Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
79-40 12
hes'. I) ap'a I, iim' P.'n -Jul 14f10=rw10h 'T'pa rsa�: avance Olanaing SGaGf 3uajecTi SU.N04tRY OF EXI.STINC P01 ICY STATE`1r'.NTS IN g1J'T' E COUNTY '. 0AT9t April 6, 1978 PURPOSE O: STUDY The following is a partial compilation of goals, policies, and recommendations contained in the Butte County General Plan. It is meant to present an overview of some major ideas put .forth within the text and should not therefore, be considered exhaustive. The divisions and sub -divisions of this paper are related to WID USE. Many goals of the text which do not directly deal with LAND [ISE have been. omitted (e.g. Capital Improvement Program- ming) . OPEN SPACE GOADS The General Plan indicates that OPEN SPACE, in whatever form, should be retained and protected or developed in such a tray which will enhance its character. REGARDING AGRICULTURE P.1.6 Urban growth should be directed away from agricultural land. P.5.5 Agricultural land should not be available for urban use, PS .1.2 Prime agricultural land should have agricultural zoning or enter OPEN SPACE agreements. Agricultural land should be protected for its own economic benefit. Agricultural land should be protected fron. urba.�. sprawl Prime Agricultural land should be used after non. -prime land., P. 5.1)1 Careful timing should be used if agricultural land is to be chanced to indu„trial uses P13.3- Agriculutral land should be preserved P.14.5 All prime agricultural land which is outside urban areas should be desiSnaoted as "Agriculture l” on the 0 Page 2 - qPOPEN SPACE GOALS Land Use Map Agricultural zones should permit only OPM SP,tCE uses. The County should encourage OPEN SPACE agreements. The County should support State and iNational lairs which preserve ,agricultural soil and land. RECRE ATION P.1.6 Conserve scenic and recreational areas. P.9.0 Conserve large natural park and recreation OPEN SPACES. P.9.1 The County should take more advantage of the natural elements in the area. P.9.2 The County should encourage the State 1:0 complete the Feather River r!er,reation development. P.9.3 The General. Plan should complete a hikinp and riding element. P.q.4 A County regional park should not be developed which would destroy the character of the land. P.9.5 Recreational activities should be provided which would satisfy all ages. Outstanding recreational sites should be reserved and protected. OTHER P.13.8 The County should preserve OPEN' SPACE. P,14.2 The County should set large minimum parcel sizes in. OPEN SPACE areas. There �,'iould be no urban development in areas designated as OPEN SPACE. P.14.6 Studies should be conducted for timber multi -use capabilities. Timber oimers should enter into OPEN SPACE agreements. The Cuunty should restrict roads and: buIldinns which a -re not necessary for OPEN SPACE. P.14.11 Hazard areas should remain in OPEN SPACE, 'Page - 3 ' - URS GOALS_ IN GENEP-AL F.5.0 The County should avoid random d-velae t P.5.1. P .14.2 P.14. 9 isolated areas. p m n s a. n Developments should grow slowly in response to the growth in population and the econotliv. Designated urban areas ahould gave the majority of the growth in the County. The Urban pattern should be used to the fullest extent to maximize economy and efficiency. Urban capability studies should be conducted in foothill and mountain areas. Urban development should be accomplished only in suitable areas. Urban development should be discouraged in isolated areas unless a need is determined. The County should determine every 5 years the land which is available for urban development. The County should restrict urban development in the following areas Erodable land; Butte Sink area; marshes; the bo,rroty of the Feather River. Urban development should not be undertaken which would increase sediment in the primp fishing areas or flood plains. New developments should consider water capacities va 1 road access for fire protection. The County should require or promote easy idenifi- cation of streets and developed properties, RESIDENTIAL P.5.1 Residential classifications should balance forseeabl.e demands for single and multi -family developments, P.5.17Public and private residential developments should be "attractive, safe, and orderly". Page - 4 URBAN GOALS RESIDENTIAL (CON _1T) P.7.89 The County should encourage "decent, safe, and sanitary housing" for all. The County should encourage a variety of housing to meet future needs. P.7.90 The County should improve or replace substandard housing units. The County should "organize local programs to develop low-cost housing". P 8.1 High-density development should have domestic water from community systems. P.13.8 The County should Calan to increase densities in the urbanized non-agricultural valley areas. P.14.3 Residential development should not be adjacent to large vacant sites of similar character unless a need can be demonstrated. P-14.6 Deer herds should be protected from residential development. P.III-14 Landslide and erosion potential should be considered for private and public development in areas rated 4 and 5 on Map III -1 and Map 111 -2. P.III-22 The County should encourage fire protection in growth areas. The water level for fire protection should be, deter- mined before new developments are begun. P.IV-4 The County should r,void mixing noise -producing and noise -sensitive areas. C011,51E PCIAL/INDUSTRIAL P.1.6 The County should attempt to improve and diversify the economic base of the County. P,4.2 Industrial park's should be designed for relatively light manufacturinJ. P.5.2 The County should provide zoning for "ample business opportunities". Page MAIN GO ALS CQ,%D,MRCIAL/ INDUST RI AL (CONT'p). P.5.26 Shopping ;enters should be located where projected growth will occur. p.5.31. Industrial developments should be so constructed to place together industries of similar intensities. Industrial developments should be operated to minimize "traffic Congestion., noise, glare, air and water pollution, and fire and safety hazards". Industrial developments should have enough land for every activity of each facility. The total of industrial areas in the County should re- flect the demand for such uses. Industrial development should occur near transportation and utilities. Industrial developments should occur on large level lots with proper care taken if agricultural land is transformed into an industrial. area. Residential, and light commercial uses are undesirable in industrial