for til follca,ri.ng
15 reascrs, inter alfa:
16 1.. Said, Plan does .not include a sASMic safety element, noise eft,
17 scenic highways ele�ment or safety el.emeac_ as required
by Gc)verruzent :Code Sectior
18 65302, and any tension of ti.rre here
toS granted pursuant to Go
went Com
19 Section 65302.2 had expired prior to the date of filing of this
petition;
20 2 • Tha ador&ed portions, of said PIM are not i-n1=.ernatly consistent as
21 1 required by C<avernr Mt Code Section 653M.5.
.
22 TV
23 1 The Butte County General Plan c ire&y affects future' devel
cPrent on all
24 tnixticorporated land within the County }mouse of ' the Goverettent Code rte,,;,,,_
25 nrznts that all zoning, subdivision maps, etc., must be consistent with trie
26 local general plan. Further, al.,l. County public works projects are reviewed for
27 ccnsistency 4ri.th the General Plan. A vk=tantial segment of the population o1
28 Btxtte 'COuntjr lives In the C ounty1 s unixs^. *O rated area, pnd men of
Y t County,
f^.�cHrca:a Houcr�ron - ,.
.fit in r1•4Nib[ .,�.'1 1 � .. ..
•.a eni (Wi LJ
t ii or rlt n1h X15 asol�YC*- areas, inC�.L;xxi t � IQ i1C�X� qtJ�» CILr c'L�. so
2
in tib area 0 a
� dent to the. nor�st boundaries of tk�Es 423.t. -y of C11i+c�, California,
Ilk 3
are located in t3runcorporarecl axua. 'n)e Butte Ccnulty xal Plan also
,t
affects the incorporated areas inasnuch as the manes and aw�xt cif'develo nt
5
� the unri.ncarporated area affects t.1� manner and amazt: oe develcprp in the
cities,
g
Rezoning and developrent approvals on lands containing gime agricultural
9
soils n 'the area adjacent t o the north and west boundaries of 9 City of chicc
10
California, w III have significant impacts cn pet tia�r and its n an}ers
11
including, but not 1 iz i ted to:
12
1. increase in epaneral Butte OmInty* prcperty tax anc7/or lo�z of existing
1,3
camnr dty service fac :iit es;
14
2. Brosi m of agriculture Li and tt� agricultural -related ;cxmani,c' base*
15
of Butte County;
16
3 ,� Envi=nr-enta7, ,
damage, including pollution of the air azul caster,
17
traffic increase, and loss of rpen space;:
18
4. Loss of prim soils for agri.culturaj use,
19
VI
20
1�sp de...nt has a clear, present and mini t -x al duty to adc7p4 a genera,
21
Flan cc retain .ng specified and mandatory elemnts', and to adapt zol
2;2
rely if o insistent with Its gerperza plan.
23
VII
24
Pefiti-mer has no adequate remedy at law. Unless Paspendent is .restzra ned
25
frczn granting rezM=g and develcpaient approvals on lards adjacent to ti)e north
26
ar4 wast boundari.ns of 't�^Ei- City of Chico, 'Cal if fcm- nia, C:Cil�c"L]111.17 j p� im- agr7 GL]l
27
tural soils until: such time as tt;e Butte County General Plan is brc ugh, into
'18
cerIfOrmity with the m� x1atory req,,; rernerts of state law, Pet ticner its
and
W'iZMTGMe MOU4NYOff
12
13
14
15
1E
17
is
19
-Lnjury a.n thztt inten' led P c"cntipt;
ail; veto tacit
crus to the ci.t
Y tom.] 1 t ave ac2verse ecOnML c :social is a L
Petiticner an
cause an ofhejnd,c,•M uncn
! ss ary i.nc, ase jn t:ho genet
al lint
CIIurtty P er y t e" and/or loss of existing c
czturtzrti ty "ervict J acilities; wUl
t'rode acrzacultura �n and't}a�a -t cuturaX-
will Cause en r eal .lla d e xcnic ba -se 0; u�
COLML3d-Vge
Including air and�,
wa ..r Pollut:i,cxz, traffic
Increase, and loss or open space; wIill result I
anx'revoca}al a loss of pr i me
agricultural, land and space and wi11
r nugaEozy theccnV
rhensiw.
