HomeMy WebLinkAbout79-40 9MAP 2 ,
d / i, i �•A
r
7 NUN4(1L6T ,.taw,A,C • r y rr
1 C q010
r
D144 1� T N I k € T 1 ti4..a, tf <,.4 t.r
f "
r
LU
Gar►ti{.,ro T W P1,0114J1{
J Q97V�J A!. 4 f94 Nt ALdNL E H A u A •r• t u 0
4
.J !C6 `.dYf;:O .agn.. IJVIM�ir �70 ?d: itl4 (�
On LAO RIOL;,rtoo
9q -w .,�s9.\€ Prvu{ar. gRiRGe >.ra auM
/rJ599
i U 1 Y ti n�: i GovaGto r
U d C 1 p v 0 A
tOGal4E f..l
rOR. YP.CL v.\n0■t 119
.aru..N b v� C t9 ../i
°'ate
0.. r uR oa. 10 ...° kl E Y A 0 �r dlrrtnaa
rtrMittaW. Mr)y,.C.. 1 c, �. NEYAC� p
s' \ GOIUSA ..i �{. YU9A t /q"�,�9
r I,'Ne53 .� Ce\q.ect q tt.t wart :dt aai Or.
w ""�. :6.. a;t , •^"`�, Jt; r `rla ' Oq O rna
12b t R cw L A K G R s. N. .:. +L... t ;C E seat Cn)4A,a Nar
y 2* !O !' \ SLITTER *�traq�tlY.LtA Orrcr p,( A C C R !
31 i,.olt ¢at{ + I�Jr,rnmi oyl nwrrY
tlaanrlat r I u m.r'. �. �,✓
vt artMw 9 `.)
rt 04\ h i/rl 8V N. [�
IN
A• wnr t, i f YG\\ 4
ty 193LL 04RA00 +td
:.o.0 a.E is c5 O �ti sv +r
Y :0 L
5 0a0, A A \.,stat+ a r'.a 2® eN
r ` „ Ay CNTCJ 49 ALP I
E f wq.E-1
trNu 1
rw"tpait
rr.
r...\ r - h 16 A
t39\S" a� bWr. A t A' r5 srsLOa:+
1r ac i4 as" r1 rl'1r.:. �.I ct T,q r2 rr sV*` G tt
V4 of , �',a9 Ura t
ifrC grin ; rv. i.v1 f" yl 60 HEST v01N1
Ot ..•� rE ,.i )tl,
4 .e
r
(� :r•stel;.� ^*✓' 5 ! 0!L P.; ! : ca4i,,. /)� CALAYtRAS
^\ A !+� .NGYd1G 4 tGt a� .:....�+'„,� .valfii+r 4
9
(� t { fi R 1 k / �✓' • S f, p, +!r
63 ANtttS WO a twa., Owl
at Nils xOq" 2 \ Rx
1 aCJNGCa: \
tTJtL �. ata g
�. � ✓' i. '1� U oT'•trAA{t .�ruDlLa 23. ` 100 cg T U '0 L 11
r %fI EY JOA I N
SAN FOANCISCOrFq Ep�� C4 Moitaak 9�Ir.l�i5 R;ON '~
t00Ur )r ,J. uAa6a.t. i3
e . t. aa. \�9A0�t rna i 132 wgRq r *n03 Nk S? n€
�' .. A L A LOA r: a sr aPX ik. i_o . r+* y A R I P t
�A1 N r
r
SAN ATE'. r T A M lit' r4 A U 3oR• ✓ t9
11 t00 v rSON , .Sntn1�N
.ata took »T
aE'S° r a4. Y r,1p nott�ay0•: X99 i$ u4cr
f
1 3)°.It EN { ."l 51 ^% r" {LM6in1 s 1�L rc5 ^rt €90
LEGEND 1 SATEo
142
.. .r,5i r 9L4NAE4t:.
2.-,. •tv C l A R Ay
SANTA CPUL a sti E C E b ss
• SELECTED INCORPORATED CITY a'
N 15� w x tSI
0 mk COUNTY SEAT---
-� ° SELECTED UNINCORPORATED C"
( STATE HIGHWAYS
J -- --- PROPOSED STATE HIWWAY GENE RAL ROUTE DETERMINED
• - PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY GENERAL 'POUTE' NOT DETERMINED
VI C! N 1TY MAP
A Portion of Co/i{ornio G7�vi5rdn of�f�/�s
Orad G'e4/0V41M40.) 5CA,LE 1,; 2,040,000
1 140 GWERAL
This environmental impact report is Written pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Qual tty Aot to
describe the anticipated environmental effects of a ;)roposed
amendment to the hand Use Text of the Butte County General
Plan. The proposed amendment, while not itself reusing en-
vironmental effects, could potentially affect J <tnd use decisions
at any location: in the county wager. e non--confo,ming developments
presently exist.
-15.141: DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT s.r
The proposed amendment consists of the addita.on of the following
paragraph to the sand Use Element:
"The scope of urbanization in uniucorporated areas can-
not be effectively delineate°a on the land -use map of the
General. Plan because of the map scale and the wide dis
persment of the various u:�ban uses. As a result numerous
isolated existing urban 1,tses are not delineated on the
land -use map. In order to facilitate reasonable land -use
patterns consistent wi ch the intent of, the General Plan;
urban uses established, which are not shown on the land -use
maps and urban uses proposed which are contiguous to and
surrounded by thos- established urban uses shall be coir
sidered to be consistent with 'the land use element. It is
not the intent rf the General.. Plan .to allow urban develop-
ment radiating: from such existing urban uses. Rather, it
is the intent of the General Plan to recognize existing
urban land -use which is not depicted on the land use map
and to allow undeveloped land contig~sous to and surrounded
by such urban land -use to develop in a logical manner.
15143: ENVIRONMENTAL DIPACT
(a) Environmental. impactf of the proposed action.
As stated previously, the proposed amendment, while not
itself causing environmental effects, cou.Lc; Lotentially
affect hand use decision at any location ja the county
where non -conforming uses presently exist, Section
15147 of the State E.I.R.Guidelines shed.> light on the
degree of thoroughness necessary for analyN:*-s of impacts
of general plan amendments. Section 1,5'11'^ states:
a
11DtS1Ze(,, 0; _gpecif ici_tZ
t Tho degree of specificity
required in an 9j ) -J. Correspond to the degree
Of specificity involved in the underlying activity
which is described, in the. E.-T.R,
(a) An B,.J_J.Z. on a constrUc Lion Project will
necessarily be more detailed in the specific
effects Of the Project than will be an
on the adoption of ,-A local, general. plan or
comprehensive zoning ordinance hocause the ef.rects
Of the constructs on can be predicted w3th r,,,eater
accuracy.
(b) An E.I.R. on Projects such. as the adoption
Or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordin-
a,nce or a local goneral plan should focus or,
the secondary effects that can be expected, to
follow from the adoptiox)i but the E.1.1Z., need. not
be as detailed as an E.IR. on the specific
uonstructjon Projects that might fo3jow.i,
State law requires that subdivisions and r'ezon,e&-i must be con-
sistent with the County General Pl,.kn. The effect of the Proposed
amendment would be to Permit urban developmea,t in, the form of sub-
divisions and zoning changes with attendant const " build-
ings Parking areas, driveways, utilities, drajijagle'uction* Of
facilities
etc. in areas sur:vounded by; similar uses Where such development
might otherwise be precluded because it is not shown as a de-
velopment area on the plan's land use map.
Environmental impacts associated With such construction projects
would be the impacts normally associated with urban growth in
general. These impacts include:
1, Compaction and over coves ne,, ot* the soil.
2c Change in topography Or ground surface r0lJef features.,
3. Increase in soil erosion due to clearing and S:rading.
4- Exposure of people orproperty to . geologic hazards
such as earthquakes. 1
5. Localized increase in air Pollution from vehicle
emissions due to traffic concentrations.
6. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface water run-off.
7. Discharge into surface watersl o I r alteration of
surface water quality.
-2-
8. Change in -the quaxtity of ground waters.
9. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies.
10. :E)Tosure of people or property to water related
hazard;j such as flooding.
11. Loss of vegetation.
12. Introduction of new species of plants into an area
(for landscaping, etc.)
15. Creation of barriers to normal replenishment of
existing plant species.
14. Loss of agricultural soil.
15. Loss of open space. �-
16. Reduction of wildlife hab itat .
17,. Reduction of wildlife populations.
18. Creation of barriers to the movement or migration
of animal. s .
19.. Increases in noise levels. '
20. Introduction of light and glare to previously
undeveloped areas.
21. Alterations of the planned land use of an area.
22. Alterations of the Location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area;.
23. Creation of demand for additional housing. l
24. Generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement.
25. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or goods.
26. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclist,.y or pedestrians.
27._ Need for increased public services in the areas of
fare protection, police protection, schools, parks
or other ;recreational facilities, maintenance of
public facilities including roads.
28. Increases in the use of energy.
29. Need for utility installation or extension in the areas
of power or natural gas, communication, water, and
sewer.
«3y
d
30. Change in the visual appea,:oance of an. area.
31Loss of archeological v esources.
It should be pointed out that of the pro•'ects which could be
permitted to be constructed as a result oi' tha-s general plan
amendment, not all wouI.d create the environmental :impacts listed
above, and marry, of the projects would have impacts of relatively-
small
elativelysmall magnitude which, could be considered insignificant and
would thus warrant a negative declaration. All. specific projects
would be subject to individual envir.oum:en,tal review on a project
by project basis, so the potential, environmental problems of
each proposal will be studiyed in, greathe;r` depth based on, the
>art cul aii facts associated with that spC.,Ci.fa.c proposal, Some
of the project;, may warrant individual environmental impact reports,
and some may perhaps he modified or deni.edy`on 'the basis of en-
vironmental concerns.
Perhaps the greatest potential impact related to this general
pian, amendment is the h.ange in wording of the text which, would
permit projects that amount to a "substan'.ia.l alteration, of the
planned use of an area." Although each project will be individually
reviewed. the language of the amendment provides for a project to be
termed consistent with the plan, if located in tqn area where similar
development already exists, even if the prey -.existing development
is out of place and does not follow logical growth. patterns.
