Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-40 13+c State of C011fornkc Memorandums Dato tEp 27 970 To Mr, L. Drank Goodson Projects Coordinator RO$Ouroes Agency Titin Avsoiurc s. A ons ti cy of crattforrtln Mr, Carl Nelson Environmental Review Director Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive 0roville, California 95965 From Department of Purlcs and Recreaytiosi Suttjnct; SON 78091196, Land Use Element Butte County General, Plan The Office of Historic Preservation has reviewed the Draft General Plan submitted for the undertaking referenced above. We noted that the County's policies will be to evaluate known and discovered archeological sites before development takes place and to preserve significant site$ or require the -r detailed investigation by competent archeologists. Those are commendable policies; however, we recommend that the policies be expanded to include reconnaissanoes of proposed projects, during their earliest planning stage, to identify all cultural resources which might be within the proposed impact area. This inventory and assessment of potential cultural values, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Executive Order 11593, Section 106 Of the National Hi.storio Preservation Act of 1966, and 36 CPR 600, should be conducted by qual.i feed Professionals of appropriate disciplineo as outlined in 36 CFR 64. We look forward to receiving copies of all cultural resource assessment reports, to be incorporatedinto our review process. If we can be of assistance in this matter, please feel, free to contact Nicholas del. Cioppo at (916) 322-8703. � -q 4v\D Dr; Mellon State Hi.stori,, Preservation Officer Office of Histor,io Preservation �mss P. xryner, Chief Rc'tUree Preservation and Interpretation Division G-011780 ntn( f view S7apf. pl$Lifo COWY EDMUND G, BROWN Jn, GOVIIANOR ilf 6difar'1141 GOVEON©ft's OFFICE OFFICE Or PLANNING AND .RESEARCH 1400 "reNTH srRIEE,T sACRAMENTO 05014 (916) 445-0615 October 5, 1978 Earl Nelson Environmental Review DEipartment #7 County Center Drive Oroville, Chi 95965 SUBJECT SCH 78091196 - BUTT)3 COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Dear, Mr. Nelsons The State Clearinghouse has received a request for a 14- day extension of the review period on your project. The review period. for your project would be extended to November 2, 1978. The request was made by Ken Fellows, Department of Water Resources, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-7416. If you approve, the Clearinghouse will grant the request. If you disapprove, the Clearinghouse will abide by whatever agree- ment can be reached between you and the requesting state department. Please inform the Clearinghouse immediately of your decision: in the absence of a notification from you by one week from the date of this letter, the Clearinghouse will grant the time extension. For further information you may call me or a member of my staff at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, Deni Cre ne Director State Clearinghouse fiAy1ronmenfal Review Dopi. OCT U 1978 DuFw Cq,umy 1. a of&cifxxh.iCttr GQVC 7NOR'S OPFICr OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH s.' 1400 `rr.N rH S rnrz ET sAcRAMEN'ro 95814 coMUND G. unoWN Jn. (9.16) 445-0613 GDVIAINOR October 20, 1978 Earl D. Nelson Environmental Review Dept. #7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA, 95965 SUBJECT: SCH# 78091196 - BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT Dear Mr. Nelson: This is to certify that State review of your environmental document is complete. The results of the State review are attached. You should respond to the comments as required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Please address your responses to the commenting agency with a copy to the Clearinghouse. Sincerely, Stephen V Williamson State Clearinghouse SVW/na Attachment cc: Ken Fellows, DWR t-w;r0nmenfai R Blow Dopt. Ronald B. Robie, DWR _ James P+ Tryner, D PR OCT 2 P 19A Butte County _. MHNAfti Y111lY�I�MI®15/A&WIII'YillL'CYFM1 - _IRIlOQ11111A1M119� .. _ state 'of Calit'';.;ia ' The Resources Agency 7o tl. L. Rra.nk Goodson, Assistant Secretary for Resources bate r h ,�_, 19a; 2. Mr. Earl D. Nelson File No,= County of Butte #7 County Centex Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Subject: SCH County General 78091196, Butte Paan, Land Use Element From : Department of Water Resources We have reviewed the subject Butte Element, which was transmitted by County General Plan, the State r Land Use Intent, dated September 15, 1978, Clearinghouse and have the following Notice of and recommendations: comments General. A geology map is needed for evaluating the effect of land stability and oil the occurrence and movement of geology aon t ground grater. Inadequate ground water supplies and inadequate leaching capabilities of sonte soils may hamper development in some areas of Butte County. A discussion of this would be useful: Seismicity The first sentence of the Seismicity section be clarified as to why it states the area is of�relativpage elyhlowdseismic activity when the remainder of the paragraph describes recent major earthquakes and major faul's 4.n the area. The First sentence is also in conflict with the Seismic Hazards section, page 42, which states that most of the County has a Potential for intense ground shaking from earthquakes. Hydrology The last sentence of the Hydrology _t o page that in some foothill and mountain areasof ButteBCou.nty, explain water occurs only in highly variable fracture g ground zones of metavolcanic rocks, granite and Conservation Some areas of the County do not have adequate water supplies and water and energy should not be wasted even where plentiful. We therefore recommend adding the folloaring two items to the Water Resources Policy at the bottom of page 31 L. :ronmental Review Dapt. 0 01" 2 3 1978 Buffo. Cnunfy 0 t 1 0 11b L. Frank Goodson, et al Page 2 d. Proposed new developments must have a demonstrated adequate water supply before approval by the County. e, Conservation of water and energy will be considered in approving plans for new developmenti Water Resources Under Part III of County Concerns and Policiesj paragraph C - "Resource Management", subparagraph 4, "Water Resources" should be expanded 'to show the County's plan to further minimize the potential of degradation of water resources through pollution and erosion - sedimentation for all areas. Watershed areas contributing to the Oroville Reservoir are of particular concern to us. A discussion of Butte County's policy to control development in all watershed areas should be included. Development policy, including minimum parcel size, rural residential, agricultural, etc., Should be pre- sented in this policy section, Implementation Part V, A-2 - Map Development - This section should be expanded to discuss studies of sedimentation and erosion control. Maps should show potential areas of erosion, slides, etc., so that this important item will not be overlooked in any planning aspect. Part V,, B Zoning - Zoning of watershed areas should reflect the concerns for the protection of these areas. Use permits for variances should be denied for these areas unless they do not contribute to the degradation of the watershed area. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. ona�ldB. Robie Al Director (916) 445-6582 4staWof California Memorandum Date ; !sEp 27 X978 To . Mr, L. Frank Goodson Projects Coordinator Resources Agency From : Departmerit of parks and Rocreaation Subject: SCH 78091196, Land Use Element Butte County General Plan *MQ Rmsources Agency, of California Mr. Carl Nelson Environmental, Review Director Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, C,lifornia 95965 The Office of Historic Preservation teas reviewed the Draft General Plan submitted for the undertaking referenced above. We noted that the Countyls policies will be to evaluate 'known and discovered archeological sites before development takes place and to preserve significant sites or require their detailed investigation by competent archeologists. These are commendable policies; however, we recommend that the policies be expanded to include reconnaissances of proposed projects, during their earliest planning stage, to identify all cultural. resources which might be within the proposed impact area. This inventory and assessment of potential cultural values, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Executive Order 11593, Section 106 Of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and 36 CFR 800, should be conducted by qualified professionals of appropriate disciplines as outlined in 36 CFR 64. We look forward to receiving crpies of all cultural resource assessment reports, to be incorporated in -,o our review process. If we can be of assistance in this matter, pli,Ase feel free to contact Nicholas del Cioppo at (916) 322.-8703, Dr. Knox Mellon State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation James P. Trynev, Chief Rt touroe Preservation and Interpretation Division G4478C r _ ...�. Suite 6"vill, ZZI _ *e IAHI'1 t.1I 1`1A1lyr;/1i v !'i? 1?t :T1 Cs ai.'AUTY January , 1 " ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT CARL D. NELSON, Dlractor Bettye Blair Director of Plannjng Butte County Planning Department; No. 7 County Center Drive oroville, California 9596 Re General Plan Land Use Element Revision.: Proposed Modifications to the hand. Use Map. Dear Bettye.- As ettye; As you know, the original procedure contemplated for a thorough re- vision of the General Plan .Land. Use Element involved a revision to the text f irst, with mr ps of individual areas to be prepared area by arca at a later time. This procedure was designed to divide an ex- •tromely large task into smaller phases, making tile; overall job mors; easily manageable with -the existing staff. However, the requirement of cita•to law to have a map as a part or the text, even initially, makes L -he original procedure unwovkabi I recognize the shortcomings of the pre,jcnt map and text of the ex- isting, land use element and I appreciate y . � pp�.ec�.ate our concern for completing the revisions at the earliest possible date. I think there is much agreement that revisions are urgently needed, and that the proposed teat is a great improvement over the current element. At your 2equest I have given serious consideration to the proposal to modify the present map to a rural residential category in areas presently shown as grazing --oven land except where Williamson Act contracts are in effect or where-D'resont zoning is 40 acres or larger,, (2) incorpo-oate the West Highway 32, North Esplanade, Garner Keefer and Craig--Mooretown Ridge proposed map amendments, and C37 apply the new land use category specifications and policies to the present map, retaining the same patterns. After reviewing this proposal in light of the requirements of the California Environmontal Quality Act, I find two major problems with this approach; ('l) The original circulation through the Stage Clearinghouse was for text only, with no map. Supplements to the B*16R. were to be prepared for each individual area map as the maps became available and these supplements were also to be circa - fated through the Clearinghouse. Since we aro now contemplating 184' * County Canter Drive Orovilln, Coii/ardie 95965 telephone (916) 534•.4777 one single county -wide map, this map together with neeesoary SIAPPlaMents to the H.I.R.must be circulated through the State Clearinghouoo, since it is a substantial modification of the original pro jort . (2) The map proposal does not meet the lt,raal requirement for consideration of alternatives which might reduce potential environmental damc,ge. I have included excerpts from theoCalif- ornia Adminiobrativo Code which indicate the County is rc;,.spongj._ ble -to adopt the alternative which offers 'the least possibility for environmental damage, or give reasons why another alternative was selected. In thio case, alternative patterns of map de- signations which might reduce environmental damage have not boon developed and included in the E.I.R., o the County is therefore not in a position to consider them as required by law. The two factors mentioned above will unfortunately delay the adoption of the land use element revisions. 