areas. Extractive industries should fully exploit natural resources. Industrial development should occur on at least a secondary arterial. P.13.8 The County should study commercial and industrial: areas vis-a-vis schools, parks, and open space. P.14.1.1. The County should encourage development of suitable public and private outdoor recreation areas. TriNTATIVE SCHi<ntri UNG FMII LA 13 Ii:SI R -IM ENT Monday, April 17 Rov, ew existing land use tenet identifying issues and policy statements.. Monday, April 24 Review proposed questionnaire and mailing list. Tuesday, May Z Review policies of other Butte County elements and plans. Monday, May 15 Review background information (i.e. population, employment, physical environment, development patterns, eet.) Tuesday, May 30 Review staff summary of issues and policies, Monday, June 12 Evaluation of questionnaire/identify issues and integrate into surimary mmary policy statements, Mpnday, June -2,6 Review Draft proposal/forward text to .'w Environmental, Review. ,'Monday, July .10 Comple.tion of ,Draft E vironmental Impact Renort/ forward d:ocu's-itFynt to State Clearing House for review and distribute to 'Public for comment. !Monday, Sept; 11 Panning Commission Hearing. on Draft Element and Environmental impact i?e-ort. BUTTE COUNTY PLANS 'G COMMISSInN AG};N17A - Ap. lo, 1978 (7:30 at 1lrlvani c .nili�ng Conference Roo ri - a, attachod Man) I. ROLL CALL: Commissl.oners Evcrhanl, Gilbert, Stutz, W%eeler and Chairman Dennott 11. nISC,.11SSION REVISION Or LAND USE U16, ENT A. STATE RE011I RENT :NTS 1, Logisla.tion and, Guidelines 2. The existing element - adequacy? 3. Staggested outline: of nett El.emOftt 4. Data needs - publ• c input, policy revietI, environmental constraints, existing land use, facilities, growth projections, and economic factors. B. REVISION PROGRAM 1. Examination of recent progress and problems 2. Practical issues a. Text changes before map proposals? b. Scope (1.e,, Community-wide proposals vs. Sub-area proposals) c. Coals and policies •- development procedures. d. Map proposals - purpose, formulation and revie*11 e Discussion of suggested alternatives (see attachment) C. LAND USE PLAN MAP 1. Purpose - "description of general pattdrn" 2. Map design base, scale, areas, and overlays 3. Review land use legends a. Reasons for separation �7Vir+��t b. Scope and flexibility ma„f;yl Rov,a� c. Relationship to zoning; 1978 d. Specific Issues Co`'nlr 1. Residential. densities 2. Senarat:i.on of Commerci.a.l. uses 3. Mixture of. ResideritiAl and, Commercial uses SUG(38 D ALTERNATIVES VES TO THE REV ''"O.\( rip LAND USE ELEMENT �J ��qq li •fi A1,TBNATI VT, i 1 , Public hearing based upon QXistyi.nF land use mat) and discussion of polici-es, 2. Tabulation of results 3. Development of Text 4. Commission review and discussion S. %tap p`r'oposals 6. Commis'5ion review and discussion 7. Forward map proposals to Environmental Review *ALTERNATIVE 2 I. Collection of background information and appropriate policies and issues. 2. Commission review and discussion - work study session 3. Public FIoaring 4. Development of map proposal S. Commission review and discussion 6. Forward map proposals to Pnvironmental Review *ALTERNATIVE 3 I. Questionnaire mail, -out 2. Development of comprehensive map proposal teased upon extensive background information, an examination of appropriate policies, and an evaluation of questionnaire, , 3. Commission review and discussion - work study session 4. Public Hearin 5. Revision to :dap if necessary 6. Forward map proposal to environmental. Review F1LTERNATIVI.. 1.. I)OVelopment oC comprehensive map proposal: based upon extoaasive hackgroulid information rind an examination or appropz•iato policies (nxisting and proposed) 2 Commi.,j oil review acid discussion - work stUdY session 3. Notice of Hearing; mail out of questionnaire 4. public hearing on map proposal; examixaa'tion or que s ti.onnaa. re 5. Itevi.sion to mala if necossa rY h. Forward .Map propositi to Environmental Revieav A n 9 r�' ���s F 1�� F t. . � ai it �pp I;r7� A i✓ �Y : } �'� �6"r f +�. �. and ."(ru°.d'�3��, �•aA., J tU'nw'(:•i� r; BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - April 17, 1978 I. PLEDGE OF ALLMANCD 11. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Everlhard, Gilbert, Stutz, Wheeler and Chairman Bennett IIsi APPROVAL OF MINUTES M. MISCELLANEOUS - DISCUSSION A Meridian-Munjax Rezone -Review deletions and consider alternate zones B off-site directional signs for commercial businesses in P-4 zoning district C. Site 'Development plan {rile 78-80, - For William Fitzgerald, c/o Phillip Mc- Nally, for the northwest corner of Hwy. 32 8 Robert E. Lee Drive, Forest Ranch -- a n N -C Zoning Distract V. WORK SESSION A. Review existing Land Use Element - With emphasis on identification of issues and policy statements VI. ADJOURNMENT In Board of Supervisors' Room at 7:30 P. M M Tol By Bosworth, Revenue Shari rig Commi'ttap morn! Jim Lawson, County Planning Director SUSJtCT! Revenue Shari nq Funding for General plan Revision DATE; April 18, 1977 Title 7 of the California Government Code requires each county tc develop, adopt and maintain a comprehensive long- term general plan for the physical development of the area. The general plan is a statement of county policies and consists of text and maps setting forth objectives, principles, standards, distribution patterns and schedules. It functions as a source of information, an estimate of the future, a summary of community goals, a coordrination mechanism, and an action program for local government. The Government Code has organized the required contents into nine reouired elements and several optional elements. Butte County has adopted all mandated elements but most sections are out-of-date, incomplete and not: consistent with current county policies. As this situation is both obvious and well- known, the Board, Planning Commission, County staff, developers and media have all agreed to the urgency of a comprehensive general plan revision program. The Commission and staff have discussed all aspects of a revision grogram on several occasions, but, lackinn indications of probable funding and support, have not completed the development of the necessary budgets, schedules and procedural guidelines. We are now workinq on the details of a complete revision program, but these should be reviewed by the Commission and Board before initiation of a large undertaking requiring committment of time and attention