The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About79-40 1BOARD AGTioNa Continued �g_5/�5i'79 � 2 � .. ... p �/ 2/'79,. m •,z..:, /� 9f 9I.l 2p.m . TYrB OV APPLICATION: SND U E, LL' Em11'1XT LOCATION: COUNTY WIDE .w.u:-�.riu.�.,...w.:.+..m.-..v:..�:.w......ww..'sw�.�+:�.-....x,. ...z..+.e...:..w.r...uw.w.r+.+..swrr..>..._-,.�.-..�....u�,..�,:..,..,.: -...;u.,as A* . No. PRESENT ZONING. DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: DATE NOTICES MAILED: FIRST FmAtRING 11/15/8 SECOND HEARING: 12/13/78 ADDITIONAL, HARING: _.'/10/!79,1/24/79, 2/7/79, 2/21/79, 3/7/79, ZONING PBTITION SIGNATURES PERCENTAGE COMMISSION ACTION: Reci approval — by resolution: e Qii� •J n _.. r. ra n i BOARD AGTioNa Continued �g_5/�5i'79 � 2 � .. ... p �/ 2/'79,. m •,z..:, /� 9f 9I.l 2p.m . 6 74" 10$0 I7C?aUAE COHASSRT HIGHWAY FROM KE%,"FER ROAD TO COHASSET INTO THE FIVE-Y'EAR J CONSTRUCTION ROAD PLAN AND REFER TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER CONSISTtNCY_ W`1TH GENERAL PLAN On motion of Supervisor Wheeler, seconded by Supervisor Moseley f and carried, Cohasset Ilighwily from Keefer Road to Cohasset was included into the five-year construction road plaii and referredthe matter to the Planning Commission to consider consistency with the General Plana; f 1088 REPORT TO BOARD CONCERNING 4Aa"- REMEw or, GENERAL PIA G'OVERNMNT CODE TITT. N PURSTIANT TO 65400 The ruport to the Board concerning the annual review of the General Plan pursuant to c,11if, ,Ornia Government Code, Title 7, Article, 7, section 65400 was given to the Board do MINUTES Board of 13uporvi,-, oxer, June 3.9, 191 9 1057 CLOSED PVBLIC HEARTNG: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMM - DRAFT EIR AND L PLAN 'LAND USE ELEMENT - CONTINUED TO JULY 31, 1979 AT ,a P -M - The closed public hears on- B the ut, to Count: - i� —_ County Commission draft environmental impact report and General, Plan Land Use Element was hold as continued. The following changes were made in the text at this time: PAGE 55. Delete entire page and add the following: V. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A._LAND USE LAN MAPS I. SCALE AND INTREPRETATION The comprehensive land use map for Butte County is essentially one official map. The land use element, however, contains separate land use plan maps for each of the areas around the four incorporated cities and the community of Paradise. The designated land use for these areas are displayed 011 maps having a larger scale than the over-all county comprehensive land use map. The purpose is to provide greater detail for the urban and community areas. The small communities in the county will have maps of larger scale and detail taken for these areas. As each urban area and each community area map is amended and adopted, the detail of land Uses for these areas will be found on their respective land use plan map. TheGoverrment Code recognizes the general plan as consisting of a diagram or map in addition to a text which sets forth policies and standards for development. Section 65502 reads: "The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth 0 Objectives, p-rinciplo5, ct4ndazds 41nd plan proposals." The tost definesguidelines for development and establishes the ftarowork for making judgments and decisions on land tiae and planning concerns., When this general plan is reviewed as to consistency with any project, reliance for any findings of consirtency or inconsistency shall not be solely based on the land use map. r Rig owl N gr °.i� (4,A� i4➢lil ,��?� SQ'};f .. '. ,1•.., f Gt4..��+ '��y�;��a, �M, ��' d`�r�F1��G /'.K`+tt`r�',�J,''1'^�e rt.r �r� ,:. '{ o ICI, .. U. S. A art�.. fir",, � r� r r: � �" .�� • °A� -ll fit, I . �' .L4 �'t �A•h��w,y�- �tratb �G,aaa��, �' �� s*s i,,,` ' A , ' Styx I J o � t g APpc.,c,ply-r' .* '14/, c,+AoeY cs2 OWN sa A / . wu G�.r�crcavnr0 Lcac�7}eN Get. ., . `; , , , . � ,.� _ �-►�. �n __ _ _ _ , _ __ ....... _ _ ..: at-f.2-44 ,�,® 0 44 pp� Ill, MINUTES June 19, 1979 Board oX Zupex,viosors As an example, Government Code § 65860 defines the require- ment of consistency as regards rezoning as: "The various Band uses authorized by the ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plana" Government Code § 66473.5, dealing with subdivisions, in defining consistency, states: "A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land -uses and programs." , Government Code 0 65402 requires that prior to acquisition or disposition of property that such proposed action be reviewed as to "conformity" with the general plan. Thus it is readily apparent that the rewired consistency finding for either a subdivision or zoning may not be based solely on a map determination, but rather, upon the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the entire general plan. Due to their "general" and long-term nature, land use plan maps do not need, nor ordinarily show, precise locations and definite boundaries, For this reason, land use plan maps do not operate as, or in the place of, zoning maps. IMPLEMENTATION: a. Land use plan maps are and shall be printed on a scale of 1" = 4 miles for rural areas and l" a 2,,000 feet for urban areas, b. The decision-making agency shall decide which land use category is the more appropriate where development sites are split by or adjacent to indefinite category boundaries not following known physical features or property lines. c. Proposed uses that would be inconsistent with the land use plan map designations, but are surrounded by and contiguous to similar existing uses shall be considered consistent with the land use plan map. Paee56« Delete first and second paragra'ns lines 2 to 12. Pages 57 & 58. Delete lane 50 to 55 on page 57„ Delete line to 3 on page 58 and add the foil wln;�s It is important to nota that the urban categories (residential; commercial and industrial) require zoning �,ahich allows urban uses and t 7'9- i MiNU11 Board of SuporRe"or'S a=,e ► densities immediately. The oreater range of constotent zoning claaoifiodti.onsti allowed in the rural categories (Orchard ON Vi,eld +Crops, Gr;azkng-Open Land., Timber -mountain and Rural Residential), places move attention and emphasis on zoning to determine densities. This distinction in density limitations encourages the early development of urban designations and discourages the premature conversion of resource production arec►s to mora Intense uses. Page 58. line 4. Start line N,7ith' Although, Page 58. Line Xaa. Add the following at the and of the sentence as soon as practical.. Pic. 57. Line 25 Delete,. or unci asci i tid zones. Page 59. No changes. Page 60. Line 20, Add: or any other plana .,adopted by the Board of Supervisors. Pap 61. No changes. Page 62. Zmp,lementation(a). Change to read: The county will review development of policies and proposals for both county and city general plans with incorporated cities. Under imolementtion. Add; 1n the spirit of cooperation. Page 63. Delete,: Lines 37 to 39. Line 29.. Delete: in 1974 and change to read: The Butte County Loco adopts spheres or long-range service plans for all the cities and districts in the County, taking into account existing boundaries, natural and man -rude features, service capabilities and the probable future service needs of the area based on growth trends, population projections and the i Butte County General Plan and appropriate City General, Plan, Pages 64 & 65. Line 32. Delete: justification for all. Page 66. Line 31,0 Deletei all,and add: the reasonablea Page 676 Line 52,. Delete: original dovelopment,and add: revision. Pa e No changes. RECESS: 3:17 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:27 p.m. and Research. h. a State Oi`ice of Planning ,Pane 67—tines 35bs 36. Delete. and th Board. of Supervisors June 19, 1979 MINUTES ES 79- Iq i©n motion of Supervisor ~ — �i p rvisor Winston and carried, a motion of intent to the text by Supervisor Moseley as Amended an reprint 1' approve the text of the Viand Use L'lement p ebruary x979 was approved and the amended Land Use. Of Element was referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration the amendments and requested th public hearing on the Land Use e Planning Commission hold additional Map for the benefit of those t had no input into the band Use Map changes and that this is to be additional hearing or hearings as necessary„ that have The hearing on the Land Use Element was continued to July 310 1979 at 2;00 p,m, County birector requested to write Letter to Mr. Ge Butte Count I' igen, , Farm Bureau, notifying him of Commission hearings,. the time and place of Planning The letter from Mr. Garcia with a map his considered at the time of the Planning Commission hearings. property was to be x020 79- ji BOARD OF S BR ORS' J=e 12, 1M Mizutes PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DVAFT LTR AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The closed public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission Jraft environmeatnl impact report and General, Ilan Land Use Element was held as continued. The changes made last week were: discussed. The following change was made Po the changes cf, last wuek,.1, Page 32, line 20. Add require proof of Page 39. Add: New paragraph S SOLID AND LIQUID WAST DISPOSAL I:ACILITIES The management and disposal of solid and liquid wastes is closely monitored by federal and state governments. As a result of Government Code §§ 66700, et seq,., Butte County adopted a solid waste managment plan in ' 1975 for the purpose of setting forth a program for the storage, Collection, processing and disposal of all solid washes generated in the County. The collection and disposal of solid waste material is performed by several privately owned transfer stations and one central sanitary landfill site which is owned by the County and leased to a private company for operation and management. The use, storage and disposal; of liquid waste is regulated )y the County Health Department in cooperation with the State Water Quality Control Board, PO -11 cy, 3 a. Protect the public health and safety of Butte County residents and the natural environment through efficient solid and liquid waste practices. b. Support the continued review and study of alternate locations for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes. The following pa!; es Caere considered anO changes made: ORCHARD ANT) FIELD CROPS, Page 45 Page 45, line 15. Change average to predominant. CRAZING AND OPEN LAM). Pw'Q 46, Page 46, line 14. Change average to predominant. TI M tR-Nit)tNTAITI Page 47. P8ge 47j line 14. Chang: aver4ge to predominant. RURAL RESIDENTTAL, Page 48 Vo changes, LOCA DRNSITY RESIDENTIAL, Page 49 No changes. M, �N �''l� E T #V .A P PCS 6 A i -L S' S R OADE \/6 L.L. r cufZv T1.. RCx + C� e:�iW(-, ON LA,ND, a , WATER RES, Faz +,'n6 , WA 60-00 c�E�G.N(' BLL I n c c f� A i a o Wp7TF—'Z i 'Cp Cr- 3` � � tyy N .... O cr• � � N � N � �" Kl cC� cS1 rf1 M Nl c41 nS Z o A r) 117 ® kn 49 �AHPrhA u N C4 --r f2 d Ak O —y ' Fri T by N 2S r � Mt�B L� DM y Y,%ao. 5 . �f oat aAfl.5 not A5.5�55Sto ,'S AF B c k 6L o Q !'{" 0 Fame e BO.ji RD OF S U.>n'ERVI ORS I Minutes June 12, 19V9 MMMIUM DENSITY RE5IDENTIAt. Page 50 1 Page 50. lines 20. 79. Delete: "tit-R"P "SR..5" and "AR1611s HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, Page 51 P__al_ 51, line 28. Delete: 11AR-511 COMAIER.CTAL, Pae 52. t Wo changes. Ir1DUSTRIAL, Page 53 No, changes. PUBLIC, Paoe 54 No changes. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM, _Page 55 & 56 Proposed changes to be considered next week. ZONING, Pa.e 57& _58 Pane 57, lino 22„ Add:portion's of the county are instead of 14uc,h of the County is. rEVELQPDENT REVIEWS P c 5 Pugs: 59, line 27. Dclote: Compatibility with the general plan is often discussed but is not a required consideraf-ion or findin;. i'arye 59; lines 41.. 6, 42, Implementation (a).,, Counsel to suggest d Wording. Pa -e 41.40 June 12, 1979' 79- The hearing was continued to June 19, 1979 at 2:00 p.m, ^b t 41,948 Boar. off.` uppc�x��,r1sor�� 'tinut`� COLOSED PU73LIC IAGRINO: BV= COUNTY PMTNIIgO d0W$ y bN'` 7D` V SIR GENERAL PLAN LAND USI; Er�ME NT, - CONTTNi]ED TO JUNE 12.1979 AT 26.00 P. The public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission draft eavironmontal impact report and General Plan Land Use 81ement was hold as contin+aad a 79- i The following changes were made in°t*he text at this tirnp: ;XNTRODUCTION. PAZLS No changes. REVEbOPMENT SETTING Pages 6 to 26 Page 10,. para 2Z h 10, line 366 Add: Parrs of Butte _County are an archaeologically sensitive area with numerous known and recorded archaeological sites of Native American importance (Mai.du and 'Y'ahi tribes) and there is also assumed to be a large number of as yet undiscovered sites. Pace 2�E. Add: Durham Mutual 'Water Company after Durham Irr, Dist. COUNTY CONCERNS_,AND POLICIES Pages 27 to 42 Page 30, - Line 22. Add: $ sign. g Page 32, line U. Delete Potenti.pl. Page 33, section 7 (a). Change to read: Encourage expansion, construction and efficiency of hydroelectric power plants in the county, j Pane 32, ling 42. Change is now preparing to has prepared. Page 33 section 7.