'The Environmental Review staff, will cooperate with you and your staff to minimize this delay. One other point I would like to make relates 'to 'the selection of land use categories avail -able to apply to various areas. After looking at an actual map proposal (rather than just the text by itself as pre- viously) it appears that there is a very wide gap b--4v-ween the one -acre minimum lot size of the rural residential category and the 40 -acre minimum lot size of the grazing and open land category. I believe these minimums are appropriate and should not be compromised. How- sver, there are foothill areas where a 15 -acre minimum lot size shoiLld be the absolutely smallest allowable limit because. of environmental reasons (watershed protection, wildlife preservation, etc.) even though soil conditions might allow septic tanks to function on parcels of five or ton acres. A forty -acre minimum would be too large, one acre too small. Minimum lot size zoning alone cannot be relied on to pro- vide the degree of environmental protection necessary for t�iese in- between areas. An alternative which should be given serious consi- deration would be a new foothill residential land use category with a 15 -acre minimum parcel size. Although we do not want to see a pro- liferation of new categories (such as we have in our zoning ordinance), this one seems to fill a genuine need to prevent unnecessary environ- mental degradation. In any case, we will work with you to complete the revisions tc the land u8o element text and map. I am encouraged that the portion of the nevi ed document n1ready completed in draft form is sucb a great improvement over the present element. Hopefully we can maintain this high standard of excellence through the map development phase, and the public hearing process. Sincerely, Earl D. Nelson, Environmental Review Director EDN :clp cc: Del Siemsen Kyle Butterwick LIX_00.,rPt's,Trom tho California Administrative C,0(10 1 011 State Policy. The Logislature has declared that it is the policy of the state to (a) Develop and maintain a high quality onviroiaaent now and in the future, and Lake all action necessary to protect, rahabilitato, and -,nhance the environmental quality of the state. (d) Ensure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding Criterion in Public decisions,, 15011.6 (b) Each public agency Shall mitigate or avoid the significant effects on -the environment of projects it approves or carries out to -the exten� it is feasible to do so. (d) Environmental impact reports should ... emphasize feasible ... alternatives to projects. M The E.I.R. Process is in -tended. to enable public agencies in, evaluating projects to determine whether a project may have a signif'cant effect on -the environment, to examine and institute methods of reducing adverse impacts, and to consider, alternatives to a project as proposed. These steps of analysis and evaluation must be Completed prior to approval of a project. 15013 (b) (1) With public projects, at the earliest feasible time Project sponsors shall incorporate environmental Cox,, - siderations into Project conceptualization, design and planning. 1a088 Findings. (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for -which an environmental impact report has been Completed which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the followingwri itten findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding. Changes or alternations have been requirec, in, or in- corporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significan-b environmental effects thereof as identified in the final B.I.R. (3) Specific economic, Social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final E.I.R. 15143 (d) Alternativestothe proposed action Describe all reason- able alternatives to the project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and why they were 10jected in favor of the Vatimate choice. *.,. The discuscion of alternatives shall include alternatives capable of sub- stantially reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects, ever, if these alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives and are more costly. 0 A non-profit corporation dedlentact o careful Manning for growth PA Box 3606, Chico, California 95927 January 18, 1979 Members of the Butto County Planning Commission: The CHIC O 2000 organization has carefully studied the proposed General Plan Land -Use Element and its recent changes. We certainly support the Commi8- sion's efforts to revise the text and make it a more useful planning tool. We offer our suggestions in a spirit of constructive cooperation, and believe that these changes will give Butte County a much better Land-Uso Element. In reference to the Land -,Use Map, we support the Commission's efforts to move away from the present 1 -acre minimum for the Open -Grazing category, and we concur with the 40 -acre mijaimum. However, we have two maJor concerns: 1) Allowing a'range of 1-40 acres for Rural --Residential would accelerate the break -down or land into 1 -acre parcels. 2) Similarly, it all land presently in the Open -Grazing category, and not under the Williamson Act, is moved to the Rural -Residential category, this would create at least the appearance of allowing tons of thousands of I -acre lol's, scat- tered across the grasslands and foothills cast of Highway 99. "Islands" of Rural - Residential land, surrounded by Open -Grazing land, Would result, To deal with these concerns, we oave two recommendation ;., 1) In classifying land as Open -Grazing, include nonWillie mson Act land as necessary to prevent the creation of these islands (see, for example, T.20N, 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 c:-togory to include those areas too small to include in either the "Grazing and Open Land" category or the "Timber- Mountain" category, but for which develop- 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 whic!h 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. P,DIT-RT-pl.5, line 33., replace "Increased" with "enhanced" RT -p.28., lines served olowTtof the people has been weil by the free -enterprise economic system, based on the private ownership of property" D,� 1 -MIT -RT -P, 28, lines 21-22,- replace 'it's" with "its" RT -P-28, lines 40-4$- Thephrase "Longer plannhig 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 GuldeWies for General Plans discuss this very problem; leaving out this phrase pay result in legal Problems. We accept a' 5 the 20-ye16-Hin �ng r ., aLjo�Ihb'dbbv6Aan4uage Ib reinserted. BDIT-RT-p.29, limes 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 NO extensions of public facilities and services but can also lead to inefficient use of land, energy, and othok natural resources" should be reinserted in the Element. This phrase is critical in explaining the numerous problems re- sulting from nonorderly development. EDIT -lines 48-49: rewrite as "recognizing that some land designated for develop - merit Is not immediately available for use,, Line 50: 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 -p430, lines 55-58: we recommend replacement with the "Agricultural, zoning has not been widely achieved In the urban fringe areas, due to the conflicts between the agricultural. uses of land and, frequently, the impact of development and official actions." This version says essentially the same thing, but avoids the rhetorical criticism of agricultural zonino, RT -p.30 continued, Mies 7-10: Replace policy c) with "Iri deciding whottler or not to designate an area for agricultural use, the impact of urban encroach- ment and past official acts shall be taken into account" . The present wording of this Policy would open the door to nume,ous problems and controversies: for example, would the presence of a handful of small parcels next to a large orchard constitute "urban encroachment" , thereby requiring the designation of the orchard as "non-agricultural," ? EDIT -line 14: replace "principals" with "principles" Line 15.* 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 e) with "In deciding whether or not to designate an area for grazing, the impact of urban encroachment and past official 0 -3- RT-P.31, lines 4-6 (cont'd.): actions shall be taken into c1ccount." This parallels our previous recom- mendation concerning agricultural use. Lines 33-36: Replace policy d) with "In deciding whether or riot to desig- nate an area for timberland, the iMP('!Ct Of urban encroachment and past official actions shall be taken into account." 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.3% line 14: Replace "zoning" with "designated land -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 immediatel1 zoned for residential use. Such an interpretation could lead To leapfrogging and 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 hiahwa}r with interchanges is needed because of traffic density, but State policies make such a highway very unlikely. EDIT, lines 51-52: revise to read: "of commercial uses in residential areas, -taking into account the wishes of residents in the area" . RT -p.35, 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 40: replace "it's" with "its" . EDIT -RT -p.36, lines 20-21: add the phrase "and separate new heavy industrial and new or existing residential areas" before "with". EDIT -RT -p.37, line 28: The word should be "acquisition". RT -p.38, line 3: Add the policy d) "Direct future urban growth away from flood- plain areas that would requ,.re expensive flood -control facilities" RT -p.38: We recommend adding policy d): "Encourage setting aside park land in new residential areas" RT -p.45, line 14: If home occupations are to be allowed in orchard and field crop areas,, the use should be tightly 6,ontrolled with zoning and, use permits. Otherwise, creeping commercialization of agricultural land could occur. Line 37: add "and type of actual or potential crop use" , Clearly the 410 viability of land depends on what crop is planted! 100 r -4- RT-p. 48, 4-RT-p.48, line 43: Reinsort Policy 8, "visibility from scenic highways" , Excluding this policy will mare this Element inconsistent with the Open Space and Circulation elornents. EDIT-RT-p.50,5, line 18: add "to" after "adjacent" EDIT-=p .51, line 15: add "to" after "adjacent" EDIT-RT-p.52, ,line 9 The word should bo "separate" EDI`.C-RT-p.55, line 24: should be "patterns," Line 32, Add "change of" before "designations" . Lines 33-34: Place "both" before "determining" and delet,o the "s" from "requires" IIx-p.58: lines 14-18 may have to bo amended later,. EDIT-OT-p.64, line 32: should be "the need" EDIT-RT-p.71, line 23: "field crops" Line 25- "Rural Residential" We respectfully urge you to consider carefully our recommendations , We offer them in the belief that they will, help create a better Land-U se :Element for all the residents of Butte County, Sincerely yours, r ` Thomas A. McCready, �"`✓ Secretary, CH;ICC 2000 cc Super-visors Wheeler and Dolan Planning Staff LK Inter -Departmental Memorandum Tot Gerald R* EvUhard/Goorge Gilbert FROM: X,41rl D. Wolson, Environmental Review, Director JACTI EsX.R. Supplement for General Plan Revision, OATEt January 30, 1979 This is to bring you up -to date as to the status of proces- sing of the E.I.R. for the revision of the General Plan Land Use Element. The Commission discussed the matter at its meeting of January 24, '1979, indicating a desire to "keep things moving" toward ultimate adoption of the revised element. 