PJ.a uu.ng efforts of tl-e City, of Chico and CbuntX of Butte,
Ptundat.on Camnissicn of the County. and the Vocal. Ag'nc:y
r peti.taoner prays as to
A. 7i7e First,
and Third, Cauaes: of b,cticn
J-- mat, after b--ari.ng on a wtl=h
by Petitioner for Fa-�
a �, tarty
story Writ of mss cla'- issiv 1lti ng Pespa,dent to:
(a)• set as*cle its certificati do of the final, env -i r0rMvnrtj
report and Its actor; n rezonig the Bartram PrelPer't.es
(b) adopt a dra;'preh�qive general, plan ccn;
g all. mandatory
elements and crreeting �
ui MMnts for a gereral� plan as pre$cr.� b,,d
by statute,
r
3
si
5
G
7
8
9
10
1 _l
12
13
14
15
1E
17
is
19
-Lnjury a.n thztt inten' led P c"cntipt;
ail; veto tacit
crus to the ci.t
Y tom.] 1 t ave ac2verse ecOnML c :social is a L
Petiticner an
cause an ofhejnd,c,•M uncn
! ss ary i.nc, ase jn t:ho genet
al lint
CIIurtty P er y t e" and/or loss of existing c
czturtzrti ty "ervict J acilities; wUl
t'rode acrzacultura �n and't}a�a -t cuturaX-
will Cause en r eal .lla d e xcnic ba -se 0; u�
COLML3d-Vge
Including air and�,
wa ..r Pollut:i,cxz, traffic
Increase, and loss or open space; wIill result I
anx'revoca}al a loss of pr i me
agricultural, land and space and wi11
r nugaEozy theccnV
rhensiw.
PJ.a uu.ng efforts of tl-e City, of Chico and CbuntX of Butte,
Ptundat.on Camnissicn of the County. and the Vocal. Ag'nc:y
r peti.taoner prays as to
A. 7i7e First,
and Third, Cauaes: of b,cticn
J-- mat, after b--ari.ng on a wtl=h
by Petitioner for Fa-�
a �, tarty
story Writ of mss cla'- issiv 1lti ng Pespa,dent to:
(a)• set as*cle its certificati do of the final, env -i r0rMvnrtj
report and Its actor; n rezonig the Bartram PrelPer't.es
(b) adopt a dra;'preh�qive general, plan ccn;
g all. mandatory
elements and crreeting �
ui MMnts for a gereral� plan as pre$cr.� b,,d
by statute,
A. au. t7Z,1:' ,'f na ' P - nden.t:, frc m
wan.ti.ng issuing any
2 cee:amT� �aXrnits, approvals, or,en;tit?, of u
rr al?lioab,l e to the
pUes, until such dime as �
sPOndent has cmiplie»d vrith the aux
4
Of this Court.
5 3 1br Petitioner's costs w4 attorne+r'�
s fees in this cRcticn.
G n. 1'ar such other relief as tray be just and Proper.
7 Mle POWth CaLMe of Action
8 1 That after tearing cn a r.•rattan
by Petitioner for pe;,tozy writ,
A Parerpbory writ of mandato iss r'cepeLling Pespondent to Wcr. t a axT1'xehen_
10 sine neral, plan cont-'riing a],7, Mandatory elements and Metz.ng the req'uix�nent
11 .for a general plan as prescribed by statute.
12 2 that tY C1ourt issue ateUmin
P axy and permanent injunct;cn
13 enjoining Respondent, and aLl perscrLs, Officers, errployees, agencies, boards or
14 ca missions acting under authccrity of l .cadent, f=n cox n
ng or issuing any
15 rezoning develcptent permits, approvals, or enti.tlen nts of use
� aPalcabi.e to
16 .the lands adjacent to the x. arch an(,', est boundaries of the City of Chico
1 %Ca-Liforn_ia, containing Prize a
gricus.tut-A soil until such t:.irm as P12SPmdent
18has ampli.ed with 'the order of this Court.
19 3 • For petiti,au-r's costs and attorney's fees in this action.
20 4. For such other relief as•zy be just and Proper.
21 Dated: July 26, 197622 -
IAW OFF'I'CES OF t4 BROOKS HOER
ZM
23
24
2 F LS.`•[ BPIWS
At:to-ney_- for petitioner
26
27
28
trjGN7bN a 404)CHT +' ?
rte 75"'I A' 4i
e -14
r'nCb!.CAIr'3n r1A'.Mftr.
w
uauwno�uefras�ca�ixv�ia�si,r in®.wsaa
,
lAhlD OP NATURAL WlALTF( AND BEAUTY
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL
BUT•re CouN•rY AMMINIMiATION BUILq)NO — UROVIL Lc, CAWrgRMA 95765
. 'I•olaplorrr: �91Ga ✓�d..tS21
UANIRL V LILACKSi ook JAM; 5 Ra 01PPI,ni4ELaeRT' M, SlemseN
Coutrry CGurixel
J u n e 1,7 p 1.97 6
oopul�e
Honorable Members of the
Board of -Supervisors
ButteCounty Administration
8uilding
Orovil l'e, California 95965 C 0 NF 1 0 F N T 't A L
RE: RROPOSEO.crry' LITtGAT10!