The Butte County Zoning Ordin! makes provision for non -conforming
uses which are allowed to coni ,, but may not be enlarged
and the buildings housing such uses may not be replaced if more -
than 75/ destroyed (Section, 24-37, Butte County Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance No. 1750). In theory, non, -conforming uses are in-
tended to be phased out over a period of time, when the owners"
investment in buildings has been amortized. The proposed amend-
ment might tend to prevent the phasing out of non -conforming uses
by allowing zoning otherwise contrary to -the plan and allowing
construction of new buildings which would have a :Longer life
span than the older buildings surrounding there.
The intent of the amendment is to allow development in those areas
where it should logically be permitted, but where such develop-
ment is contary to the land use map because 'of the sinal i scale
and 'lack of precision in the existing map. Because the amend.--'
ment also opens the possibility of permitting uses which might
be contrary to good planning principles, the amendment should be
considered a "stop gap'" measure until the land -use map can be
made more detailed and precise. This possibility should be
weighed against the problems of the present situation where logical
uses are precluded due to the shortcomings of the existing map.
a
C
The Planning Commission and Board. of Sixpervisors will exercise
judgement in determining which areasaffected by this amendment
should. be developed and which should not. Presumably, projects
will be denied if located in areas where development;, although
otherwise fitting the conditioas of the amendment, would be
contrary to good planning principles. However, there is no
distinction drawn in 'the propoe;ed amendment between non --conforming
uses which, should be continued. and a..,on-conforming uses which
should be phased out: all are deemed to be consistent with thou
plan regardless of location. 'Mis indicates a.need. to improve.
the map at th, earliest possible date, as a replacement for the
"stop gap" amendment.
(b) Agr Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided if the
Proposal is Implemented.
Because individual construction projects will be subject to
further envi.:7cnmental review, there is the possibility of pro-
ject modification or den -Lal based on adverse environmen`ral effects.
The propo,o ed amendment itself will have no unavoidable adverse
environmental effects.
(c) Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimise Adverse Tsnpact,.
Mitigation measures can most appropriately be applied when
specific construction projects are proposed. The environmental,
effects of this General Plan amendment emmnot be mitigated except
through alternatives discussed in the 'next section.
(d) Alternatives to the Proposed Action.
1. No project. This alternative would. involve the abandonment
of proceedings to amend the General Plan as proposed. The
result would be a continuation of the status quo, a situation in
which 'certain beneficial and desireable land uses adjoinging
similar uses are precluded because of a conflict with the general
plan land use map. The "no project" alternative would also pre-
clude approval of uses in conflict with the general plan which may
fit the conditions of the amendment.
2. Amendments to the land use map. More precise mapping of
designated growth areas would appear to be a more desireable
approach thin the suggested t11 -top -gap'' amendment. However, it
has not been pursued because 'she county -wide environmental
studies necessary to determine appropriate population densities
in rural areas and to de'te=.ne where growth can occur with:
minimal environmental problerxs have not been undertaken. These
studies cuTLId take a year or ,more to compl.ei.e, depending on the
number of :employees assigned to the task. Even with the proposed
(e)
(f )
(g)
amendment, the land, use map ,should be upgraded at the earliest
possible date as a long range rolution to the shortcomings of
the present general. plan.
3. Modification Of the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment
cou.ld be changed *to a±f ect only designated areas, such as the
urban fringes of established communities. This would preclude
new construction in developed. areas remote frorij. urban centers.
i
4. Case by case review and amendment -to the Goneral Plan. As
a fourth alternative, individual amendments to the general
plan could br processed on a case by case basis to accommodate
individual development projects. Tbis, too, should be considered
a "stop. -gap" measure to be used only- until the general plan map
is thoroughly updated. It should. be -. poin-�P.d out that a general,
plan ma;y only be amended three times per year, according to state
law.
ti
en
Uses of Man'
mend an,a Tne flain-yuii�_uwt� c:uiu PJ111.La11yt;:MG.L1U VJ.
As stated previously, this amendment could make an illogical land
use in a given V;.vea eligible to be considered consistent with the
General. Plan, if it is surrounded by other similar uses* Careful
judgement in individual cases will -need to be exercised by the
Planning Commission, Advisory Agency and Board of Supervisors
to insure that inappropriate uses are not increased and perpetuated
if sur -rounded by similar development (pre-existing but contrary
to good planning). Thorough revision of the land use map is the
best way to insure the best long term uses of each area.
ble Environmental
Some of the environmental impacts which could result from develop-
ments which would be eligible for approval as a result o4 this
amendment would be irreversible. However, the arendment itself
would not cause any irreversible effects. The projects Which
right, be approved pursuant to this amendment would be subject to
individual environmental review, and any possible irreversible
environmental changes noted prior to project approval.
The Gro,,,.ith-Inducing,_Impact of the Proposed Action.
The proposed amendment will facilitate growth, 'because it will
remove a legal barrier to additional development in already
partially developed areas. Areas where no development presently
exists would not be affected. Because of development which might
occur pu_rsuan-+ to the proposed amendnientpresures could be increased
W
APPENDIX "All
Camme,ts received pertaining 'to •the dx�a�''t cnvi��onmontaJ impact
to the
report, and the Environmental. Review
Director' -s response
comments received.
(a) Memorandum. from. tob Gad.ser.
(b) F,nvironxenta:l. Review Direc'tor's
:respo:n,e -to Ga :ser
memo rand -Um
(c) Comment, from 111. John Luvaas .
vt'
(d) Environmental Re -view Director's
response to the Luvaas
comment.
Zx - Reasons wby the alternatives to this
proposal have been rejected
in, favor of the ultimate Choice.
l2x - Letter from S'ta'te of California certifying completion. of
Clearinghouse Review.
aad rk'
Inter-Departfi'e0 1 emorandum
ra: Earl Nelson, Environmental Review Dept.
FROM: Bob Cai ser, Planning Dept.
SUSJr.CT: Comments on Draft EIR for Land Use Text Amendment
DATC: August 26, 1977
Your discussion of impacts appears complete and satisfactory
overall. However, T must comment on your discussion of
alternatives to the proposed action,
Pages 5 & 6
"(d') Alternatives to the Proposed Act :ion.
2. Amendments to the land use map. More precise
mapping of designated growth areas would appear to
be a more desirable approach than the suggested
"stop -gap" amendment. However, it has not been
pursued because ."
The "more desirable approach" of more precise mapping of desig-
nated growth areas is being pursued with as much energy, time
and money as our department can devote. New base map:; of the
Chico, Paradise and Oroville urban areas are being drafted for
development of larger scale land use maps. Land use surveys are
now underway in both the Paradise and Chico areas. We are
adding two Planners to our staff, both of whom will be working
largely on revision of land use plans. The necessary environ-
mental studies will be performed by these two Planners and
myself during the development of plans for each area.
It is very important to keep in mind that "more precise mapping
of designated growth areas" will not completely eliminate all
problems in the application, of land use plains to specific
development proposals (rezorings, use permits and subdivisions,.
California Government Code requires local general plans to include;
"A land use element which designatesthe proposed
general distribution and general location and extent
of the uses of the land.......,'
In this context "general" means that a hand use plan map should
focus on the broad outlines of the future pattern of development
andshould not indicate precise boundaries and the proposed use
for every parcel. This generalized map must be accompanied by
a clear statement of the jurisdiction's objectives, policies
and standards for now development.
4' UG 2 6 1977
99 -LL OLLd UL Sdoo
vw/
,, R sass 4ons kq papunoaans put) o1:
snon44uoo Puel padoLOAapun uo juawdoLOAOp JQLLWLs MOLLe
04 pue sash duLwao,).uoo-uou aZlUbooaa 01 Aaggeu 1nq
sasn to luiaojuoa-uou 6u Ll,s Lxa wouj, paeMlno 6u Ll e Lpea
luawdo LaAap Mau Mo L le 01 406 s L RO L Lod s L44 :)o 4ual:u 6
041 ,dew ueLd osn pueL DO 41LM 4ual.slsu60 paaapL.suoo
aq L Lp4s ;'sash uegjn Ae LLUILS pa4s L Del sa Xq papu.noaah5
puV ol. snonb Ll uoo aae 4a L4M 4nq I suo L1pu6 LsaP deur ue Ld
44 LM 1ua4Ss SUoouL aae 40L14M sash upq.An pasodoad `ueLd
Leaaua9 a44 �O 4U04uL a41 q4 m 4ua4sLsu03 9LgVu0sPOJ
Suaa;4Pd asn PueL a;p1LLoej, 04 aDP-AO u •dew
ash pug a4 uo pal -eau L LOP1ou� a.te sash uegan 6u L1s , ;ta
p04V Los L snoaaamu `1 Lnsa.4 a sV • sasn ueq.An snoLaeA
aql: 40 4uowsaads Lp OPLM 041 pun, d eui 044 40 osodand
a41, CaLPOs dew a41. 40 asnvoaq Uv[d LVaOu@O 044 jo dew
ueLd asn pueL 044 uo pal.eauLLap XLaAL10a4.40 oq l,ouueo
SPO,Ap palea+ndaoou Lun u L UIJ L1Vz Lup'gan o adoos oq l,,,
S
;xal. bu LMo L LOJ a41 l seb6ns i • sosn 6u'Ll s Lxa
40 Lenoadde 4alueLq aq4 bUL4GLaP 4q pauag4bua.11,s PC? paW#AVLo
aq p Lnoo zuawpuawe aqi • s Laoapd a:upoVA pOpunoa.tns uo luaw
-
doLanap aeLLwLs MO o1 uapAO uL sasn lua4Ss SUo.ouL ao P94pLOSL
L LP 40
6u Lssa lq Leuo L1 Lpuooun UV aaa o �Car.ssaaau lou SL I
•4uagslsuoo ao aLgeaLsap aq l.ou Sew ab 411w 40L4M suaLlen4L5 �Uew
;o uopaed LebaL a p11 SJ040LpVa4uoo l.e4rnaw0s L 4u6wa4e4S SLq.L
11•4uaw9La asn Puel a41 44LM4U04SO
-uoo aq o4 paaaptsuoa aq LLegS.......:.sdew ash-purL
aqx UO UM04s lou aae 43LgtA °pagsLLge4sa sash uegan„
;l.e_4l: sa4els mou luauipuawe aql
„° 4uawpuawp pasod oad aq4 So suo ;1po L# 00p 4 'C,,
dpot oqZ asn pup pup4saapun o4 saajVW-U0 LsLoap
pup saappaa dla4 asLMaa410 pue saLaobagvo osn jo 1ua4UL a44
agLaosap IIDLgm s4uawa4i4s lxa1 Xq paLupdwoobv aq s9RIALe Ptnogs
sdew
aq uV Ld ash pue-1 • sa Ld Lou Lad 6uLuuVLd pappuV4t pue sau L LaPLn6
91e15 4q LM l.ualsLsuoouL aq POOM pue I ,a6up4o ueLd paLLejap
4uanbaaj aaLr.baj pLnOA `uol,4Vj0ad.aa4uL uuld uL 44' LLgLxaL;
L Lp 1u9Aaad p LnoM` •4uawdolanap -Ma LAa.k 01, sja�ew-uo Ls.toap paoua L
-aadxa pup aan ew ao) paau aq4 a1VuLwLLe pLnorn °dn 6uLuoz a41
44 LM LVO L1uap L aq P LnOm Laaaed Raana JOJ suo Ll;eu6 Lsdp o Lj Load s
put saL.Aepunoq asLoaad 44LM dpw upLd 'ueLd Le.4aua6 40uoL4VoLLddp pup uoLl.plaadaaluL a44 UL pae06 941 pup GOLssLwwoo
aq4 �;Pjs fq l,uawabpnC powao4UL , 0; peou 641 aIeuLwLla 4ou
IILM sdVw ueLd ash PUVL - alV1s a44 6ulsVaaouL '90L anbasuoo-
•s4uawa4v4s 4xa4 snoLaeA pup dew asn pupL e ggoq jo Ma'dd
saaLnbaa sn44 sLesodoad l.uawdoLanap 04 ueLd aqq JO uoLgeoLLddd
sn6n
Z aSVd uos LONL LJe3 q:01 owaW
(b) Envix-oramental Review Director's Response to tho Gaiser Memorandum
It is reassuring to know that "more precise mapping" is being pursued.