1: presented the Commisoion with a supplement to the E.I.R. (copy enc- sed) which includes the material which would have bsan in wie original E.I.R. had a map 'been part of the o;-,-Lginal proposal. Once -the complete B.I.R. package (original draft plus map Plus supplement) has been circulated through the State Clear- inghouse, the Commission will be in a position to act on the revised element. Please note that the package to be sent to -the State Clear- inghouse includes the map proposed by the Planning Department with other map alternatives listed in the text of the E.1,R. Supplement. This permits the E.I.R. to be circulated at tiAs time, while allowing the commission the option of selecting any of the other alternatives listed after Clearinghouse circulation has been completed. A determination of which alternative is best St3i,.11 must be made by the Commission Prior to adoption of the revised element, but Clearinghouse circulation of the E.I.R. does nut have to Wait for that de- termination. The map which is forwarded to the Board of Super- visors will reflect the alternative ultimately selected by the Commission* Please review the enclosed E.I.R. Supplement to see if we missed any subjects or alte=atives which should be included. I expect direction from the Commission to send the package off to Sacramento at the Commission Meeting of February '?. Any suggested revisions to the E.I.R. Supplement would, of course, be incorporated before it is sent to the Clearinghouse. cc: Bettye Blair, Planning Director Kyle Butterwick SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVI RONME14TAL IMPACT REPORT FOR Tilt BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION I. INTRODUCTION As originally conceived, drafted and circulated through the State Cloaringhouse, the proposed revisions to the Land Use Element o the Butte County General Plan and the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with such re-,isions did not include a map showing the anticipated locations of the various land use cate- gories other than the map which is presently in effect in the current General Plan. It had been anticipated that land use maps of specific areas would be developed, area by area at a later time. However, a county -wide map revision is now being proposed in con- junction with the proposed text revisions, creating the need to update the E.I.R. to reflect environmental concerns related to the proposed physical locations of the various categories, as well as to expand the required section on "alternatives" to include mapping alternatives. x T . DESCRIPTION OF MAP PROP010AT, The current Wrap proposal as set forth by the Butte County Planning DiTO ctor is very similar to the map presently in effect, except that a new "rural residential." land use category is incorporated, and the other categories take on the new minimum lot sizes and other specifications as set forth in the proposed text revisions, Some of the highlights of the proposed changes (as outlined on the enclosed map) are as follows 1. Orchard and Field Crop Category: Boundaries of the area Proposed or this category are nearly identical with the present orchard and field crop category except north of Chico; east of Highway 99 and south of Rock Creek. Here the Orchard and Field Crop category is proposed to be p4a:ed out and replaced by a "Rural Residential" cate- gory. Minimum lot size in the Orchard and Field Crop areas is proposed to remain at S acres, which is Iden- tical to the present minimum as established by informal Board of Supervisors policy. ?. Grazing and 0 en Land Cate or , The minimum lot size within t is category has been set at 40 acres which is significantly larger than the 1-5 acre minimum in the current General Plan. This category with the newly established 40 -acre minimum lot size is proposed to be applied. to those portions of the County presently de- signated for Grazing -Open Land which axe currently zoned with a 40 -acre minimum lot site or a're under Williamson Act Contract: i 3. Timber Mountain Category: This category, also wit),t a newly esta zs a acre minimum lot size, is pro- posed to be applied to those areas designated Timber - Mountainous terrain in the present plan, except where precise zoning presently in effect conflicts with the proposed dcsignation. These exceptions will be r,�e- signated with a "Rural Residential" category, The present plan does not establish a minimum parcel size in Timber -Mountain areas. 4. Rural Residential: This newly created category has a ane -acre minimum of size. It is proposed to be appli- ed to those areas presently designated Grazi g -Open Land which are not under Williamson Act Contract or are not zoned with a 40 -acre or larger minimum lot size. S. Low Density Residential: This category is similar to the exists ow ensity Residential catOgory and would retain the same boundaries. 6. Medium Density Residential: This category replaces Medium Low Density Residential and would be applied where this category presently exists,, 7. Hi h Density Residential: This category replaces the diumenssity'-fifes`e'Tn`t a1 category in the present plan and will retain the same boundaries. 8. Commercial: This category will be applied to the same areas as are presently designated for this uses except that several individual area rezone and general plan amendment proposals, specifically North Esplanade anti Highway 32 West, will be incorporated into the new map. Individual project EIRs are on file in the l"nvironmerttal Review Department. 9 Industrial This category will be applied to those areas present y -designated "Industrial" except for an area in the central part of the County where part of a present industrial area will be changed to rural residential. 10.- Public: This category will be applied to public insti- tutions- n and government facilities, III ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS RELATED TO THE MAP PROPOSAL In reviewing the above proposal it should be kept in mind that the proposal largely reflects the previous General Plan Map which was originally developed prior to local implementation of the Calif- ornia Environmental Quality Act. The prior map therefore does not 2 A' reflect environmental, concerns to the degree that has become_ cus- tomary in recent years 'fit represents a broad brush interim approach which permits early adoption of the text revisions, but will need to be refined as in-depth studies are done area -by -area. Individual area maps can and should be "fine-tuned" in response to information gained by these future in-depth individual area studies. There are some environmental concerns raised by the current map proposal which would be affected by Changes in the location or the extent of the categories" as shown on the map. These concerns fall into the following areas: 1. 2.. AirQQ ualit The so called "Non Attainment Plan" cur- _ Y: rently -Ueng considered by the Butte County Association of Governments identifies the private autQmobile as a major source of air pollution in Butte County. The plan indicates that "on road motor vehicles" within Butte County account for 54% of the emissions of nitrogen oxides, 43% of the emissitas of carbon mon(- oxide, 40% of the emissions of hydro,-arbons and 23% of the emissions of sulfur oxides. The proposed wide dispersion of rural residential use, even though the proposal is more restrictive than the existing situa- tion under the current plai, would appear to reaffirm County approval of a land use distribution pattern which has the potential for the creation of tens of thousands of rural residential logs at distances of up to ten mikes or more from established communities where employment and commercial services can be obtained. If full develop- ment is realized according to this existing and proposed pattern, many thousands of Cotutty residents will be com- muting on a daily basis from remote areas, leading toa higher total vehicle miles traveled per day than would Occur under a more concentrated development scheme. This means the total pollutants produced and total energy consumption from gasoline usage will be higher than would be the case from more concentrated development. It should, be pointed out that with wide dispersion of rural resi- dential lots, while the total pollutants produced may be a large figure, the concentrations in any given area may still be low due to large mixing volumes. Concentrated development, on the other hand, may result in smaller total pollutant quantities, but concentrations will be higher in those areas where the populations (and the vehicles) are concentrated. Wildlife: The map designations proposed for the western portion and the eastern portion of the County, Orchard and Field Crops and Timber -Mountain respectively, appear: appropriately related to the wildlife values of the 'areas. The agricultural land to the west has a relatively low wildlife value, so the agricultural designation with a 3 ,r 5 -acne minimum lot size is appropriate. In. the east where elevations are higher and yellow pine forest pre- dominates, the Timber -Mountain designation with a 40- acre minimum lot size is also generally appropriate, (with exceptions allowable for established communities or areas already zoned for rural residential development). The established urban communities also have low wildlife value, so land use patterns within these areas have little effect on wildlife. The proposal to establish a Rural Residential category with a one -acre minimum lot size encompassing 40% of the existing Grazing -Open Land Category may ultimately lead to degradation of wildlife habitat and loss of wildlife values for portions of the area as development proceeds, unless zoning with large minimum lot sizes is applied and maintained. The present Open -Grazing cate- gory is roughly divided into the following vegetation communities: one-third of the area is grassland with a low wildlife value, one-third is foothill woodland with moderate to high wildlife value one-sixth is chaparral which has moderate to high wildlife value, and one-sixth is yellow pine forest with a high wildlife value. Addi- tionally, along streams there exists narrow bands of riparian woodland with a very high wildlife value. According to James Snowden, wildlife biologist for the Department of Fish and Game, twenty acres is the: minimum parcel .size consistent with maintaining high wildlife values in rural areas. Considering the situation strictly from a wildlife habitat maintenance standpoint; one acre minimum lot sizes would only be appropriate in areas which have low wildlife value (grasslands, agricultural lands, existing urban areas). In all other areas, a one acre miniynum lot size will inevitably lead to declining wildlife populations unless ioni,ng is empioyed`rtto maintain larger minimum lot sis. It should be pointed out that zezoning categories with mini- mum lot sizes of up to 40 acres are listed in the revised land use element text as being compatible with the rural residential land use category. Other policies in the text encourage the adoption of zones with large minimum lot sizes in remote areas. Maintaining these large mini- mums when the land use map category permits rezones down to a one -acre minimum parcel size would take a strong committment on the part of the decision-making Board, since requests for smaller lot zoning will undoubt- edly be filed and go through the public hearing process. Maintaining large lot zonings in remote areas would be consistent with the language of the text, despite the allowance of one -acre minimum lot sizes on the Land Use Mapo 4 4 3. Watershed Protection: Much of the eastern portion of the area proposed For designation as a Rural Residential cate- gory has areas where slopes exceed 30%. In these steep - 'or areas, erosional processes due to stormwater runoff can be dramatically accelerated by development activities (road building, vegetation removal), leading to the poten- tial for siltation of streams. For watershed p-cotection, these steeper areas should be zoned for large minimum lot sizes, and perhaps a category other than rural residential should be'considered, 20 prevent unnecessary , applications for rezones to a zoning category with mini- mum Jot sizes which are too small for the existing area conditions. 