Gentlemen
Yesterday Z received a visit from Mr. Bill Holliman,
attorney -;at law from Sacramento, who has been retained by the
City of Chico to bring legal action with regards to the Bartram
rezoning. He advised me that he does not, like to bring any
action against public agencies without talking first to the
city attorney and county counsel involved. He tells me that
the action will be filed next week and will, in essence; attack
the environmental impact report, alleging the zoning is
inconsistent with our General Plan. He mentioned that he vould'
also be attacking the consistency G. , to our General Put an on the
groLInds that our General Plan itself is not complete in that
it does not have all of the required elements.
C 0 C' .� 1 0 r. ti r A 1.
, W *'* —
tlembers of 'the Board Page Two June 17, 1976
110 further StUt(:d that 110 Ir,tiCiPated that he would
seek mandate from the court to require you -to set aside the
Bartram rezoning, and as well to prohibit the granting of any
use permits, building permits,, or subdivisions throughout the
county until the General Plan had all of its required elements,
etc. The foregoing comments, when coupled with some inference
that possibly if the Board would voluntarily rezone the property
to the city's likingi tended to lead me to believe that quite
possibly the conversation had changed to possibly a "settlement
conference." He had stated previously that he felt that the
controlling reason why the city was bringing this action was
to bring the city and county closer together on zoning and to
assist county -city cooperation. My reaction to him was that
by no stretch of the imagination can I visualize this type of
litigation, especially coupled with the threat of closing down
all county development, is going to in any way fostey- or help
city -county cooperation. I stated quite definitely to him that
in my opinion I would be concerned about the direct contrary
result, that in fact the city and county have many areas in
which they are actively cooperating, including pending agree-
ments which will b.e of considerable benefit to the city. I
told him Ifrankly could not understand the thinking of'the
city council members in th-i.s regard, and that in my experience,
litigation 'between public bodl'es.n,o more fosters cooperation
f'j J
Members of the Board Page Three July Us 1976
}
'than litigation b `ween 'Individuals because public bodies are,
of course, composed of individuals and human nature does not
change because an individual is sitting upon'a board or a
council. I also advised him that I personally hope that his
proposed litigation would not create a climate in which, continued
city -county cooperation would be difficult. I did express
to him my concern, however, that such irresponsible action by
the city could create that climate, the irresponsible action
being an endeavor on their part to attempt a close -down of all
counpy developments.
When this case is filed, I would anticipate that
I would want to go into executive session with you and discuss
each cause of action 'therein in detail. However, with regards
to these required elements of the General Plan, I can see no
reason why they have not been completed, and I would suggest
that you direct, next Tuesday, that these elements of the
General Plan be completed, including a -time schedule as to
when the elements would be completed, and the time schedule
for the hearings that are required, both before the planning
commission and your Board. Specifically, these elements* are: -
1 . fio i se Element
2 Seismic Safety Element
3. Safety Element
Incidentallyy after he suggested the possibility
of our rezoning the property; I advised him in that regard
*d scu.�sion in our General Plan (see page 6.6) on the subject,
Section 65302 requires a scenic highwayelement* We have some
�- subject,
,
but this should be broken out and reworked to form a formal
scenic highway element.
G 0 I Cl E i`! T I A L
i
y
Members OF 1'. 110 B0aI (I p��cte Four dt�no % > 1976
that to my knowledge your hoard had made a decision, however,
.that is Vtould certainly pass along such comments .to your [hoard.
T also told him Z did not anticipate that you would be necessarily
agreeable -to such a suggestion.
During our discussions relative to all of the bad
things that tjould happen to the county if this litigation
proceeded, and the "possibilities of settlement," Zmentioned
s
to him that I felt that the city's decision to bring this'action
was a political decision, and, thus, as a practical matter r
ii
we: were not in the normal context of having the attorneys come
up with a proposed settlement, but rather that 'the political
bodies i r volved themsel ve•s are going to. have to resolve the
problem ^without court action. He told me that in any event;
' he would be -filing the action because of the statute of
s
limitations problem and quite possibly we could discuss it
i
thereafter.