by many people a_nd. the expenditure of many -tax dollars. At this time 'I can present only the bare essentials of the program. The subjects to be covered would include the mandated elements, Land Use, Circulation (transportation), Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Seismic Safety, Noise, Scenic Highways and Safety and possibly other optional subjects: mineral resources_, agricultural and timber preserves, air resources, historic preservation. Long-range plannina for public facilities should consider public buildings, %,later and sewer lines, district spheres of influence, parks and recreation, waste disposal and schools. • Memo to Ev Bosvic-th, Revenue Sharing 'Committee April 18 1977 Pane 2 No less than one year should be budgeted for complete execution of the program and the final adoption by the Board of a complete and well-done general plan. We propose that a Stell -established consulting firm with diverse sMfills and demonstrated competenc; be hired to manage the project. They would be assisted by our staff in the areas of base mars, data sources, evaluation of goals and policies, citizens participation, local contacts, and distribution of materials. Our preliminary cost estimates are based on the cost of similar projects in other areas and will be revised when pro ,lections for scheduling and labor requirements are ready, Below is a summary of project stages and tentative cost estimates. NATURAL DATA BASE $50,000 Describe setting, resources, constraints and hazards. SOCIAL DATA BASE 530,000 Review history, population growth and characteristics, economic activities, housing market, governmental structures, planning legislation and social services. LAND USE PLAN DEIELOPMENT $50,000 Review goals, develop policies, evaluate evaluate alternatives, map proposals, and assess impacts, PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN DEVELOPMENT 570,001 Describe facilities, review demand projections, determine service criteria, estimate agency capabilities, modify land use plan where necessary, preoare maps, budgets and schedules for facility expansion, and assess impacts. /ma .r a STATE of CALIFORNIA—TRANSpoR{tl,`rry AV CY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3 p, o. qok 911, MARYSVILLE 95901 Telephone (916) 674-45113 May 17, 1978 Albert Deck, Ph.D. Eco -Analysts 2255 Esplanade Chico, California 95926 EDMUND p, 03 -nut -32-4.2/8.3 West Chico Rezone County General Plan Dear Dr. Beck: Thank you for the opportunity to co,iment on tho land use along Route 32, west of Chico, for the Butte County General Plan. We can foresee significant traffic, impacts from development along the corridor between Sacramento Avenue and Muir Avenue, and from the development that generates traffic on the side roads that conne,ot to Highway 32 in the corridor. For the area described as general commercial in the discussion of environmental evaluation, trip generation in the corridor Will depend on the specific use that is developed. Our resources show that trip generation rates for commercial development will range from 70 ADT per acre for a motel to 2,504 ADT per acre for a fast-food restaurant. This wide range makes it impossible to clearly identify the future traffic needs for the area. As an example of what a four -lane arterial with left -turn channelization might reasonably carry under level of service C, we refer to Route 20 through Yuba City that now carries an ADT of 35,000. For the section of Highway o2 that is being considered, we recommend that 4-1,E e IR adores the f oi.?owing alternates and possible mitigation measures. 1. The total area that will have a significant impact upon the highway. We are particularly concerned about the development potential of land southwest of the proposed rezoning strip .; Onn'0041 ilnviow Dept. OCT 12 1978' Buffs CouOy, Oovernar 0,0 Albert Beek, Ph.D. Page 2 May 17) 1978 2. To plan for an ultimate five -lane facility which would include accommodations for bike and foot traffic. The development planned along the corridor should recognize that expansion of the highway will be a future necessity and provisions made to coordinate the placement of all public facilities and utilities in a position to eliminate the need for relocation of such facilities when the highway is expanded. This would be a requl;re- ment if the highway improvements were to be done in phases as the demand grew. 3. A developer of property with highway frontage. would be required, as a condition of approval, to construct the ultimate half -width highway facility adjacent to the property. An alternative to this might be a funding responsibility by local government. 4 This development would continue the ever-increasing demand on vital necessities in an area already under stress, i.e., energy and clean air. The Proposal will make attainment and maintenance of the NAAJ s for oxidant more difficult• But -to County was recently designated as a non -attainment area for oxidant. It has until January, 1979, to develop an attainment plan. The proposed highway improvements in the area of concern are limited through our current six-year program extending to mid -1984 The following three projects are planned for the 1979-80 fiscal year: 1. Resurfacing :From vicinity of Glenn County Line to vicinity of Sacramento Avenue. 2. Drainage impr-ovements in the vicinity of Sacramento Avenue. 3. Add shoulders, left -turn channelization, bike path, and signals from the vicinity of Sacx+amento Avenue to the vicinity of EiZ Chico Creek. Jurte 3.4 1 3.9,/8 Butte County Plarmtn;, Commiw,,5ion TJOII? Coimty Center Drive Orovil.lel Ca. De,r Sirs: Fust of all, we certainly want to thank the Plant.inu Co imission for providing this, opportunity for public input into the planning process. Because it J.s being, sant to grout)s L,.st-.'�ad of individu,,!Isj the responses may not represent art..ndo:� somp"'a of opiriibn; on the 'other hand, the Commission is more 11keiy to get responses this wnyl Secondly, a note about our respon8e. To insure a dentocrati.c rcLr,o.