However, it will be some time before the maps are completed, and the
problem resulting from shortcomings in the present map is immediate
in its effects on current projects, By "more precise mapping" we did,
not intend to imply that every square would be specifically de-
signated for particular uses,, but rather that the guidelines for
subsequent precise zoning actions would be made more clear, and areas
for -the various land use categories generally delineated. The point
is that the map should be more precise than it is at present.
On the question of the suggested alternative wording, the effect of,
withholding a determi,n.ation of consistency for existing developments
would be nil, if additional new development is permitted at the same
location, and .if the new development is still determined to be con--
s stent. Ideally, existing developments shol,id be reviewed on a case
by case basis for compliance with good pl.anra.ing principles. Those
that make sense, should be determined: to be consistent and identified
on the map. Those that clearly are contrary :to good planning
principles should be designated for alternative uses and labled
inconsistent- After the map is brought up to date in this fashion,
the current amendment could be phawed out as it would no longer be
needed.
(c) comment from Mr. John Ijuvaas
At the Planning Commission hearing of September 26 19971 Mr. John
Lawaas stated that he felt the amendment was awbiSuous in its ;p -
plication, and could lead to residential subdivision applications on
designated agricultural lands which are already surrounded by a
sprinkling of residences
r
(d) Envivonmeiital Roview Director' o Response to the Luvaas Comment:
We concur -that the proposed amendment does add an element of am-
biguity into determinations of consistency. (i.e., what constitutes
"surrounded by" in relation to the intent of the amendment?) As
pointed out in, the draft impact report, 'the amex.dment may make de-
velopments consistent which, otherwise do not follow logical growth
patterns. Por this reason., the amendment should be relied on only
until superseded by a more precise up to date land use map which
incorporates and recognizes those logical. and reasonable growth areas
affected by this amendment.
Reasons wiry the alternatives to this I)T-oposal have been rejected
in favor Of t1le ultimate choice,.
No 1)-x -0- a e _ct This altornative does not fit the objectives of
he
Proposed amendment which are to permit the approval of
Projects not shown on the existing land use
map which are
intended to develop in a logical manner.
2.
Am.endments to the land use mao:. This alternative is in pro-
cess 'Tu—tmay talte several to
years complete at present
staffing levels. Therefore, this alternative does not im-
mediately achieve the objective stated in the comments re-
lated to Alternative 1, above.
3.
Modification of the PIoDosed amentiment to eliminate areas
beyond the urban fringes Of esta-lTl-i","hed�commuxl:L
ties :-' Thisallernative would eliminate
Tat -e the achievement �the objective
listed in
the comments related to Alternative I above for a
large portion of the county (rural areas).
4.
Case-hycase revi - e -w -and amendment of tlie --eneral -olan. This
would raise the possibility off' inconsistent determinations
from from one project to the next. Also, it is a cumbexsolae, time
consuming, expensive
process,
Tot
FrIOM;
Inter-Departmontol' Memorandum
I'laxatirig Commission
Kylo But tovwiok, Advanco Planning
suuJ�c'r; Land Use 11i'lemont,
DATE; July 2 7 1979
The Board of Supervisors recently completed a lengthy examination
of the propusod Land Use Element of the County's General Plan.
The proceedings involved four weeks of public, hearings and three
separate "study --sessions" in which the Board reviewed in detail
'the text of -the Land Use Element. The Boards decision to first
study the text of the element was based. primarily, on the premise
,that the Land Use Plan Map should be considered in. context to
the policies and standards of -the text. Consequently, the Board
intends to more thoroughly examine the map following the review
of the text when guidelines for considering map amondments are
established.
In the course of -the Boards deliberations on the text, several
changes to the document were recommended. As a conooquence, the
Board has referred -the document to -the Commission for consider-
ation. Further, pursuant to the Boards request, a public hearing
has been scheduled before the Commission on July 25, 1979 to
consider additional testimony :relative -to -the Land Use Plan Map
proposal. The text and map will thus be reviewed at this meeting.
The specific text changes as recommended by -the Board, appear
below.
Page 10, Line 36: Modify sentence to read, "Parts of Butte
County are archaeologically sensitive with numerous known..."
Page 24, Line 25: Add "Durham Mutual Water Co."
Page 32, Line 20: Modify Policy D to read, "Require 2Soof of
adequate water supply for all new developmemt.11
Page 32, Line 31: Delete the word "Potential"
Page 32, Lines 41-422: Modify sentence to read, "In response to
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the Butte County Associa-
tion of Governments has prepared an Air Quality Implementation
Plan. . .
Page 33, Line 32: Modify Policy A ',--o read, "Bacourage expansion,
construction and efficiency of hydroelectric power plants in
the County."
4 P"'Ago I I
33, Line 38: Modify Po.11cy D to read, "Roomoto., conservation
of onorgy roloourcen in, reviewing
Page, W, Line 15: Modify Policy A to road, Vvovide transportation
flacill ,ties of all 'types to supply needs for rapid, effIcient,
comfortable, and safe passage of people and commoditioo-11
Page 39, Subsections 7-8: Combine subsections ? and 8 into one
category entitled, Fire Stations and Other .Public :BujIrI!-Mrrs
and delete Policy A beginningon L-,.,. :�31-6 avor- O"bime
needed to respond to fire calls depends largely on road access
and the 10--l"," of fire fighting 0quipment and personnel.
More than 20 stations providing year-round protection to
w(Alley areas are operated by .the Couaty, the four cities and
two independent districts. Most foothill and mountain areas
are served by community volunteer companies �,nd seasonally
by the State Division of Forestry and U.S. Forest Service.
These government agencies and others serving this area require
many offices) meeting rooms, garages, parking lots, storage
areas and other structures. The efficient arrangement of
these facilities and their location in proximity to the popu-
lation served can maximize the level of service and minimize
public Costs.
L213L_ Cj:
a. Locate new fire stations with consideration to accessi-
bility, future development and natural fire hazards.
b. Encourage central and, convenient locations for all
government buildings consistent with land use plan.
o. Encourage central and convenient locations for hospitals,
meeting halls, private schools and other quasi -public uses.
Page 39, Add category entitled, Solid and Liguid Waste Usposal
Facilities . "The management and disposal of solidandliquid
wastes is closely monitored by Federal and State governments.
As a result of Government Code 66700 ET SM., Butte County
adopted a solid waste management 'plan in 1975 for the purpose
of setting forth a program for the storage, collection, pro-
cessing and disposal of all solid wastes generated in the
county, The collection and isposal of solid waste material
is performed by several privately owned transfer stations and
one central sanitary land—fill site which is owned by the
county and leased to a private company for operation and
management. The use, storage and disposal of liquid waste
is regulated by the County Health Department in cooperation
with the State Water Quality Control Board.
Policy:
a. Protect the public health and safety of Butte County
residents and the natural environment through efficient
solid and liquid waste management practices.
b4 Support the continued review and study of alternate
locations for the disposal of solid and liquid wastes.
ti
Page 3
Pago 401 Line 53: Modify Policy A to read, "Protect valuable
so nic areas and parks for enjoyment by resid.onto rind visitor ."
Page, 40, Line: 56: Modify Policy C to read., 1111haourage compatible
land use patterns in scenic corridors and adjacent to sconic
ter
w€� wag's, Vivc.rs, and crooks."
Page 41, Line 14: Modify Policy B to read, "Prevent development
and site clearance other -than river bank 'protection of marshe s.
and significant rip r an habitats.
Page 45, Line 15 Modify Item No. 3 to read, "Predominate parcel
sizes of 5 acres c, more."
Page 46, Line 14 Modify Item No. 2 to read,, "Predominate parcel
sizes of 11.0 acres or more."
Page 47, Line lel-: Modify Item No. 2 to read, "Predominate parcol
sizers of 40 acres or more."
Page 50, Lines 28--29: Remove the following zoning districts :From
th,, list of Consistent Zones,M� SR-,�ti , and AR_5
II II II � It "
Page 51, Line 28: Remove the following zoning district from. the
list of ConsistentZones, "AR -511..
Page 55: Replace entire page with the following language.
A. LAND USE FLAN.MADS
1. SCALE AND INTERPRETATION
The comprehensive land use map for Butte County is
essentially one official map. The land use element,
however, contains separate land use plan maps for each
of the areas around -the four incorporated, cities and
the community of Paradise. The designated. land uses
for these areas are displayed on maps having a larger
scale than the over-=all county comprehensive land use
map. The purpose is to provide greater detail for the
urban and community areas. The small oommunities in
the county will. have maps of larger s,, -ale and detail
taken for these areas. As each urban area and each
community area map is amended and adopted, the detail
of Land uses for these areas will be found on their
respective land use plan. map.