(d). Change consider to promote. Ps&e 34. 1.4o conunent Page 37, section 1 (a). Add: of 111 types after facilities. Pace 39, section 7 (a) & $ (a) Combine 7 (a) and 8'(a) and say fire stations and other public buildings. Counsel to rewrite. Page 40, section 4_ a)-. Add after the word areas "and parks”. Page.32, line 21. Delete the word require and add: proof of adequate water supply. Page 40, line 40. Change Lane to Ladd P_age_.41, lines 14 & 15. Add: other than required river bank protections RECESS: 3:30 porn. RECONVENES 3:40 p.m. LAND USE CATEGORIES, Pages 43 & 44 No corm ants The hearing woo continued to ,lune" 12, 1579 at 2:00 p„vt 917 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS p11N TES -ray 20, 197q CONTINUED PUBLIC HURING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -- DRAVT tIR ,AND C GENERAL PLAN LANT) USE' ELE41,1ENT � C(71a JINWED TO JUNt S, 19/9 AT 2:00 P.M. ,I'1��'~(,ilia i r. t�� .�z a.ti�s c,rY i.I, l;titnoC( II:Ity L'1 artr7i.n�; Gnmm�s., ion draft vavironmo l al imp,i!-L re, ort rInd Ocmeral Plan sans] Use Slement vas hold as con.f ii.a:ic,d Hoaring opt -n to HIP public. Appearing: 7.. Nicholos Garcia. lar. Garcia stated that his property otz Grubbs Road was di.vicivd br '-weea orollard and row crop and the balance in rural v0sidcntial, l•Zost of the propurty was in rural residential. Ile felt that before any plan is adopted that someone should put ui5 a defiNaitive asap. 13e felt that hi:: property should be placed ` in one category. The Hutto- County farm Bureau Mas said thou his property is grazing land. Tie dial not beliovo that: it was economically feasible to have the proporty in ,razing land. tle felt: than Lhe b, --.;t use. for his proporty w,at; rural residential... Out of 1.712 a ercs all but 330 ac):o.s would Par 3.75. lray 29,, 1979' i. 1 1 BOARD OF S1J171aR�T.SCIRS AIINUTEF,,`Mjy 29, :f:97.o rY 29, 1979 9 C.: G;! %7 iJl rad, 70- Fall .l:avc•t ta�� rural +ler,rtrtiLl cGeneral tldet, LL11ixtl xryrPOIN(A Pl;:ttt,r , I3(� did not t,c ,� ;ant' 010 fut ury a w T9,¢rni„cc# St.,Iraltnlacjo Mrs. Stranite�pe snnitn xe�atYrll.tt tlttry latait'ctnr�rat'ca id TIf3e `rnrent. x;od'e "C� ttiou 05302 relat�i 'a Co the 0e.n ra l�latt. The i,Kataci CJ;ac# I�1c�tr�(snt, must cue>nril to information regarding” solid nod l .iqu d wa : t v clispos;1I , ' xt.c s and are;as CovexrN by tfiv putt pub„fie 1S5 d5tx 3. �h� li"t,l fll:xC� Subulit vvd illforalatCt Gr�tx 2 ate' s Would Ilk(. to ct ltte�tak,ta it: with One or .tatc7� R� O Board inemibe t �a ,` d of t1i,, F,upt'�rvistir,q. t".Ic:tirtat4tn I�cYml,c= stat earl that; lie wou.1tj ;like two se t lii.a rtaett t r�r rvforrert 1)41(,1 to UIC Planning. oitnua>sion �7%til a. pe;ra i:ie ze=cct,r:uetxrlat �.otY ttcl. >?rnla,sltl + more lccttx i.txt,a ural thea par t� of tti,I Cotmfaiss.iutj for ghost t'evomnendat;iOTIS and then ro,rte 13,acle to the Board ana, having the "Oard bold additional pijb t icy It #at itx} �, aprior to taking action £lcn!rnt n the ticty pttbl. c and cottfinvol to the, 13raard,. SUP"RVISOR DtJLA.11 I'I;I'SIaNT AT "HITS 9'1`ntE Irt:}Cttt�f,it a3 c� adopt n,r tip 01v text and thenthenItzn 7C1 thenv p field ,at t;Iti,t tittSa, SUPervisor VlnstOli stated wzth sat t:liztt: 1',ts eaaiated tocttituti Planning and g;o ov(`r the text Taa;,�' hY P'"and ciiWcttss nt. x �� M10 iter Iercutne nt IarM; i ctixtccri a t to be hopofully a �c�noral. ,satemn.t:aOf aitns and pur ds*s of the land ttge: "pattern in Butte, CoutthY defining,land use eaatego� ins, big, P i d -tlie i"It'd Use Map can , be prepared i .Vt tltel.lxea�big,�F"ra,umentuia Vraa.�tr Category de►., k pt�xeet to ext the The t3oard sLou;ld e•cvat�,ider the t0xta and agree. on�j1),Uic�do, ixiation, 'jj�e into,at 80 People ;,*xhould be cot,cernod at t,aall point. �rlc BUt t0rirl. , platttt:ng clepsktnaeaxt, .ar;tatrtid irliat �alxeta the i�;,j>Ard acl,>p[4 , the t:-,xt tea f, y must 'also xttra�i. a t►xe3I7 ixt iwltn atttte is Arte, text: : lsr+uld bo 'taken care tsf watprl titi.c Ca,t srtta t,lao�a,��l ��: ��¢xt'Ite�� t:>#iw y k':.apervis,S,°i? Dolan St "ted f,�tr3� OR" Boc ird 11113 tG ado, y 4.f�At 9 Y. y q adopt lrsli{!IP, w� t t.aac. yolit:y tr"ut;t, bo, :ttlif".n eart. a,j. stat od Olat the last rir,10 thrro ware element �1t lf7t� taEf �$ n t& r Lro a7 t: "lCe,t4 "t; tai,' tebail,> t a C,3ia� Paj;e' at ct t1,i Ft ark] d1 (C"i,E& d 12,Y trlI�3,�'r.e �tr,iar� l 115 7. a tl�e CbCd? Viet Y ¢,V! the draftvmvd by vhfB, ard �",.� r " e rplt � `t i7 .SO s9iboEaCC l[�tI 2 w 1�4 'i'�!t? 2tCl�l.�tTnt Tlt4xt` ion ;,<� 1 R`' ` c,Lioa°x it: talks about Changing, the mala 110 could not a" e Ii r tlxe,,c�cp t�,art I,r prep:gyred Und approved tanlea there is agreement t It ariitt; as a Continued to "June 5, 1975 at x;00 Pogo fear a' wOTX se;XxS:iOn, v-fsi No teat by Boar: d actenibers.,- BOARD 01' SUPLUV IAlS MIMES—May ay 22 1979 855 79- i PUBLIC HHARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • DRAFT rl:H RAND t' MIERAL PLAN LAND 11SG_E12,14ENT _CONTIpVED TO 'MA41 29., 1979 AT_2 00 P.M. The public hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission draft environmental impact report and General Plan Land Use Element was held as continued. Hearing open to the public. Appearing; 1. Bernice Stanhope, Oroville Board of R.ealt<ors. 14s. Stanhope stated that after hearing all the pros and cons on the issue .it is her opinion that oneof the major differences of opinion is based on the fact that the Land Use Element tent is based a great deal. on environmental concerns and the map is more liberal in concept. The mads had to be like it is to conform to the present zoning. There is merit to start from inside and build out with planning. it will not be difficult to keep the county from having leap frogging due to the fact there is limited water and sewage disposal. The area is basically rural, The rural residential will servo as a buffer between agriculture and urban and still allow people to live in a rural atmosphere. There are 25 rural counties facing the some problems. She did not feel that the plan should be for 20 years because planning is on evev changing process. This should be Updated every five years. MS. SLanhopa asked that the Board form a committee to study the proposed amendment and bring a report back to the Board. 2. Jack Bryson. Mr. Bryson stated that the Concow area has just recently formed an association. Mural residential fits their needs. The committee is studying ra small area for commercial.. In the future, they will probably have something along; Concow Rood. Mr. Bryson to arrange meeting for Supervisor Winston to a`tteiad. 3. Nicholas Garzia, Grubbs koado Mr. Garzia stated that under the proposed: amendment, out of the 1712 acres he owns about 1,450 acres fall into the rural residential. He felt that his entire property should have been in one classification. He felt that this was an appropriate classification for his land. He raises cattle and it is very difficult not to have to feed them additionally during the fainter. Supervisor Winston stated that on page 2.9 of the text where it is talking about- policy under population growth there is a statement ti under policy B to designate adequate land for free market. On page 30 J under orderly development they are talking about encouraging annexation and development around a community with facilities. There is a conflict r with the two statements., Kyle Butterick, planning department,, stated that the policy should be looked at and evaluated collectively. There will be some apparent r conflicts,` Dr. Frank Bennett, chairman Planning Commission, stated that he could not see what holding additional meetings by a committee could accomplish. There is n need to male a decision. The hearing was continued to 144y 29, 1979' at 2:00 p.M. 79- i 5 13001) or, 9TJ2:ffi S0RS ' 811 PUBLX0 HEARING: BUTT COUNTY PL�ARNI�iG CCINIMIF;SIpli - n1tAI♦"z" t'NVZI2�JI�IML�N�'AlG IWACT sP011T AVD 12Ab PLAN LAIIDE%, jL,ggN7' The public hearing on 030 Butte County Planning Commission dznf't anvirotaanental impact report and Genernl ;Plan land Use Element was heard as continued. Chairman Lemko advised that tho. Board had received a now letter from Lima Saddle Community District. Hearing open to the public. Appearing; to Robert Rankin. Mr. Rankin spoke regarding the proposed land use map on Kennedy Avenue, It was his understanding that from Kennedy Avenue on out Hwy 32 the map shows commercial. He realized that the area from Kennedy on was involved in small commercial and housing. It is difficult to know what to do with the property between the railroad and the highway. It might be possible to minimize high density in that area.. The county is quite committed in that general area to maintaining agricultural use as long as possible.. 1I0 suggested that there be no more commercial beyond Muir Avenue. Mr. Rankin has a neighbor who is finding it difficult to farm on Hwy 32, 'There is so much of the area cut up already. Ile diad not knout hoot the plan could be to let development but not too much density. 2. 7.'ilIT,= Daley, Lime Saddle Conrrnunity services District. Mr. Daley stated that the District had to borrow money to put in a water line. If. the &tea ie not properly zoned they will have a rough time payi,rig for the loan. They set up a zone of benefit for one mile north and south and east and went of the boundary lines. This property is practically all small pieces of properly and zoning. 3. Greg Montgomery, representing the Whipple property on Hwy 32, Mr. Montgomery stated that the present zoning in "M -l" zoning. He supported the Planning Commission's amended map proposal.. Right now there is a lot of development on Hwy 32 that is not shown on the existing map 4. Hank Marsh;, representing the Businessmen's Alliance. Mr. Marsh stated that his organization is supportative of the proposal in general sense. Ile was pleased to see the policies developed are relatively ,specific. He urged that the Board not allow that it be erroded by general statements. 5. Larry* Featherstion, Riau Rock Academy, Richardson Springsi, Mr. Featherstion stated that the General Plan for their area would be conclusive to what they have in the area. This is similar to a boys school with about 3,000 acres under the direct control of the Academy. He concurred with the Planning, Commission's recommendations for the area. 6. Ann Rudd. Mrs, Rudd stated that she has operated a business on the corner of Hwy 32 and Muir Avenue for 22 years. She would like Ito have commercial on this corner. 14 BOARD OF SUVERPSORS 114INUVW - 114s " 15t 1979 El 7. Mr. I'knnkin concurred with, Mrs,. Rudd regarding the corner of Rwy 32 and Muir Avenue. 8. Tian Bolinger. Mr. Bolinger stated that he would like to have commercial zoning between Kennedy and Muir. At the present time the area is "A-2" and allows most commercial uses. There is quite a bit of commercial development in the area. 9. Bob Romage, representing Bernice Stanhope. Mr. Romage stated that this element is for 20 years. Planning is a changing process, Mrs. Stanhope reconnnends that the plan be updated every five years. The area is rural oriented. Mrs. Stanhope recommended that the Board appoint a committee to study the plan and send their recommendations to the Board. She recommended sitting up of a committee of no more than 10 or 12 members representing special groups, agricultural citizens, city planning commissions and chambers of commerce. Mr. homage stated they felt that the building costs could be reduced by 10%„ This reduction would increase the number of home buyers,. 1.0. Jerome Bolander. Mr. Bolander stated that he was in favor of the commercial designation for the Section of Kennedy ,Avenue north, Ile concurred about the high density. He felt thsit the railroad and highway were a factor. The area in conflict would be on the west side where the properties are bumping up aginst large sections of agricultural land. 11. Art Gilman, representing the Board of Directors of the Farm Bureau. Mr. Gilman felt that the area designated as rural residential; needs to be re-examined ?n its entirety. There are some Obvious contradictions between the text and the map regarding rural residential. They would like to see the entire portion of rural. residential go back to the Planning Commission. He wanted those areas in agriculture to be given some consideration. Grazing and open space are agriculture. 12. Robert Husky. Mr. Husky stated that the text refers tO a minimum lot size of one acre for rural residential. The text states that the minimum is one to forty acres. That differs in the minimum from orchards and field crop which has a minimum of 5 acres. The reason for the minimum size for the rural. residential is that the Planning staff recognizes that portions of the county has been used as rural homesites An example of this is the hake Concow area., i tk4id not mean that there is a danger of the entire 160,000 acres being reduced to one acre minimum. Only those areas in i'A-2" zoning would be rezoned. There are many considerations for choosinh-pecific zoning for areas of Butte County. He felt that rural residential offered an alternative to urbanization. 