-.se, vie typed up a copy of 'the q1testionnaire. and :railed it to zll of our constituents. We received more than typo dozen Tcplies, and clearly a good deal of thought h -ad gone into the -!.r responses. our group response obtc ined by averaging the furns whl ich v.,c rr:.ceived, using standard st-ptistical methods. Below v:e give a number of explanatory cornments. #3-7: Mone' of olar respowlents fovorka encourrgjr- Vrol"th. the inevitable growth should be dirocted tow, -rd exist- ing comminities oi,'d not into isolcAted development. Furthcrmcve, grov,tb should be channeled into the shallow soils to the east, &nd into the lowex-level foothills. -1'8: Unfoxtun tnly this aue3tion did not :nention lo,,:-incone C"I d IS t�- C-county�ls e--e!4,est hoiisit'u this p(�rhaps U L,:t� I as I-ent7oned by seve�al of cur vesoondents, 1114. Response C, one acre or less, VOS nOSt COrrMOrlIV C!70Fell. .1 I.I.O.V-'ever I there va-o a diversity of other responses. Clearly., whether or not to reqtiire paved road access depen6s on the location of the proo,,rty; one acre lots it rurc.j oreis, and Jrgex lots in urban aroe,,s, sho,,ild have paved access. `12. A and 13 -were the most copvnon responses; a864in, the U Imrovement should be required in jocat,ion is the key factor. s s ares expected to urbanize in Vre forseetble Future. #13- 13 01 an 3 D were all listed frequently; once again,locatlon*io- Le key factor. #14: The area needed to sup,,,ort animals, v.,ithout undue to neighbors, vill of course vary from one species to anoth er. Existing county zoning cate-oxies include squ�re footage requiremen-t1s, a realistic approach. %.—i 1 'Jll 3 I , hZ, OmAllcj, I' cm., I Both A sir) lv; n n t C -suf)oort. INo one 2 .11 #16 M�,i ny To oo pordorit,,, tiroto ill .11 ?It!- co.m C , or jeft tll;, qu(�Gtiort blank, A host O� be cc .5jelejot cj In s IA"" jeciding thC�r or not to deve'lop aPor(se] Of f�',' V-112 t I Of ttic Parc Yl. Is Ju3t one ,tach fLLor, ('Clorlomic virbility &I"clIds Irl"Gelv, on -��ndlvldual expectnti L j i and dsc ncc, tiae clurl-ont JJorket7 and the crop. ons The Rural- l-le3idential c,,,tegory*J:s;sfvNored by a Trtl,jOxit;r Of xesvo)adents. 1,,e Would note a Oono,�-rn about 1-10 acre -it the 'c' I e ranp., villile it does give flexibility, and eNcour,tge the continuation of small fp1mily fal-IRs, there May be a tend- ex,c,,,,, to split doe,,n to the ininimum one-acTe size. #18: This qu esticy, should hEve incliidea s"Veral other possible MsIvOrs. For example, Mling can be done on an ir.cre- rtlental b4.sis' from the iriterjor Ou' t1,;c,,rdj to minii,,izo, leqpfro�t #20: Our respondenta axe onrlooed to OW-l'-Nercial zoning. extennJve stx1p-, #24: Our respondents urUJl-t,'nQuslY f&vo'ved a ,,-ijxt-,jxrj of housing types 7/25: B, soil characteristics, Vics xankod t,- !jjost j., e"tj folloived bY A adjticent developrient or of and E� prof it&j)ility f t.-svicultuxal use. Adj��cent devejorqpc-nt in In iso U lat0d aT08 should not, ho,, -:ever, set a p,vecedent for j.11F,,ppron . ri,- te user, 1,-:e note that E Can be intErp-Doted jr, a n-Lvrb,:!-, of For i -stance, a land- 3 zyecula tor rray Purchase an orchcrd ard ptlr-�o3ely neglect it, in order to cj.&i;,,l th,-t it is not "Profit- ableV In other hands, the 50'Me Orchard could return; a good PV04"it to the Owner. FOV examole probcbly not sj1pnort a full-tj�,a I a 10 -acro oxchuvd would ,e orchardist, but Could generate several thousand*doll,�rs a year of profit for a also May be more profitable on s.,,ja,ler ac-engeal Non-orch,ard crop 8 "i-�,C-ekeridll farmeer. OsPecigIlY With risin" if =fOOd briar -'s. Thub� the dritevia for F Profiltability" rijst �be loo]!. -Cd at c, -Irefully in e,c'-q Ov8e. foUs,4nv need, D, Irlght be ranked higher but t,,*e 'do not .-. Q presently see 8 Pleed in Chicoy except at, prices I,:ell bolo,: marketu. .L #27-29 - Our respondents cle.,rly sup,)Ort ro,-sorrble efforts Lo Prot ect and, enhance the poujij,� p C;,. tions of' onimicis and native lInts, as v,,ell c�s to protect 'believe that the Ld SignifiCtnt archeOlO`Ucz�l finditigsi, More significant the resource rt question the more the landowner should compromise. I #'30: All of the options ,.,ere considered tobe iraportant, and -manly respondents found it difficult to rete thera. The joc U�- ior. is critJoEl. 11owever, the intensity of suppoxt was grc&t- est fL'Or item B, nreservin,,j -gricultural land. JUN I E; M I NFA Responses tc� t+ine lana -use rlriostionnaire from GMCO 2000. Mr,ber Rerppros , 1 A,DF DaBI 3 C tJ. Opinion divided betwcen A and B 5 A 6 A 9 B 9 A 10 No response --too difficult ult t:o tabulate 11 C 12 A or B 13 BC,D 1 No response --depends on the species 1 J A or B -not: C 16 No xesponso- deperids on man; other :factors 17 A or J 18 B or C 3.9 A 20 Rankin;; A7137D,E,C 21 A 22 A 23 A 24 A 2 Ranking,; D,;x>,B,C?D 2V A 2F) A 26 C 3q C A,,D,C,D,F recea�ved ii1 �r Fl,,G,H received 11211 CM OF CF-HCO, CAUFORMA Of F[Ur Or CITY P1-41,iNIMO - p. G. City :1E120, 95927 9 9°E4EFINCiNE (VIC31 X11-9 44QI - ArTVR 5,00 P.M. mjn-7!J:3i Advance Planning Division Butte County Planning Department 18 County Center Drive Oroville, California 9596'' ', May 22, 1978 Dear Sir: The City of Chico General Plan Citizen's Advisory Committee herewith encloses Its responses to the Butte CountyQuestionnaire responses represent the feelings othegroup asoa whole. n Land Use Policies. These Questions #10, ##20, and ##26 have not been answerer) due to difficulty in obtaining group concensus in ranking the choices. With regard to questions ##4 and #f8, the group added, and chose respectively, D, „Planned Growth," and G. 11Low Income.', The group found question ##14 to be unanswerable because land require,nents for keeping chickens differs considerably from requirements for horses or other large livestock. With regard to question #31, the group rated each choice number 1, ,'very Important." Should you have any questions regarding these responses, please feel free to contact the Planning Office at your convenience. Sincerely, A. Lynn Scheel Planning Technician ALS/km CP 4593/A -BC -1 Enclosure ♦C4�rt 5 9 '�^I., yk ':h d fl .6:!�� # f,r.i ��+ulf i r� Fjr � It artyrllr'!i 111 y"r ,jy><r � �� I{.p F �j:.�t lw X7N..�,..w a� i ;r,�� 1jtr ...f ^,J iFa t rTl � ''Y A4 P'�d'f' + ..!xl�t,;r,! r.v,+, ', �a rr .,. dK Lt i^ rry I nr:'lE e; �l•• �:, ,rr f.�;, lyy air �..,..y,.,; .r �y,.x :.�,'f i�=ad.f'�" J fir�.o', �,a2iy + .�,1:�)(nys r . f�,/t,._.. ,;,,!,.r � ,:.1,, r u r+',`f + �r�':� r pl�r, d!s .ii;r.„.! r Jy r .,' � + ,rhe.l i r; r.5ty+ $N, '.�r4k't45rP ,"'<rr.jfJr � y c <r. n° r tra' it ,� , t �F ¢�. �.( . f�r.�r S�i�!f:,.d 3 s. • rvrr Y Er. >ry tt,.t. r( yv( 9r:.F �+... }f J:. r r+J,/1 t rr:�:!!r '•Jr -j R5i ,l:; � r L! � 1 � y a, N rl g a „x +S n y ! �” � f d 't' � t d 'r + r , ,I(,�,.r.� w a r. d '7 r +. .. wl Y ':7 fJ, � + Y ,+ � y r J' •'; i 4 ! i ', f Aw .pC x '�.'l. - BVI M 1 e.tr i+ 1 " .'.5 u.. -0„Ye.