The Government Code recognizes the general plan as
consisting of a diagram or map in addition to a text
which sets forth policies and standards for development.
i
y Paso 4
SOo'i ion 65,)0 reads:
"Tho gen.rral plan shall consist of a statamont
of devOl.opmOilt policies and shall, incl,ud() a
diagram or diagrams and. text ,,iet b ing forth
objectives, principles, Otandardo, and plan
proposals."
The text defines guidel,inoo for development and
establishes the framework for making judgments and
decisions on land use and planning concerns.
When this general plan is reviewed as to consistency
with any project, reliance for any finding of consistency
or inconsistency -shall not be solely based on -the
Land use map.
As an example, Government Cade 65860 defines the
requirement- of consistency as regardo rezoning as:
"The various land uses authorized by -the
ordinance are compatible with the objectives,
policies;, general land uses, and programs speer
Pied in such a plan."
Government Code 66473.5 dealing with subdivisions, in
defining cons?stency, states:
"A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with
a general plan or a specific plan only if the local
agency has officially adopted such a plan and
the proposed subdivision or land use is conipat
ible with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs."
Government Code 65402 requires that prior to
acqu:;_sition or disposition of property that such
proposed action be reviewed as to "conformity"with
the general plan.
Thus it is readily apparent that the required consis-
tency finding for either a subdivision or zoning may
not be based solely on a map determination, but rather,
upon the objectives, policies, general land uses and
Programs specified in the entire general plan.
Due to their "general" and long -:term nature, land use
plan maps do not need, nor ordinarily show, precise
locations and definite boundarie-, For this reason
land use plan maps do not operate as, or in the place
of, zoning maps.
a
Pap,C'. r
IM p:G,I��I"1EN', IATI ON
a. sand 'use plan maps arc: and shall, bo printed on
a orale Of :1.1" 4 Milos for rural. aroas and
25000 foot for u*oban areas.
b. The decision-making agency shall decide which land
use category is the more appropriate where develop -
Ment sites aro split by or adjacent to indefinite;
category boundaries not following known physical
features or property lines.
c. Proposed uses that would be inconsistent with the
land use plan map designations, but are surrounded
by and contiguous to similar existing uses shall
be considered consistent with the land use plan
map
Page 56, nines 3-11: Delete the :C--Lrst two paragraphs from this
page.
Page 57, Line 22 Modify subsection "1" to read, ',portions ns of the
county are still included in the A=2 and A-2Limited zoning
districts which allow all uses, though some require a condi-
tion.al use permit. These two general zones do not reflect
either the text or maps of the General Plan and thus have
not been listed as Consistent Zones for any Of the land use
categories described above."
Page 57, Lines 50-56: Modify sentences to read, "It is important
to note that the urban categories (Residential, Commercial.
and Industrial) require zoning which allows urban uses and
densities immediately. The greater range of consistent zoning
classifications allowed in the rural categories (Orchard and
Field Crops, Grazing and. Open Land, Timber -Mountain and Rural_
Residential), places more attention and emphasis on zoning
to determine densities."
Page 58, Zine 12: Modify Policy A -to read, "The County shah.
eliminate the ""A-2"" and ,"A-2 Limited" zones through the re-
zcni..Ig of such areas to more consistent classify cations as
soon as practica.l
Page 597 Zine 27: Delete the last sentence of the second
paragraph." Compatibility with the general plan is often
discussed but is not a required consideration or finding."
page 60, Line 21: Modify sentence to read, '"If they determine an
application is inconsistent with -the Gene.nal Plan or any other
applicable plans adopted by the Board of Supervisors, the
Adv,t. af.STi;y A ,OTIcy Trust dioapprovo the project."
Vag,e 6?, Line 41.1: Change the "Implementation" heading to "In
-the; Spirit of Cooperation" and modify Policy A to read, "Thr
County wi;l.;l, review developznont policies and proposals for
boi;h co=L-y and city general plans with the incorporated. citloo."
Page 63, Line 29: Modify sentence beginning on Line 29 to read,
"Butte County LAYCO adopts spheres or long range service plans
for all the cities..."
:)`;'age 63, Line 37: Delete the last sentence from the third
paragraph, "The :Butte County LAYCC is currently undertaking
a much-needed comprehensive revision of adopted spheres of
influence :for the four cities and the water and sewer districto."
Page 65, Line 32: Remove the words, "justification for all" from
the sentence.
Page 66, Line 30: Modify .the sentence to read, "The goals of the
adopted plan are to develop a transportation system which
satisfies then reasonable needs for movement of people and com—
modities via all roads, rail, air and all other transportation
modes.
Page 67, Line 33 Modify Policy B to read, "The annual report
required by Government Cock Sections 34217 and 65400 shall
be prepared by staff and submitted 'to the Planning Commission
and Board. of Supervisors."
Page 67, Line 52: Modify Subsection A under Implementation to
read, "Subsequent to the revision and adoption of land use
plan maps for each community area, the County will consider
formal applications for changes from one land use category
to another designation on the land use plan maps."
i • �
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Butte County
Planning Commission will hold public hearings
on Wednesday, July 25, 1979, to consider--
BUTTE COUN'T'Y GENERAL PLAN
The amendment of the Land. Use Plan Map of
the Butte County General Plan (Land Use
Element),in addition to specific revisions of
the Land Use Element text as recommended by the
Board of Suporvisors.
The meeting will be held, in the Board of Supervisors l
Room, Butte County Administration Building, 1859
Bird Street, Oroville, Ca. and is scheduled to
begin at 7:39 P. N1.
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BETTYE BLAIR
DIRECTOR OF .PLANNING
To be published in the
Paradise Post, Friday, July 1.3
in the
Ornville Mercury,
Gridley Herald,,
Chico Enterprise Record, and
Biggs News on Thursday, July 12
Ju. W d, 19i9
CO. Planning Cam,
'JUL 9 1979
orovillo, Califo:nl4
PoZ.t of j� ae 13o.Y 9
Fojw.6t Ranch, Cry. 9594'
hla, Ratq Ace.&&, ChaLvnrtn
Bu.t.ttz Coun4 Nanning CommL 6,6 on
c/o f,'tt Coun4 A; dcnJtt!nq Co,7zIt4iZ,6.%:on
Counttg Center DA.Zve
dnI,v L&, Cc UA,%n.ia 95965
SuB.�ez,: G,cn,e�%al? T man 1�.,e,uG.e,w
Deem Mn,. LJh �.eQen
Z am .6omewhat coacz4n-d wZ: A' &Uuauon, is .the roym,3t' �2aach
ar ea in that .fhe 64ra4ag NoA does no: cor,&Am not "gest
cului- n .band uza u,6 a exZzL6. A.6 Z und"Azt.and, the Gomm.!-s.aion
.L.6 plta,�enUq ntaLewlrq Vw6e pro Ic,7L6 in Vw. FortezZ Ranch a"a
and otheA rv4a" oA .th.c couh4,,
7`h.Z,6 4Ztua.tLon haz advz44ay.. af.Atted VLe uU4ZzatLon o� owt
paopaatg In xthat .the zoning. wo,6 changed .to a non-conibluning
u.6a de.6Zgn.aUon. T'h.i3 h" made) U .Lmpo.34U& .to u4e J%
.land -An what U wa,3 oitig ncc2P deva2apecL acrd t seL' it.
X have arw-&.6od a m�gectintl CuA&ant u 6t2p za the area,
a.P.onot with a AAuZA . .hand piwming o&jcUver
uv :Zch Y A—a" azc .Ln ",apLnrq with Coun4 pian -6 and w a& ztL.P.
pnovide for LZ 1mzi.denca,3 wih eat u,,w, iri comp:?ianca t tbt the
geneaa pian.
In Vw ave,nt tfou my have riuezUonbj pep -a g raU- -342-3351.
Z pian .to a4i-e.rd .the .eMeduZed mA.e. w. oA Jtt,Qtj. 25, 1979.
lout coni, ide za.: 4n wi& Ae a�qp&pai.a&d
vaav bur dt thou Rs,
,r. �Li..P�irtm r. �unclz
cc; Boal � Sup.en.vida
unc.6ozwt" (2
pnop6zed OAUairz Con�m7tZbl in Grnanat Plait - F`onezt Ranch
OAVOr %40aide Dat4 to Suppo.-7t Reriue.64 An Zoning Update and
i2.eai.,3ion T2e 'e cense; SuP, j_ect. PaAza. 063 -18 -0 -00,? -0
Luo /fi7 o{' Folw-.at Ranch Saiadi.vision.
+ ague 77tiz paopoza,P and i� od.jec,Uva .is intended :Eo prcai�itL i
data .to zuppoat .the cuwutent pnoc-;-s s o� upcdaUnrq and
c Pcus s% ' cc�tio�r ;&a zoning .in the Butte County gaamag plan.
A.a �Um ii�luuation..6 owd, the cturaent zoning 14 not in
conpam.i:tq wiM . Ag actual u a o� .the van.iou.6 paopa.,a.ties.
Two moU& paldu ex zt. Then- wu. o.th �cv_co/w&d 5.1, acne
divizion.6 oA bt e zunaoundG ng. plwp¢„nb,�.
/fiz-toirL=Ubi,, the -6u ja,--: pnopembl, where puneh.azed, had
Aun Sli, S2, 42, and C2. The akove
zoning wu changed to cu anent Aft 5.
dachgaound The dam ovo-Alayed on the attached map iz .#he "suU oA
a aZzual and vea&ag .inventoAy inane on .lune 29 and 30, 7979.
R- 1.6 not imp Ugd ;-hot :the cLatail on Vm attached map i.3
o� .engineeninq accuaacj,�The .incentive Aa Vz .6 action
iz ta4ed on U cdetenm nat on .that :the zoning o..' the r7nope/d#
.iz nota curiae t4 Vie ame ass when puachazed.
The o&d( ez4Zve .in o cig�aai puncha3e waa ?x-6aPe aj.&a steam. --up
and .impno vt men t whi&- awutZn,,-4 zome ermningz. A pa vt o
.the o2 est% ,a.. w" Aalocation in pant .used on medicd neaw".
&Uuae to aa-ZaU bV,6 p4open.4 ars a zonzeyuence oA cuAaent
zoning will .impoze a zaveae handzhip .on -&a ownea.
/Uque,3L Rezone 28.94 avzaz am Ailotm One (1) 20 acne paace2
M 5, a,, .6hown on Zhc attachment, with :the A4maining' 8.9 r-&aZ,
.r`,rzco v =Y-ing .tine ex:ijtinrg 4* acner, a s SK oz ifl:,"& ,Rome ,0.