13. John Stutz. Mr. Stutz stated that the text on page 57 and 58 describes rural residential as a resource category. The intent of the 40 acre lot size was to keep the area zoned 40 acres in 40 acres. People have been critical of the map. If they would look at the underlying uses they would see it is close. This is saving a lot of property. Timber mountain has never had a lot size requirement. He felt that the other elements of the General. Plan should be changed to conform to this new element. Thein is language that is in conflict. One of the elements is the conservation element. The amendment is to correct the problem for the people along Hwy 324 He felt that the ''A-2" zoning should be elmininated. r BOARD 0,F $UPMC SOM 5nmin.io,may 1,5, 79.. 14. Dominick Macoill. XV, 1,110colli sC+ated that ho would ,lix�c� to Oe a line drawn on Hwy 32 for the cemn�ercina, 15. Marts Miller, Appropriate Technology Association. Mr. Miller ,stated f heat tlsara is Obviously a patMItial SOr heavy development in the noxt+ few years. The county should zone the property east of- the airport MOVO condrxsive to business and industry. This would relieve the pressure to use agricultural: land. Thele Ara alternative systems in spet4c use. o There .are 4 lot of issues regarding energy issues such as transit displace- r went of people relate to land zoning issues. He would like to sen an Organization established to provide inrut. lb. Kelly Jordan. Mr. Jordan fait that the j3oa d is faced with in impossible task of resolving the matter..He felt that the way the Board handled the matters in the txst with variances worked well. Ile felt that some of the area designated as open or grazing land should be dropped into the rural residential category. Tito ',►oari.n& was continued to May 22, 1979 at 2400, p.m i r 79- 4 4) 6 PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMISSION - DRAVT MXRONMENTAt 1141ACIT IMPORT MD GENERAL rLa TAND USE ELEMENT Tho public hearing on Hie Butte County Planning Commission draft onvironninantal Impact report and General Plan Land Use Element was hold as advertised. Earl Nelson, environmental'roview director, set out the background of the environmental impact report. The General Plan document has been, in preparation for about one year. The r,,IR is an Intregal part of the document. He felt that this was avast improvement over the current General Plan that the county is using today. Ile had some reservations on the map portion of the element. There is wide distribution of the rural residential category. Ile would like to see this reduced somewhat. It is in excess of 150,000 acres. Ile would prefer to see a closet cooralation between what the zoning znys and what the General Plan designates. Ile felt that the text and policy were excellent. Bettye Blair) planning diroctor, set out the background of the General Plan Land Use Element. She set out the history of this amendment. Part of the element includes the Craig-Moorerown area, Highway 32 and Esplanade areas. Kyle Butterick) planning department, stated that many intemsted parties have been engaged in preparation of this element. It is a cillective effort. This is divided into seven sections. Section 1. Intnduction. This shows considerations involving state requirements. There have been4recent legislation since the original text. They attempted to clarify the density standards for timber mountain and orchard and field crop. The Government Code sections are covered in this portion of the element. The exIsting pext contains many policies but requires updating. Many are covdred in the background information. I I Section 3. Office of Planning and Research in 1973 developed guidelines for preparation of land use. In preparation of this document, they have taken intb consideration the state planning guideline8i They are recommending a ^n -year plan with review annually. Section 0. Suited that there be nine elements to the General Plan. They npted to incorporate the other elements. Developmo, There are five sections under this section. There were six maps dt;;vt. -nat include elevation and a slope map which shows over 30%. There is a vegetation map. The existing land use map depicts urban areas, resource areas and government property. There is also reference to population and growth and the examining of residential and commercial construction. There is economic considerations such as agriciAture, timber and grazing. This also identifies the concentration of urban areas, public facilities and services and services currently being made available to the county. Chapter 3. This has the county conceens and policies. It is th43 most important. They hi,,ve attempted to identify the major planning issues that i.nflu(„cca planning And development. Chapter 4. This covers the land UsQ categories themselves. There are ten categories. They are introducing the rural residential- oile acre minimum category. They are recommending density changes in others. There is a format of the categories themselves and indicated process. This is defined into six sections of each category and they have identified primary usas in these categories. There is requirements of density and consistent zones. Chapter 5. This is the implementation program. There will be changes to the land use lend map and associated zoning; This is important. in the consideration o3: implementation of policies are referred and utilized in the procesi3. Other available measures are the recommended review of subdivisions and land divisions. This is for the environmental review process in compliance with CEQA. Chapter 6. ETFta Chapter 7, Appendix. This has the land use plan map. The Government Code is very clear that the element must include not only the text but the map which reflects the provisions of the text. They are not proposing any changes to the urban category. There is no proposed changes in the low, medium tend high density residential category. They tgould remain 1 to 4, low density; 5 to 8, medium density; and 9 to 12, hi8h density, There is o,,z;a commercial category instead of three as in the originnl element. They a,�n, not r0commending changes to the urban, industrial and public categories. A five acre minimum parcel size is proposed for orchard and field crop. The timber mountain is property presently owned and managed by the :i:cylaral government. This is shown as purple. The area in dark brown is property owned by private parties like Diamond International that are either TPZ or commercial forest. There is a new 40 acre minimum in the timber mountain category. Grazing and open land. There is proposed a 40 acre minimum parcel, size. This is shown on the map in green. This includes property in the Williamson Act contract or prdpertics at least 40 Qctes or larger.. Mural Residential. This is one acre minimum. There is a provision that thisicategory be directed outside a community water and sewer system. This would serve as the ultimate land use in remote areas. It will be a buffer,between urban and agriculture. The area is land zoned under 40 acros in the county add some Tri -10 and Thi -20 in the Forest Ranch area. This includes the lands in "A.2” zoning that is privately owned. The lands owned by the federal, government are excluded from this category. This emcompasses about 260 square miles of the 1,670 square miles in the county or about 15% of the entire county. Of the 260 square, miles there is about 70 square miles that has specific zoning Orchard and field crop is presently designated by the county at 2,2%. There is 85% of the orchard and field crop that is presently zoned for ;than. 79- 4 BOARD OF SUMINISORS MIMTES».'...May 8, 1979 Hearing open to the public. Appearing: 1. Robert Rankin,, Mr.. Rankin commanded the Ilonrd of Supervisors on the emergi:nl; trencral flan. Ile would like to see the warding of the Plan if there are any changes refer to gradual changes q 2. Tom McCready, Chico 2000. Mr. McCready stated that they have submitted some proposed changes in writing. They support the adoption of the Plan. He set out the chat>ges requested at this time. 3. Art Gilman, Butte County Farm Bureau. The hoard of Directors of the Farm Bureau are concerned about the amount of rural residential included in those areas that have been used for agricultural purposes, grazing And open space areas. There are some real, problems when you start introducing development into the areas next to agricultural areas. The Agricultural Advisory Commission has also voiced concern about this particular aspect of the Plan. He was concerned about the orchard and field crop as it relates to south Chico. The Board of Directors recommendation is that the Hoard seriously consider the report from tt-e Agricultural Advisory Committee. They would like to seta the General Plan reit°reed to the Planning Commission for some hearings that would involve agriculture. They felt that it was in order to interim zone the area south of Chico. 4. Hugh Santos, Agricultural Advisory Board. Mf. Santos urged the Board to refer the land use back to the Planning. Commission for further study. He also urged that tbt hotspnts i„n the county south of- Chico should receive interim zoning. 5. ,john Luvvas, Chico 20004 Mr. Luvvas stated that he would like very much to see the elemcnt adopted. They are supportative of the text. The minor changes that have been proposed are going back to the staff's original comments. tie would like to see tentative acreage on the text. The Commission has not dealt with some of the items on the map. He was very concerned about the rural residential cateogry. Another 150,000 new one -acre lots would be allowed. The lines for the rural re►,zdential are arbitrary. He expected to see the line on all rural and urban stop at Mud Creek. There is a good deal of confusion on rural residential. The major problems need to be clarified. He hoped .hat at least the rural residential portion of the map would be subject to greater study. There are portions of Bidwell Park which are designated as rural residential.. There is land south of Bidwell lark that is designated for residential use. Chico does not want land neat to Bidwell developed. South of Chico there ,are several hundred acres of land designated for industrial and residential use that i°i� in good producing agricultural land. He felt that the major modifications need to be made on the • area south of Chico. He supported interim zoning. BOARD 01? S'!JP RV'IOORS 1MLi'T:GB—M61 81 1979 Mr. Luvvas stated that the west portion of Highway 32 in 0 preoently designated as agricultureo 'The proposal is to keep it that way. Ile suggested that everything north of Kennedy be kept Ln present agricultural use. He supported the statement that Glenwood should be the line between urban and future development at least in that area. He felt that everything northwest of the Zine drawn by the Board in the northwest Chaco rezone should be agricultural use. I:. the proposal for Highway 32 were adopted the r.aa would not be able to handle the traffic., There is no money in sight for: future improvement, on Highway 32, He felt that rural residential: should be eliminated west of Highway 99. 6. 'Gerald Geiger, Butte County Farm Bureau. Mr. Geiger stated that: he apologized that the farmers were not aware of the intent of the rural residential category. Agriculture does not support all of the urban areas. The hearing was continued to May 1.5, 1979 at 200 p.m. Chico 20006 The organization, writes forwarding comments to the proposed, General Plan Land Use Element: that is under consideration by the Board. Handled earlier in the meeting. Lime Saddle Community Service District., The District writes regarding the General Plan Land use Element and Map and asks that the Beard designate Zone "A" laird use in the District, as residential urban -low density. Matter handled earlier in the meeting,, Butte County Farm Bureau. The Bureau writes regarding the General Plan Land Use Element and asks that the Board send'the matter back -to the Planning Commission for additional work. Matter handled earlier in the meeting. _ N E��s9M 5 5' .A�''�' f .';.fr! f � ,..ni! 1 i'r;•+'tij . .1'.'�*i rf Y ._a. � ,N /r �`r� h S:.. K;, i5 }n; y.: d �4+f '!'A �� 5t :".951 , � !t. �N:}[.F. r y a �4.i�,:� a rel df r"$1 ✓ ' ,+�5 n .qa,� w ,.s.4 ,,r an.;e r �.,a; a r v..i 5.i % r� i, Ei ,+�'� �. • t• � r<r s ,5t rn ,, t, a. � r � . .f �:f.Q, r r'�r f�,i � "jt XA,ifS� r �'t, .a�'?g.� : �,t AY kS -j: 1 �h, �.t .�,I Y M s Jr�'f`, t� .'k , r,. � .• �„, V. a ,o- ',�,i �i '�`.. 5 f{,:j Y.4 .tl�s..' +�', :� Y ;w a�'.:.C{ f /v'.•!,-�a}i.h �..,;°r r w. 7. •iak .�. . .;� pi, .,F :,:1 �"V15 P f t�� l.1>{. h 1 .::5 a:„�'. k� t t.;. a iY�'�!� r 5t,�la,,.. 5�`I �5.+;.:r S",�y,5 �; y� 9. �i1sY}}., ,I .l.r rfx•.�y+� r etil4":, j 1"�, C. '�-s �1rt. S.�srli'.S.�FAr.4..ra. ;( y4 }4 y1r; �'�lt ,., �ih�.F,i ��. J ii i✓+,1.1 G':i �5 ae ,:,f,.. et�i�r� 5n ltd MA BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 21, 1979 B. LAND USB MAP - priorities on stlzdy areas 79-65-2 384 It was agreed that the following priorities be established f,r Land Use Map Studies 1. East of Biggs -Gridley to the Feather River. 