He advised me that he had been in communication
with the attorney general's office, and that he does antici-
pate that the attorney general ' s office will intervene in the
case. As you might suspect„ they will ' not be intervening on
our side, but rather on -the side of the City of Chico. z
intend to discuss the matter myself with the attorney general"s
office today to try to get some type of feeling about their
... eX"U"" . "°"'Nµ'rJr+rY.. p"�..• s pis, sw •z. ., ,. . y,.» :...rs ,. ems.. i.♦ 1
wp
6 .17
COar�rrAj�
-_ — ... z
Namhers of the Board Page Six June 17 1976
confidence in our planning department to believe that after
you have flat-out told them when 'the hearings are going to be
that they will prepare the elements, certainly in such
sufficient -Form that you and -the planning commission could
conduct the hearings. In that regard, also give them time for
environmental review'.
I frankly do not visualize our- local courts placing
a halt upon all county development as a result.of this liti
pation,. However, you may recall that this did occur i`m Los
Angeles County, however, the order remained in effect for a
couple of days. What could occur is that the court could
mandate ,you to comply with Government Code Section 65302, the
section that lists the mandatory elements of the General'Plan.
Needless to say, if in fact we have a schedule ;set for hearings;,
etc., for adoption of these plans, I would doubt the court
would enter such a mandate.
I respectfully request that this letter be kept
confidentialat this time. After all, the comments relative to
the closing down of all county development could have been
made in the sense of attempting to obtain a "settlement" or for
some other purpose that the city may have in mind.
Yours truly,
DA1,11U V. BLA'CK5TOCK
Butte: County Counsel
UVB/md
cc Clif Mickelson, Administrative Officer
,
I
EVE(J.0 J. YOU@tOWRo Attorney Gen(�rjlr
or, the SLote of Ca.l.ifornta
2
LARRY C. KIN(;,
3
prputy Attorney General
555 Capitol Mall,, Sui,. �0
1.N ,
�^i�
Sacramento, California 95814
h-
Telephone: ( 91.6) 44'
jr-
5
Attorneys for intervenor
SES rf y9r
C`Itrk� 6o11i" C'My
8
SUPERIOR COUNT OF THE STATE OF CAi,IPORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY
dE COLUSA
" 10
11
CITY OF CHICO, )
No. 14553
12
Petitioner, )
13
v )
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE
TO INTERVENE;
14
COUNTY OF BUTTE, )
ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE
RE PRELIMINARY
:15,
Respondent_. )
INJUNCTION; AND
ORDER SHORTENING
l'E
)
TIME
VERN M. BARTRAM, ', e t al.,
17
Real Parties In Interest
18
19
PEOPLE OF THESTATE OF )
CALIFORNIA, by and through )
20
ATTORNEY GENERAL
EVELLE J. YOUNGER,
21'
y
Intervenor. )
22 1}
23
Upon the e request of the
People of ;the state of
24
California for leave to intervene
in the above: entiLled -
25
matter and the Court having read
the complaint in
26
E
intervention, the points and au hori.ties in support of the
J�
;OURYPgditiR i
t7iY+: Q� CAUFCNHM+
-
iTtl 11:1 �81 P.73
V
1
order to 'uhow C.au..`o, AND GOOD CAUSE AN'U'ARING
2
IT IS IIERNMY 01 D14'(0N) that the Peopl.p� ot; the state
;5
of California be granted leavo to intervene in Hits action
4
and File a complaint in intervention.
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDE118D that respondent County of
5
Butte appear at the Colusa County Courthouse, 517 Market
7
Street, in the City of Colusa, County of Colusa estate of
8
California, on the. 13th day of September, 1975, at the hour
9
of 10:00 a.m., or as soon ther°eafter as the matter can be
10
heard, then and there to show cause, if any, why a
I
preliminary injun;Qtion should not issue as follows:
12
Respondent County of Butte, and all persons,
' 3.3
officers, employees, agencies, boards or commissions acting
14
in concert with or under authority of respondent from doing,
15
attempting to do or causing to be done either directly or
16
indirectly by any means, method or device any of the
17
following acts during the pendency of this action or until
18
further order of this court:
-19
(a)' Enacting or adopting any zoning ordinances
20
until. such time as respondent has adopted a complete and
21
comprehensive general plan containing a'll mandatory elementa
22
and meeting the requirements for a general plan as
23
prescribed by statute. t
24
(b) Approving or adopting any final or 'tentative
25 j
parcel or subdivision map until such time as respondent has
g6!
adopted a comprehensive and complete general plan containing
i
271
all mandatory elements and meeting the requirements for a
COURT PAPER
57ATC 00 CAOMR410,
STO 11:3 'f H,rW
2.
i
.1
general plan as prescriboo by st ntutn,
a
(c) Granting or issuing any development pC'rmity,
approval:, or cnLi,tle�nents eor use pertaining to "he ),and
4
r'ei:erre6 Lo as the "Bartram Rezoning" and governed by zoning
b
Ordinances 1711, 1.712 and 1713 of the County of Butte
5
IT IS FARTHER ORDERED that a copy of the complaint
in intervention, points and authorities, ex parte
8
apnlication ,for leave to intervene, order granting Jt;,Ave to
9
intervene, order shortening time be served respondent
fo`n
10
County of Butte no later than Septembere, 1976
11
Dated this day of September, 1976.