� ..y , 1. , r .t. �P � a�l:t}9 ,/tFe � l y d,.! t.'Gi �.h.,i. +.', !t!'S:... Y.: �ii� '✓ t �. �1":v;��u �lr tr-reg 4 4� 1a,a '�t�n i s"u'��,f�� �j rY'��r f,S <'tr;a.+�+ F, Y> P. • Box • i 5580 Almond SLMO 4 rdisu, Califorhia 9�969 Phone • • 877-9356 May i MN vw film Ar -Departmental hlemarnn Tor Bettye flair, 'Planning FROM: Kyle Butterwick, Advance Planning SUBJECT: LAND USE .PLAN MAP PROPOSALS DATE: July 14, 1978 As you know, several, months ago the Planning Commission conducted preliminary public hearings on land use plan map proposals which were predicated on the existing General Plan Text. Subsequent to these bearings, several proposals were forwarded to Environmental Review for examination. Due to revision of the County's land use element, 'however, Which proposes new guidelines and policies foi, managing future growth, the homology of this new documei;t with previous land use map proposals remains uncertain. This subject was recently ,introduced -to the Planning Commission including the potential conflicts involved between 'old' map proposals and 'new' policy and category text provisions. After considerable discussion, the Planning Commission elected to postpone further consideration of previous map proposals. Therefore, please be advised, that the following map proposals which are currently in Environmental Review should be temporarily shelved until completion and Board adoption of the Land Use 'Element, expected to occur some- time in October. 1. Highway 32 West 2. North Esplanade 3. Lower Clark Road 4. Northwest Chico 5. North Chico /lr cc Earl Nelson €Ynmcr�fnl C.+avaw dopf. JUL 17 197 euiio County k Y. n Y - . N 4rSYvsf \H' ;7Z_F.f.f Inter-,Dueporim epTO! ar �a.�.a��r�����rs��r� tyM lit wx�rMw�x a t t or w z, ck I AE].qr. nt, . :L1 ll yµy �yryy ll yy T� Yy �j r r �} r al lC1ll.,l.d. SQOJl CT! • ���k'i ) UF? �`_� 1 i.U.1.�141,4.L'l tJ.� R rjJ E,"1 A„�.J�,�`l .1;'ll,+.J{.:f,RAN 11,10V 4lave;ral months norfr Jta,f'f hay, been Collaborxating with. fi.L�.:A �xLax ging Commissio�y throu�� h bi:-wec-kl,y , Luri,� sessions i�z thr;� revision. of the County's Land Use Blemm nt. The pu:rpoOe of this document is to provide a complete state rn,.,xit of the policies and intentions of _tho County re- garding future land development. ().n July 31, the Land Use Element and corresponding E,.1.rj. ai.11 receive final inspection. from the Planning Commission beforr:� submitting both documents t: the State Ole,=ing-. house for a review period of approximately 45 days. There- aftev, presumably in September, the Planning Commission will schedule public hearings for approval of the docu.mer.t. Bo vd consideration of the Element will. subsequently X01"Low. Eal"los,ed you. will find a draft of the Land Use Elemen';, excluding, however several maps vaid the 'development setting', f DI, t 11 of the document, which is currently hexing into- grated into the B.I.R.In an. effort to promulgate the iftutual support of this document, you and other County Dop ar tmeats are being encouraged to review and comment on the proposal. In ordor for staff and the Planning Commission to consider your responses before submission of the draft -to the Clearinghouse, it is necessary that receive them by July 26bh. Thank you in advance for your participation. x Kyle Bu:tterwi_ck Planner xxl K-B:lr into County infer -Departmental Memorandum va; Planning Commission and Related Couxty Staff FROM; Earl D. Nelson, Envaxonnental, Review DirOctor. sunitc,ri Proposed draft B.I.R. for Genera. Plan. Revision nary; Uuly 26, 1978 The enclosed Draft E.I.R. has been prepared in connection with the proposed reviSiOli Of the County General. Plan Land TTse Element. Please review the content for any errors or omissions. This will be discussed at the word: session Monday night Please note that the environmental setting text will be included in the "Development Setting" portion of the ele- ment which is currently being drafted by Advance Planning. ri.TCls COUNTY PLANN'['N(I COMN—iM9,1(7N AGENDA - July 31, 19 8 (Special meeting at Advance Plannlnq(:onferenc e Roam, 18 County Cente� privc, Oc�ov:i lle ail 7:301 I. ROLL CALL - Comgiissi.one:rs Everhar.d, Gilbert, Stutz, Wheeler, and Chairman Bennett DISCUSSION (Work Session) A. Roview and disCtissjon Of Draft Gnvironmental. Impact Report for Land. Use Element. B. Review and discus: ion of 'Development Setting' "Part II) of the Land Use Clement. C. Review :final, changes to draft element. D. Miscellaneous I. Printing of Land Use Element Text and Maps Z. Submission of Draft Text €r E.I.R. to State Clearinghouse 3. Circulation of final draft. 4. Future projects on General Plan S. Future work-study meetings. 6. Public hear, Ings on Draft Element. III. ADJOURNMENT r I n -®r Ml�_�_�N - I �I i e 11 .A 4 1A71 W D O Gl G1 -- .__ q _ .... ...,..ao .._... ,.., �� Q `� D .. .A+ a ,_MA, 't C a .. �j Ww: n __ m �. W W to n -! __ r._ ,.. _.� m IJ Lt m r7 tY_�.ZJ3t r- -- -W -• ^a .. ..h.. -.,_.-t �y. W .. N m 0 p r—a.« + m D m m rn Imo ao rn m T 71 tmii N C m o -! w t'1 - a Do m D D m z r..Z.! '` D Ati i -� -n , m D m n it Q �-_I o '<m FR z J, _ vD G7 _,_ IIIy p _,.._ D mn �`.�{ ... v w a c ,_� �� (4 ,) m , -! Q{ a L r }� rr't +^ rn nr O D " D I�� vm t1 n z r "! n o mo o z G S` G m v 71 m p _ n �y T ro _ m 71; �' m 0 0 a to Q X71 0 T O 0 D ., f� r . D D on 0 " M p ,1 DD ❑❑ ❑� I-1 -i a N L rn 1" =1 O r- !' I ci r G -! m m m o � 0 �' �r IJ. z a No. � Y� E 1 s M o• o p z O o m Q c n w x D T w G O �! z z mz r m - o !""I 2 0 O O' z D m x 0 a7 n o -! -! m r. F O 0 i hJ I -, I j O I 1 G 'RECEIPT y -I " z m m rn m o m C `n o$ o a > �.- to D^ m �1 a - D m o { T t T Q A c -1 O z n o ^. Z (D ki p m rn FflFi CERTIFIED MAID a ° < e v° I c o m - v o a �, .� „ n T r o n � to c 7 A a _ N k o m 7 rt "! 'r TIG INSURANCE COVERAGE AItgYFq D NOT ANC a @ m . � m m n z a � � � 3 D x 0 @ r- n �i � r a m Q 1-h H (01 1 '� •! 3 ro{ rf INTERNATIONAL HAL MAIL � m m o -t y Q -� a D a p N -i r p m p 0 r -n rr ( Fever c)a 71"� L O ro m N m n io m .p D v �I p a Z -pi n N m 7r iF n(D a g vF (6ENT l_J p a< o 0 3 M n $ : mo m a ' ro C. z: c is b a �•-+ f fc FP7 Afvrt �� t�. -r �/ !kt "a w N < Z m 0° a w to to R z > a m woo d d 7q rn °. T J .+ I� A m PF r�c1 3, (D n C�-r m .. r. frW.4En•_r-,1. »�» ,.i r:i ' , ' m D G1 in z n S o 0" " 0 ti 3 p a ? m 0 O S ,p b y ] 0 0 �' W w a n 3 x -! m e 00 n- A c 0 z xt o n 3. ! zm _ 3 m D O y , X 2 m �4 a r $' ro m �� $ ❑Bm C " c = -- n m w ., m p m ro aT--`e z> �!