2. South Chico North of Durham. 3. North Chico -north of the Chico Airport. BUTT11 COUNTY PLANNING CCM7.1xSSION WN1111"5 - March 21. • 1970 13: LAND 1rSE ELDIENT 79-64-1"372 Both Commissioner Bennett and, Chairman Iflieeler commented ,tout th.C� proposed. changes Kyle hutterwick summarized the chronology of the history of the project, pointing out the fact that tho organization and contents of the Land Use Element was designed, by staff and. the Commission in conjunction with State Guidelines. He added that the text seemed acceptable to most people, and using an exhibit map again pointed out and explained the different land use designations, calling particular attention to recent map changes particularly in the Concow and Yankee Hill area which was recommended primarily for Dural Residential. A1r. Butterwick also noted that three separate projects, specifically, " Craig- Afooretown", "Highway 3211, and "North Esplanade" were to be incorporated into the map amendment. It was noted th.,t a sequence of future map amendments and a prioritization of mapping areas was currently under evaluation by staff and the Commission. Chairman Wheeler declared a recess and asked those interested to take a close Look at the map for their area and "see if you still need to address the area". The hearing was open to the public. (64-2-201) Tillman. Daley, President, and Carl Fischer, Secretary for the Lime Saddle Community Service District, expressed concerns about their area, and added that their organization had signed a contract with the Department of Water Resources contingent upon water charges. Mrs. Blair then read the following letter: March 21, 1979 Butte County Planning Commission Oroville Cali gornia Gentlemen: There has come to the attention of this District, through inquiry from the Butte County Public T,lorkc Department, Environ- mental Review Department, Health Department, etc., when or if this District will furnish ,rater to pending applt-cations for sub- division and/or parcel maps concerning landwithinthe boundaries 111ITT COt)NTY PLANNING COt DIJ S S x ON T11Nl1T1' S - Nlarcli 21, 1979 of this District. Consequently, Board members are concerned about the Land Use Element of the ,Butte County general Plannot,r under consideration by your Commission. A reading of the February, 1979, Draft Reprint does not indicate that your staff has given consideration to the present, as.well as the emergent, land use in the Lime Saddle Community Service District, Particularly in view of Lime Saddle C/S District not being mentioned in Section.5.42 on page 79. ° Lime Saddle C/5 District is independent of the Paradise Irrigation District, having been formed under Government Cade Section 61100, and has all of the retained powers authorized in Government Code Section 61600. Presently, Lime Saddle C/S District is proceeding with the planned construction of a 200,000 gallon storage tank and g inch distribution main along Pentz Road, under a Davis-Grunsky loan of $235,000.00, to distribute fresh water from its recently completed Deep Well No, I. Lime Saddle C/S District has also contracted with Butte County for taking of water from Lake Oroville. Lime Saddle` C/S District has under consideration a $300,,000.00 grant for a waste water (sewer) disposal plan and ha,,; been assigned project No. 1952 or the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Wastewater Treat-ment Facilities Priority and Project Last adopted March, 19713. There is further concern over the present Use 1,1ap of the present or existing GeneralPlan clOssifying La rid land in Lime Saddle C/S District as primarily grazing -open land, and further reading of the February draft indicates the present A-2 zoning will result in a reclassification to Rural Pesidential. Land Use, rather than as Low Density Residential, which is the present pattern of use. Please be advised that the President and Secretary would like to confer with staff and C+7mmission members in implementation of' the Land Use Plan Map coverilag the Lime Saddle C/S District: as mentioned in Chapter V of the February,9 Draft Reprint. ry tr fly yours Cexl'�tA�. Fischer, Secretary -3- a BTITTla COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1979 Mrs.. Blair stated that Lime Saelrllt� arw,a :Ls one of the priorities the .t; will receive intensive study. Lee Hendricks, Big Bend Road, President of the Ooldcn Fecithor Volunteer Fire Department, expressedconcerns that the timter mountainous area, as they now know it can bre destroyed. Leslie Steid.el, 7630 Lumpk :n Road, expressed approval of the proposed element and requested that zoning proceed as rapidly as possible to establish a clear pattern of land iase Norman Frost,, Bald Rock, expressed the same sentiment. In response to a question from Bernice Stanhope, Chairman of the Oroville Realtors' Land Use Committee, Commissioner Bennett said that in his opinion the Land Use Tent is strong enough to protect the agricultural land, and added -that we are also subject to State mandated laws in the future—laws made by a Legislature dominated by urban counties. Bob Morton,, referring to a letter dated Januaily 30, 1979 regarding AP 42- 09-.07, again requested that his property be included in the General Plan proposal for the west siae of Highway 32. After discusca,on motion was made by Commissioner Bennett, seconded by Commissioner Bverhard to amend the proposed General Plan amendment to Highway 32 proposal to straighten the line in the area of Mr. Morton's property, except fior the jog to include Mr. Morton's entire parcel, designating said parcels for commercial use. AYES: Commissioners Bennett, Everhard, Lambert, Gilbert and Chairman Wheeler. NOES: No one ABSENT; No one Motion carried. In response to a concern expressed by George Johnson, Palermo, regarding the zoning of existing A -S in the area, it was explained that this was a general plan change and there would be no change in the zoning at this time. It was stressed that not all properties can achieve the l -acre size in the 1-40 acre designations due to physical constraints, water availability and road access: Robert Huskey, Oroville, asked (141) that a consolidated map be posted i F A BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 21, 1979 an n convenient area showing the land use categories. Staff- inxormf)d the audienco that a reproducible land use map would be prepared. f;rt, severs{'l. we.-ks and available to the public at that time, The hearing was closed. Commissioner Bennett made a motion to modify the exhibit map to include properties (Ari 42-09.07 and adjoining property, portion of) on the Highway %Z proposal on the west side of Highway 32, and by resolution to immediately forward the map and the Land Use Element (Reprint of February 1.979) to the Board of Supervisors recommending approval. His motion was seconded by Commissioner Everha'rd. AYES: Commissioners Bennett, Everhard, Lambert,Gilbert and. Chairman Wheeler. NOES No one. ABSENT: No one. Motion. carried. Commissioner Gilbert then thanked the audience, particularly Bernice Stanhope, for all their help and congratulated staff on a job well done. The receipt of a 2 -page petition from Bob Browning, Ron Imhoff and Bill Stone was formally acknowledged. -S- -gl'pl XP MITT'T COONTY PLANtv',Mri 0,014 f S:i,T( N 1•iimini,S - March 7, 1179 E. CONVINC,f I7 PROM]'[:}iRT1ARY 21 1,97 ►; 7.. LAND II,ST, RLPN11;NT OF THE IMTT}i coVIINIT) C-I.:N'F AAL PLAN (79-4()) 79 -SP -Z-77 Mx. Butterwick noted that the second Printing of the Land Use Element was recuntly camPl.eted and is noir qv IilaJ)Ic at the Plannbig Department office. The C,0111mission exPressod satisfaction with the COmpleteness of th revised. text. Chairman Wheeler stated That due to the length of the agenda and the large number of people present that there would be no exception made to the 5 -minute limitation for each speaker and asked that attempts be made not to bo repetitious,, He added that copies of a 2 -page document, dated March 7, 1979, entitled, "Land Use Elements",, signs by Bob Brotrning, Ron Imhoff and Bill Stone OF Chico, had just been received by the Commission and would be reviewed at a later date --rather than taking valuable time away from those who desire to speak tonight, The hearing was open to the public. Robert Huskey, :3656 Hilldale Ave., presented a letter to the Commission, dated February 15, pointing up his corc,cerns regarding possible "Timber Mountain" and "Mural Residential" designations particularly in the Lace Concow (Pinkston) area and in the Berry Creel; area, and again requested that the Commission consider a "Rural Residential" category for these locations. He also questi.onotl the completeness and accuracy of the pro- posed Lana Use Plan flap. Thoma,,; Shay, 167 Canygn Highlands Drive, Oroville, expressed concern (59-2-352)) that all A -Z znning would become "Rural Residential". Mr. Butterwick said that the A-2 Zone is an unclassified zone and not consistent with the General flan and will eventually he removed. Bernice Stanhope, representing the Orovi.11e Hoard of Realtors', read a 3 -page document, dated March 7, 1979, in. full. Commissioner Bennett took exception to the first paragraph of this doc- ument which stated that the Commission intend's to core- *,(1-r ,adoption of the Land 'Use Element text this e ,ening as noj� IrritterL. (5:39) Milt Emer on, 368 Canyon Highlands Drive, manager of Qroville Wyandotte !z•rigatiojz T)i�trict, saki that maps had been prepared showing present availability and predicted availability of put)li.c services, and requested that managers of the various uti,litues he permitted to cork with Plannin(t Staff I -a the development of tic:neral Plan and zoning proposals. A letter, dated Fobruary 14, 1{'�'9, from Mick Garcia, 3.500 Grubbs Road, Caz•oville, was -read. Chairman W11('eler tonk c kcer;tion to the .statement in paragraph ? considering revisions of certain areas oC the Land Use Map. -2- BUTTE COUNTY PLANNTNC C(DIjMISSInN MINUTES March 7, 1970 Jana Wilson, 1125 Montgomery st. nrovilic, compared the actions of staff and the Commission to those of the Marxists. Norman Frost, with holdings in the Bald Rock area, said that he had al- ways been shown the greatest courtesy and ?ood listening ear by staff, but did express concern about, scheduling of the different areas for study and land change InaI a s. �Chairma, Wheeler said it would be up to staff to set g - the time schedule 60-1-42 Tt was pointed out that such scheduling involves several. factors; 1. Development activit Un- classified zoning �� ,� Y or pressures, 2 , Un- g (A-2�aAd A-2 Ltd. 3. Zoning and General Plan in- consistencies. 4. Protection of valuable natural resources and en- vironmental sensitivity. 5.. Availability of research information or data, and 6. Public interest. Rosenda Schons, Box 23, Berry Creek, was concerned that she and her neigh- bors would not be able to split their property and dispose of major portiom of it as a part of their retirement plan (66). Joe Shons, same address, said that the right map should be adopted now --that once adopted anything is hard to change, Emma Morgenroth, 51 Englewood Drive O'ravil1e realtor, owner of property in the Bald Rock area, said that property in that area was goad for nothing except mobile homes and home sites. �, This hearing was continued OVEN until March 21. MITTE COUNTY Pl',ANNING tOMMISSTON MWITHOS - Fobruz ry 21, 1979 Comma.ssioner Bennett and Chairman Wheeler were in attendance. f,hairman Wheeler announced t3iat since thore was not a, cluorum no btasines.s could be conducted and continued all itoms on the agend,i to Mar(:Ji 71 1979: Those items are as follows: IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS-. ---�-. A. C� �2��TT�'ir] D-Y-T-R'M FEARUARY 7 ,' I, 0'1 LAlMITSE ELEMENT OF THE BUTTE COTI,dTY GENERAL P' AN B. NEW HEARING ITEM ON WHICH NEGATIVE, DECLARATION REGARDING ENVIRf1K! ;NTAL IMPACT JiAS BEEN RECOMMENDED Butte County Board of Supervisors amendment to all (79-13) "C-2" (General Commercial) zoning districts to allow drive-in restaurants wi.tliout first securing a use permit. V. MISCELLANEOUS A lYOOD PROCESSI;.'G - Study definition of "Wood Processing" (80-79) B, CHICO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONS PLAN - Review document (77-73' propared by R. Dixon Sneas Associates C. BIGGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - Disposal of Rao Bonito School,. Planning Commission review for conformity with Government Code Section 65402 D. CONSIDERATION of letter from Robert Martin re; Commercial zoning on AP 42-09-07, Highway 32, Chico E. REFERRAL FROM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - How do we govern the erection of Commercial signs along the Skyway and, in the Chico area:'? F PLANNT,NIG COMINIISSION BY-LAWS -� Consider amendment to ARTICLE V, Section 1, regarding meetings Rae Wheeler, Chairman BUTTE COUNTY PIANINTNG) COMITSSION MMOTTIS -- February 7, 197.9 B v IAND USE' 111j"MpNI, Witli reference to the 4 --page doctimonj, I°CcCllvc,f from cllico 2()()() '7,1!4t WC,01C, Mr. Btitterwick Tead flio ",-pa , , qo "CoilirnittOO IZOcommendation.,;" rt, sulting from tile study of this mattor—CommontLng on oach item roi,ardinp, the original sl1fl,"TO-Stion, and the cOm"littOO's recommendations: 11 h a , t a Xt Of' t1lO- "COMMi,tteci Rocommen(jati OIIF,,, f,01 1,ojjs 1. The "islands' refer-r(,,d ter in this, stateme,-It b('suited for Grazing -"Open Land. Tmay or may not his dotermination will require independent rorenrc-h and revi(iw focusing on opecific The land Its doolemations indicated on the proposed mall ave intended to be refined and changed where t.jpcer after the text is approvf?