12
13
RICHARD E. PAITOM
14
OUD E OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
15
16
17
18
1s
20
21
22
23i
24
25
261
27_ !
"TAYF,, OF CA tJ0't*hjA.
-
57P 11.9 1 pEY g 72! i
4.
3
f
J r
EVELLE 3., YOUNGER, AL,torney General
2
o—O the State of c,.-aA ifa. t't1ia
LARRY C. Yl X NG, r
1
J.
r
3
�.
`ey,Ipti��7G;rc7.
C'CC1+'%/l�'�+:utyy Capitol(�
555 Capitol Mall, Suite �50I
II1 (r''
I r4`l�Gwt t*Y�Dq�r
j k:r.
^t�
nto, .Cad. �:Cornitj 958�.`t ..
TeJePttonc.„ (916) 4,;5 3b
�rurr
!� illEf
!! J
Attorneys fOr Interve
r
7
C:Icrk� Caluun colrnty
SUPERIOR COURT V, -F THE 'STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
9
F(7 -1,R THE COUNTY
OF COLUSA
.10
1.
CITY OF CHICO
No 14553 i
121
Petitioner,
13
)
COMPLAINT IN '
14i)
COUNTY OF BUTTE, j
INTERVENTION FOR
PETIT] -ON FOR r
151!
WRIT OF MANDATE
Respondent. )
AND INJUNCTIVE
'
16,
)
RELIEF
17,;
VERY
N M. BARTRAM, PHYLLIS'PHYLGIS
BARTtRAMj C. R. DECIOOS,
BERNICE DECIOUS, GLENN
KENDALL, SUSAN KENDALL, )
CECEL,IA KENDALL, THOMAS j
19 r
ENLOE� H. H. HPE; TERSQN & SONS,
WALKER, NORTHMINUM,
20
SATE ALUMINUM, ROBERT j
'
DONNELLEY, MCCAIN and
211
ASF,QCIATES, GERALD COMPTON,
ROBERT PETFRSEN, DIANE.)
22
PETERSEN, M & T INC., and
DOES I through XX,
r
24 ,
Real. Parties In Intere;5t
)
PEOPLE Or^^' THE STATE; OE' )
'
CALIFORNIA, ;ay ,and through
26
ATTORNEY 'GENERAL
EVELLE J. YOUNGER,
27 �
Intervenor.
1
}'
OURYPA- PERVAIrc
,
or dAtovd NIA
Vo 113 iAr,V 0,721 f
OFC
!
Kim,
1
i
1
The People of the State of California, intervenor
2
herein, hereby allege:
T
4
That the Attorney General of the State of
3
0California,e
�
Cr-%,].,1�QrT7 I.c'A, �S the G.h�.e� �.r"IW Q��].CG'1C 17� Stato; has the
r
6
power and is charged with the duty to file any civil, action
v
1
v
"71
which he deems necessary for the protection of public rights
8
and interest. It is the concern of the'People of the State
9
of. California that laws and legislative policies of this
10
State be enforced, and that the environment of the State be
.1"4,r
.11
preserved and enhanced.
12
ll
13!
t
That petitioner City is now and at all times
14;�
S
mentioned herein was a charter city in the County of Butte
.
fi
1
1511
created and existing under a freeholder's charter adopted,
16�;
and amended pursuant to the provisions of the California
17
Constitution.
19!
That respondentCounty is now and at all times
20,
mentioned herein was a political subdivision of the State of
21�
}
California.
{r
22!
IV
K
23'
That real parties in interest V-=rn M. Ba:rtran
24:
Phyllis Bartram 'C. R,. Decious, Bernice Decious, Glenri
'I
25
r
Kendall, Susan Kendall., Cecelia Kendall, Thoma, Enloe, H. H:
2e
Peterson & Sons, Inc., Lorene walker, [forth State Aluminum,
.�
27
M1�
Robert DonnelleyMcCain and Associates, Gerald Compton,
COURT PAPER
NTATK oR cwLII01i+Iw r
j
« r
2 .