$".9� ©a o v n1 -ma �• iso SUN n Ip m C 'r p n O -i n o °c' Ul c} 7 (Q a �1 cl- Cp n O 0 ; ( 7 3 H I 3 0 -' 0 a c$ 7. f{ F F+ (D l CU Y a �s r 2 b"" -{ Z T Colo '! •l� .i c a ©� m p p n L' T m f) w & z Q $ Er Fc.,rGr q rL•: zr �s.l m au _ n , q a .� q �. { ti ° r't I i[ a 1 ��..� n I '! r CD m " m vv m r- to m .r hm 'fl 3 + O a m vo n. Z �. »�m8p �p a o5 k5� � � N m <7 6 y `- ^y m O m T D 0 m Co.7 (p oI Ai '-I. 0 _*, » rrt 71 Z m m i� @ �' b� !Jl �r F'' 0 0 ,% G! a O 0. M U. uy r D Lu fxi,� �&i, tlY'rr» ,' 8 iAli i r G ( 3 {- 0 cl' O ° %� Djn. a w D. ^ W ; a m 3 O o m a� -. a 3� o m w 1C�D m N' b7) Ih G v to 0 ^ o m o D _ T Y r7 < n a -I 0 ?' llt f� `" i�` T n CD a (D jy D �' z 3 r O RI �a Itr rig i rCr! nit rtgp fi I,ar rti'rAna < a 1 r 7M c F Y o o n ro h m2 to h 10 D{ -i z " c $ ? m 0 0 p 0 -m > [00 C5 N �, Q I Y ^gy p m m ;;D w SN c} (D O F'� ��,11 ri 1 m " �j �7 �' .a,F ` oclL•„I»' Vl rtlr r,a'Fti 4 D C,E Fl r a p ym n c O b to t� m - 2 LT n , tr wNQ r f r !U kY rQ invim ISA'! 6. I+ 1» �Rf�UF4i.�lit r,fiIjkYV(I it i� K • a m cr >1 m rn CJ 0 c D � rt m r m W -1 M (D o fn Q I v a rt J' �i i- 7 a o x 'm” -t ©t-1 0 a a0 Q h n ilf ...� y, �I � AiaPlttlilGiliVrtr Z 0 m tr m 0n rn ., w rn a c r m n^ �I p r ..-, Z TOTAL POSTAGE ANO f fF. i _ i .,.. ` 4 p; ,• nl 2 Y `! �. m � ry U n N 0 y w A ,b D „� - to v C1 -! p) Z o' ti e ��ia. m 3 as a K '^ o Y = r- a `! N a a a 0. " to Ari m cc O C m S!. 0 !Tl to rh !>vr -, 014,0 to m c FpSTMAiIK 0a! DATE O In 0 t7 m 7GU' m a o o C l O �i d` I , n y! r:l r T rn Y ,{ N m w*q. m( N -� n o �'uQm to 0 ak n (T Q to - 7 m !� cl o p m n G i (D a a 70 N a 0C) n ti yr �.1'! N l/ I .� \1 S o r r 4 Poo I 0 1< �Ig.� a� >< cf O a o n a fl vip r r i X31tnD T, o Q O ••! AC D z z^ wm " z oW (l� n m C" o U ? 1 D r 7 ; w ro N w a I< n o° a D o .. p oQ $ C Oa� 0 a Q H w �J �w I Q ° v e" t O D..0 m -Z �$(]� c D I"! V 0 x z o d " , P N_LL n v nm ] frr w '_ . ~ .v 0 G 6 z rn, I �y b r b O jr`� -. y Y '� til a 1D til. p ti� qp S i �I y O. m N r n V. w W I7 d p �, O Q m h w p " i � p b t Q I I 1 " ° t rn Dm? tw 3 1 z_ t/F c w a 71 Y r K > I S2'��.-r o B_ m6p,p Ilia r 1� O a m � ", M �N.. m o m 't m t M I I I ' k '( 'p 7 4 (it : 30 rn a "' 6 3 A � (D w1 •`I {�,� � j A ,,, tT d O rwi 9 � N '' r U -. +•� .•r. ^� 9. n p ° a ^ x �G p r « b tn, y x i0 ]! . i rt' � 0) I rn �.1! SS ,� a $ ` :.i` � � TI oma_ ........_. u � " 5 5 � va "10 ' � ( ^ � x 2 w 04 , A b .. j ,, 8 0 m D m K P 0 O r.! Z �* l 0 Z ° b� D ro n r a,o C, 1« v(0 V: =! c qz n z 3 v r 1 z t7 I • v p ' jI » '� I '' I -.�"Iz n < 4^ - u ted o p 2 aClmK !; n n .°i mi 31 1 1 +1 W • r.. 3 ( w I � ..I a ' 1 r w �►• .,a n t.. nL ^�7 a me R Li a _L_ �Ji 21 8, 1 1 I n z SENDC(F4 CoMptate Ito�inn t 2 arida Add 13114 It it, +hre "RETURN TO' reverse pace on �. The following service is requested (chick onej [A-eit"oa to wham and date delivered....... . r l Show to whom, date. and address of detively, . ' 0 RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered , , „ , W Cl RESTRICTED DELIVERY r -r Show 19 whom, daterarldaddress of delivery, s— C (CON!SULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) Z 2. ARTICLE ADD6ES8EDTO: � f ARTICL t7E6CRIpT1G w REGISTERCI) NO, CERTIFIED NO. INSURED NO;. (Always obtain signature c,f addressoeior agent) d t have received the artiCle described above Z SIGNATURE f I Addr 4see W ll 13 Authori ed agent a TE OF g!<LIVERy POS o .4 G�"t 0 5 ADDRESSres"a + �m ornptg a requested) M 0 6, UNABLETO DELIVER EECAUSE. �LERIt" ' it TACT E ' NOTICE OF COMPLETION SEP 119-10) GC"�►�K A'NEL Soh1, County Cork (of Draft. tnv'ironme�ntal Impact Report) F" 1�{ iCrr a. Depufy RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: DEPARTMENT: Count o Butte Environmental Review Draft Land Use Element E.I.R. .- Butte County General Plan ADDRESS: CITY: COUNTY: 11 7 County Center Drive_ Orovlle Butte CONTACT PERSON: AREA CODE: PHOME: Earl. D. Nelson, Director 91:6 534- 4777 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NATURE, PURPOSE, AND BENEFICIARIES: Revision of the Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan, PROJECT LOCATION CITY: PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY: County Wide Butte TIME PERIOD PROVIDED REVIEW: 0 dl,ay review -- ending Octobers 2, 1978 ADDDeps��,�a'���tt, MMRF C07P�o�r��yrCeT�erRDr�v`e,�AO�oB Review r CA 95965 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All interested persons are hereby notified that a Draft Enviromaental Impact Report has been completed for the following prof eat: Revision of the Land Use Element of the Butte County General. Placa. Copies of the above-mentioned draft environmental impact report are available for public review at the Butte COu--- Frxironmental Review Department, at # 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, the Butte County Library Branches, Chico State University Library, Butte College Library and the Chico City Library. Public comments concerning the material contained in the draft E.I.R. are solicited. Such comments can be submitted to the Butte County Environmental Review Department at the address listed above -until the close of the 30 day review period on October 2, 1978. Earl D. Nelson, Director Environmental Review Department OFFICE OF THE~ GOVERNOR OFFICE OF PLANNING AND SEARCH STATE= CLE AR I'NGHOUSE 1400 — 10TH STRE ET SACK AMEN'ro v CA 95814 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPT* 4 7 COUNTY CENTER, DRIVE OROVILLE CA 95965 ATTENTION EARL. D,o IV'ELSO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 09/11/78 PROJE=CT NOTIFICATION AND REVIEW' .SYSTEM REPORT IMD45A OFF ICE OF THE GOVERNOR (916) 445-061,3 PROJECT:: BUTTE C(IUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT ,M .STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER ( SEH) 78091196 PLEASE USE THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER ON FUTURE COfRESPONDANCE WITH THIS OFFTCE' AND WITH AGENCIES APPROVING OR REVIEWING YOUR PROjE4CT DATE RECEIVED.- 78/09/01 PATE REVIEW PERIOD ENDS: 78/10/20 THIS CARD DOE=S NOT VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH PREAPPUCATION ANI)`/OR ENVrRONMENTAL DnCUMt NT REVIEW REQUI'REMENTSa A LETTER CONTAINING THE STATF: ° S COMMENTS OR A LETTER CONFIRMING NO STATE COMMENTS WILL BE FORWARDED TO YOU AFTER THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE PLS:ASE CONTACT THE CL.ErAR ING40USE IMMEDIATELY IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE 1.,ME LETTER 9Y TH5 END OF THE REVIEW PERIOD. I� `r,rrraanlal Rnvjaw Dqaf. Ruf#O Coun f I Elm STATI 00 CAI11`00NIA—RESOURCCS AGENCY xR0NAt0-4SM.rh►-.1, C;ovnrnor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME -a Y/ �.ivc�rtc��.