7/6/79
S 1?X i Ati rrA45 REcae
i°c`k.eit }crutNiGh} �D
407 =
Xk3 stfi4* = A*A v-$,!rD ,tai 7 -
TIN -20
_ T24N RAE 3I 2, i j
i
r
If s
LoT
Art- Vim
RES RAS
�A -R-5
� r gRus�xa
TM -5 REs
ADT �,� L•T d
LOQ
- t RES f -
���
RAS LOT t°t
t 1 �. �
, IN
�_ RFS
or
z
0tt€�6 N �` '`� �','y RES
f'
N fed ,
, flag
RES �r-�`g.
c a g
°D 1
.ajLVT _ 'a tea
-t F
/
—;n
�f
toT
t=s
t lrg _;.. .,y z
i
J. 41, h + C
jie
Rag,
r.t F
_
ftela f
TM -20 A -R-5
g �g
C
r /o/
LIME SADIE-)LE
COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT
President Secretary
Tillman Daley Carl Fischer
P.O. Box 125P.O. Box 3258
Paradise, ca. 95969 Chico, Ca. 95927
916-872-1840 916-343-36L1.4
Dukio Co. Manning comm.
July 10, 1979 JUL 111979
OrOV1110k cailiornl'
Butte,County Planning Commission
7 County Center Drive
oroville, Cali.-eornia 95965
Re: Land Use Plan Map as Affecting
Benefit Zone A; Lime Saddle
Community Services District
Gentlemen:
This letter is a follow-up of Lime Saddle
Community Services Dsittict's request that Benefit
Zone A, being a, fractional part of the total area
in the District as a whole) be classified as Medium
Density Residential (page 50, Land Use Element,
February, 1979 Draft) on the emerg6nt Land Use Plan
Map now under consideration by your commission.
Greater detail was provided in Lime Saddle's
March 21, 1979 letter to you, in an April 30, 1979
conference with Senior Planner Lyle Buttcrwick,.and
in the recent July 2, 1979 conference with Planning
Director, Bettye Blair.
Enclosed are Exhibits number I through 7
covering the above letter and conferences:
No. 1 - Location Map of the District.
No. 2 - Plat of Benefit Zone A, showing
location within LSCSD, and also
showing location of water supply
and distribution system*
No. 3 - Ordinance establishing Benefit
Zone A including legal description
of Zone A boundary.
No. 4 - Topographic map showing boundary
of entire district and Benefit
Zone A boundary within the District.
t
ii
1
LIME SAODLE
Ci S, Di
1
Hex 6�t; CoIiage
i
„
1
D
a Road
'
w ham.penl2
a
\ O
d
TN( RCSOUtCli AG"Y
DEPARTMENT Of WATER AEWURdS
HORTHUUH WtTKI'
}
LIME SADDLE
r99'
•.I
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
o
LOCATION MAP
0
Scale In Biles
4
,� ' f P ti
PARADISE
IRRIGsATIO J
DISTRICT
VOJEC.T
9CA`CIO"
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
LIME SADDLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTIqC,.r
COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORDINANCE No. I
ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING ZONE OF BENEFIT "A" AND
PROVIDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND WATER SERVICES
BY THE LIME, SADDLE COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
58 IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the Lime
Saddle Community Services District, Butte County, California,
as follows:
ARTICLE I
ESTABLISHMENT Or, ZONE
1. Zone of Benefit "A" is hereby established, within the
following described portion of the time Saddle, Community Services
District,,
Alla that certain real property situate in the
County of Butte, State of California, described
as follows: We
The North one-half of Section 31, Township 22
North) Range 4 East, M.D,B, & M and that
, 1
P.Ort'On Of tile South one-halff, o.)
Section 30,
,Township 22 North, Range 4 East, M.D.B. & M.,
lying within the boundaries Of the Lime
Saddle Comm"nity Services District.
ARTICLE IT
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
2. Subject to the availability of Davis-Grunsky Act
financing and subject to voter approval of said financing,
(Y-� 10
I
At!
Y,
. ......
the Lime Saddle Community Services District shall construct
a backbone pipeline primarily along Pentz—Magnlia Highway,
together WILI-1 a water storage tanlco all within Zone of 13enef,11t
A
ARTICLE Ill
SERVICES TO BE*PERFORMED
3. Upon completion of a backbone pipeline and water
storage tank, the Lime Saddle Community Services District shall
obtain,, conserve and dispose of water for public and private
uses within Zone of Benefit "A" in accordance with rules,
regulations and rates to be adopted from time to time by said
District.
ARTICLE IV
TIME OF TAKING EFFECT
4. This Ordinance shall take efj7ect immediately on passage.
`7 10--
P-re—sident of the Board o erector
Lime Saddle Community Services District
AT TI; S,T:
7
Lime Saddle Community Services District
2
I hereby certri,f•y Oiat the foregoing Ordinance was duly
passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of Lime Saddle
Community Services District, BUttO. County, California, at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of January, 1979,
by the following vote:
AYES 4
NOES i - 0
ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: 1
(SEAL)
Secretb-ty
Lime Saddle Community Services District
a
ct
lr
40
EgMAUNO 0. BROWN 1R., C.o..thVI
S' %TV Cif (AIIP00141A-01E WOURCIS AoENCY r.. ra..xx sect .was?
�.. o�..,z" r :T
SlfAIII WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
F., 0. tipX 100 'i SACt1AMENTQ 45001
(91.6) 445-7971
ti Icy.
APR Z 1 1978
NOTICE TO A1.L AGENCIES SNI.KXN(; CLAN WAT5R GRANTS 1N FISCAL YEAR 1.978-7) AND
SUBS8Ql1GNT YEARS
OI't March 1.6, 1.978, the State later Ttesources Control Board adopted tine attached
F,l.scal, Year 1978-79 Clean Waters' Grant Priority List except those projects listed
i,n Priority C'Inss G. Priority Class G projects were added to the Ll. -4t at the
Board meeting on April, 20, 1978. Adoption of this List was preceded by a public
notice dated Uecembec 19, 1977 and public hearings held January 23 and February 1.5,
1,918. Preliminary copies of the List were distributed on March 2, 1978. Projects
fundable in T.Y. 1.978-19 are indicated with the appropriate step listed in the
1,978-79 column.
Where projects are shown for a Step 2 and/or Step 3 only, facilities planning,
(Step 1) is being accomplished under a previously awarded grant or by a separate
agency. Where projects are shown for a Step 1 only, additional steps may be
added to future priority lists contingent on review and approval of the facilities
plan.
Project steps from prior years Priority Lists which have not received .a Federal
grant offer were carried over to the F.Y. 1978-79 Priority List. Those project
steps not carried over from a prior fiscal year are anticipated to have all
Federal grant offers awarded within the current obligation period.
if you have any questions concerning Priority Lists, please contact Mr.. Ron Blair
at (91`6) 322.3413.
Larry Walker
Execut ve ,hector,
Water Quality'
Attachment
-- —MMII moll_ __
PAGE 040
J3 N AcjF-ELCY
PROJECT
- �lll.--
�[t�
ESTiEIlG.
1.11StC,�il°L
QF_ al= nN DF PanA F�
CLA1 L
KCAL YEAR (ANO ASSIGNED STEP)
,,�...._
RANKI
�
11
�.�zg 22..-gin M-Al c,.--ju
$A
t��
195-2-01
1-
12,000
UNStWFRFD COMMUNITY HAS PO-
L-10953
1
S .RVI E DI. R I
T 1952-10
2-
24 bOO
TENTI AL PUBLIC HE-AL 1`H HAXAPOS.
x 3
1952-11
3-
264,000
FROM FAILURES OF INDIV SYSTEMS
5A
LITTLE VALLEY
1P73-01
I-
7,000
TREATMENT AND/09 TRANSPORT FOR
D-0381
1
COMMUNITY SERVICES
1873-10
2-
13r000
UNSI:NERED COMMUNITY -
2
DISTRICT
1873-11
3-
130#000
5A
LITTLE VALLEY
1813-20
2-
8 000
COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
L-1094
COMMUNITY SERVICES
1873-21
3-
142,0"30
UNSEwFRED COMMUNITY -
2 3
2
UISTRIC7
LIVERMORE, CITY OF
14Z9-10
2-
640,000
tXPAND EXISTING FACILITIES
E-0518
2 3
1429-11
3-
51700,000
2
LIVERMORE, CITY OF
1716-01
1-
45,000
PLANT EXPANSION
J-0767
1 3
1716-10
2-
450,000
, 2
171A-11
3x,
4,500,000
LIVERMORE# CITY OF
1719-n1
1-•
60000
LANO AOUISITION 04D SPRAY
J-0768
171.9-10
i-
607,000
IQRIGATION FACILITIES
1 2 3
1714-11
3-
67074,000
2
LIVERMORE# CITY OF
2236-01
1-
5000
LJNG AOUISITION FOR EXPANSION
J--1316
2236-10
T.-
50,000
OF R2CLAMATION
1 2
2236-11
3-
2,070,000
3
LOMPOC, CITY OF
1797-41
1-
45►000
rINTERCEPTOR FOR MISSION HILLS
G-0696
q 2
1797-10
2-
220,000
3
1197-11
2-
2,200000
3
LOMPOC, CITY OF
0818-20
2-
140,00ry
NEa IRNTERCEpTOR TO ELIMINATE
L-0848
0818-21
3--
2,02.E 000
OFT H :ATHFR DISCHARGES
2 a
5U
LONDON COMMUNITY
2015-01
1-
4,000
EXISTING TRL.ATNENT PLANT
E-0582
I
SERVICES DISTRICT
2015-10
2-
7,000
4EEbS TO BE UPGRADED
2 3
2015-11
3-
9
60,000
68
LONE PINE COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
2137-01
2137-10
1-
10,000
,
SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM FOR
L-0954
1 2 3
Z-
21,000
UNSENEREO AREA -
2137-11
3-
219,C00
PtNGGORNE TRACT
48
LONG BiACH, CITY OF
NATER DEPARTMENT
1461-10
1461-11
2-•
1009000
RECLAMED MATER CnNVEYANCE LIRE
A-0034
2 2
3-
2,150,-000
FROM LONG BEACH WRP TO CITY
PJ.FKS AND GOLF COURSES
46
LONG BEACH, CITY OF
WATER DEPARTMENT
2243-01
1-`
40,000
PkL1LITIES PLAN FOR WASTEWATER
4-1317
�
AcCLANAT1ON PROJECT FOR OIL
FlkLD REPRE_sUNIZATION
LIME SADDLE
COMMUNrrY SERVICE DISTRICT
Proaldont Socreba ry
Tillman I)aloy Carl Pi.:sc.hor
P.O. Box 125 P.O. 50x 3252
rartadiso, Ccs. 95969 Chico, Ca. 95927
916-872-1840 916.343-36L4
March h 21, 1979
Butte County Planning Commission
OroviLle
California
Gentlemen!