(J. ,sarOr , 2 'the? introduction of a new category on the map to protect ,41ainot the divisl.on of property to 0110 acre parcel in tfi'c� Rural .Residential arOaO May be an effective mea,nure. However, the"identif leat iorl of areas suited fsuch a category can,only be df.-.termined after exto:enziveo data collection and research C!Xplori.ng such factora as soil, slope road access and environmental concerns. j drainage, does include 11 Moreover, tho text '"safeguards_" such as policy language and develop- ment criteria which, if administered properly, Will aid in the determination of appropriate parcel sizes, density and zoning. Thc-se safeguards can be used. effectively to protect 11sensitive" areas until the map is modified to more accurately rOflect desired land une patterns. Lag e 2 Page 51 Line 33: Accept recommendat;ion Pase 28, Lines 15--18: Modify accordingly:"The material welfaro 04, , the people is served by the free enterprise economic SY�-,tomj based o ! n tho priv,,ite ownership of property. rr Page 128, Lines 21-t,&2: Accept recommendation Page 28, Lines 40-43: Rejoct recommendation Page 29, Lines 10-11: Ace �'Pt recommendation Page 29, Lines 42-45: Reject recommendation Page 29, Lines 48 -co: Rewrite as follows - "To maximize this -2- MWM�. -.-. J- -7- BUTTCOUNTY NANNTNG W�,JMJSSJON MINUTT'S 7, 1979 1.of v,,00lylonflt ftv1h and -ho It"Ve") " f"rv'"8"""'ati4Of existing I-w0f-Irl1zingthat d o s 1 gna b (,i (1 ri(A j. Tr1TY1fAdLr1LV1Y 1, nrtd 0 ILUV�� Av€,Uablo fo.r, use. tlra�il it!' Of dk'volopmorlt of thoir ,,,In (,t,,qJI )ectt!(J, v0, Tjhvo 15CI-5,1; 1 a, t recorrilliondr biorl 1"Inoo v_jo: PT o d 1 fty p o are for c" tO,rcad: "Coll P, Wor T1111 u. -I t-110,se avL�as whore urban -- i I encT10a0h_ 1"W =I(Je .1n.iloacl.,; .al agri-cultural areas and whop(, p,ru"t official. actioij.; I'Inivo planned areas, for devolOpMr,.n,1;.,, By changing the word dosigmate to consider the County can exercise some fle� 1-TIMY—and FE'scretion where urban encroachmont and pant Off.Lcia.21 actions are of question, Page 30, 1,,'ne D4, - Accept; �Ocommondatlori Page 30, Line 15. recommendation Page 31, Lines 4-6: Pop roti sons alluded to above, ohange the fir4t word in policy �; from desjFzlnnte to consider. Page 31, Lines 33-36: Same as above Page 31, Lines 45-46: Acknowledgment Of statement Page 32: Add policy B tO MinEral Resources to read as follows: "En,courage the zeclama7t-16of 1—a —n -�,d extracti6a.11 s subj ect to mineral Page 33, Line 14: Reject recommendation- For explanation on this subject please refer to Lilies 50-56 On Page 56, and Lines 1-4 on Page 57 of the original text. Page 33) Line 42., Modify accordingly: "Balance, residential densities with traff%lc carx-Jing capacities 00 existing and Proposed circulation pirnzyf Page 33, Lines 51-52:. Reject Vecommendatioa Page 35, L4ae 46: Reject recommendation - In the Planning process, consideration to "need" is cert essential .., very difficult to accurately Concern, but one which i, certainly a valid and quantify. Page 35, Line 40: Accept recommendation Page 36, Lines 20-21: Rephrase policy E acco the separation o' f he rdingly :"Encourage heavy industrial and residential areas with -3- BUM COUNTY PLANNJNG CmJJss1()N NITNUTES - Vebruary 7, 1979 OtIlOr u-sies, natural. barri.evs Or public facilitiec.t, Page 377 Line 28: Acf'*,PPt reCotamendatlor, Page 38, Line 3: XAd policy D to Drairkafve and F1,00d 0011b-rol Facilities, 'I , ' Direct future urb-- 0a=iaCv;Y-YT-5—" aretas . If G1 f lood-p2aill Page 38: 'Add policy D to Schools: "Fnc0Ur*U-P setting aside Park land in now r,�sid6al 11tiareas.'' Page 45, Line 14: Acknowledgmetit of statement Page Lt 5, Lille 37: Reject recommendatic:n- In con,-,ideration of item 5 under zoning factOvs - Economic Viability --both existing and alternnttvo crop uses should be examined. Page 48, Line 43: Reject r�!-commendatior- - Theprotec'tion and enhancement of scenic areas adjacent to selected highways is an important consideration. Hovlever, the rt!Fulatif,on of development; in all aroas visible from p scr,,nic highways could encompass man,,,- where of r-;vate-,-4 11atu'ral vLst,as or landsoapon Occur. From a practIcai sense, perhaps development should bo. regulated from a fixed di,:tance from a designated scenic corridor. Until tb1s Issue is resolved the reference to Scenic Highways as a zoning factor could rrisult in misinterpretation. The Vemainder of comments appearing in the letter, deal wi'h minor editorial or grammatical changes Only. The committee recommends incorporation of each of these suggestions. Mr. Butterv,,110-, fil-icii ro-,irl t.a, PROPOSED ADDI'710NS TO THE LAUD Ji aha TEXT (Staff Rl�cortmendation8) Page 55, Line I?,- "DUe to Uhr,' size and divl,,rsity cf Butte County, formulating a rM rye ' w land use for th(, t - re County could talo several yoav��.' If"or this rf-,asoji large.-- cele changed to the CoiLqty,,--, -'Xistine; Land UsO 'kall 14-1al., 1 b madef011olving adoption amttmdments 0 On spocLf ic areas of the County, and. w.J,"-'L 'lye will foc-U0"' the text- Future map developed 'in conjunctioi-, with the policies of the and other development crjtejrja. This Procedure encourcl.4,Sec the early util-*Zation o. 4' the text in the evaluation-- of ezones, USO Permits and subdivision requests." -Page 577 Line 4: . "Although the land use categories and BUTTE COUNTY IST:ANNTNG COMNITS SIGN MINUTES - Fobriviry 7, 1979 a,osooiated Zoning clans fi.cat:i.ome will allow maximum densities in some emacs, this sliould not be construed to moan that maximum densities are appropriate in ai.t areas. The most appropriate density for a given area must be determinod. afteran examination of poli.c:i os and related standards for develop- ment." Motion i4as made by Commissioiier Kennett, seconded by Commissioner Olbert, to :instruct staff to reprint this document as corrected so that thr reprint carr be in the hands of the Comrili5sion for study prior to I ebrua.ry- Z! at which ti.rne this matter will again appear on the agenda. Motion was then made to instruct staff (lsnv•i ronmentai. 11ov:iew) to submit tilis project to the :hate Cle,a.ringhause for review imniedl ately AYES: Commissioners Bennett, Gilbert, Lambert end Acting Chaµrman 14verhard . NOBS: No one. ABSENT: Chairman Wheel er. . Motion carried. Berni.ece Stanhope asked that this matter be placed early on the agenda for February 21 and that she and her group be permitted to make at :,ast three presentations BUTTE COUNTY PLANNTNG (1,0*4TSSTON MINUTEiS - January 24, 1979 EGr': VT. PUBLIC 11FAR10 - Cn'NTTNUED A. LANr ISE ELEMENT OF THP BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLA4 (70-40) P.C. 79-53-224 Kyle Butterwick again reviewed the proposed Land Use Map, stating that staff had refined and accurately depicted the areas to be retained in the Grazing, Open Land category. he explained that the adoption of the proposed map does not represent the preferred patterns for development in the County. He added that because the county is so complex in its physical -4- in do 'A ;" : 1i 11'1 1'l (''tll INTY P 1,ANN 1.1*i (1 (10l•41t1I S S l MI 1v1IN0,1S .January 4, 1079 find social. at°tributos, a c•ornprehons ivy* countyvtaidc niap change woul.cl p�vosont ol)vlotis problgins. The mit'1a before you, he exlalainvd, is ail inter)iiodlrtt:o inealiurc, rocognir!ng t•h"tt they jnnp itiri ll he changed bl it njorc complete 1',1.,111011 foll.owi.ng adoption of the t:oxt. Mr. liuttertoic_k °fatCcl t.h�tt it was li: s positiontll"it the snc l fic; use off land i.n. tho proposod Rural Residential category could be sufficlently ro ulatod tllro if;h :=,Ing and t1w use of rubor provislons in. the Land Ilse Text such its Policy Statevents and 1levelopiitell:t Critorla.. l?arl Nelson reminded ('41.1) the Commi.:'s.ion of the mese to gor clivi roily,. ntrnt,ri'1 docuiricnts started through the State (11earinlihou:,e as soon as 1)o:;,,11)1c and tagain em»mented drat they must: consider follotaing alternatives that would lacy the least crivironmcntall�! d�.maginl . T was agreed that tlio f1,o5nmiss ion shaulcl await action on this matter mitil the noxt nroet inl; lvhen, 1t,tilly, -Ill c:eilmissione;rs would he _present. Mr. 11ttttorwIC]". revlewcd Itis ntemol-a.nduni to the Coimiii;;slon, elated Janu- ,Try )!, ir'), oil t i.tied, "(Uossary oaf Tor.ms-Land Ilse 11'leinent Text", point i rig tip t1w extreino difficulty o f compiling a f)"lossary which taotal.d he Iflutually acteptablo to till concerned. It Tait, agreed by the 3 co-ni r1il ,sioners Present not to pursuo this 1)ro1) ei)i at this bine. Recess. 9:n7 to 91:1.5 P. M. Cha•irinan lVhcol.er ac.lcnowledgad tbo receipt of the following 4 -page doe— talncrlt frol-a rf(1('0 2(101) listing a nuinl)or oC sttpgostions c.oncernine 111x, LaTld 11Se 1"10111011t: ra,,uary 18 1979 Members of the Butte County Manning Commission. " The CHICO 2000 organization has carefully studied the proposed General; Plan Land -Use Element and its recent changes. We certainl ,upport the Commis- sion's, efforts to revise the text and make it a more useful plan. sng tool. We offer our suggestions in a spirit of constructive cooperation, and believe that these changes will give Butte County a much better Land --Use Element.. In reference to the Land -Use Map, we support the Commission's efforts to move away from the present l -acre minimum for th(, Open -gazing category, and we concur with the 40 -acre minimum. However, ,A e have ;wo major concerns: 1) Allowing a range of 1--40 acres for Rural-Aesiden,tial would accelerate the breakdown of land. into I -acre parcels. 2) Similarly, if all land ,presently in the Open-Gra2.ing category, and not under the Williamson Act, is moved to the Rural�Resident»al category, this would create at least the appearance of allowing tens of thousarttis of INacre lots, scat- tered across the grasslands and foothills east of Highway 99. "Islands" of .Rural- Residential Land, surrounded by Open -Grazing land, would result. To deal with these concerns, vire have two recommendations_: 1) In classifying land as Open -Grazing, include n:6Williamson Act land Lj BUTTE (,()1JMTY PLANNTN(; CO�NTSSION WNIT FS - Janunry ?(1, 1979 a .100assary to prevent the creation of these islands (see, for example, T,20,X, R 3E, Sec. 4, near the intersection of Clark Road and Highway 70).-'.'., 2) Revise the Land -Use Classifications as follows: a) Use, Rural-ResIdential for the 1-10 acre range. b) Establish a Rural -Open Land: 10.40 acres category to include those areas 'too sm11 . allVto . include in either the "Grazing and OpenLand category or the "Timber -Mountain" category, but for which 4evelop- ment in 1 -acre lots is not appropriate., Criteria such as average parcel size, distance from the urban areas, slope, and soil types should be used, in determining inclusion in this category. Below are listed a number of changes which we believe will substantially improve the element. We've used the following code: EDIT« refers to a minor editorial or grammatical change. OT: refers to the line numbering in the August, 1978 draft text'.' RT: refers to the line numbering in the recent revisions. EDIT -RT -P.5, line 33: replace "increased" with "enhanced" RT -p.28, lines 15-18: reword as follows: "The material Nelfare of the people has been well served by the free -enterprise economic system, based on the private ownership of property" EDIT -RT -p. 28, lines 21-22- replace "it's" with "its" RT -P.28, lines 40-43: The phrase "Longer planning periods also require more attention to timing and scheduling so as to avoid premature development and wasteful land conversion" is true, valuable, and should be reinserted in the Element, The State Guidelines for General Plans discuss this very problem, leaving out this phrase may result in legal problems. We accept the 20 -year planning period, as long as the above language is reinserted. EDIT -RT -p.2 9, lines 10-11., "both In the county as a whole, and in its various sections" RT -p.29, lines 42 -45: The phrase "Scattered development not only requires costly extensions of public facilities and ser rices but can also lead to inefficient use of land, energy, andother natural resources" should be ceinserted, in .the Element. This phrase is critical in explaining the numerous problems re- sultingg from nonorderly development. EDIT -lines 48-49: rewrite as "recognizing that some land designated for develop- ment is not immediately available for use" Line SO: replace the phrase "must be respected" with the phrase "should be considered". Otherwise, the phrase "must" implies that anyone with development plans must be allowed to go ahead, regardless of the effects. RT -p.30, lines 55-58: we recommend replacement with the sentence "Agricultural -6- BUTTI: COUNTY PUNNNG (T)NINIM9SION MMI'll"'; 24, 1070 zoning has not been widely achieved In the urban fringe areas, due to the conflicts betweenthe agricultural L'CeS Of Jar 1. 