I Robert Petersen, Diane Petersen, and M & T Inc., b4lve or
i
2claim some right, title, or interest~ in Lhe land's rezoned by ;
f
311Sutte County Ordinances 1711,, 171.2, and 1:71.3. intervenor is
4 informed and believes that other real parties in interest
5 sued herein by fictitious names, Does Z through XX, may have
6 or claim some ra,ght, tit1e, or interest in the property
7 which is the subject mat -ter of this action, the nature of
,
8 which is not now known to intervenor; that when intervenor
9' ascertains the true names of each of said parties, i
r
10 intervenor will ask leaveto amend and substitute such true '
1.1 names and to make appropriate allegations concerning same. �
i
12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ,
13� V
1.41 Government Code sections 65300, 65300.5, and 65301.
15� require each county to adopt a comprehensive, internally
�,16 Mi Consistent, Long-term general plan, containing specified
17:1 mandatory elements as 'se��L7x'trh in Government Code section
✓' '� 18 65302.
19 VI
201' Respondent in Violation of Government Code section
a°'�Ly7
211 65302 failed to adopt four of the mandatory elements,
r 1 22 namely. a seismic safety element,- a noise element, a scenic
23 highway element, and a safety element. Any extension o
24'; time heretofore granted pursuant to Government Code section_
i
25� 65302.2 has expired.
}
26 -—-
`27.
coin« nater ti
sYkxc of c LL1110FMo.
5to 113 inm 0.120 3 r
SECOND GAUS2 OP ACTION �
2 I Vi
i
3 Intervenor realleges each and every allegation of
41 paragraphs I through VI of this complaint.
5
Vxx1
6 Government Code section 65860 requires zoning
I
7 ordinances to be, consistent with the general plan. in order
8 to be c-onsisterit, •the statute provides that (a) the county I
9 must have adopted such a plan, and (b) that the various land
i
10I uses author zcd by the ordinance are compatible with the
I
11 objectives, policies, general land uses and programs a
12 specified in the plan. The zoning ordinance must he
s i
13� consistent with each required element of the general plan.
t
1411 zx I
151' The rezoning ordinances 1711,, 1.712, and 1713
,16 a' enacted by respon&.;nt for the Bartram property are
i 177;inconsistent with the Butte County General Plan and are in
is violation of Government Code section 65860 for the following
19! reasons, inter,alia:
20; li Respondent has not adopted a generalP lan
21 j as destined in Government Code. section 653021 in
1
22 that respondent, has not adopted a seismic safety
23 + element, noise element, scenic highways element,
24-1 or safety element as required by said section; and
2511 any extension of time heretofore granted pursuant
.j
26; to Government Code section 65302.2Vhad expired
27 y prior to the rezoning of the Bartram property.
CQUR7 PAPER
6TATC br �A;.f/oniM
Sid 11J'IPtV IWral 1.
4
f ' 1
r 2, Responder.t's general plan is not an �
integrated, intern'al.ly consistent and compatible 1
statement of policies as required by Government
4ICode section 6530
5
3. The ordinances razoning the Bartram
6
property are inconsistent with the "Objectives, �
7
� p
ces,general lana uses and programs"
$ specified in the adopted portions of the General ,
i
9 Plan, in that, ink ala
(a) The ordinances are inconsistent
11 (f
i with the open space element of the general plan;
12
(b) The ordinances are inconsistent
with I
1.31 policies and recommendations of the General:
Fo
14 � r
Plan for preservation of agricultural lands
,.. • a nd-
15 the prevention of urban sprawl;
16
„ (r.) The ordinances are inconsistent
.' with the
policies and provisions cif the General:
g•
Plan for coordination • of the General. Plan with the
19 Chico'
City of s General Plan.
N
20 ?I
'1 X
211, Respondent has a clear, s
, present, and ministerial.
,.r,22 1 duty' to adopt a general, plan containing specified and.
,�-� 23 ; mandatory elements and to adopt. zoning ordinances oni cif it
LX 4 } makes adt' ua
` s that the proposed zoning ordinances
1
w are consistent 'th each o the required mond
� 1 q atolr el.eme t"s
26 Of its general plan.
27 �
zl
)URT PAOER1
ATC OF CA4IFONN IA
0 113 iNcv 0.791.
asp 1i 5
s� ,
•
l
xx
2 �f
yM
Respondents has failed to adopt adequate findings
F
+
"-
3
a; required by Government Code section 65860 and such
4 '
l
failure con to tute a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
-
., I
6
Intervenor has no adequate remedy at law in that
fir! 7
unless respondent is restrained approvals will be granted
pursuant to the challenged zoning ordinance ir. violation of
9
State mandated planning laws which will result in an
10
irrevocable loss of prime agricultural land and open space.
11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12 �I
y
XIII 1
13
Intervenor realleges each and every allegation of
14
paragraphs I through XIz of this complaint.