There has comae to the nttent:ion of this Distrivt, through
inquiry from the Butte County Public Works Deprartmen t, Environ-
mental, Iteview Department, health Dep,tirtment;, etc., when or if
this District will furnish water to pending applications for sub-
division and/or pn cel. maps concerning Land within the boundaries
of thi p District.
Consequently, Doaa:d members are concerned about the Land
Case lrl ement of the Butte County General Plan now tinder consi.derAtOn'
by your Commission. A reading of the r�ebruary, 1979, Drai't
Reprint does not indiente that your stA f f has given consideration
to the present, as well as the emergent, land use in the Lime
Saddle Community •Service Di��trir_t, particularly in vi,evi of Lime
S<nddle. C/S District not being (mentioned in Section 5.4.2 on page
79.
Lime Saddle CIS District is independent of the,.,Paradise
Irrigation District, having been formed tinder Government Code
Section 51100, mod has all of The retained powers authori7.ed in
Government Code Section 61.600.
Presently, Lime Saddle CJS D st,ri.ct is proceeding with the
planned construction ' of a 200,000 gallon storage tants and 8 inch
dipta:ibution main along pentz Road, under, a Mavis-Grunsky Loan of
$235,000.00, to distribute fresh water from its recently completed
Dee Well No. 1. Lime Snddl.e C/S 'District has also contracted
AN Butte County for taking of oaten: from Lnke Oroville. Lime
Saddle CIS District has underconsideration a $300,000.00 grant for
ra waste crater (sewer) disposal plan and has been assigned Project
No. 1,952 on the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
TABLE I
LDfX 5A DLE COKMITT SnVICES DIM7,CT
TINTATIVE REPA1ROW SC.1ZDLg3i
kroj. �, .. Avetcaga
980
1901
ll
1
2
85
92
$10.50
$10,710
$700
..........0
4
$r�4
5~a
OM4E
-_.-.,�y.��...
1902
3
99
Tota!
11,526
700
3 94G
,
40
$6,710
$ -0-
1921
4
106.
$272,442
12,4]6
13,326
700
3,88G
90
1484
5
5
112
2200
14,106
600
700
3,834
ISO
1985
26A,637
119
18,800
14x910
3,786
210
16,210
1946
7
126
10;700
15,830
3,700
300
254 342
I987
8
133
16,720
3,700
380
9,.600
14a?!9
19919
10
1,47
10,50
17,610
18,010
3,600
3,600
490
600
22,510
23,400
1190
11
114
1
18'4=
19,400
.240,015
235,000
3,500
700
13,900
1991
1992
12
13lb8
161
24,500
20,100
700
3,400
3,400
700
600
3,663
1993
14
174
217,959
224,276
21,100
600
3,300
600
5,607
1993
15
181
15 200
14,400
21,900
700
3,300
600
1995
16
188
28,000
28.@00
23,6
,145
4,043
4,
3,200
600
r
1M
17
1953,200
4,248
3
5:114 218
500
244,341
200,293
1997
18
202
4,334
4,463
25,43000w
3,100
500
13, 5'66
1],>
IM
1199
19
20
20926,300
216
1 0:50
0
3,100
3,000
500
640
31,500
I 20010
21
222
10.00'
27,200
26600
600
3,000
600
21,200
2001
2002
22
23
229
236
31,900
)2,300
27,400
709
2,800
2,000
640
500
4,916
2003
24
243
172,4010
28;300
29,100
700
2,800
500
4p312
,
4,186
2004
2005
25
26
230
2s3
13,900
30,000
700
500
2,.700
2,700
4,057
924
2006
27
260
30,600
500
2,600
35,100
2007
28
264
24.400
24,700
31,600 00
pp
2'
351400
35,700
145,937
140,224
2008
2009
29
30
2fi8
271
5,856
6,002
32.100
300
2,400
2,300
IA,361
13,200
2010
31
274
'
3,210
32,500
32,800
300
200
128.36i
122,21;
13,400
1],600
6,900
25,400
2011
2012
32
33
276
178'
36,500
33.100
13,W
7.400
I
6+625s
3
2013
34
280
I4r000
li 200
,
33,34)0
33,600
25,900
2,500
2791 ,401 571
3
2014
35'
282
8,000
33,800
7,133
7,313
2.400
3
2015
2016
36
37
284
286
26,500
34,000
.4
37'600
14,619
3
3
2017
38
288
1 679
'
34,300
34,500
37,800
37,900
67,123
59,440
16,600
17.500
500
3
2018
2019
40
292
38,100
34,800
18.300
2,400
600
3
3
2020
41
294
43 492
•
35,218
35�
0900
1.300
I
3
2021
42
296
21,000
200
35,500
27,700
27,900
616 8k910
`
615
452
3
2022
43
298
35+700
9,134
219
600'
3
2023
2024
44
43
300'
302
36,000
704
700
3
3
2025
46
304
36,200
'
36,400
2,300
700
39
2025
47
3%
36,706
2,200
800
39
2027
2028
48
49
306
310
10,00
36,900
2,200
2,200
800
800
39
40
37,200
200
2,100
900
40
The ln8ln !dual coat 1[440 f')r vanr,. ! 9 lnrlueiyq are s1; .rr fn '"„M1o+ T?
34,700
35,100
35,400
]5,000
3b,
8,100
8'300
8,600
8,900
9,200
Total
TOt _I,_
OM4E
-_.-.,�y.��...
Nisc.lr Pr in.
Iac.
Int.
Tota!
0-10
trio.
515,410
16,210
$ 7,700
8,300
$6,710
$ -0-
5 -0•
$ .0-
$14,410
$272,442
Rees
$ 1,000
17,110
8,900
15,014
269,600.
2200
17,910
9.500
15,610
26A,637
3,700
18,800
10,100
16,210
259,550
30400
19,610
10;700
16,tl00
254 342
7.400
20,610
11,300
17,410
249,694
9,.600
210510
12,000
18,010
244,909
12,3M
22,510
23,400
12,600
13,304
6,710 _a
616
~0-
18,710
19,310
.240,015
235,000
13,000
18,200
24,200
13,900
3,487
3,574
5,875
5,788'
1,322
24,500
231,513
17,100
24,900
15,100
3,663
5,699
25,200
`25,800
217,959
224,276
16,100
1b�
15,7
3,755
5,607
26,400
220,521
15 200
14,400
24,5ii0
15,300
3,84tl
5,514
5,417
27,0'00
216,671
13,900
28,000
28.@00
16 900
17,600
,145
4,043
4,
5,319
27,600
28,700
212,72`8
209,685
13,080
13,400
4,248
3
5:114 218
28,9,00
29 300
244,341
200,293
13,300
30500
31,400
18800
19,400
4,334
4,463
51006
4,70
30,100
195
195,9319
13, 5'66
1],>
30,800
20
4.575
4,107
30,700
191,476
14 640
31,500
20,600
4,609
4,673
31,300
:06.501
14,100
32,300
33,000
21,200
4,804
4,556
31,900
)2,300
102,212
177,406
13�7CC
33,700
21,900
22,500
4,916
4,436
33,200
172,4010
13,300
13.3w
34,200
23,000
50030
5,176
4p312
,
4,186
33x040
3+
167,430
13,900
23,400
23,800
5,30s
4,057
924
300
34,700
162,254
156,949
13,100
13,100
24.100
5,438
5,574
3
3,788
35,100
151,511
13,100
000
24.400
24,700
5,713
30649
351400
35,700
145,937
140,224
13'100
13,200
6,300
24,600
5,856
6,002
3,506
3,360
36 000
IA,361
13,200
6,300
6,700
25.000
25,200
6.152
'
3,210
36,100
36,300
128.36i
122,21;
13,400
1],600
6,900
25,400
6,306
6,464
3,056
2,898
36,500
115,90d
13,W
7.400
257,100 x700
6+625s
2,737
36,700
36,900
109,444
102
I4r000
li 200
,
1,700
25,900
6,961
2791 ,401 571
37,000
,019
96,028
14.700
8,000
26,100
26.300
7,133
7,313
2,227
)7,204
37,400
890!',1
81,932
13,200
I3,800
26,500
7,496
2,048
1 866
37'600
14,619
16,300
26,600
26.800
7.683
1 679
'
37,800
37,900
67,123
59,440
16,600
17.500
27.040
7,876
8,072
1,486
1,240
38,100
51,564
18.300
,400
0600
27,200
27,400
8,274
481
1 088
,
38 300
'
38'500
43 492
•
35,218
1!,206
20,100
0900
27,5008,693
8
8!
669
38,700
26,737
21,000
,100
0500
27,700
27,900
616 8k910
`
615
452
38'800
39,000
18,044
9,134
22.100
13,200
9,134
219
1,322
39,200
-4-
'
24.500
Tlsr� Air�„ar",2Y 3.gfi+rarm •e„Wn S!7 .. 4e 4a fir „»far�.nar ,•.ses3!»br:rin�.
Mental Memorandum
'rot Board of Supervisors
FROMt Larry Brooka, Ad.vaace Planning Coovoinator
auaJECre General Plan Land Use Text
DATE! JTuly 267 1979
At their regular meeting held Wednesday, July 25, 19?9 the
Planning Commission unanimously approved the General Plan Land,
Use Text changes as recommended by your Board. (See attached)
The Commission also opened the public hearing on the land use
map, and upon hearing testimony from a dozen individuals, con-
tinued the hearing until August 22, 1979.
Much of the testimony heard by the Commission cantered around
the rural residential map designations. Individuals represent-
ing the Butte County Farm Bureau, the County Cattlemen's Associ-
ation, and a Durham 'based organization, Protect Agricultural
Land (PAZ), expressed strenuous opposition to the rural reside.-
tial designations on the map. These organizations were joined
by a spokesman for Chaco 2000 in opposing large scale rural
residential designations, as well as expressing particular concern
with the Chaco area land use map.