� /?Itt/4�frrt � Cs�e"��.Prrr� lay' ilie,, • (IIowl*tla etra elir e-ete-d -le.°«,etrxr' 13t4t%t'. � ttiv t �r l v Rel -lit 141 .l- i"at"..G:°lt7Ytl el l a !i't C (l( i l't �Ol; l�t .�f l'al 1 i.'t,"C. f Glr � lJ} Y�.l4r.� eic�irt�r remelegt)er'ed or ntr e- ztVt►�ircjs f"e; pell ry tl. lie, h t f"a ' c, v? d w,' l d l 14 - ! S e � rrl, �e-i y /" ree. tel r /I Hi t:� J, m, -` i" • ?"t:.ee: /F,(,f c'epIDec:4't,l ec 7k ye,t4 Ar Me opf orlimii'�y fL s rG lc.J I a'T' Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO' `%lo :'utterwi,ck, ."dvanced Planning, FROW xeIrk Radabailgh, L.."C" 5UDJGc7t Lgnd Use Flome �t ''1cnMrren'ts DATE: September 22, 1978 kyle. x }l,�.rn +„n cn the draft Ftxtte Ccrtrty Land Tr as :."l e;nent : A. Discussion of I,.1yoo, pg 62, Thh TmPlrlmentat- ons slai'-YRTPnd on pa"'e /- a oto y r coI” a P and co p, tab1 4f.r Lr.rJ^vs Music intentions and goalo qr_.d should by ,,unstained. Regarding yol.ir drafts s discussion of L.t. ^ ', it should be noted that L.:NCO is manlated to i atenj rpt its sphp;�?s of influence determinations SO �:to 3r:r7,and promote ord-�_ly Urban d•elt-l.opr;?nY •"ad tho or on space, `articularly primp ,o-r.ru7t z ...atiorY sets up a dictomy between Cal3fornials local plaanninspa o This man ata gives city and count, planning process which City y planning agencies standard land use tools (general plans and zoning) bat no L.1F'tOo tyle mand�ta as to orderly development. Hogever, L.'F� O does nod° have the tools of local plar_ninu a encies. Also, on page 62,li.ne 36, some reference should be made to LaFC01s use of city general plzrs, as well as that of -Putte County, B. Section Ii Introduction 1. pg. 2, line 12 - The draft should indicate that although the teat does not have to he specific or precise, the land use map is precise as to general uses of land Athi;n a gi,Ten land use Pattern. 2* pg. 5 -beginning with line 12 and ensuing disctission - This is clearly rational to postphone all large7 controversial and/or siiniflcant zonin Qh nges antil such time that staff has prepared and the planning Co=L fission and Board have approved this revised land use tem mid any ens�ung land use map changes. C. Sect' O !"E, Oe welopment Seta ir.; 3. ter.. 13 - - easons for groi011: Yourdaex Could be ore specific =s to g� o srt h in the counts' urrban arsas on an individual basis. I think we ?I-" should recortize that the cha,4ac t¢r of "%L? ca, Oro�r��lle Paradise, d i ..d so te tur o;, their 11 D. "ec't:i:on T rT, Con .ern a and Poli ries y" %8 — r1e)*1 r*j` (j" w;s4"'lf�t1 �i0?T�d� i n ardiFtt, to i,w•c�;rn1 z•- a:: arrrOa rW1 public t'orrrr or ,:13 ; ".Y1'�;121;, plannin;- $1110;: in a compr ehonsive mrarmer in each of the coantyt s urbx.n arPa.� r rt�tn And ttarGgW l.de rlann�.ng count il,s,, or lladui..aory Oout:ci1011. . 29, 111Ies 1-» ; -- It ;ho,111 b., notw l H1, It "all-Cornia, 134pa.rtmont o�, papulation projections . • (.^Liddle rA, ue) i`or "A'u "rts County o~i:nu t� oo naiird ra"ea substnl-",J 3.J percentgroiAh rat - nor -err nt `'Ml �" q,3 Q80. 1h1l "o pinera .rsect1on� n(,,urrjd W ll;;h Growth rats; projer�;ti.on;>, 6. pg. 29 -+ Compact Development: colic s � Policy (a) should road: 'tFncauraCe %nnenation I'o existing cities and special districts SO .ts to provide, for 11-1Z; cal Md orderly dP vel.apment.'t Iioa 3 i .1�; 30, 1Y a-111 'gra. ,.y - i'olic;; (b) :: mnld roe-1mended to rlral '% -ovido a diversity of housing sites v1ryin in sizo, density, anfl »�n31,�031�',�fa,'t�7tAr}a0^r+iu-F3 n0'I,i,'�rrnh;isj7r ro?t nn� rjn•»Ytn ri,+�,ri ANt t 1e genor ql public int�,rf,*F• u `�• p� 33 - Densities: The draft should add a policy addressing hots den iV es rolate to the Qf iciency �' o ,, o.r1 jL 4o"fern,-r;nt 3F ;^vj t g g 7 pari r�213x 1y whwn s 3,rireasi ng tirh zn d n.,it ips q.nd sor-rir,es, :'his could be �'tnded into 1}olicy (j;), 9• r" 35 -,Property Ri.ghts: Fal --acing the value of private property 1`11-111 - brings l�ene_Fits to both the private and public seaters. The y ate'; liry sbot.Lld by rpvi.sed to ind7catrl as follows: "The American concent of Property rights require, the. County to allowYrh",�-V-r posse bl e a profitable eror4omio use for each parcel and to rairtain surroundin- a pW operty ;•raluws so as to best serve the publics hea.l.tht safety, and welfare. t' Policy should ire voiced similar]y. yn addit4 on such as this c��*I '.aplo Olea.r up a v-iZnp and ar,;.iahle st,atpm-21 . 10, pg. 35 Nanufacturing and Proces5itlgi Policy (a.) should be revised "Pr=04'.e tk ren,rr-1,r�;�r.ant ofpr,r;ror=ent-M. and ;ocia'!1-,r cor�patibl.e new industry in th- County, t' ' Policy (d) should have added to it f � ... before all ot4in th, nrpation o �' new indus�trin.l. areas, tt 7 .. Circul:?,I» on 2 c,•4 e -s: It 4s i;IJpLy tia„11 t'.43t th.-, Land Us.- Cl r_ +2 22" t 1Cr7nr.r' Siwd dq;q "e "0 IT-HCh JM4170�Z 791-ACle �� yea " e a1' lad:: rt; �i .r r, rartl cu arl-u in urban ureas. '-�nerC7f censer ration could a- so be mentioned. F 2. 157 Wal lk"1 � �1"+��JC.S t+ - r+^.;� ^ � Yl M7 - 1 y �':, �0:1 ^ can 'IRi r' a0"nh r addin" • 13. p;. 311, linri 1, .'oliPy (c) should be rev4,sorl to saf "_`nwour,ag ir,prtovem,nit. of flood control. facilities atl.on;;ykhe e;n.�Fl.�r�r.",o PAver while Fit, t hA sar- '1�`,^,r': �tti+,-�rde'i ..r,'�cw Pr}t : rLpa ,isn ,f''IbI 1 al', or ,0-r, 'Y+.'i,ry+•.tn.M u V. - pg. 40 - O, Pn ::pace. The laid CsP i'lemen'. sholild indic=tte that the County should, when consideri.nC. open space prep-rvstion. An related .to ur:",in devP r,,i— it I" P clioose to prima Ft, rt wul.tvr sl open s,,ar. o"va`; ot'h-'r types r7,' qn,. n ;y j" q,?,?q, 'v�or Qp+l ons e d st b two. �ba. :olic;; t'vild Correspond to one o^ nvinlitrd co siderat ons (:.ertion 54790.2, California rverrrn,eat, Code) •a r.F^i �r '� �..,«:� fr . a a.�a H+a rnr; n,� 1.5. Ce.nera,l.l.y The proposal I s methodoloZy for determin ,nU land use cotejor:i.es is very reasonable. However, L.A.F110 staff fer,15 more latitude and zon;in- options chauJA be erea,+tRl beWe;en i,=.9.l Re.,. idpntlal and .0.1 n:,? .SRI;` I Me .:ev, ri� :«t1�.I u S, '13 }': ?0"I 1't"' ^ri: J � 11J N t '° '1 j"!p urban uses, particul .rly "InF jurisdi rtiona.l. conflict- area.- in the Count,, 1` /8 ' " a. larJ can 1- n^ ted r ah ?, o l':rxd •. pis. ..�-�-'3 - T.�- , . ,.. n .o.�, �n o. :,, r or ora_ 1arb,;n area—, and coni, rgljRn+ly, site dr si r ii i on rr .{ t-_+' a .