15
XIv'
16
Cover'nllent Code sections 66473.5 and 66474
17
prohibit any county .from approving any final or tentative
IS
parcel or subdivision map which is inconsistent with an
ij
9l
officially adopted complete and adequate general plan.
4
201
xv
u
21 a
Intervenor is informed and believes and, based on
22;'�
such �.nf'orma,tion aandbelief, alle9 es that `respondent County
of Butte intends and, unless restrained t; x this Court, will
�
24�i
approve ,final and tentative parcel and subdivision m a s in
25
violation of Government Code sections 66473.5 and 6`6474 in
26�
that respondent does not have an officially adopted complete,
f
2'7 •
.
and adequate general' plan required by law as a condition
COURTPAPIR
STAtC OF dALIFO4HIA.
SIM I15 IREV
d-lig
6.
precedent to the approval of such maps.
WOBREFOR , 'intervenor pray:
3�
I. ThcIt after hearing on a motion by intervenor
for peremptory writ, a peremptory writ- of nand'ate issue
3
'Compelling'respondent to:
5I
i
(a) Set aside its action rezoning the Bartram
71
properties; i
.I
8
(b)• Adopt in full compliance with State laws i
9
a comprehensive general plan containing all mandatory
10i
i
elements and meeting all, the requirements for a generrgl plan
11
as prescribed by statute; ".
1.2
(c) Amend its zoning ordinances to achieve !
13
consistency with its general, plan within a reasonable time.
14
2,. That the Court issue a preliminary and
15
permanent injunction enjoining respondent from.
16
(a) Enacting or adopting any zoning
17
ordinances until such time as respondent- has adopted a
is
complete and comprehensive general, plan containing all,
19.
mandatory elements and meeting the requirements for a
20.r
general plan as prescribed by statute.
21.
A°) Approving or adopting any final or
22
tentative parcel or subdivision map until such 'time as
23'
respondent ha.s adopted a comprehensive and complete genera]
. 24i
plan containing all mandatory elements and meeting the+
25 r
requirements for a general plan as prescribed by statute.
26
('c) Granting or issuing any de'volopment
27
permits, appr6vals, or entitlements for use pertaining to
.I`
COURT PAPER
'STAS'S orgAl. 1 rQ M W$x 7
_.
7
4f.► .X
i
P
�»
X11 land
reCerred to
as Lhe "BartraITI Rezoning" and governed �
2
by zoning
Ordinances7111
1.712 and 1.71.3 of the County of l
3
Butte.
{
3. That intervenor be aw rdOd its costs of Sul,tM
5
herein.
'
6
C For such
other relief as may be
y just and..
proper.
$.
DATED;
Respectfully submitted,
1.0
RVELLS J. YOUNGER
17
Attorney General
12
1;3
LARRY C. K] NG
14
Deputy Attorney General
15
i.
Aftorneys� for Intervenor
16
n
I
17!I
18
19 !�
20
2,1
t
22
24
25 .
, 1
25'
211
1Rt PAPER
a
- t 13 1 ff tv.
o •
KIM
•
i
EvELLE J. SOU GCM, Attorney General
of the State of California
2
LARRY C. Kr NG
DepUty Attorney General
►
3
555 C--19,Uol. Mall,, suite 350
Sacram-nLot Cali Corni,a 95814
Telephone: (916) 445-23'57
EA�� "� °� l�� �•-�,�
5
Attorneys for intervenor
Cl,:r41 Caluee Cooky
$
SUPERIOR CGURT OF THE
STATE OF CAL,x ANxp
9
FOR THE COUNTY..
OF COLUSA
10
1.1
'CITY OF CHICO, J
No 14553
12
)
Petitioner,
13
V.
POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES
14
COUNTY OF BUTTE, )
IN SUPPORT OF
)
MOTXON FOR
15
Respondent. )
PRET�1MINARY
INJUNCTION
VERN M. BARTRAMj et al . )
.
1'r
Real Parties In Interest
18
19
PEOPLE OF T88 STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, by and through
20
ATTORNEY GENERAL
EVELLE J. YOUNGER, )
21
Intervenor.
22
2,
I
24
PRELIMINARY
8TATEM80T
25
The People of the State of California believe that
26
the issues presented~ in this action are Of statewide
I
27i
significance-. The state requirement
that respondent County
COURr PAPER
-57AYE 00, CALYX 7A104
SYr, III OREV 07+1 '
t
CAP
i
I
-
lrz
Qf, 4lutte ve a cOmplr.te tM)d adOgUOLe g noral plan Iri the
2
fOUndaiion or sUit,e land use pl.�jnning, In thn, ata�Lsence of
such a EOUniaLion guLto County may not lawtul..ly laroceod with
4
the enactment of zoning ordinances or the adoption of
5
tentative or final, parcel o.r subdivision maps. The
6
requirement that counties and cities adopt complete and
7
adequate general plans to guide 'land use docisixi-I is a
8
condition precedent to such decisions.