Three individuals expressed, support for the rural residential.
designations, citing a demand for rural living in the county.
At this point, the Planning Commission expects to make numerous
substantive changes to the map prior to forwarding it for con
sideration by your Board. The Commission will be guided in this
endeavor by the new Land use text. Although the text should not
become an official amendment to the general, plan until the map
is also ready for adoption, the Commission expects to consider
it as general policy direction, along with the existing general.
plan, henceforth.
elm
Inter -,Departmental Memorandum
yG, Planning Commission
,BROW Larry BrooRs, Advance Planning
SUOJECT' Land Ilse Map Review Program
OATEt AUgUSt 7, 1979
Listed below is a proposed area by area program Eor revision of
the Count%, [.and Use Hap. in accordance with map revision
policies set forth in the now Land Ilse Blement Text, the program
proposes to address the land use of wholo communities, while
incorporating priorities provi,ously voiced by your Commission.
Since this program represents a staff proposal, Some direction
from your Commission a,s to its acceptability will provirle staff
with a, priority basis for development of map proposals.
1. Chico urban Area
2. Gvidloy-Biggs
3. *Durham-Da),ton
4. Orovillo Urban Area
S. Central Butte County (Butte College, Lime Saddle, Table
Mountain)
6. Paradise* - tipper TU,Ige
7, Berry Creek Brush Creek
3. Forest Ranch Cohasset - Butte Crock ",anyon
9. Forbostown - Clipper hills
10. Palermo - floncut - Bangor
11. Stirling City - Butte 1-leadows
1?,. Richardson Springs - Lower Cohasset
13. Nelson - Richvale
14i Feather Falls
15. Wyandotte -Swede's Flat - Black Bart
*Depending upon outcome of Paradise incorporation,
Inter -Depart me'tnl Memorandum
70. planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brooks, Advance Planning
SUBJE T. land USO Blement
DATE. August 3, 1979
Subsequent to the Planning Commission mecting, of July 25,
staff undertook a review Of the process currently underway
to revise the Land Ilse Element. The purposes of this review
were to (1.) critically assess progress to elate, (2) suggest
methods of reducing; public confusion evidenced at the meeting
of July 25, and (3) consider means of accelerating; tap ve-
visions in light of general agreement which has been -reached
between the Commission and the Board of Supervisors on the
Land Ilse Text.
In terms of progress to date moth the Commission and the Board
have expedited a thorough examination of the text with a minimum
of delay. Concurrence on the text should g=reatly facilitate
map revisions.
A certain degree of confusion, however, was evidenced at tile
July 25 nearing by the impression, on the part of several persons
in attendance, that the entire map, including mayor urban areas,
was under consideration for amendment, This 15 entirely under-
standable since the map proposals before the Commission encompass
wide areas of Butte County and are therefore characterized as full
scale revisions of the Land Ilse Hap.
To a lesser degree, some misunderstanding, was evidenceii by spokesmen
representing; agriculture and conservation interests who are under
the impression that the broad range of rural residential parcel
densities (1-40 acres) represents the final, statement, in terms W
general plan policy, for these areas. Although the sig;nEicance
of the land use density designations should not be taken lightly,
the rural residential development and zoning criteria will be
further refined in the ripen Space and Conservation dements,
scheduled for revision immediately Following adoption of the re-
vised Land Use Element • At that time these areas Will receive
particular attention.
Vinally, staff is now of the opinion that map revisions to be
undertaken in accordance with the new text should be greatly
accelerated,. it is now appropriate, and within the realm of
staff capabilities to develop add tonal. map revisions for your
consideration, which include the County's major urha.n areas.
Our recommendation to intensity efforts to produce map revisions
is based on several factors
Planning Comnmission
P.afo ,,2..
August 3� 1970
1. The RTR which has been prooarod, in con unction w t}► the text
is of suf"icient scone to cover "ItWi ti.onal. Man revision.s.
2 Under Iaw your Commission may hear proposals and ofFect
revisions to any portion of the land use map within thr
context of the hearings currently underway. Moreover, the
testimony you receive at tl)e hearings will lilcel,y address
wide-ranging areas.
3. formal. adoption of the now 'Land mise Plement Text along t'li,th
currently proposat mar revisions (rural residential, North
Esplanade, Highwa-y 32 Ilest, and the Airport Area) may nrocced
as soon as your Commission is prepared to forward those
proposals to the Board of Salpervisors. Mcanwbil.e, vola may
continue to conduct additional hear. ints dealing wit),. other
areas of the county.
In. order to Provide a, systematic method of imnIomep,ting tlia.s
review process, the followinggcnorlli rocommenations arc offered:
l.. Cons'.irler the Rural Residential/Open-Grazing land use proposals
together with Chico Airport area general plan revisions,
simulta.neous1y, . The Airnort area revisions arc similar in
nature and involve essentially the sa:mo issue -s.
2. Consider includi.n,1; the North Fspla,nade and Highway 32 West
proposals along with a revision of the entire Chico urban
area land use map. Such a; procedure would adrl. a. 'broader leased
Perspective to the review of those proposals and provide Focal
points for initiating the review of the Chico urban area.
3 Forward for Board of Supervisors' consideration the land use
text with the map revisions outlined in. #1 above. This would
provide the County with an improved Land Use Text at the
earliest possible elate, and eliminate the; possibility o•f
using tip an amendment early in the calendar year 1980 as a
result of prolonged hearings .
4. Defer consideration of any Commission initiated man revisions
within the boundr cs or: the Paradise Fixe Protection District
until after the November incorporation election.. Should apt.=
corporation occur, a: new general plan would he reetmired to t e
prepared -for Paradise under tlme direction of the rmunici-na.l
government, �rendering County efforts invalid as of .Tlily 11 1P80.
Staff has already begun developing; land use map proposals for the
rent of the county. In this e°rfort wo Wlill he consulting with City
and public agency officials, individuals and public interest grouns
VV'O would also like to benefit from consultation with individual
Commissioners and, therefore, you are encouraged to meet with us to
discuss roar changes in your particular areas of interest.
/ir
Butte county Firm 0a
TO REPRCSENT, PROTECT AND AUVANGP TFtP, SOCIAL. ECONOMIC AND IDUGA'IMNA..
iNTERESTS OF THE FARMERS CSF TME COUNTY, THC STA90 AND TMC NATION
Butte County ;Manning Commission
1859 Bird Street
oroville, California 95965
Dear Commissioners;
TELEPHONE .555.9.179
Feather River Boulevard = South
POSY 'OFFICE BOX 1747
OR041LLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
September 12, 1979
it was our understanding that further testimony from the public
regarding the proposed Land Use Map would not be allowed at your,
meeting tonight. Indeed, Frank Bennett told our Board of Directors
that the next place for public input would be at the Board of
Supervisors level;. We plan to have our members at that public
hearing.
However, today we Learned that you would be pressured by other
groups to re -open public input at tonight's meeting. At this
late hour,, because this is harvest time for our members, and
because we had been told this would not happen, we cannot muster
a large group of our members to attend your meeting. Should you
choose to re -open the matter, we hope that you will give
sufficient public notice of your intent so that we can attend.
We are happy to see the revisions in the Land Use Map, and hope
that you will recommend a minimum of the Rural. ReAdential
catagory to the Board of Supervisors. Thank you for allowing
us to present our views to you via this letter.
Very truly yours,.
,,At"e--"- ,�h .
Gerald M. Geiger -
President
GMG%r£m
ING ST PF & COMMISSIONERS
Re: Chico Area Land Use Map Proposals
Summary of Presentation of July 25, 1979.
buffe Co, K` nnning Corns'la
AUG 2z1979
Orovillo, (Cln11forn[4
I. Rural Residential Designation Generally and North
and South of Chico.
We are concerned about the arbitrary lines, islands,
inattention to natural. boundaries,, and lack of sensible
rationale for many of the locations of rural residential
and grazing -open land designations. This will cause
greater confusion than even now exists for landowners
and developers. It suggests the possibility of 150,000
new I -acre lots in the central area of the county, in
spite of the fact that there is insufficient water, access,
and funds to provide public services in many places. Al-
though A-2 zoning and 1 -acre land use map designations
have been around for ,years, it is well recognized that
many and increasingly serious problems have resulted.
You are in the process of ending the problem, but must
do so thoroughly. The incomplete proposal before you
would; guarantee controversy and cause ongoing pressure
on you to permit scattered., inefficient, and costly (to
the taxpayH+ s) developments.
Since nearly all of the pressure for rural residential
designations has come from the south part of the county,
with little or no support for it elsewhere, it should be
applied primarily there, if anywhere.
Our Pro2oosal:
North of Chico: We see no need for rural residential
designation north. of Rock Creek (west of Cohasset) and
north of Richardson Springs Road (east of Co}asset),
particularly since drainage problems prohibit lots smaller
II .
i
than 1.0_40 acres. 40 acre grazing designation north of
there would be consistent with p:re.sent use and future
needs
South 09 Chico: We support grazirjg and open land
designation for all areas east of 1•Iighway 99B, as re-
commended by the County's Agri.cultuxal Advisory hoard.
County -wide: rural residential, should be applied only
as a buffer between urban areas and lands which will be
held in Larger parcels with grazing, timber --mountain or
agricultural designations. For example, the rural resi-
dential designation south of Keefer Road is probably the
most appropriate place for it, since there are some
drainage problems (requiring large lots) and it is between
Chico and larger acreage to the north (a buffer area)
There also may be similar appropriate places near Oroville;
but there is no need for 150,000 scattered acres arbitrarily, -
mixed with grazing all, over the central county.
Northeast Chico.
This is a good potential growth area and we generally
support designations there. The airport clear zone and
high noise area obviously must be avoided. We hope the
Commission will support; extension of sanitary sewer
facilities to this; area to facilitate development.
Szx„ East Central Chico Area.
Although the Chico area detailed map recognizes the public
land within Bidwell Park, the general county map designates
part of the public land as rural residential, It should
be changed to a puu.Lic designation.
There is a widespread consensus in the Chico community that th.
privately -awned land on the: south side of Big Chico Creek,
within the "viewshed" of Bidwell Park, should be placed in the
Grazing -Open Land category. At the present time, there is
neither need nor demand for housing in this area, hopefully,
the area will eventually become part of Bidwell Park.
Land south of the Big Chico Creek Canyon Ridge and not
within the view of the park is largely appropriate for
residential, use and we generally support the designation„
The actual lines of the designations for this area must be
more carefully considered, for they are arbitrary on the
present map and have not been studied for correlation with
Projected residential lot needs.