4. Su l /Demand Relationship for Rural Residential parcels: n view of the environmental—concernss--T 3.ste a ove w a.c relate primarily to potentially adverse environmental consequences of extensive and widely dispersed rural re- sidential development, the amount of area designated for rural residential use ought to be realistically related to the anticipated need for such parcels,, allowing for areas where the owner chooses not to develop and further allowing a surplus so free-market competition among sup- pliers can still operate. The current proposal would de- signate 162,500 acres (40% of the existing Grazing -Open Land) as potential ri—I residential parcels with a mini- mum lot size of one a. .e. Much of this area will proba- bly be zoned for largerminimum lot sizes. Also, limi- tations posed by septic tank requirements will necessi- tate larger than minimum lots in some areas, If we hypo- thetically assume that full development would translate to a 5 -acre lot size average throughout the entire area, the resulting increase in parcels would total 32.500. At 2.6 residents per household and one household per par- cel, a total population of 840500,could be accommodated within the proposed Rural Residential area. This figure is higher than the total population increase projected by the State Department of Finance for Butte County over the next 20 years, much of which is expected to be accom- modated within the urban areas. IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE MAP PROPOSAL The "no project" alternative has already been discussed in the General, Plan text revisions. Alternatives to the proposed map designations would include the following: 5 1. A reduction in the size of the area_proposed for Rural esi entza use wst a new category with a - acre minimum of size esta is a or t o a ance o t e area. This alternative would reduce tae potentia a verse en- vironmental consequences listed in Section IIT. It would result in a potential for fewer rural residential homesites. It also may curtail development plans of e 5 .... __.., .. ...,�,.:, ..,-, .,.,.. •. r.e. ..,.,i.h, y .ls,q,�: ::�.�,.c': .. {�d + %k, 4. ,.�. ;4 ! r `- ; Sa, " -Y p'!,,'f,�1 �k" *i �! ft11 yt :�t M, P.rF? i some landowners who had planned to subdivide their Pro- perty into parcels of less than 10 acres in size. This change would prevent some rezone applications to smaller minimum sizes w}iich aro not appropriate to the more re- mote areas. 2. A reduction in the size of the area proposed for Rural esa entia use wit t`he " a afiCe of the axes nated ox razxn W en am. g to t s pattern wou rp:su t i less environmor - ? Jamaae than the previous alternative, and would permit the creation of even fewer neur parcels. Limitations to development would likely rUA into stiff opposition from lana owners or real ;,state interests because of the 40 -acre minimum lot size in the Grazing -Open Land category. S. An increase in the 5 -acre minimum lot size1 !71 11 11,11,1111[l, for the Orchard an .iG ro ca a oryy�� xs wou resit zn a pa en is br fewer pane s in t e proposed Orchard and Field. Crop area, which covers roughly the southwestern one-third of the County. This change would limit opportunities for '"hobby farming' on 5 -acre parcels, but would reduce the number of residences in the vicinity of commercial agri- cultural operations. 4 A reduction in the minimum lot size in the Grazin -O en an cafe or to 2 G -_--Ac rCSwith tat cite or "Tein a ae o t e entire area esa nate in t o current an or en- razxn Lan -d* -THe— Rural-esz ent�a areas wou e e 3neate an applYe,d to the map at a later gime; This alternative would freeze development at a twenty -acre minimum throughout this portion of the map until boundaries for Rural. Residential areas could be formulated and adopted. This would "buy time,, permit- ting more care and study in the development of Rural . Residential boundaries. It would ultimately lead to smaller parcel sizes in the grazing areas presently de- signated for 40 -acre minimums. It may alsoincur oppos.- 1� tion from landowners who vrant tc develop rural residen- tial parcels immediately. 6 0 0 Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO: Planning Commissioners PROM; EarA D. Nelson, Environmental, Review Director SU13A rs General plan EIR Supplement Revisions DATE= February 6, 1979 Enclosed is a revised supplement to the DIR for the General Plan Land Use Element-vevision. This draft ince_ rpor , (.es some suggestions from Commissioner Bennett who asked that we increase the emphasis on the possibility of avoiding environmental pro- blems through careful application of large parcel zoning, and that we clarify the great improvement of the proposed plan re- vision over our current general, plan. Some additional discus- cion relative to development potential in the Orchard and Field Crop category has also been added. WP would welcome additional suggestions relating to the content of the EIR supplement. We are ready to make any last minute corrections which might be needed so the document can be sent to the State Clearinghouse. DO, flat tYprsso the :lef- RANT 'L iUA I I.ui\t/M4i ARD NNOTIFICATIO APPLICAT;C ST- JRNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE (516)4/5-0613yr M0ctaY t. Ti- LIS 13t vi•=. dy APPLiCA'.; I i9 (}^ 2 3- APPLICANT - C ,nit " ;-> ADDRESS -- Street or P. 0. Box 2 FEDERAL EMPLOYER go NO nvi 5, erTt F s. COu A ' '" C un Crater. i3r. 7 -STATE S. ZIP CODE 19. PROG TITLE1NO. (Cata!o rad Fed f3oanestce To. TY"E OF ACTIONa. 195_ 965 TYPE OF CHANGE (Complete sf 10b or 10c was checked) 11. i 4. Eit6TI Iv G FED I;RAlsi?.ID ;a❑New c 155 MadiFcation12` aIncreased Dollars -' " � +` a _- Increased Duratra ;_ F erScopeCharxJ b® L_I Continuation b Decreased Doitars n a Ot b : Dezreased Dura3ion b .._: Cance::tateon y i Yr mo 1S. APPLICANT TYPE i 15, REj2UESTED FUND START i9___. Enter Letter FG 7S.�E,�E$TEp ECarywSarA`Ef T ciR A_ State F, School DisvictTD FEDERAL is- UVDSDU19ATION _(Months]In 1S 6 B, Interstate G. Comrraun+tyAcuenc 8 YanA F '-2r.STATE. jS Yr mo C. Sub State Dist H. SpansoredOrgari:zateon r.27ifYC:e# I17. ES PROJECT START 1g { j$ R6 jj r D. County I_ Indian �I s� 18, EST. PROJECT DURATION r23 OTHER i !S 11 IMonihsj E. City J. Other (S .00 PardyinRemarks)�24 -O-- t 2D,2r_<'2,2Z, E �� 25, BR TITLC OF - APPLICANT'S PROJECT 1i'D ScH;w:780911Q6 - hand Use,Bement Butte Co,General Plan T 26. DEPCRIPTION OF APPLFCANT'S PROJECT (Purpose) Land Use Element of Genera. Plan. for Butte Count,, , i k i 27'. AREA OF PROJECT IMPACT (Indicate City, County, State,etc,I r + )SAT i�iJNTY` Gl);MIZE li? de - Butte County FDE €W IDE ,C�C-Z_jNTY 28. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 29. Envlronmentat Assessment Required ve N° Ye "��s a O{ Applicant (Districts Impacted By Project BY StatelFederal Aeency? p 30'. CLE1�RtNC'HDUSE€Sb TO NHICH SUBMITEC Yes rI _. 3t,a _-:No 1 a --State , NANNIE/TITLE OF CONTACT PERSON e b ---Area Lltide c hose Nelson b ADDRESS -Street os P. O. 6oti Bart« .U. Nelson �18-F -- 18 r Coon Center Drize OTWille 91�534_477r7 3I,d IS�ENV ONMENTALDOCUMENTREVIEWREQUIRED + YES IZ IVO tG Yes Envir°nmental ImoactStaterrlent (Report) Attached -� e Will he project require h If project is Physical in raztrs e: re+ ;rasa a po } mpiesl reJYES,on? environmental document, list Isle is S. l] DrafiElR: Q Final Elk YES NO Geologic Survey aaadrang;e rriap n s al i t 1 Negative Declaration Attached (20 copies) f Does your agency have a Lam' None attached - Document Will Be Forwarded On civil nghtsarfirttlative Pr°legit Is located. ` Approximately action poliCV and pian? neon_ YES i-( No (-i IiNQ ©aY Year g !s roiect .covered by 0 Federal Program Does Not Require An Environmental' Document A`�. I't I V?, El Project Exempt Under State Categorical Exemption, Class YES Np j if yes. is CI OA exO ecuted? J YES Q NO L-3 " ITEMS 3238 TO BE COMPLETED 7Y CLEAirh MULTIPLE - GHO"SF 32. LARINGHOtJSE ID Q Cl ARINGHOUSE 33, a JCTI ON BASED ONI A REVIEW OF 33. b ACTION TAKEN ?? I ` ONotification a 0 With Comment c Ll Waived 34 STATE APPLICATION I I f I AA + 11��pp tt-�� IDENTIFIER (SAI; C A l bDAP !•canon b LI Without Comment d L71Infavarable -� - - R+ STATE WIDE Stare Number y 3r. CL€ARINGNOt1SE County! City Cos my City County tarty B Count T Ping Area V C°:, Co rt T IMPACT CODE t -r Ping Axea Plrs Area P v £:tv { ' Yes {� No r g Ping Area PIn3 .Area + L_! L_i - tt � p 2 36.SV%TcPLAN REQUIRED + 37. RECE 1 V_-_ rc y, x, ` AT CI aRa yi' .. _ _ 3S. a SIGNATURE OF Cil OrFCIAL Yes n No S. FINAL CH ACTICD DATE yr n div Q ° ITE MS 3942 TO BE CiJn7PLeTFD gY A -i -_AL y; -E SE�.'�.h _ «;;�.r1• _ I 39CER Tl I FiCRTtON - The applicant certifies that to the best of his knrnsrledge and belief the above data are true and A . correct and filing of =hisform has been duly authonzed by the gavernirg body of the applicant. 'Check box if c zeta tS!a3,;sv - R 40. a ,NAME (Print or Type) b TITLE response;s atia had 4 _ ` Larl Ds Nelson r cS1GNATURE of AuthorizedRepresentatv2 d aELEPH NE r�,'; ,SEER T D rector Iq ���� hr�r� 4l, DXTE MAILED TO FEDERALISTATE AGENCY i P16-534- f t 7 rJ ' Yr Ino day 42. NAME OF FEDERAL ; STATE AGENCY J r ` State 19-7 _02 -22 TO WHICH THIS APPLICATION SUBMITTED State e i4 ITEMS 43-54 TO BE COMPLETED BY' FEDERAL OFFsCEESALUATfN;GAVDRECO1a:7rVCIti ,CT_. ti ±% 43, GIIAi�iTAPPF,ICATION III ;IAssigned b- 52. Application Recd. a 53 a E xt r•; x> , . '= -. ma day e yr trot ;v vuaz ..,vDG Ys Com"fete 44. C- ANTORIS 53aOR P: _J b + I F i - i .... q i $ i_ el< I t ®'9 _ "�' ct 54 E <p :.CI Jr. . fj45.0C Reuased RFIGANIZAT n°u� � As m� E I 4 fi. A a- srau s �� c ^y S 4 MINIrgT" LIJ __ r� i47.AQORESS at >r� it n. I _ --, S + i..+ .-I w .g 4'tP CL OELr tri «"t`•.. a2 AL Li dFli 3S �cI Mau iii- « `S :zt,iP m' ';cs S`/05 155. a A 3213 -Nei msvr$Sid 1iRS1I03 d 056.FyNO5AVAtLABLE 0 ac. IJ6 R 57. EhIDING DATE 14 { }S 00 T ' 5a_ FEDERAL GRANT ID -- 62. LOCAL SHARE i S 0 63. OTHER � /S 06 < < ` 64 TOTAL i60, 61, 62, 631 `j '59. FgDERAL FU1tFD-�tCCc-3{3NT iNS1 'TIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM' 189 These instructions d. a designed to assist in completing the APPLi T Form CA -t8: -i These portions are PART 1' and PART 3 and are SHADED portions of the PART 1' BOX NO, TITLE, INSTRUCTION I- APPLICATION DATE — Date application is sent to the Clearinghouse. F.LAJIP1.L'. yr )acs dent" 73 01 O; 2. FEDERAL EMPLOYER I.D. - This number is assigned to. business entitles by IRS. It has 9 digits. If you do not have an I.D. or need assistance in locating it, contact the funding agency. V4.11PJI . 436-6 Rv6,V.1 3. APPLICANT —Use capital letters. iidAXIMUW 40 CHARACTERS (inetuding spaces)_ If necessary, abbreviate, EX.'I IIPLE,- Sr l rE HEI LTII DEPT US FOREST SER I` -ICE 4, ADDRESS — Use capital letters MAXIMUM 24 CHARACTERS (including spaces}. FX4.11P%E. 3916 fIA0 )DSTUC1t l.T-E S. CiTY Use capital letters. MAXIMUM 16 CHARACTERS (including spaces). E 1 AJIPI,L'': S-1 CRAMEXTO S. COUNTY — Use capital letters. M.gXMIUM 76 CHARACTERS (mdudm9 spaces), F=XI:IIPLF- S I CRrI.IIEwf) 7. STATE —Use capital ietters.MAXIiCrrUM2'CHARACTERS 8- ZIP CODE —Enter your Zip code kX,'LTME- 9 814 S. PROGRAM TITLE/NUMBER — Obtain this $information from the funding agency or the Catalog of Federal DomesticAssisrance. Do not include decimal point. Placa abbreviated program 'title in parentheses following catalog number, EX MPI E- 13403 (Btli)griatEdue.J 10.. TYPE OF ACTION Enter X irtthe appropriate box- 11,12,13, ox.11,12,13, TYPE OF CHANGE — Complete only if you have checked box 10b or TOe_ 14. EXISTING FED- GRANT I.D. -- If you have checked item 10b or 10c or have had previous correspondence with a Federal Agency concerning your present grant enter this number. EXAMPLL•:• DSD -C1-09-3901 15. REQUESTED FUND START —Enter appropriate date: 16. FUNDS START —Enter appropriate date. 17. EST. PROJECT START —Enter appropriate date. la EST -PROJECT DURATION—Enter appropriatedate, 19, APPLICANT TYPE — Enter the appropriate letter in the box provided. Federal agencies use letter J- 20, 21, 22, 23, 24. FUNDS REQUESTED — Enter appropriate amounts. If no funding involved, enter O'. 25. BRIEF TITLE OF APPLICANT PROJECT — Use capital tetters. MAXIMUM.60 CHARACTERS (including spaces). F,kAMPZE- CD:-1'STRtICT101VOFNEWH©USNG 26. DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT (PURPOSE) Use j capital letters. MAXIMUM 300 CHARACTERS (including sPaces}. 60 characters per line, 5 lines. Make description complete, intelligible to non- -iecialist. Include,if appropriates source and amount of state/locallprivate matching funds, and names of others with whom coordination has been established. 27. AREA OF IMPACT — Use Capital letters- Always include county or counties of impact. lr,_Iude city if appropriate. If not within bounds of a named city or town, give.ough location in Box 26 above. Indicate whether impact is statewide, county -wide or muftt-county, If multi -county, list county of greatest impact first. 28. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT—ASA}GTIftU/f21yU/.iERAZS 29, ENV[ RONMENTALASSESSMENT? '—Enter anXinappropriate box, If X is in YES a attacha cony. 30. CLEARINGHOUSE/S TQ the appropriate box. WHICH SUBMITTED _Enter an X :n 31a. NAMEMTLE OF CONTACT PERSON —:Enter this information. for the person who has tha most complete information regarding the proposal who can be contacted' if necessary. Do not give the name of the administrator (for example, mayor) with general responsibility for the project, The mntaCtPerson will receive an acknoaaledgement of receipt, the State Clearinghouse identification number, and, upon completion of the review, any comments generated from; th .e project review, 31b. ADDRESS 31c TELEPHONE — Enter this information for the perscn who. ,has the most complete information regarding the proposal who can be contacted if necessary. Do not give the came of the administrator (for example mayor) with general r=sponsibility for the project 3ld-3ih ITEMS FOR CALIFORNIA REVIEW- 31d- Is Environmental Review Required? — if ye.... California requires a: minimum of 20 copies of"anachmentssuch asEIRs, Negative Declarations, ,naps, etc for review purposes, If none attached, be sure to fill to an approximate date such documents will be forwarded for review. If no; indicate reason. If project is exempt under State Categorical exemption, list which one (see "Guidelines forthe Implementation of the California. EnvoranmentaF t uaYtf= Act of 1370.") 31e. Will the Project require Relocation?'— Will people be required to trove from their residences as a result of this Project? 31f. Does your Agency have a Civil Rights Affirmative Action Policy and Plan? —Self-explanatory_ 319. Does A-95, Part IV apply? — This section requires the Execution of a Memorandum of Agreement between an Areawide Clearinghouse and any federally -funded single -purpose planning: entity which shares its t-rritorsai sphere of interest. 1f so, has MOA been executed? — A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement must be attached to the application, but sboutd not be submitted for review to the State Clearinghouse. 31h. If ,Project is physical in nature or requires an environmental docum-,.qrt, dist the U. ,geological survey guadrangle map(s) in ;which the project is located; Self-explanatory. PART 3 1 The original of Fornr CA -189 will be returned to you by the State Clearinghouse as well as each that you sent to the Areawid_ Clearinghouses. EACH FORM MUST BE INCLUDED IN'' THE APPLICATION PACKET. COMPLETE PART 3on the ORIGINAL and forward it attached to the application to the funding Agency. 39. CERTIFICATiON, — if a letter from tine State ClearingitOuse confirming complet on of the required review isattache 9 e: r X in box. 40a- NAME 40b: TITLE 40c. SIGNATURE 40d. TELEPHONE NO. — Complete this information forthe t with responsibility for the Proposal. E person ERSON WHO SIGNS GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR YOUR AGENCY - 41. DATE MAILED TO FEDERAL AGENCY —Enter appropriate date. 42. NAME OF FED"FRAL AGENCY TO WHICH T141S AP?LiCATION IS SUBMITTED — Enter the abbre-veatit}z as listed on attached sheet. If a state agency APPLYING for federal funds, complete section below, using instructions in State Adminlstratwe tVlanual,Sections 6911 4+ Do Nit ental Current Year Oeparkmentat Budget Year l _ _ ID No. iD No. a Carry Forward �' TOTAL i1 SCAT OPERATIONS � `-` 2) LOCAL ASSISTANCE -- —F 3) CAPITAL Ok-11 AY if a state agency HAS BEEN AWARDED federal funds, compiete section belo-vv, using instructions in State Administrative Manual,Sections 0911 +•t Departmental Current Year _ ID No. i Departmeniat ABudget Year I l 1) STATE OPERTIONS Cary Forward 'TOTAL 2) LOCAL ASSISTANCE _— - _ 3} CARITAt 0FJTL.i ' ------ -.. p t -. M ` SGNOf; Complaro tiQms 1, s. andAdd your addrar th rovnrste °`PrUtN Td' f apnce an 1 • The Ioilowing service is requested Mst*w to whom and da a deeliver (ch ecl< one. 0 Shrnv to whom, date, and address o1 delivery. t'3 RESTRICTED DELIVERY $ Show to whom and data delivered. „ .. , , . • , . • C1 1 RESTRICTED DELIV,Et1Y . M Show to whom, date, and addressof dLIivery.S (COAISULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2 2 A I Ei�DDRESSED f" m m 3. ARfj' L I'TION! , Gni REGISTERED NO. CERTIFIED c� 55 . NO. INSURED NO. a ouur=eo or agent) f have rceived the article described above. 51GNATURE 0 Addressee 0 Authorized agent n DATE OF DELIVERY n 5. ADDRESStcomproro onry )f r..�,, .� C CA „n I EDMUND G. 'BROWN .1R. GQvr"Noll �2x�L' �1� at1.2t���1tL't7TZ GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OFFICE Ofr PLANNING AND RESt.ARCM 1400 TENTH 'STREET SACRAMENTO 95014 (916) 445-0613 AnOrbnmenfel RevloW 06pl, April 23, 1979 APR 2 51979 Wid County Earl D. Nelson Butte County Environmental Review Department 18-F County Center Drive Oroville,, CA 95965 SUBJECT: SCM# 78091196 - LAND USE ELEMENT BUTTE CO. GENERAL FLAN Dear Mr. Nelson: The enclosed comments were prepared by the Dept. of Water Resources regarding your project. These comments were not included in the package You received dated April 12 certifying State review of your draft environ- mental document. To ensure compliance with the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act you should attempt to incorporate—these additional comments into the preparation of your final environmental document. Sincerely, f StephenWilliamson State Cl aringhouse SVW/nb Attachment cc: Ken Fellows, DWR Ronald B. Robie, DWR May j, 1979 Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors: "0 Co, Won FI Prov The CHICO 2000 organization; which is dedicated to careful planning for growth in the Chico area, has carefully review,.,d the proposed General Plan Land -Use Element, We commend the Board for supporting the rewriting of this Element, and we certainly appreciate the many hours of hard work by the Planning Commission and Staff whichthis represents. Below, we recom- mend language to correct deficiencies in the draft. With these changes, we would certainly support adoption of the Element. P.2 8, line 46. The Planning Staff originally suggested inc �uding the sentence "Longer planning periods also require more attention to timing and scheduling so as to avoid premature development and wasteful land cony-er- sion," We urge that this sentence be reinserted. The. State Guidelines for General Plans stress the importance of this point, and the problems of pre- mature development should be mentioned. n�- P.30, line 6 The clarity of this line will be improved b. phis phrasing: not all land designated for development is immediately available... 11 rr k P.30, line 7 The sentence beginning "hand owners have plans for the 'riming. , . " merely embellishes the point made in the previous statement, that zoning of property for a certain type of development in no way forces the owner to develop. The sentence is redundant. There is also the danger that this sentence will be 1_fted out of context and used to argue for leapfrog development. We urge deletion of the sentence A&_,,T C. P.30, line 8: The original Planningstaff draft included the sentence "Scattered development not only requires costly extensions of public facilities and services but can also lead to inefficient use of ]and, energy, and other natural resources" this sentence should be reinserted, because it underlines the numerous problems associated with nonorderly growth, and. helps to ex- plain the (excellent!) policies in lines 1015. 0 • Board of Supervisors 2. F] May 3, 1979 P.30, line 42: V1ie believe that this policy statement will be clarified by rewording it as follows "Retain in an agricultural designation on the Land Use Map areas where location, natural conditions and water availability make lands well suited to Orchard and Field Crop use. 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," Analogous changes should be made on P.31, lines 22-27 and 50-56. P.33, lines 53-55: While not offering alternate wording, we ask whether this policy statement will be used to argue for immediate zoning, for development, of land not needed for housing for many years. The Element predicts an additional 100,000 residents by the year 2000. Obviously, zoning now for all of these could cause premature conversion of thousands of acres of excellent farm land. P.40, line 40: Change "Lane" to "Land". The Land -Use Categorises, as shown on, the Map, should reflect the policies in this Element. If this is clone, then the Element will become a usie�- ful planning tool. If not, its value ,will be greatly diminished. So, we urge the Board to undertake, as a high-priority item, redrawing of the pLesent reap. Some of the problem areas include +he pockets of Rural -Residential land sur- rounded by Crazing (Williamson Act) Land, the area south of Chico, and the West and Northwest Chico areas, We certainly appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. Sincerely yours, 'j Thomas A. McCready Secretary, CHICO 2000 Inter -Depart on `n[emortanduin •ro: Board, of Supervisors FROM: Environmental liev:iow Director SUBJECT: EI:R for Proposed, Revisions to t1i,e Land Use :dement of *the Butto County General. Plat, 0ATC: May 3 1979 The EIR for -the proposed General r1 an revision corAsts of the environmental references printed within the docuadent itself, plus the two EJRs prepared for West Highway 32 and North Esplanade, Plus any comments, responses and changes that have been rc:ced,ved or might- come out as a result of the upcoming hearing. The EIR is presently in "draft" :Corm so any additional comments received at the hearing must be summarized and responded to in writing prior to EIR certification and adoption. of the General Plaal Element itself. Comments which havo been received 'to date and the otai;f responses to those comments are enclosed for your reference and review. It is likely additional, comments will be received at the hearing. I have not tried to anticipate the hearing outcome or the Board's intent as to findings which must be made pursuant to the requirements. of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1 would appreciate instructions following the hearing as to your intent sol can work witx County Counsel and the Planning Director to prepare the necessary wor,i;ng for the motion which will meet the requirements of the law. In t.'., approval segi1ence, the first step is certification of the Final EIR. "or the next steps project approval, the required, findings for project are as follows: (1) Whether the General Plan revision and development projects which are allowed pursuant thereto will result in, significant adverse environmental_ effects. (I would anticipate an affirm- ative answer.) (2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, then the finding must be made as to whether there are feasible project alternatives capable of reducing the anticipated adverse environmental effects. If so, these alternatives must 'be selected in preference to the original proposal, or reasons given as to why not (3) "Overriding considerations" must be formulated to justify Project epproval in the face of potentially significant adverse environmental effects. In this case the finding might simply be that development pursuant to an up to date General Plan is better for the envj,,�onment than undirected or misdirected growth that might occur under the present plan or with no plan at all. Board of Supervisors Page 2 May 3s 1979 Of the three required findings, item: (2) above relating to enviwon- mentally superior alternatives will likely receive the most debate 3, 919, has asked that alternative at the hearing. lTh.e State Department f d Gama in a memorandum the present ma p y �- be substituted for p proposal because the feel the alternative would be more beneficial to wildlife. The effect of implementing the alternative would be be substitute a 10 -acre or 20 -acre minimum lot size L.n the remote areas in, place of the one acre minimum; of the rural residential category. In talking to Bettye Blair, I find she objects -be the pro- posed change for a number of reasons including, in. the necessary studies, (a) the delay involved subsequent large -parcel zoning tiia these rural arhe eas, and�(c) indaivifor dua in-depth area -wide studies will be done and necessary dual. area -by -area g p �`y map changes made following adoption of the text and original map. lProm the Environmental Review Department's standpoint, our desire is to see wildlife preserved in the rural areas however that m.ay best be accomplished. I look forward to working with you to bring this project to completion. If you have any questions) please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ;Earl D. Nelson Environmental Review Director EDN lkt Enc. cc: Bettye Blair lrlronm rilal Ryvl,, Onp# InterDepartma, 4a1 Memorandum Srdl' 6 1979 M Barl Nelson, Director of Envd,ronmental Review 900 Cm...my FnOMI Larry Brooks, planning suarr;cr: Land Use Map DATE: September 5, 1979 Enclosed is a copy of the Land Use Map staff proposal which will be heard by the Pl,ann.''ug Commission on Septerber 1.2, 1979. At the last hearing on, this matter before the Planning gommission, held on August 22, the Comm scion indicated that it would likely be ,read- to forward this -proposal, to the. Board of Supervisors on September 12, 1979 Please advise if any environmental review problems exists or if you have any other comments. Additional, oopie,s are available at this office. elm Inter-Departmo N I 1 11, t,,, Memorandum 'M Board of Supervisors FROM, Environmental. 