1 land &Ind, frequently, the Impact of development and official actions." This version says essentially the same thing, but avoids the rhetorical criticism Of agricultural zoning. RT -p.30 continued, lines 7-10: Replace POIJCY C) With In deciding Whether or not to designate an area for agricultural use, the impact of urban encroach- ment and Past official acts shall be taken into account" i The present wording Of this Policy would open the door to numerous problems and controversies: for example, would the presence of a handful of small parcels next to a large orchard constitute ""urban encroachment" I thereby Lq9_91ring the designation of the orchard as "non-agricultural" .9 EDIT -line 14: replace "principals" with "Principles" Line IS: replace "Encourage', with "Direct". This should be a county Policy, and the word "direct" is less ambiguous. RT -p.31, lines 4-6. Replace policy r,1) with "In deciding Whether or not to designate an area for grazing, the impact of urban encroachment and past official RT -p.31, lines 4-6 (cont1d.): actions shall be taken into account,!" This parallels our Previous recom- mendation concerning agricultural use. Lilies 33-36: Replace policy d) with "In deciding whether or not to desig- nate an area for timberland, the impact of urban encroachment and past official actions shall be taken into account. 11 OT -p.31, lines 45-46., While we are not proposing alternate wording, we are concerned about subsidizing, from, the county budget, water projects to serve isolated subdivisions. OT -p.32, Mineral Resources. Add Policy b), "Land subject, to mineral extraction � shall be reclaimed after use". RT -p.33, line 14: Replace "Poning" with "designated la I nd-use areas"'.."As presently stated, this Policy could be interpreted to mean that all land needed for housing for the next 20 years should be immeLdiately—zoned for residential use. Such an interpretation could lead Toleapfroggingand pre- mature conversion of agricultural land. Line 42: We recommend replacing "required" with "realistically available". For example, there are areas In, the Chico vicinity where a 4 -land highway with interchanges is n,-,-eded because of traffic density, but State policies, make such a highway very unlikely. EDIT, lines 51,-52 revise, to read- "of commercial uses in. reside'ntial areas, taking into account the wi&s of residents in the area". -7- r M RT-p.3S, line 46 add the phrase "corresponding to anticipated need"' . This phrase was in the original draft, and will aid in preventing premature urbanization of agricultural, grazing, or timber land. EDIT, Line 4.0; replace "it'sil with "its" ; EDIT -RT -P. 36, rlinesexisting 21: add the re Se "and separate new heavy industrial and s" before "with". EDIT -RT -P.37, line 28; The word should be "acquisition". RT -p.38, line 3; Acid the policy d) "Direct future urban growth away from flood- plain areas that would require expensive flood -control. faciliti,e:s RT -•p.38: We recommend adding policy d): "Encourage setting aside park land. in new .residential areas" RT -p.45, Line 14: If horne occupations are to be allowed in orchard and field crop areas, the. uae Should be tightly Controlled with zoning and use permits. Otherwise, creeping commercializatiox of agricultural land could occur. Line MBdepends Of Potential p use". Clearly theviabilaty of land on what crop is Planted arated. RT -p.48, line 43 Reinsert Policy 8, "Visibility from scenic highways" Excluding this policy will make this Element inconsistent with the Open Space and Circulation elements EDIT -RT -p.50.5, line 18 add "ton" after "adjacent" EDIT -p.51, Hae 15 add "to" after "adjacent'" EDIT -RT -p.52 line 9 The word should b "separate" EDIT--,RT-p„55, line 24: should be "patterns" Line 32: Add "change of" before "designations" requres "both" "determining" and delete the "s" from, r" i Lines 33-34.- Place both before u RT -p.58: lines 14--18 may have to br, amended later. EDIT'--OT-p.64, Line 32, should be "the need" EDIT -RT -p.71, line 23; "field crops" Line 25; "Rural Residntia e We respectfully urge you to consider carefully our recommendations. We ,f BUTTE C,01IN` Y PLANNI:Nri ('MVI•FSSInN NITNUTI'5 - January 4, 1979 offer them in the belief that they will help croute a better Lend—tlso Element for all the residents of Sutto County. sincerely yours, ' Thomas A McCready, a Secretary, C14ICO 2000 a }ie i.n.-tTlIctec7 qt I,r•r to make con i c*s n r this dnctiniont availalhle in the Planning noptartnient to anyone who might wash to review it, and then ap- pointed fa committee consisting of Commissioner Bennett and himself to meet and consider the proposals of tho Chino 2nr)o group and report l>ack to the Conlinission gilt 'tht next meeting. Nl,cl: Garcia) .a) 33nn (rubbs ltoad, Oroville, tat,ain hrouf,ht til) the (III s'ti.on (2-104) of inclusion o" PAC woning in the nrchard and Ficla crops category- reminding the C'oinani.ssion that on such rezones the final development plan is binding. Robert Ilusl Cv, 3656 Ililidal.e, nrovil,le, questioned the advisability of revising only a portion or the F.aind Ilse Map 7,t this tilne . Nir. But•t;erwick stated that Butte is an extremely complex county and that extensive re- search wouldhe necessary before i he mail could be brought completely up- to-date. rn response to a question by Mr. lluskey, lie also saidthat copies of the proposed map woii70 hip available at the Planning Office either for purchase or perusal. In response to a question from Former Commissioner Stutz sega,rding whether or not `the Land Use Nlap can lie changed at this time, Earl Nelson said that from an environmental review standpoint there was nothing; to prevent such changes . !fr. Stutz then submitted a diagram to the Commission depicting sone 2.50 acres in aaost and :southwest Chico. Fio requested that this arca he included as pant of the matp aniondrnent, statin; that this area is rather straight forward in terins of the desired land use:. 11 i1 Stutz askod the Commission to congidex this proposal and other ,a.roas throughout the county ;for map amendments, at this tirle, which would notgenerate ptablic controversy and where the future land u.;e is cicrarly cvident, W. Ruttetwick stated that including addl tio�ial map amendmentsis contrary to the original, strategy of Implementing the I.aand Use Text. 11e stated that such riaap amendments wotild roquirc: cx -alive Staff rusoarch to achieve the nost desirable land use Mattern. This would result in further delays, anal !hould he accomplished after adoption of the text. Iierniece Stanhope requested that alae suggestions of 1%1r. Iluskey and W. Garcia he carried out. ller comment that as now soils map for the County H BlITTE C01INTY PLANNING COMMISSTON ]ATNOTES - Rlnuary 24, 1979 is badly needed riot with agreement, [)tit it was explained that no funds were available. Mrs. Stanhope then suggested ghat the secretories in the Planni,nly, Do- partmont be instructed to contact eligincoring firms i,11 the (,,oij-nty that work wi.th land splits and ask them for input as to glaring deficle-tici.es in the Land Ilse Map. Sho then orfored to correlate publicity—to, work as linson, between the r1nnnIng ( ' *OmmiSsion in(] the modia 'to got large map.,; printod in the newspapers to let the PUblic knOW What is 901nv, on.. Mr. Buttcrivicic said that he did not fool that this assistinco is needed Cat this Him". Tho Commission requestecl that all those Who have specific recommended changes to the Land Use Mal) bring them to the attention of the Planning Commission or to the Planning staff. Charles Lambert, 1641 River Road, Chico, suggested that perhaps public, hearings in the area,-; tiffected mirtht be wise. It was explained that the law requires only publication of ni'atico of chant In land use eloment but that when 11- comes to zoning property oivnors within 300 ft. of the subject property must be notified. Attention was called to the fact that not only density but also many other tactors musir be considered when the question of rezoning comes up. Staff was instructed to place this matter back on. the agenda in 12 weeks. DUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIoN 14INUTVS - January 10, 1979 LAND USE PUMBNT (79-40) Amendment of the Land Use Blement of the Butte County General Plan and Einvironmental Impact Report related thereto, in addition to con- sideration of amending the Land Use Plan Map of the County's General Plan P.C. 79-50-2-284 Mr. Buttorwick called attention to the most recent "corrections" to the Land Use Text, indicating that copies mere available to those in. the audienceNt and asked for comments from the Commission and any other in- terosted'Persons, The receipt of a 3 -page document submitted by Berniece Stanhope, Rep- resentative, Citizens for Responsible Growth, entitled, "Recommendations— Land Use Element Draft", was acknowledged. Mr. Butterwick responded to the comments, in full, He stated that the majority Of these comments have been Previously addressed in the text. In response to Mrs. Stanhope's recommendations, COMmissioner Bennett Suggested that Page 31, Line 52, be changed to read: "Exercise constant vigilance in the protection against export of our ground water supply," also that Page 40 a. should be changed back to read as originally stated: "Preserve open land around and between developed communities." Jean McCanless, 180 Skyline Blvd., Oroville, questioned Item 5, Page 48, Line 41. It was suggested that it be changed to read: "near or ad- jacent to necessary utilities and roads," In response to a question, it was noted that Page 98 "Soil Association and Land Use Capability Classification Table" is intended to be a broad guideline only. The special use of land and appropriate density is typically based on soil testing Of individual, parcels. Milt Emerson, Oroville Wyandotte Irrigation District Manager, Said (51-1 351 that it is unfortunate that the it 'Utilities" in the area had not been called -6- ti BUM COUNTY PLLANN1NGr COMMISSION MTNC1TES - January 1.0, 1,970 upon to participate sooner; that the planning process is not static and added that the public's ,f;eneral distruat of unidentified terms points up the need for a 1�lossary of terms used in the text. Mr. Emerson also recornn ondod that overlay maps be made showing all utilities --irrigation, water, drainage, PG&F0 etc, --that are available at the present time and proposed to be available in 5 years.. Ile .said that he had contacted most of the "utilities" in the County, and in response to a request from the Commission, promised to make a sincere effort to get such a project under way as soon as possible. Mr. Butterwick commented that most utilities, including OWID, were for- warded a Draft of the Land Use Clement and comments were requested, 11e also indicated that the 1.1tility companies and other agencies involved. in public facilities design will be contacted in the process of develop- ing special Land. Use Plan Maps of the County. Nick Garcia, Oroville--3300 Grubbs Road, questioned (51.2-06) that PAC was not listed is a Consistent lone, Page 45, Orchard & Field Crops. Staff pointed out that the primary land i4se in this category is oriented to the cultivation or harvesting of food crops. ,lames E. Markwith, 7300 Lower Wyandotte Road, Orovil.l.e, questioned (104) the terminology used --Stating it was unclear and confusing. Commission- er Bennett pointed out the difficulty of compiling a glossary to fit the minds of everyone. LAND USE PLAN MAP Mr. Eutterwick summarized the legislative requirements leading up to this proposed Land Use Plan Map change. He said that staff's recommen- dations were to retain the County's existing Land Use Map for the present with the following exceptions li Addition of proposals for Highway 32 West, North Fsplanade, 1+leridian-Mllnj ar and Craig -Mooretown Ridge Argas. 2, Addition of "Rural Residential" category to Grading -Open Land areas, except where Williamson Act contracts are in force and where special zoning is at least 40 acres. 