-nd zzonine, factors should t; l,A into acrclant specifically tiie plans and 7,oninZ of the incorporated cities. =rt ion "; r-1p.mentation 1✓ro� r Lr1 17. pg. 58, li.rie 43 - implementation (a) should be amended by addling An'd '-,s n Space 1errent." 50 - 3u�,:diR isions and band )ivisionso Policy should state the Moouragempnt off` the c-xcban`e of siflydi4 sior man infor.rat on beAosen the County and adjacent cities as applicable in. the Subdilrtsion Map Ac6. This policy could help promote better intergovernmental exchange of important development information. 19. pg. 61 -- City 'Planning Activities - The Lana Use Element should encourage ar=a wide planning or advisory cownci is in urban areas. Such cot;.ncils are the most reasonable way to brine i ower.:^er dip Fer-,nt interest., particularly when, t''ro or more government entities have jurisdiction in the simo planni.nS area.. 20, pz. 6„ - T Ycn7�p;lt� erjeitn*-c1 tq i. oy nn fx j rlTti i's fi,e year cpital imp ro', eent ^rocrat:1n-I ,�r71 of v,J-osgrotc. ucbel' d,scrip_t:or '.wild Irg , :-c,;rely hel. Wal to p.,I=n nt, s?enc eti, a„d in the coordlnation off' the .r plana. Tham lack of year to year and five yoar Car+,,IV,_ impro-vement ;aro s has baen fo':lnd to gr.•rtly reduca th? thoroufhn=s. or` .nr•.r� `��r�N �r „^i to 7 e a al }`i1�1aF��3r�' "I�lr�7iili3 ir�” ,1:7 J gf r `�°"xpn ry %`.� ,�J''.�s"+�Y."i"w "'i.oi: �`�,?..T]21?.Xl'' •y�;''i'"1. w�t'�'• Mark Radabaurh 1171111�3�611 MAKI Ub 1^r d )TEUS W, H. TH10401.. P`IL9104NT 1+• or {l143Y BUTTE COUNTY M00110 ABATEMENT OISTRICT RCHls llr 4- �T r1 .1. YIl.Y NNT, ..IJI'.NT J ANCA U. erv1T ,,,, tzw ' .cI ROUTE 2, F OX 2040 d STC( 1r "'�N f/ 'H p':NNLPH M.TT ICWyp. 1 ri'61bp.+. b1 -:N4••+• OROVII-I-E, CAL112ORNI.A. 9.5965 CItY ;�{;[Y T. A. &VANS d YTC C.YUI rY AcyXPLT "horr.k11 September 2,6, 1978 CITY or ONOYIL49 ALLAN JOHNJON ONTTE CtltINTY ALWT;R.T'J. ULCH ,:.TT dr CHICO ARTHUN Tr, hm1 rH pUTT4 COUNTY Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville; California 95965 Subject: Comments on Land Use Element, Butte County General Plan - August 1978 Draft Gentlemen: WILLIAM 9. HAZR1.7114m, NN, 9. M•NAp(N.+ CNVI�pNN[N'1AyliT 0IST14ICT OPPICK AT CtlON414 OF 004OV1669 AIHrOnr ON LANnIN Raw PHONIC DYH.s ):t JA11•/I9 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this draft. Our comments all .focus on the need for additions to the final plan which more adequately fulfill your stated purposes (on p 27) and recognize the hearth effects from. land use, particularly how land use encourages or discourages mosquito production. Our comments will be keyed to pages of the draft: 1. P. 1l; Add the heading Health, and consider how land use can impinge on human andiI ve`stock health, and .how good planning can reduce health risks. ;2, P. 31. Under Number 2, Grazing land policy, add: "d, discourage irrigation of grazing land with poor drainage or which has a high risk of mosquito production. 11 3, p. 37. Under Drainage and Flood Control, add "'d. , Any planned drainage should consider the impact ,on downstream aquatic life. including .mosquito production." 44. P. 39. Add a new section number 9, Pv„blic Utility Lines, and note how these can be controlled thru early planning. to addition, unde~rg^rounding of utilities can produce health problems by creating breeding areas for mosquitos in transformers and switching vaults, In this case aesthetics can produce health risks. We suggest a policy statement which would discourage underground utilities on any land which will not drain sufficiently well to prevent standing water in the proposed facilities. 5. P. 4Q. Number 1, under policy, add: "such as production of insect, pests, " or add "insects" to the list, d. p., 41, Number 5, add: "e.Balance regulations so the needs of health x protection are considered at the sara^ time that the needs of wildlife are considered, 7. p. 41.. Number 6 add at the end of the policy statement "in areas where they will not produce pests which adversely affect hurnans. 8. p. 46. under zoning factors, add number 117, Potential for produc- tion of pests. 11 9. p. 48, add a, zoning factor considering the impact such residential. encroachment will have on the health of people moving into such an area. Mural Residential areas have higher than normal risks for pest ;insect breeding and once produced, such pests are difficult to control; 10. p. 72, under 5. 16(2), add subsection (d) "Health impacts which caa,I, be caused by poor land slope, agronomic practices, or production. Mitigations: Require drainage systems to carry water off of tight land or la -,d with poor slope characteristics, when irrigated for non -aquatic crops to :void standing water, and if necessary, require crop selection on such land which will not allow insects, such as mosquitos to buildup and later migrate to inhabited areas." 11. p. 72. Under 5. 16(3) Mitigations, add; "An alternative or companion, mitigati.oni, to impose some control on the kinds or, 'Land use ellowed in the residential -suburban buffer zone, and in the agri- culttiral areas near urban areas, " 12, p. 72, 5.17 Adoption of a land leveling and drainage ordinance is necessary for health protection from mosquitos, and should be given more amphasis. 13. p. 73, 5. 23 The current trend on pasture irrigation has Been for water waste by some, and good water use by others. Excessive irrigation and water waste in some places has caused replacement of good forage species with poor quality plants, and this trend in some areas of the county should be discouraged. (see ,also 5. 26(1)). 1'4. p. 74. 5. 26(1) add part "(e) mosquito production thru excess irriga- tion. ii 15, p. 80, 5.46(1) Mitigation. This is excellent, particularly the idea of constraint maps as part of good planning. 16. p. 80, 5. 46(3) Add the word "insect pests" to the list of offensive problems, in the first paragraph. 17. p. 911 7. 0 Add at the end of the paragraph; 'Marginally productive lands should be used for residential expansion., within reasonable constraints, saving the better lands for agricultural use. 18. Some place in the planning process, a Health Element should be prepared and adopted or as an alternative, Teat section should be included in each other element. We would3e�ppy to assist you in preparation of a separate Health Element as a way to improve your planning -system. We trust our comments are not too detailed. We believe such changes will strengthen your draft, and makes it a more effective planning tool. Sincerely William E. azeltine, Ph. D. Manager-Environmentalis t