11eview Dixoator SUBJECT: EIR for Proposed Revisions to -the Land Use Element of DATE: the Butte County Gonera.L Plan September 14, 1979 The EIR for the Proposed General Plan revision consists of the environ- mental references Printed within the document itself, plus any comments, responses and changes that have been received or might come out as a result of the upcoming hearing. The EIR is presently in "draft" form so any additional comments received at the hearing must be summarized and responded to in writing prior to EIR certification and adoption of the General Plan Element- itself. Comments which have been received to date and the staff responses to those comments are enclosed for your reference and, review. It is likely additional comments will be received at the hearing. I have not tried to anticipate the hearing outcome or the Board's in -bent as to findings which must be made pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. I would appreciate instructions following the hearing as to Your intent so I can Work with County Counsel and the Planning Director to prepare the necessary wording for the motion which will meet -the requirements of the law. In the approval sequence7 the first step is certification of the Final BIR.. For the next steps project approval, the required findings ars; ,as follows: (1) Whether the General Plan revision and development projects which are allowed Pursuant thereto will result in significant adverse environmental effects. (I would anticipate an affirm- ative answer.) (2) If the answer to (1) above is yes, then the finding must be made as to whether there are feasible project alternatives capable of.reducing the anticipated adverse environmental effects. If so, these alternatives must be selected in pref- erence to the original proposal, or reasons given as to why not. (3) "Overriding considerations" must be formuiated to justify project approvalin the face of potentially significant adverse environmental effects, In this case the finding might simply be that development pursuant to an up to date General Plan is better for the environment than undirected or misdirected growth that might occur under the present plan or with no plan at all. InterwDepa,rtmeatal.rMemorandum N7 T0: Board of Supervisors FAOM; Larry Brooks, Advance Planning SUBJECTI General Plan Land Use Map DATE; September 14, 1979 On September 12, 1979 the County Planning Commission completed hearings on the revised Land Use Element Map By resolution the Commission has Forwarded the map proposal to your Board for consideration. To briefly recap the revision to date, the Planning Commission held its first hearing on the Land Use Element on November 15, 1979. After eight public hearings the Commission forwarded the map and text to your Board, where the text was reviewed at four public hearings over a six week period. As a result of Board hearings a revised text was referred back, to the Planning Commission with a request that the Land Use flap be revised in accordance with the Board approved text. On July 25, 1979 the Planning, Commission rati.fi.eoi text changes recommended by your Board and initiated hearings on the map. Three hearings were then held culminating with approval of the proposed land use map which is now forwarded for your review. By way of procedure, the Commission approved of a staff recommerda- tion to address the rural areas of the nap first along with the new text. It adopted a program of review of the county's urban areas (boxed out on the map) to be implemented after adopt-4on of the new text and the proposed. Man. Substantial public input was received by the Commission at the man hearings during which two dominant points of view seemed to emerge. :tuctr of the debate concerned the extent of the Rural -Residential designation as opposed to Timber -Mountainous and Grazing and Open Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen s Association have by the County, Land. On one hand as icultural interests, voiced ' favored minimzing the extent of the Rural -Residential category, while certain develop- ers and owners of large tracts of'land have opposed extensive Timber Mountainous and Crazing and Open Land, which involve 40 acres minin°am parcel sizes. Throughout the hearings the Planning Commission strictly adhered. to -the policies and site designation criteria contained in the new text. As the Commission hearings progressed, the Rural -Residential category was scaled dorm from approximately 180 Square miles to approximately 130 square miles in area.. This was accomplished by removing certain areas which had previously been placed in the Rural - Residential category but which (1) contain parcels predominently greater in size than 40 acres and (2) have slopes greater that. 30%. Board of Supervisors Page -2- September 14, 1979 EfFect on Devolopments in Progress The map has been opposed by certain developers concerned that projects currently in progress will be adversely affected by the proposed change. For your information, staff has prepared an over- lay for the map showing the location of all projects which would be affected. In total, there are currently under review 97 separate land divisionsand subdivisions proposing a total of 1,086 new parcels in the rural areas encompassed by the map proposals. Of these, 13 projects account ng for 89 parcels would be affected by the revised map. According to our research, projects in progress would be able to proceed only if they had received a tentative map approval prior to adoption of a revised map. Counsel may be able to elaborate fur- ther on this matter. Staff Recommended Changes At the final Commission hearing staff discovered two errors on the map which it would recommend be corrected. These include an ex- pansion of the Rural Residential designation along a portion of Doe refill Ridge and the addition of an industrial designation along the east side of Cohasset road near: the Chico Airport. Summary The map proposal represents the first application of the Land Use Element Text in the planning process.As with anything new and untried, certain policy applications presented special difficulties. One problem which seemed to recur raised a question as to the possible need for a middle land use designation between the one -acre minimum Rural Residential and the forty acre minimums contained in the Timber Mountainous and Grazing and Open Land categories. An alternative to creation of such an interim designation might involve strengthening the Rural Residential site designation criteria by setting forth strict criteria for division of such areas below twenty acres. In any case, staff would recommend that Board consideration of any substantial changes to the map proposal forwarded by the Commission also consider possible text revisions which would support -map xe visions. /ir Inter- epartmentn� ea a Baa e� n TM Planning Commission FROMi Larry Brooks, Advance Planning 5uer9cr: Land Use Element DAM September 17, 1979 The Grazing and Timber Mountainous general plan designations, in the revised Land Use Element, allow land divisions at densities ranging from a maximv,i of 160 acres to a minimum of 40 acres, The pur of the density limit is to maintain land in an open space status Se and thereby preserve large tracts of land for agricultural production or natural resource conservation. This is the standard method used widely throughout the State to promote general Plan open space goals. In, recent times a noir concept in land use management has become more frequently used, the Planned Area -Cluster, (PA -'C), PA -C's offer the developer an opportunity to design a project in a manner which con- forms to natural land features without regard to minimum parcel sizes and standard zoning criteria, as long as the gross density of a project conforms to the general plan. When the concept is applied in rural areas covering larger tracts or - land, the versatility and resulting benefits of the PA -C become quite apparent. For example the ormer of 200 acres of agricultural land designated at 40 acre minimum parcel size might divide his property into five forty acre parcels. The resulting five homes on the property would be spaced so as to require road easements and property lines which may significantly impair the viability of agricultural, pursuits. On the other hand, a PA -C type of development could allow 4i.ve one or tiro acre homesites not requiring extensive access it Provements. This would leave 180-190 acres of land intact for con- tinued agricultural production or resource conservation. Such a project would likely come closer to conforming with County land use management goals than would the former. So much so, in fact, that it may be desireable to offer density bonuses, outlined within the policy format in the general plan text, to developers of rural PA -C's Bonuses could vary from 25% to 1.00a depending upon the percentage of land set aside for resource conservation or agricultural production. An owner of a 500 acrearcel of Land P under a forty acre minimum parcel size designation, night gain a 50% density bonus by designing a project which is confined to 20; of his property (100 acres) Ordinarily he might divide his property into 12 +40 acre parcels. Yet, under a PA -C with a 50; density bonus the developer could con- ceivably divide the property into eighteen homesites on nineteen parcels. The nineteenth parcel containing 400 acres,would be re- stricted to open space uses by the terms of the PA -C zone which would then be applicable to the property. The developer is thus able to secure profit, while public open -space ab.111s are met. While variations ar'atiOns On the sizo of density bonuses are possible and are a matter of . local policy, the general effect Would be to c1tister rei;iote developments, w1iich should reduce the costs of providing limited public services such as police and fire protections County rtwiew of a PA -C project includes rezoning and subdivision review. Both require findings OE consistency with the general plan. To incorporate the PA -C concept into the general plan the Timber 111ountainovs and Open Grazing Sections of the text', could be amended as follows : Example: Intensity of Use* Minimum parcel sizes of'40 acres... Add: Where t P- minimum gross density could vary from 20 to 40 Intensity mi ' acnes per divelling unit provided at least 75% - 90% of the total acroago of a project is sot aside for open space uses. In addition, PA -C should be listed as a cOrlsistent zone in both categories. /lr Y a. �FtbM: SUBJECT: DATE; Inter -Departmental Memorandum Board of Supei visors Larry Brooks, Advance Planning General Plan Land Use Element October 8, 1979 At the September hearing on the Land Use Element several objections were raised by developers or their representatives concerning the map proposal forwarded by the Planning Commission. At the direction of your Board staff has met both with developers and representatives of the agricultural community in an attempt to formulate plan modifications which are acceptable to developers while still pro- viding for ample protection of open space and agricultural lands. In keeping with a desire to maintain conformity between the map and 'the text, corresponding changes to both are proposed. The recommend- ed changes are as follows: 1. Change Rural Residential category to Agricultural Residential In addition to the name change, which reflects the upgrading of agriculture to a primary use., the 'list of consistent zones has been shortened by removal of all zones which permit parcel sizes of less thra.n, 20 acres. Zones which permit parcel sizes within a range of 1 to 20 acres are listed as conditionally consistent, subject to findings of conformity with five conditional zoning and development criteria. The criteria address agricultural compatl.bility, public service levels, physical development ,apabili-ty and proximity to commercial services. 