31 identify as Rural Residential"the TM -I, 2, 5, 10 A 20 areas with. in the Timber Mountain category, recognizing that area -wide and detailed map amendments and rezonings would be accomplished as soon as possible to more accurately reflect the policies recommended in the text. In response to a question regarding Rural Residential, Mrs, Blair said that parcels now in existence would not be prohibited from developing but that future development could be affected --in the immediate future, -7- liUTTE', COUNTY PLANNING, COMMISSION MTNIJTl„S - January 10, 1979 Mr. Nelson commented that circulation through the State Cloaril+g housefor environmental cons iderations was for the text only, a4nd t1va,tz' the original map was adopted prior to the need for environmental do-asider- ations and does not now meet legal requjrcrionts -for considorati(ij, of - alternatives that might cut down potential Lnivi.r0J1M0Tltal damage, Mr. Nelso suggested exploring alternatives and recommended the sent of a new category {minimum parce, size of 1.5 acres) to be ()yflployed in foothill areas not -suited for Rural Residential by nature of slope, soil conditions, lack of road access, or proximity to other residential uses, Former Commissioner John Stutz 'took issue that the Present Land Use Map is inadequate just because it was not studied from an enviVonmental standpoint at the time of adoption, and asked how many other maps throughout the County would be inadequate for the same reason. In response to a question, Counsol Blackstock said that thelVillia.mson Act is not limited, on the basis of zoning, Adonna Brandt, 4 Donna”. Street, OToville, requested that meetings such as this be given f-ront* page publicity on local newspapers so that everybody would know when important matters are coming up. Motion was made by Commissioner Bennett, nnett, seconded by Commissioner Lambert, that this item, be carried OPrN on the Planning Commissionjs agenda in two weeks, and every two weeks thereafter until this matter is resolved, and that staff refine the details of the proposed modifi- cation of the Land Ilse Plan Map. AYES: Commissioners Bennett, Gilbe:t, Lambert and Chairman Wheeler. NOESW No one. ABSENT: Commissioner Everhard. Motion carried. BTtT'T'F COirNTY PLANNTNl COMMISSION MINUTES - December 13, 197P 111. APPROVAL OF MINUTES, for November 29 Minutes were approved with the following addition: Page 10, Paragraph 7 finding that it complies with the County's 11,01 General. Plan and the reason is to eradicate "A -Z" in the area and the reason for the project is to provide alternate area Dousing An Northwest - Chico. A. TjAtD USE ELF'MENT (79:40) Mr. Butterwic noted t�1t a -,era es of corrections to the Draft [,and Use Element Text were forwarded earlier to the Planning Commission for, their review and consideration this evening, The list of corrections, Butter - wick indicated, was a composite of recommendations :from. State and local government, agencies, public testimony through a previous public hearing on the pr, posed clement, and recommendations from several Planning Com- missioners and members of. the Planning Staff. The Planning Staff sub- mitted ..,ritten comments and recommendations to many of these comments. Chairran Bennett then reviewed, each proposed change, page by page. Mr. Butterwick presented 2 new pages of changes- reading them in full. The Commission made recommendations accordingle. (see proposed list of corrections as approved by the Commission.) Patrick Jaffuel, 172.9 Boynton, was opposed to all policy statements on Page 35, 31 and 33 --stating that such policies will stifle development. (2-24.9) Engineer Bill Geddis expressed concern (624) about the wording of policy statement on :Page 42 concerning erosive soil --particularly of the type in the Bald nock area. James Owens, P 0 Box 4054 Chico clusion of "Economic Viabi�.it 't , questioned the x11- y , Line 37, Page 45. Dennis Turpin felt the inclusion of "Local Desires" under Zoning Factors, Pages 46,47,48 & 49 was misleading. Berniece Stanhope, representing the Oroville Board of Realtors, expressed concern that development on grazing and open Land would be curtail- ed. Robert Huskey, 3635 Hilldale, Oroville shared her concerns and asked why PAC zones were not included in "Consistent Zones" on Page 45 etc. It was noted that the plan is that the new Land Use Map is to be adopted simulta- neously with the Land Use Element. Staff was instructed to rea.dvertise this hearing for January 10, 1979, and make recommended changes to the Land Use Text. Further, staff was instructed to consider the nature of the Land Use Plan Map which must, be a component of the Land Use Element. I BTITTI` COONTY PLANNING COMMISSfON! MIN11TES - November 15, 1978 B. TTT,M ON MITCH I11T12O71,11MIMM, TMPACP RTWMIT VAS RE, 0 -'all MT_a AMENDMENT TO THE, LAND IM' I'Ll"MY'NT OF TIM BIrTTI''COUNTY GENEMAL PLAN, fil I(Iditjoi'. to of amending the legend of the Land Use Plan Map of the at),Is s Gollorfil flan 79-41-1-113 Mrs. Blair turned the meeting over to Mr. Bilttorwicl<- Mr, Biatorwick entimeratecl the reasons for the necessity of revision of the Land Ilse 13lement Text-. and reviewod the "Summary Of the Proposed Toxt", a copy of which had alroody been presented to the Commissioners. lie also pointed out the potential benefits of the revision and stated that this draft had. been circulated to sonic 150 Federal, State and county Agencies and special districts. He added that comments had been To- ceived from some and noted that thoso comments --together with staff's answers to the comments- had also been given to the Commissioners tonight. Ile then emphasized that only the Land Ifso Klement Text is being considered at this time, E.arl Nelson stated that lie felt this is a good. MR --judging from the lnclof comment,.; to the contrary received from agencies to which it was circulated. In response to a query from Bob DuBose, 2175 Nordon (428), it was again noted that the Land Ilse Map is not being considered at this time, Gregg Montgomery, 34 Pobblowood Pines, brought up the question of what this land use proposal could do to present industrial zoning. It was explained that zoning must be in compliance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan --which could bring about some changes in zoning. Glen Kendall, Bay Avenue, took exception to the policy statement on Page 29: "Provide sufficient sites and facilities for continued County population growth of 3% rer yearo allowing for varying growth rates for individual communities." lie stated that more flexibility should be allowed toid warned about the dangers of forecasting. To illustrate, he stated that In 1.950 official Predictions were that the College in Chico would not exceed 1890 studentq, and added that today there is in excess of 13,000. lie also felt that the 10 -year time frame that had been chosen for the life of f -his element should be removed. Ron Shutt, Forest Ranch, agreed with Mr. Kendall. Chairman Bennett also asked that the eleiiient not be tied to specifics. adding that "the function of the Planning Commission is not to regulate BUTTE! COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 15, 1078 the market place." (251) ,John Luvaas, 1953 Hacienda Oaks, an tittornedy ropreenting the newt)- aid formed "Chico 2000" organization, S, that this element is a major improvement over the old one, but suggested that 15 years and up would be a more realistic time frapic than the 10 years as Proposed, also that 2t appeared to be a more realistic gYO1vt1I Projection --in contrast to the Vloposed 3growth rate, He also requested that the clement treat the proble, of long term tax implications, stating that "growth in the Avrong places costs the taxpayers more,,. Mr. Buttorwick said (41-2-48) that if . you have O statements make them now. bjections to the policy Chairman Bennett commented that "it is tough to outguess human beings", Pointing out that in 1.965 consultants wore paid to te,Jl the (,, Ilico School District that there Would soon be a need for another 'high school, another junior high school and several elementary schools --and that, noA,1, there are empty school rooms all over Chico, Frank Brazell, Route 6, Box 490-G, Chico, said that in the early lgSos a committee had recommended a shopping center at what is now the end of the Freeway and only 5 acres to be designated as commercial at the location of the now big shopping center in Chico. John Dobson expressed concern for the lack Of 101V cost housing provisions. Chuck Nelson, representing the City Of Chico Planning Commission, said (480) they are in substantial agreement ivith the element. During the ensuing discussion, Counsel Siemsen recommended that this hearing be continued to a date certain and that recommended changes, if a.11Y, to this proposal be presented to the Board Of Supervisors after that dated. Chairman Bennett requested staff to Stay away from specifics, make it a General Plan, and bring back recommendations 'based on the hearing tonight to an OPEN 'hearing on December 11, PL_k ING CO_?-r-iiSS!C Corgi aTY € F BUTTE, STATE OF �C-_4�I�T°C' '�IA R7 E^�(`+�1G ^t' f" PPIS'li?.Y.i..i-'�??'#t.:�L�i�`{FP is sic !' '9.1 �AFa;St'd T: `1�"7 % C�ue1 ;' % Butte first � 1. � gg xs t= t wLfirst.,. a da -peed a xner` l �.�xan 4u n :5-,.,.:.�'y v aJ 9 1 t'—j o -, _i. s t-ecT r. i�ir.F` C - 1 .'� `..i' f Y Y..+s x � �.'s't�� q �tiiCl a?r s`` s, i��_: �_�P_, so s-z� c�,.aeaa.ti s..�t::. z"_...n 'y aI'1.Y 774--R-CAS, due to Vi_, 'PL.ss1_..�_ o * tine v y.k•.s�.ah?.• � w1. the adoption oA. State leg...LJ.La1L i of inani1C L.J.n,-,,�,i no -re de ai. --ii air 4-1 ]Lanes use plans, the General Pian La7-,t n.:,,-` Flee : hxas '.tet .6. 3 '� County iaT a't C> r-. .:c .a...:au.: S,,. the "; t1tte €�oa,YnLS' P'I3.ZJs.�ning _ 7r �sTzment lrc`�.-ss. pre-..ar c£ i �i +er:8 - -s.a �,d JivS. .a.nAE J. use Lef-t 11i.. map a' tLi'e33CYa"YnYa At..s b� r*a5 �as't Lh\ County + 2.a11ning Comnissio.3' ti�..AY' derjai ;7.ie .tn.L _t£r ,nerous cil– z 'ns and t re,. ps am -1, 'hav sou_ ht wr dle r+ m-7! - .jf _"ar--.L t�..Y [23. a . };" iy a�A S. -""a L= .rG��}��".rat- Q . o sniry liras -t s.a�.1� �ix�. {P-11 r,�+_ent 1, us L"iunsulte t v.r tea_ the cit e t h. e aAig A.4. 7-.F7,F E•, Nim alFtL. ` ul!h {Ia lcatio a -rid no -Lice, -Mjr surr.ii4 ta ^dovTerm �et i.i-:_- :a-.... .-:�.. S3si a- r ju,4-ed In JLmli, the Pla-�Y .in,,; Co~: '.i ssl.o-p. �:: E� � �: �.L,�.a .., �ti a..x.�. �_. .✓sa-'d Land, Use i2lenen , i,-hic1i hearing com_nenceut on, Novemb r !,Ix_ _`-�f", .14 _ --ions_ hold thereon ,g total of seven 7j a� xiu Con-�i ssi.on meet � r tc �,Iarch 2U, 1:179; and after._ .,. VelGZGaor' Land Us e. m=,::t. that spit revised text and ?v:a, Conform with tuff tee -and palLicies 'f size": other elem ntics 'a z + .�+ �r4 T sF': T tia rte;- ^s`� $ Count., � 3" x '"a<. C` nz p { ♦♦CC pp y��y+�..v�zz TT AT' 2� fl¢¢ : s� "aa p 3 ="�'` 07-mmm s s i w .Ya.f ♦. g 1AYt:_ s ��.'� - d.'f.. Ji.l SsY'..1�-L��JL,t ter Celttr ..-��ar� ... COY .� t''_c ran, amndi-:ie 1¢. a t.t_='It-ad hereto anlu i e_ -t._ fl C'd hereto Ei34x1�°'_ A, e-xt j'.iL�i'l V7:t_`.i' .. as FY'WL`i Iy`it B and att;_r�ac7.-i edl eretJ ge a7p,1�aF'L a < a aa—ZTMri'�c''i�r -to it o Bao -rd of �',rc.`Ypery s€3rs j�u,=:-av,:nt ta ftovemnment +',7 "''e S'cct. _ c ^?1!- hiC r_ i:eT: _ �z ,�+ �?u3n�. C3'�?SS?on ter_ c.='£.' ` G Lz �_. _ tvent:--zHrstt day of !TarCh, =0.7-9s by the ,-e: �a'i'.a3 Coin iissioners Gilbert,, Bennett-, Lambe's`ty "ax and C� ai man 4,QE S -No one . ArST_11NM1`: No one. Rye Wr"heeler, Chairrlan Butte County Planning Commission C9 RESOLUTION XO79-5;-A PLANNING COM!•SISSION COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION APPROVING REMISED LAID USE ELEMENT TEXT AND �.M.P WEREAS, the County of Butte first adopted a General span in February, 1966, and has from time to time amended said plan; and WHEREAS, clue to the gassing of time, changing conditions in Butte County, and the adoption of State legislation mandating more detailed and effective land use plans, the General Plan Land Use Element has required revision; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Department has ,prepared a draft comprehensive land use text and map amendment; and ;'REAS, t=ie County Planning Commission and departmental staff have consulted with numerous citizens and groups and have sought wide-ranging ;;public participation and input in the preparation of said. draft Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has consulted with the cities located within the county and with the Local Agency Formation Cor -mission; and IMIEREAS, after publication and notice pursuant to Government Code Section 65351 as required by laic, the Planning Commission held a public hearing j� regarding said Land Use Element, which hearing commenced on November 15, 1D'S with sessions held thereon a total of seven Planning Commiss Planning r eet?ings extending to March 21, 1979; and ?I;HEREAS, after careful consideration of the draft Land Use Text and accompanying map, this Commission finds that said revised text and ma?p amend- ment will conform with the text and policies of the other elements of the General Plan. NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Butte County Planning Commission that the map amendment attached hereto and identified as Exhibit A, along with the revised text, identified as Exhibit B and attached hereto are approved andel forwarded to the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Government Code Section 65352. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Planning Commission on the twenty-first day of March, 1979, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Gilbert, Bennett, Lambert, Max and Chairman lv'heeler. NC.E1z No one. ABSENT: No one ABSTAINED: No one. Rae +:`heeler, Cha-,rman Butte County Planning Commission 91 0 . NOTICE OV DETIMMINATION NAV �.' 197 orwillo" Q011foril TO,, /7 Secretary for Resour ces 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento, CA 95814 /57 SUBJECT: E NUV .1. 