9
The people submit that the facts and law in this
10
case are so clear as to compel this Court to grant the
11,
requested preliminary injunction. We believe that the legal
12
issue presented by respondent's failure to have adopted a
is
complete and adequate general plan so undercuts the state `
14
mandated land use planning process that iti.s unnecessary to
15
this Court to go beyond respondent's prejudicial abuse of
16
discretion in enacting any zoning ordinance without fir.;t
17
adopting all required mandatory elements to its general.
1`8
plan. The legislative scheme could not be clearer.. This
19
Court should grant the requested relief to ensure that
2Q
respondent immediately ceases any further violations of
21
state planning laws and devotes its planning staff's efforts
22
entirely to bringing its general plan into compliance with
23
state law. .
24I
I1
25
DISCUSSION,
28
A. General Statutory Background
27
The California Planning and Zoning Law, Government
COURTPAPER
STATC OF CAOFOHNIA:
wTO 113 40tV 0•721,
2.
ai►
F3fW�ri�ill:�cln�gMRIM17�R9�APA0jf8AFWA
t,
l j
Code section 65000 Ot se:(l; , scttr; for t h the land u:le planning
proces;n respondent has been dire L± <<i Lo follow. State law
Provoda5 that ea,cil county adapt �7 comprehens 10nc-
a ,vr, �
germ general plan for the physical development or- the
t:
5I
I1
country., , "" (Gov. Code, 5 65300.) The general plan must
x
8�:
"emt� comprise an integrated,, internally consisLand
`
IN'
J
7I
compatible s a tent Of policies ."' (Gov. Code
65300.5.) The plan must contain rime mandatory elements.
i
-
r
9 j
(Gov. Code, 9 65302.) Finally, all mandatory elements must
I
10i
have been prepared and adopted by September 20 1974 in the
11
absence of an e1 tension of time granted by the Director of
121
the Office of Planning and Research. Such extensions of
1'
time may only be issued in cases of extreme hardship. (Gov,
r
14"
Code, 65302.2. )
15
The above statutory scheme is mandatory, only in
7
16
_
cases of extreme hardship may the Director of the Office of,
' �
n
17
Planning and Research grant. extensions of time for the
3
18il
adopt=ion of the required general plan elements. The
19
importance placed on a timely adoption of a complete and
�
20
adequate general plan cannot be overemphasized. The
21
historical background leading up to the" adoption of the
0
22
above requirements, and those which are discussed later, are
;I
23,
succinctly .set forth in the following quotes from a
owing � Pacific
a
24
�
Law Journal note. entitled "Land Development and the
;
25 ,x
"
"
Environment: The Subdivision Map Act, 5 Pac.L.d'., 55 (1974) :
r'.5
Hyli
`
26,1"inbdivisi.on
regulation is only one element-r
"t
!.7I!
1
of what should be a comprehensive scheme ot•'
COURT P PE4
Sio 113 i wCv e. k.
os
ii
"
t
3'.
"x
l
it requ I r its I orifi devo'. op,rir!li t. tPIcJrfn n
r in the n0eme :Aioul,d ho, Uho gottoral plan ,ainor,
3
thv I; in, Lhc tool b7 which Lho pol i��y sal' l l►c
Community as a whole i's set. In IOr.mulating the
5
plan, CaliLor.nia Flaw requires that the local
6
gover'nmenu address itself- to many issues, -
7
including ,land use, ci.rculatione conservation, and
8
housing. in addition, the general plan pal
9
contain any other cement which the local
10
government sees fit to include, such as transit",
11
recreation, and capital improvement elements. The
12
law also allows local governments to ;:ormulahe and
13
adopt specific plana which are detailed
14
development plans for particular areas within
. 15
their respective jurisdictions, The foen,ulation
16
of such general and specific plans involves
17
studies by professional planners, consultation
is
r
with public and private entities, public 'hearings
19
and recommendation by th;e planning commission, and
20
formal adoption by the governing body.
21
"General and specific plans ai e not in
22
themselves enforceable ordinances or regulations
231
of the local government. The local government
e
24'
regulates land development by means of zoning,
251
subdivision, and other ordinances. Logically,
Y
26I
these devic'6s should be used in their particular
211
applications to carry out the policies set forth
-touRr PAPER
STATL Or &AWrOnNth
_
.
osr