2. Agricultural Residential Site Designation Criteria Three of the site designation criteria found in the Rural Resi- dential category have been omitted: 1. Needed for rural residential development within 20 years. 4. Natural conditions suitable for wells and septic tanks. '6. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services, schools, fire protection services and other community facilities. These have been omitted because they imply Suitability for rural residential development. Since the new designation implies agri- cultural suitability as well as conditional development pote!atial, all areas so designated need not necessarily conform to these. former criteria. Conversely, a new site designation criteria has been added to the Agricultural. Residential category recognizing past official actions. The site designation criteria changes have allowed modest expansion of the Agricultural Residential areas on the map without compromis- ing the integrity of the text. 3. Orchard and Field C.ro-os This category has been revised utilizing the same type of format ow I 4 0 0 General PlaA Land Use Element Page 2 employed in the new Agricultural Residential category. in response to criticism that the 5 acne minimum carried the potential .for down -parceling of largo, tracts of tural land, the category has been divided into bothmconssistent and conditionally consistent zoning and development categories. Zones allowing minimum parcel sizes ranging from 20 to 160 acres have been designated as consistent, while zones allowing parcel sizes of 5 to 20 acres are shown as conditionally con- sistent, subject to findings of conformity' with three conditional zoning and development criteria. The three criteria address existing parcel sizes, proximity to urban; boundaries and the effects of the proposed zoning on existing agricultural produc- tion. The rationale for this is a desire to accommodate certain smaller parcels (5 to 20 acr,,es) within the Orchard and Field Crop designation while providing a greater degree of protection from down -parceling for "hard "agricultural activities on larger tracts of land located in more remote areas. 4. Panned Area Clusters (PA--' In line with a desire to provide reasonable development options for owners of :Land :in the Grazing and Open Land and Timber Mountain:. categoriesi a policy outline providing for implementa- tion of planned cluster development incorporating density bonuses is proposed. Although specifics would be addressed. within the context of a new PA -C ordinance to be devc­.� oped following adoption of the new Lane. Use Element, the general framework would allow density bonuses ranging up to 1.00% for Projects which Permanently set aside a minimum 80% of the land area within a project for open space and resource conservation Purposes. The percentage of the density bonus would be corre- lated with the percentage of land placed into permanent reserves. The higher bonuses would be awarded to projects utilizing less land for development. 5 • Map�Chan� s Revisions proposed are in accordance with the text changes outlined above. Certain specific changes are proposed in order to place land under single ownership, which is currently under., going private planning, o, into a single use category. The bulk of the revisions pertain to the southeastern the col.mty which is currently 5- Agricultural u Residential category zoned A- While the Agricu7.•tura7. a ry has been expanded by approximately 30 square miles from the Rural Residential category on the map forwarded by the Planning Commission, the policy content of the new designation has significantly'shifted toward "agricultural conservation. North Esplanade Proposal Subsequent to the September Board hearing the Planning asked. about reins-orporating their previouslya Commission was approved map proposal General Flan Wand Use Element Page 3 for the North Esplanade in Chico. The Commission hearings conducted several months ago were relatively non -controversial. Since there are private projects pending, your Board may wash to consider includ- ing the Esplanade proposal in this revision. A specific revision to the map forwarded by the Planning Commission, which changes a portion of land along the western side of the Esplanade is outlined on the attached map. The change is from a Commercial designation to Orchard and Field Crops:, as this particular property is under a band Conser- vation Agreement (Williamson Act) with a forty acre minimum parcel size* elm" AGRICULTURAL RESIDBITTIAL 3 Pvimaxv Uses: A6ricultural usea and single family dwellings at rural 3 4rvt es. 4 5 5 6 Secoii.daa_Rses Animal husbandry, f orestx7, intense animal uses, home 6 7 occupations, mining, outdoor recreation facilites, environmental pre- 7 8 servation, activities, airports, -v,tilities, public and quasi -public uses,8 9 group quarters, care homes and tr=sient lodging. 9 10 10 11 Sito Desi ation Orit,er- 11 12 _1 eyo,'ad servioe areas of commun.�ty water and sewer systems. 12 13 2. Less than 30% slopes. 13 14 3. Adjacent or near to existing rcads and public utilities. 14 15 4. Not within flood plains or known active faults. is 16 Past official actions. 2ntensit-y 16 17 of Use: Minimum parcel size of one to forty acres. One 17 13 sin-le-f=Iydielling per parcel. Home occupations, farm animals, is 19 other uses and setbacks regulated to maintain rural character. 19 20 20 21 Consistent ZoAes: A-20, A-40, TM -201 TM -40, FR -20, FR -4.0, & CF. 21 22 22 23 Cond.itionallv Consistent Zones: A-5, A-10, TM -1 thru TM -10, FR -2 thru 23 24 FR -101 SE -17 TA_-�__R'-1��, PA -C, subject to findings of conformitY 24 25 with Conditional Zoning and Development criteria listed below-, 25 26 26 27 Conditional Zoning and Development Criteria '.) 7 2S 1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities. 28 29 24 ,Evidence of adequate water and sewage disposal capacity. 29 30 3. Availability of adequate fire protection facilities. 30 31 4. Adequately maintained approved road access with siifficient capacit731 32 to service area. 32 3.1 5. 3easonable accessibility to commercial services and schoo3q. 31 4 34 35 Zoning Factors; 35 36 i_.Existuing parcel sizes and residential densities. 36 37 2. Slope. 37 38 3. Soil conditicns and water availability. 38 39 4. Effects on adjacent uses, crop production, livestock' grazing, 39 40 forestryl resources extraction, and wildlife .habitat. 40 41 5. Proximity to public roads, and other public facilities: 41 42 6. Distance from airports, railroads and industrial uses. 42 43 Existing utilities and drainage facilities. 43 44 8. Potential for surface cracking, landslides and erosion. 44 45 Effects on noise, traffic flow and safety, water quality, air 4S 46 quality, wildlife habitat and general enviro=ontal quality. 46 47 10. Local desires. 47 48 11. Potential for pest insect breedj.,a-. 48 49 40 so so 51 51 52 52 53 53 54 54 55 55 56 56 Z ORO A f2D AND ET,D CROPS ._ _ 32 1 4 5 P:oLmax�y 'Uses: Cultivation, harvest, storage, processing, sale aad dis-. 3 t OuLion; of all plant crops, especially annual. 4 6 good crops. 7 5 Secondary Uses: .Animal husbandry and intense animal uses, resource e;c_ r. EI. n an 5 6 9 Processing, hunting and water -related recreation facilities? dwellings, airports, utilities, environmental 10 preservation activities, public and quasi -public uses, home occupations. 11 12 Site Desi_gnation Criteria: 10 1.3 14 1- Soi L conc_%I_t ons we' l suited for plant crop operations. 2. Adequate water supply. ,11 12, 15 16 3. Average parcel sizes of 5 acres or more. 4. Used for crop production 1 14 17 or secondary uses. 5. Adjacent uses compatible with primary and, secondary uses. 15 16 is 17 19 20 21 Intensi of Use: Minimum parcel size of dwe- izna per 5 acres.. One single-family o P parcel, with additional housing 18 19 � �. ,for On -site -employees. 23 Consistent Zones,: A-20 thru A-.1.60, RC, & PQ. 21 22 2 25 26 Conditionall Consistent Zones: AIr*-' A-107_ formance gait one tional ' ng �DevepmenteCriterianlisg�d 23 24 27 ons and below. l5 3 Conditional Zonin and_Uevelo�me t Criteria: 76 27 29 30 1. Average existing parcel size,; range from 5 to 10 acres. 2 Adjacent to or in the 28 31 general vicinity of urban boundaries. 3. Present status of agricultural production will 29 3`0 32 not be si impaired. gnifi.cantly 31 33 34 Zoizi n Factors . 32 31 35 36 1. Existing parcel: sizes and dwelling densities. 2. Proximity to urban development. 34 3S 37 3. Effects on adjacent uses. 36 38 4. Potential for pest insect breeding. 37 39 5. Economic viability. 381 40 6. Local desires. 39 41 40 4`2 41 43 42 4° 43 45 44 46 45 47 48 46 49 7 48 50 4 �t 51 5o 52 5' 3 51 5 Sry 53 55 54 5 55 56 1 2' 5 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 Is - 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 78 29 30 31 32 33 3 34 35 36 57 38 39 40 41 42 4.3 44 45 46 47 48 49 so 51 52 53 54 55 56 fa GRAZING AND 0FBT LAND G 1 2 Pri.tr,=y Uses: Livestock grazing, animal husbandry, intenze anima 3 arid animal -matter processing. 1 UGP�s 4 5 Scrops,coridary Uses: Resource extraction and processing, forestry, plant CoPG7 ag7c_:Lculbural support services'outdoor recreation faciliies, Ports, dwellings, utilities, environmental preservation activities, lic and air --8 9 pub- quasi -public uses and home occupations. 10 Site Designation Criteria; 11 1". Natural conditions Poorly suited for plant crops or timber, 2. Average parcel sizes 40 12 13 of acres or more. 3. Used for grazing and secondary uses. 14 4. Adjacent uses conducive t6 livestock grazing. is 16 rntensit7, of Use: Minimum parcel size of 40 acres. Where a PA -0 is ased the mirim 17 18 Fi'rQs-s denAi-�v nniiiri irn-mq P--- nQ J_ 40 slarQS ner dIA(PI T inE unit provided atleastof the total acreaae , of -2. :,side _P_r'ojE't_is set .20 ce uses. One - single-rimi '�_L�x dwelling per parcel additional housingTor on-site employees. 21 22 23 ,onsistent -Zones: TM -40 th:iou TM -160 A-40 1,"hru A-160 PR -40 thru FR -16424 �-C I C --F; - �2- 160 1 PA -C. 25 coning Factors., 26 Existing parcel sizes and dwelling densities. Livestock carrying 27 28 capacities. i. Slope. 29 Proximity to urban development. 30 Effects on adjacent uses. 31, Local desires. 32 3� 34 35 56 57 3) 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 0 I LIPPER-MOUITTAIN 2 i 4 ,;.jr; 'Cases: For e t.1 Prmanagement and the harvesting and p:cocessing 5 for,�-St products. 0-4 7 8 SecondaryUses: Animal husbandry, resource extraction atd process' 6 ing 9 environmental preservation act 7 dwellings, utilities, public and Outdoor -recreation facilities, 8 nd quasi -public 10 use8l airports. home occupations, and 9 11 10 12 Site Designation Criteria: 11 13 14 1. Ulimates, pe slo generally suitable f0 -T commercial 'timber production. 12 conifer forest's and 13 15 16 2.i Average parcel sizes of 40 acres or more. 3. Ownership by U.S. Government or timber 14 is 17 companies. 4. Adjacent uses conducive to timber production. 16 is 17 19 20 Intensity of Use: kl* inimum parcel size of 40 acres. =M�inimumz_ross, density could varyfrom 2 t 18 Where a PA -C is used 19 Inpr 21 22 unit .40 acres provided at �bof_ the t.0tal acre of - P -f a HwAl 14 �nrr - /0 _pro)_ject is g�t 9,Qide-)l 23 '74 _Lor_o-Joenspace uses. Une s-ngle-family divelling per al housing for employees. pa — rce with addition� -22 23 25 26 Consistent Zones: TM_L4O thru M-160, A-40 thru A-160 FR -40 thru FR-�60 24 R -C, C --F, TP -160', and 2A -C- 25 27 26 23 Zoning Factors: 27 29 1- Existing parcel sizes and dwelling densities. 28 30 2. Slope. 20 31 3. Elevation. 30 32 4. Road access'. 31 33 5. Effects"on adjacent uses. 32 34 6. Local desires. 