19719 CLARK A. NC-L$UN, C, to ul� U15 County Cleric popuij ltiCounty of But L FROM (Lend Agency) ) 1) ' $1.1 rOT111i k .1 zI I OV1. ..(, U VO it, L 71 . 7 C IT Oonb T, Drivo .... ... .. .. .. .. . , tliforl*aa riling of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21.152 of the Public Resources Code ERD Log //78-08-30-02 PrOJ U51e Element Revision AP/1 Various 'itate cleat'ingiouse • . Number (It 8 u Mitted to State C"L'aring House Contact Parson "- r Teeplone Num 'e 7 r ljrol�ct Location Butte County Roject Description, -'-- Land Use Ele'llent of, General Plan for Butte County. This is to ativise that the ]'Mt 1.0 COM)t:1 - Board of Supervisors 7ULIaG Agency) has madc the following determinations regarding the above-described projtic L: 1. Tile Project will have a significant effect on the v'll noL environmen.t. 2. L7 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant: to the 'provisions of Cit'OA, and was certified as required by sect, Code, 'On 15085(g) , 14 'California Administrative /_7 A Mogcltive Declaration was prepared for this Project pursuant to the Provir>i0r4l; Of CNA. A copy of tile Negative Declara- Lion may be exar4inod at the Environmental Review Department, 7 Co my Center Drive, Orovi1lo ., California 95965, 3. L-7 A Notice 61 ExemOtion. was filed indicating th.,.s project i exempt from onvixonmcntal review. Appendix 14 - Pige 1 of 2 f. A statement of Overriding Convideration /V adopted for thit s projec. x was, L7 was not, 5. Mitigation rnea,5ures adopted �y the Load Agency to reduce the impacts of the approved projQct are. /.,I" t%,- . STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .1:. The General Plan Land Use Element is required by State law, and a.revision of the element presently in effect is necessary to update factual information, and remove internal iacoitsistencies and inconsistencies with other adopted elements of the Butte County General Plan. 2. The current text of the Land U:;o Element was developed in con- junction with environmental considerations as set forth in an, cavirormental impact report, while the Element it replaces did not have the benefit of an environmental impact report during its formative stage therefore, the revised Land Use El6ent is expected to guide the intensity and distribution of ].and use patterns in a less environmentall damaging manner than 'would be the case under the previous Land Use Element. 3. Much study, analysis, discussion and public input went into the :LOTNIUlati011 of this Land Use Element rewision in order to produce a useful, effective, beneficial planning tool which is reflective of public sentiment and reasonable planning principles. At Signature Earl D. Velson, Director TIM I&vjrormentlal. Director. Dat� Appendix Ii - page 2 of 2 C4TY OF C 11H, � C Ou CAMFORMA Ljl: Fir,(; Ur CITY MANNINO — P. M OOX 04201 05927 T C L, V P H 0 N C (1) 161 0A 0.44101 A F T L R 5! (1 C) 1j. M. 'A 4'3"7331 f?. '911110 Co. rl, r1flinq St.p Mr. Larry Brooks 1 Advance Planning Coordinator 1,979 Butte County Planning Department Orovll/", 7 County Center Drive September 11, 1979 Orovill.e, California 95965 RE: Proposed Butte County (leneral Plan Land Use Map Dear Larry: This letter Is intended to Summarize the concerns raised at our recent meeting regarding conflicts between the proposed County Land Use Element and Chico's General Plan policies. The following points outline the City's major areas of concern, which if unattrnded to could seriously undermine the integrity of current planning efforts. The proposed land use element would: 1. Greatly increase densities in areas outside Chico's Sphere of Influence, and exceed densities described in the City's General Plan. At build -out capacity, these higher densities wouid raise Chico's population by 30,000 persons; an amount which exceeds the highest projected growth to 1995 by three 'times! Clearly then, far more land is proposed for urbanization than could be considered necessary, In addition, most of said Ian,; is located in areas without the desired level of urban services. 2. Undermine the City's General Plan policies concerning preservation of prime agricultural soils on Chico's western border, The map appears to make existing scattered urban development on the west side a standard by which new land use policy for said area is determined. 3. Create traffic conflicts on outlying major arterials due to extensive strip commercial areas. As previously noted, approximately 45% of existing City commercial zoning is vacant. Vacant City industrial zon- ing amounts to 701. We see no reason for large additional areas of cormp,ercial or industrial land use where necessary urban services are not available. Should you hove any questions regarding this matter, please feel,free to contact the Planning Uffice at your convenience. rel ✓ JPH/km .ohi P. HO CP 5799/A -BC -1 Planninq Dirl� �Or W 7r MY OF CMCO, C AAF RMA Orr= CSF G1TY MANNINO — n. U. OnX 042(3, �4JS92 r CHICO TrLEP1 ONL 17161 340.44ni Ah TER 5.1JG1 N.M. 'J'13"7231 aSwga:011 0� e ° Sna �uifs� Cin. ��uatitin+� �c�nr�� Francfsta Butte Cou,rhy Planning Commissio�r � � x�1, 'I County Contpr Drive 96965 )une 14, 1979 Orov it l e, California RG: Proposed Butte county General Plan Land Use Map Dear Commissioners: The Citizen's Advisory Comm1rV,,e (CAC) for the Chico General Plan has reviewed ,your proposed General Plan Land Usu Map for -the Chico urban area. The following coltiinents of the CAC regarding the County Map are provided for ,your consideration. The proposed Butte County General Plan Land Use Map: 1. Is not consistent with the Chico General Plan's 'land use designation„ and existing uses, for many locations within bath incorporated and unincorporated areas. 2, fw(e s riot take into consideration the availability of current and propo,'ad urban services to accommodate the projected level of dUvel oprrent . 3. Provides for urban development on prime agriculture soi''s - a serious conflict with other County and City General Plan policies, Said c�nflict could affect the long ---term econowic stability of the County. 4. Provides for a population substantially in excess of the City of Chico's maculation projection of 75-100,000 for 1995. S. Pn�;ouragns urban sprawl by justifying the urbanization of underdeveloped areas iuhen 'there are considerable existing bypassed vacant: lands within the established urban boundaries. based on the above concerns, the CAC herewith recommends: 1. The County General Plan Map be amended to more closely reflect she City's land use designations. 2. The Spheres of Influence, as adopted by LAFCO, an(] the availability of urban services, be considered when establishing land use designations. Tharrk you for your attention to this matter. Sincernly, C11IC0 Gc:l•WL,PLAM CITI F61'S ADVISOR Lloyd` don- 'hair v JPH/km by CP 5514/P -GP -14 Pw 1.10� e inn , 0irectorr cc Chico City Council 4 Chico Planning Commission k r MY OF CHM0, CAHFORN�A PFFIM� 13r' PITY PLANNIN13 — P. 0, UJOX :1420, IJ592 7 rctxpiff mN ("71c. ,'3r1n-,i tgl — ArTCR wi.Ot) V, M, 3411.7 1,11 October 4, 1978. 7 � , to Mr.. I,/.�, [iutterwi ck Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, California 9590'5 REs Proposed land use element of the Butte County General Plan Dear tiir. Bu 1:terwi ck Pnference, is made to the above -noted ,General Plan Element which was recently submitted for review and comment by the Chico Planning Con - mission and staff. Please be advised that members of -this department and the Planning Commission have had the opportunity to review the proposed Element WNL " L,A-VP and are pleased to advise that we see no problems with the dacuinT enc.,_ U,5 r= k4A p? and we are generally in agreement With the numerous policies and pro- posal s . ro-posals. Both Commissioners and: staff are looking forward to re,rieviiag the proposed Land Use MaLVhen it is conpleted by yourepar mQn�" ` acceov orar appreciation for t; e opportunity -to review and comment on the above project Should you have furtbar questions, please contact the Planning Office at your convenience. Sincerel,/, JPH:ntd VJ n P. Hoole CP 4891/A -BC -3 July 20, 1979 ;Bettye Blair 7 County Drive proville, Ca. 95965 Re: rile 76-54D (AP 39-24--40) Dear Mrs. Blair: This Letter, is to notify The planning department of our pleadings prior to the disc-U.SsiorlS on the Butte County Wrap. We feel that the planning Commission should include this property as single family housing, since housing immediately to the east and south is zoned four homes or more to the acre. The southeast corner is zoned commercial. There is a town library on the same side of the street located on the northeast corner of the subject property. It seems logical that there should be a transition stage somewhere between four homes per acre and one home per acre. There is no natural boundary. Homes go past the north -south (Dayton Durham Road) on Burdick Road. Why not use the road that goes between Burdick and Dayton Durham Road, on the west boundary of the subject property, as the cutoff between A-5 zoning and lightened residential? The subject property has all. the amenities of residential housing. Close by are: schools, libraries, commercial properties, churches, the town and rail. facilities. There are trees to help aesthetically and eniroximen tally accept housing. Additionally, it would 'provide the city with an expanded :tax base.. The properties developed would serge the moderate to high income segment of the market in keeping the communities general growth and pattern of development. This development certainly would not be offensive to already developed adjoining properties but rather would add to their value and marketability. It is interesting to nota that the old general plan called for this property to be rezoned for single family dwelling. nntt�� CA d t Durham is a very desi,reable plane to live. Where are ,all the people going to :Find housing? A strong community calls for strong leadership in allocating properties adjacent to the city of Durham to be annexed -to avoid a haphazard Los Angeles type development to tape place. The developer, Richard Jones,has won statewide recognition for architectural design and the implementation of solar heating and cooling systems in developments in the Heal,dsburg area. Information. with regard to these unique designs and plans may be secured upon request. This propevty has been in the family for 27 years and has long outlived its effective usefulness as an almond orchard. Please advise, Xours.truly, Richard Jones cc4 C. Blaine Morley, Attorney at Law e Gp 1g� Juno 26, 1979 Gerald M. Geiger Butte County Farm Bureau P.C. Binz 1707 Orovi,ll,e, Ca, 95965 Dear Sir At the request of the Board of Supervisors tale Planning staff was instructed to specifically notify you that the Planning Caminission 14111 hold a public hearing on the General Plan. Land Use Element Amendment on July 25, 1979, commencing at 7:30 ;p.m., in the Board of Supervisors' Room, Butte County Administration Building, 1859 Biro Street, Qroville, (,alifornia. The Planning; Commission will be considering the specific revisions of the Text: as recommended by the Board of Supervisors and also consider the Land Use Element Diagram (Map) for any possible changes rand/or revisions. Should you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Bettye Blair Director of. Planning BB:1r cct Robert Winston 3135 Orange Ave Orovill.e, Ca 95565 i County Farm Bureau TC NfPftj$jNT, PROTECT AND ADVANCE IHA SOCIAL f0QNOMIC. AND EDUCATIONAL 7ElGPHbNH .513.1473ITI'TEIIE'+.S OF THE gABMERT OF THE GlSUNTY, Ulf STATE ANn THE NATIOt+ py004f River bouleaord -, Seulh POST WPICE 1Iox 171v oROWIIlC', CALIFORNIA. 95964 June 12, 1979 Butte County Board of Supervisors Butte County courthouse Sq}}QCn.PianningCa 1859 HI rd ;street JA u 1979 oroVille, California 95955 Cleavil(gE Califsrn�{ gear ;Board Members; P7e of the Butte Coianty Farrel Bureau want to let you know that we are following your actions relating to the ptopose.d Gauer,; .„, Plan, even though individual members are unable to at-tend every meeting. We also want you to know that by continuing the hearings each week as you are doing, you have effectively eliminated aiiy input from the agricultural community as our members must tend to their farm at this time of the year. Had you sent this issue back to the Planninc Commission as we asked ` more that: a month ago, more of our members could have attended the hearings and provided input because the commission usu,,Illy meets at night„ We think the concerns our band Use Committee ha='; about the specifics of the proposed map designating certain rural residential areas should be heard. Howevor. , we recognize -that vie did get a L-te start in the proceedings We would mention one other point and that is we farmers have long memorises. At least four members of your Board told our members that this issue would be sent back to -twice Planning Commission as we asked, We can understand people who honestly disagreo with our position.. We cannot understand why people do noirfollow through on their statemencso Sincerely, AL-Ie� `. Gerald M. Geiger GMG/mht 'resident Ae c