33 is 34 36 3.5 37 36 58 37 39 38 40 39 41 40 42 41 45 42 44 43 45 44 46 45 47 46 48 A7 49 so 4 D 51 so 52 51 53 52 54 53 55 54 56 5S S6 NORTH EWL,ANADE 1-� COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL. MED1lJ DENS Y S:'7 �� IT RE _ i I AL. ( 5-8 D/U A,CR E r, a LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL M , Ip MuMo6UpA- 4 AlIRNORr A CROPS I 'Y I fl_99 '``�•�� � ^C�: f Il fro ��,, ``��. ...,,,_r/�' ' a w ii UP 1 Lj FA -)r A'/e7rU*. �LCA OM AN r Mier-Departmental Memoranhin v r_r M Poard, off; 3up(rviwor �nvJtanmgn�til �iov"�,v G'i.,? FROMI Larxy ,gooks, Planning Department SMECT: Go acral Plan. Land Use Element Ute 1 40 9 1979 DATE; October 267 1979 l3ui-1a Cooniy Pursuant to Government Code Section 65136 the Planning Commission has reviewed the General Plan Land Use Element modifications which were authorized by your Board at the October 16`,.1979 public hearing. Attached are the changes to the 'text in addition to the North Esplanade and Highway 32 map revisions. All of these modifications and the county.-wide map presented to your Board by staff on October 167 1979 were recommended for approval by a majority vote of the Commission. The Commission's actirn also asks that your Board consider the .Following minor text changes Page 28, Line 35: Change word "cooperate" to "consult". Orchard and Field Crop category, Line 29: Change "average" to ''predominent". Page 56, Line 15 Delete the sentence "Only two amendments have been made to the Land Use Map since 1971." Page 56, Lines 16 to 26; Delete these lines. Page 56, Line 53 add: "... and modification of affected property owners." Page 57, Line 22 Delete the word '"many". The Environmental Review Director has prepared findings and a sample motion (attached) for certification of the environmental impact reports for these revisions. After certification of the EZR the attached resolution may be adopted. clm Attachments i Sol= FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF TIM ENVIRONMENTAL MPACT REPORT Finding that comments and recommendations from the public have been attached to the draft environmental impact report, which .i,nclude;j the environmental impact reports prepared for the North Esplanade rezone and. West Highway 32 rezone as well as the environmental impact report integrated within the Lext of the Land Use Element that written responses to significant environmental... points, raised by the comments, have been prepared and attached to -the draft environmental impact re- port and that a list of the persons, organizations and public agencies who commented has been: attached to the draft environmental impact report, t move to certify the Final environmental impact report as having been completed in compliance with. the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Environmental, Review Guidelines and the Butte County Environment -,al Review Guidelines. n and has �� 2 .'�r�.ar� �r�l/�al and has Dm ._rYr-i - _ - �=-L . �, t ¢ . U --. Cs C7F ,amu �`� �,y;�p+'d r3.� :=. .-n. ' .�`�_.0 uti. '^ xJ_ ,✓a a draft compreher-sive land us, t-_., anw �aD a= ndment have Consulted vii-th numerous citizens and groups and halo.=c��g ,� ranging public part -cipa;',ion and Li-r rut -.n the -p-re-carat—ion cf sa-d Land Use Element-; a-a T SS, the P a�ir_g Depart-ment has ccrosuz U d � _tom the -- located wi shin the County, and the -oca7 Agency Forma- cn Do s�4 and s after - - �- p e n._ ..Li�y�c�' �.'� .:- �^_ nC�L� v.. -ctL slzan:. ty Codz! Seciion 6:-351 a 3 TL'BIC 3 L' . ear' nl� regarding =a4 d -a-3 E em , .t , ,-h ,�h ;= P a C�oni:� ��' r .3 �5, V)78 with �':.,......_E:s1.3 r:-Id -�h;;r•"oY d::ir=—� a Q.t-a_ - Pla— 1i.ng Co=. —.r..'_-i13L i.:r if!.-'., .7� w..Y _ uv :..^�w.r..� - ^t_t♦ u k TP,=RE-ALO, by Resclution 721-5 an'Ld ...or-ward-zd to -- revised Land Usm -71ter,^ ?•tr3. ^' _�- =� a __ iJ�: _ :t 711x_ Ilutt�'•� ' County »'card o- Sii :..rr'_3G'^s $�r�� _sig �., -� I - �ar •1 .—Li %�i'__ia",� ,,. C. _ tz�'�.'._�I _'� - -1`'`r L•:.? . .F n a'._=. _. aY .r_r .:.+. - - •i^. f and., �y } _ _...L s 6� YY,. .. ✓. Fi s�,n_ .._� �� r.._. _ _ ... - ♦ L -._ � .� y. � ..i ..-.a. .. �3..L'lJte-.._si!l.'� V-.. -'+.l .l}y�'1 1... ♦.-. - r 1-0 x Dull - - add -it -:)i -al a^.r,. T;;- .j.,,.�--C3 {�'_ ,OY_ �4[TM-ide LanUS-- Lf..-._ _ - Haz on Pl a [ _ �I7 �`if}SSQK%ior=awes [ _ - cfl eC -aT± . by Resoiutior. and - v s Board of Supervisors; and, a o re;. the Board 4tii"T _ — r 18, 1979= an ',-F- 1imony tour -in v.E... and mma a -ld ex -L' f .? _ 7 a v? -gyp _ _4 Z r. ` . t, t El MG b , _ Of SVJ.)-3rVjSorS 'i - - - -' .'.^ r -..ars +_ ,✓- ti.'.T3-z or a re Ort and- a� , 85558, a� ; s u { _ co-ltiru,-d to +• ' d v-' _: ..mix z on.Ciai�RZF- 1'7 i Std:; - -SOplS AS F o TJLOWS That land uses and land v" occur Pur, suau . to he policies. gu�-d-i-.sa and ='p e s=€ anticipate' to -ave s_Snificaut effects cn m nt i however, he pd entT al s di has been substantially reduced by mo i ficazlio s to 3 F" dam-a-e is of the previously sura? Reside -U_al lane use categor:, listea do _a 4-S v= she u a ai:- t,.. - dc�r...._u ::: ' was chang=`y o -`-„--cu �.-i�c'��3 _��. _��r*�i-z3_ 2Y� -_ aces caul 'b_ found con- sisT=ll�, .__':;h t-he o., ch--nge �,a ma;iv Zn 11 Orchard an---r Fie? for- the purpose of pra-,:-rtf-- an-, of -z-all F. Il1APt'O�C r aY .gin q^ y,�yy,+-• J,,.,. { _ su7-ercr - r -7 d :- Imo_ ..,.v ____�'�ti•„_ _ "�L ..-r.)._ :)f I. _ .. ..1 -"x .... • .._ x � -- i _ -_ . _ _-- ...ter +tL Cl t, '- t h a F` .. .. -"-.1 .,d n� - 4-+L' fwy ��r ��_ -.. .... _ki3� `9 � t - ... _ - .e—..- ..r,� e•.r ,.- - �e _k. lid-'`�•n•. _ ..:t . use and St' e- lay, and a revisi sem' 0th" 1n ef ect ssa ry t4o update fa- uaiinfo=, az ion., and remove internal inconsistencies and irccns? s-en r - -ye �.= the �u-,� i - General Plan. The curren l ::SU- of she Eand Use Ejere-t was de eloz ed in ctonjunct' ar I.ji th edit ro-nm3r ,a consider._+-oiLs- as set forth _r an- impact, '_'eco-,- _ _ s the Ele e _� replaces cid not have the gene _t o_ an gin'- ro ental im—pact r rn-' - stag? them' :}=_=y� the 17evz-sed Land Use -S an exp�:,ct d to Eufde Lhe -:xte it moi' land. use pati =n a vis less da-a�-i:ls Fenn-r than would be h=: Case uI'_dCr Phil T,- - Land Use c Pluch study, anal si . discuss? r'_"- and pi'bi ii -, 3�:s 4 eni into i f th_^ s Viand Use revision in 0--d -- to produce a usefu,1 - -s 3-_d 'and UFS _ 1- -ens r - 4 s- - -r iY - --_ice -- u -"' cam, !Al C, _ _ _ ai-a- t.s -- - `^j To a1. VFL'4' 4tisi.�»v `r V,3ssb.:L :.a profitlalble � use for ea3h parcel and to =air -air 1 �. the Laud Use w le z xt v Y r e. , Widen„-; ' _ as =, _ and flaps identified as aNdiibitus B , C, E attached ars: hereky adopted, w r �°r.� �� � e ; ��d� Butt County Gc eral _r=an,.- ta- zav copies La•y ��e$.2tu °1agt.::)`rL=,.`"� shall he lriur;; i. on of i,=':: 'lsv�:`@r,• Er_:T'_ and the f That tii� Geier 'Pal p '. T -a - =,fid i,:s _ adoptea ) n { j /� 7--178 + u Q N u , � kY jC. `-t `� +fir V". � 1 'Y'i v '--1 i^`� _ 1 it ✓ o � u --1 78 s her,��b as-_ ndei._ _ -i :�, tier- ed, and a l nrceria,?: - Th at. 'L12;: Gen,_'ral _lard f _ Use � r r.Xceptting e, -'ere 2' 01 here ry } Y 1 P.T - fa) on mM+N�+wl..�nMx..ava�M:�.+�..asrwtx�:n-�.:.rwk.��yLwM �.t zn za'Qux'.. �a cn,• .. ,. ..�z._..� c;r.arc:.a--...4- .i vr�.. roe Board of supervisor Fnoml Environmental Review Departmont SUSJ CT'I EER I -or Goncral Plan LLan l Use Element Revision 0ATLE ')ctobbr 26, 1979 The EIR for the General Paan Tana Use Element Revision consists of the matevia[ printed within the text together with the enclosed comments, responses to comments, and the BIR's fox the Highway 32 and North Bspl.anade Rezone projects This material should be rcviewod prior to final, a,tion can TLICsday. Wording; for the necessary 1110tiO11 is iJ1c1LtdOd in the rosolution prepared by the PIvilling Department . SUEJECTi DATE: 1i. f . Inter- epa rt pta 'Memorandum Stuart Edell, Public Works Bob Gaiser Determinations of General Flan Consistency October 31, 1979 Due to .the inherent difficulties in providing a quick "yes -or -no" determination on the consistency of proposed projects with the policies and maps of the County's General Plan, we will no longer require the completion and submission of consistency forms before accepting applications for subdivisions, land divisions and re - zonings. This is a procedural change only and does not affect State and County requirements for findings of general plan consistency to support County approval of such projects. Stevv, pave and myself will continue to explain General Plan provisions to the public and prospective applicants but all written determinations of consistency will be made by Larry Brooks. For rezonings, this determination will be made before environmental review or other processing activities; a negative finding at this point will require the cancellation of the project and a'refund of fees. For subdivisions and land divisions, this determination will be made upon our receipt of application materials from your office. To record that determination and communicate it to you, we will continue to use the general plan verification form; applicants should thus continue to complete their portion of this form and submit it with their application. Applicants who wish to know this determination l)efore they apply may still request it from our office, but in some cases we may need several days or more for adequate policy analysis. /1r cc: Bettye Blair Steve Smith ]pave Hironimus Clerical Larry Brooks E r�ronmer.Enl Po"IVIvw Jute t 8 1979 • Bufte? t,:oun�� TO 80"et"ry r'Or ROSOUrces 11116 Ninth SrVC!et, ROOM 1311 c SarnmentO, CA 95814 /x7 SUBJECT: L Efr NOVI CtArxK A. NELSQ,',, Cl UNW14151 COOnLy C,OUn.1,:y of 1`111, t ti�..................... Bli7�t�"z MOM (Tedd Agency) 711, —L. —I, t7 Jft) V-1- (.'./ -,Er(-) T- -L)t6l' �11 Filing of .7 Notice Of Determination in COMPJiance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public 'Resources Code Lo 1' � — — OJ cc C TiTre-- LaIld Use Memolit Izevisio, a t 'ec 10 L—n i —Im I conts 0 �n ro?" Lor —Lo c a t i o n Butto County 1 11011)* // 78-08-30-02 AN Various Mlt�s u 6 —Mf cte- a c e c, I -&-a L'eyepZialle�Num —e3: Ouse Id Use H'Icnient of General Plan for Butte County, T 1i I s IdvisC that t:hc-: -------------- Board Of SLIPCI-Visors -rd M c "i s Or 2 ' 11,18 Made the E-01101ving determin,- 7-TI—Ga'd Awency �jtions regarding the above-de8cribed The proioct =A wi.17have a Z-'�L-7* will not sign'f'canteffcct On the onv;.rollm.ent, 2- L -T An F,nvirorlmental impact Report was Pursuant to the Provisions Of GEMA, prepared for this project required by Section 15085(g) 14 . and was certified as Code. , r Califonia Administrative A NOgAtive Declaration was Prepared for this project to the provisions Oj." CEQA. Pursuant tion may be examined at the A copy of the Negative Declara7 County Center Dri Envonntl Revrtment, Drive, Oroville, California 95965. 3, L-7 A Notice of gxemDtion was filedindicating this project exempt from en'tir,onmental review. is Appendix H - page I of 2 4 A statement of Overricling Consider,"LiOli LV was, L7 was not, adopted for this ProjecL. 5. Mitigation measures adopted Ily t;JIa T,ead Agency to reduce t1le impacts of the anprovcd. project are: I STATENEINT 01, _OVBR Q *1 n-wr (,,.o'w,(;'rf)JiRATJONS The General Plan Land Use Element is required by State law, anL . 1 a. revision of the element presently 1.11 effect is necessary to update fact'u,;Il .reformation, and -remove internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies with other adopted ele,,icnts of the Butte County General Plano 2. The current text of the Land Use Element was developed in con- junction with environmental considerations as set forth, in all environmental impact report, while the Element it -replaces did not have the I)OII,efi.t of an, environmental impact report during its formative stage therefore, the Tevi3ed Land Use Element is expeed to guide the intensity and distribution of land use patterns in a less cTivironment,ill damaging manner than would be the case under the previous Land use Element. 1blic input went into 3. Much Study, analysis, discussion and pL the formulation of this Land Use Element -revision in order to produce a useful, effective) beneficial planning tool which is cf public sentiment and reasonable planning principles - signature F Director Title