-2-
Y
TV. Sol,ttheast chivo
The, "Lines a,xJLAI1 aa -t arbitrarily drawn sand should be more
carefully r+�nsxcairrd.xistina and projected uses and
natural boundaries 4hould be factors. The rural resAential
designation extending out to Butte College is questionable,
considering probable lack of need, potential traffic
prob.f.ems, energy Zhoxtages, and inefficiency and cost
Of providing p,4hlir. services to such: scattered development.
The G ,azing--Open ys}3c, 'Q category ,is certainly more appropriate.
V. South Chico.
We certainly s-apporL the proposed zoning changes, and
the impl,; ed -Ynau cheii:ges made by the Planning Commission
at the Aut,ussit meeting, for the South Chaco area.
VX. So'ut.twes t Cal '.co (Dayton Road area)
Residential 1.1,nr' s atfai.n are arbitrarily drawn and have no
relatic nsh p to itct-aal and projected use for the land.
Most of this i.; agrLcultural, except along some of the
roads. The lxs e.; should be redrawn to conform with
natural and manmade boundaries and should be brought
closer into the urbatn area. There is so much growth
room east and northEast of town that no need can be shown
for conversion of this farmland.
V11- West Chico.
Our members, and we believe the vast majority of Chico
residents, are opposed '.tip further westerly development.
It is not needed there, particularly when we consider
the need for a healthy agriculturally bated economy.
Tax revenues are favorab4e from agricultural uses in
the area, but would be insufficient to meet the cost of
public services, if the area were converted to residential
use We cannot afford the lose of the tax base or the
Permanent economic loss Let us work out a firm plan line'
for all tirr.e and end the controversy in this area, which has
been so hard on this community.
VIII. West Highway 32 Commercial -Industrial Proposal,
Our members and the Chico business` community are convinced
there is no need for the hundreds of new commercial lots
this proposal would permit. Some lots are needed, but not
so far north and not more than 25% of the total proposed.
The proposal threatens to sap the strengtt, of downtown Chico
and other healthy existing commercial areas Merchants
are frankly very troubledabout this. This is particularly
true with expected hard economic times ahoad; You should
also consider the impact on the energy shortage if this
outlying area is further commercialized. Perhap,a most
important is the expected traffic problems from increased
commercial use in the area. Your studies show Highway 32
is saturated and cannot handle this load. There is no
money from the state or county to widen the road or to
acquire right-of-way, so we are stuck with a 2 -lane
road there. There is no reason to thank this is anything
but permanent, in spite of any wishful thinking to the
contrary. The proposal would compound an already difficult
traffic situation.
Because of the above questions, we believe tl-.at the West
Highway 32 proposal should be seriously recans dered.
Although we question the commercial -industrial designation
as indicated, we recognize the wishes of many of the owners and
the reality of what you are likely to do in the area, Our
specific proposal for change, therefore, is limited t,, the
area northwest of Kennedy Avenue. The existing use is
primarily agricultural, with a mixture of A-2 and A -`"r zoning.
At present, there is almost;no commercial property northwest
of Kennedy Avenue, and the existing commercial uses could be
designated as legal nonconforming uses. We recommend that the
A-2 zoned area be designated as "Rural Residential" and that
the A-5 zoned area remain in the agricultural designation.
Our proposal is essentially in agreement with the LAFCO-
approved Primary Sphere of Influence for the City of Chico.
It will allow a large amount of commercial development along
Highway 32 southeast of Kennedy Avenue, while protecting the
agricultural area northwest of Kennedy.
IX. Northwest Chico.
We propose simply that the old arbitrary lines drawn through
the. Bell Ranch and other agricalturalland be pullet( in
to conform with the recent rezoning. Everything east of
Alamo and south of Bell should be designated residential,
as it was recently zoned.. Everything yaest of Alamo and north
of Bell is in agricultural zoning and =..ise and should be
so designated on the map. The recent 4oning was a "compromise"
worked out between developers and the rest of the public and
great assurances were made by the Board of Supervisors that
the development line would be held there, A land use map
change is one way to help assure that.
The residentially designated portion on the west side of
Norah Esplanade is partly residentially zoned, except on
the extreme north. The northern A-2 part which is commit -Led
to agriculture should be so designated on the mpa and a.
change is needed:
-4-
48
9ufls Cc. Planning Cgtnnx,,
SEP 12 1979
.Orovrrle, CaairJ�lq
�JU QR(1VTLL1*""
SZA150(1133)(4-0251
ICS IPMRNCZ CaP '5 55 )I p 09/12/75 1131
� 133991077TDRr� �
SANTA MONICA CA 44 01-12 1131,A ES-
PMS 1UTTE COUNTY PLANJNjNG Colo1 I5.5IG
7 COUNTY CtNTER DR r DLA
CIPOViLLE CA 555$5
STRONGLY OBJECT TO CHA�,'G ING nfi z
TO OPEC! AND GRAZING. IT VOULD DEPRECIATE LAND VALL RAND Vtv,' iop US
LA! b USE IAP NOW ZONE
WOULD L008E* OUR LIFE "AVIrw'G.5. .'IE ARF: OWNF:RS OY SECTIOr����3�'�k`� OF U
OROVILLE". PLEASE READ THIS AT THE HFA ING �, � 14 LAKE
h PPLrCFj'TF"I I GILII;Fc QSSE-P FRESCO AMID SHAS E,^, MANA.CI{�„ PSP
i�rNrr �k ��T
/00 °PAO On ftlix Vit.
7741 l dUn eL,( *41t
G�Cj ► -qle e-� v a -l -C
outer p V v`
aver r
� �nrrre
SEP 1979
Oroy1119A car►for j
Septoibar lvp 1979
Mr. Robert Lemke, Qha rmar_
The Butte County Board of Supervisors
,A&dnistratl4on. Builftig
Oroville s, California 95965
Dear Nr. bemkos
I am writing to protest the tianoral Plan Land Use Map which you
will soon be considering.
I own large parcels of property which win be 01000ified Gazing
and Opera Lund with a 40 acre minimum parool &size in the rl,oin:.ty of
Lake Wyandotte and also in the Bangor areao Tho value of these properties
will be sharply reduced should the map be approved.
A ftwral Residential" designation with l to 40 acre rn9.W mun parcel
sizes would be much more consistent with intelligent planning and much
more cognizant of the boot possible future use of these properties.
Please noti
fy me of any meetings or hearings regarding the above.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Irene Lund Parker
Pn 0- Box 309'
OrovilleD California
95965
CCs Butte County Planning DoWtment
Sep _ er 5,1979
Dear Property Owner:
Y am writing to you because I am concerned about a matter which
io of great importance to all owners of property in Butte County
its particular owners of parcels in those areas which are presently
zoned .Rural 17esidential.
As you probably know,prior to changing the zoning of private property
the Planning Commission mi-tst give written notice to each owner of
affected parcels of the time and place of hearings to be held to
consider such zoning change;. Written notice is not required when
hearings are held to consider changes in the County General Plan
or to adopt a new General Plan although, once adapted by the Beard.
of Supervisors it becomes mandatory under State law that all lands
within the: county be rezoned to conform with the '.General Plan.
A hearing is scheduled to be held on Wednesday,September 12,1979
at 7:30 P.M. at the Board of Supervisors Moeting xoom to consider
adoption of a Land Use Map which shows large areas of the County,
now zoned Mural Residential to be designated as Open and Grazing;
Land with 40 acne minimum parcel sizes.
It is important that you as a property owner be present at this
and subsequent hearings affecting the future use of your real
property. I intend to attend and will look :forward to seeing you
there,
Very Truly Yours
Y pp.
)c6',,'3ep {:Hobson
Concerned property owner"
P.S. If unable to attend the hearings you may write to the Butte
County Planning Commission at 7 County Center Brive,0rovillo
95965
I would appreciate receiving any information concerning the
above. l don't really understand the rural zoning, etc.
Thanks.
Victor Amato
3110 FaWn Drive
San Jose, CA 95124
.+ e
�u}}e Ce. Planning
COMM,
Or011eA CaIi4?rn ci
inter -Departmental Memorandum
TOi Board Of Supervisors
FROM: Larry Brooks, Advance Planning
SUOJFCT-, General Plan Land Ilse Map
DAM September 14, 1979
On September 3.2, 1979 the County Planning Commission completed
hearings oil the revised, Land Use Element Map. BY TOsoltition
the Commission has Forwardod the map proposal to your Board for
consideration.
To briefly -recap the revision to elate, the Planning, Commission
held its first hearing on the Land, Use Element on November 15,
1978. After eight public hearings the Commission forwarded the
map and text to your Board, where the text was roviowed, at four
public hearings over a six week period. As a result of Board
hearings a revised text was rCf0TT0d back- to the Planning Commission
with a request that the Land Ilse 1Map be revised in accordance with
the Board approved text,
nn July 25, 11979 the Planning Commission ratified, text change.-,
recommended by your Board and initiated hearings ori the mrap. 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 recommenda-
tion to address the rural areas of the map first along rith the
new text. It ad.opted a proFram of review of the county's urban
areas (boxed out on the map) to be implemented after adoption of
the new text and the ])reposed map.
Substantial public input was received by the Commission at the ma'D
hearings during which two dominant points of view seemed to emerge.
M uch of the t L
debate concerned the extent Of the Rurzal -Residential
designation as opposed to Timber -Mountainotis and, Grazinle, and Open
Land, On one hand agricultural interests, voiced fry the County
Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen's Association, have favored minimizing
the extent of the Rural -Residential category, while certain develop-
oTs and owners of largo tracts of land have opposed extensive Timber
Mountainous and Grazing and Open Land, which involve 40 acres minimum
parcel sizes.
Throughout the hearings the Planning Commission strictly aahered
to the policies and site designation criteria contained in the new
text. As the Commission hearings progressed, the Rural -Residential
category was scaled down from approximately 180 square m5les 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 ptedminently
greater in size than 40 acres and (2) have slopes greater than 30%.
Board of Supervisors
Page -2-
September 1.4, 1979
Effect on Developments in Prorr
tress
The map has been opposed by certain developers concerned that
projects currently in progress will be adversely affected by the
proposed change. ror your information, staff has prepared an over-
lay for the riap, showing the location of all projects which would be
affected', In total, there are currently under revi-1w 97 separate
land divisiongand subdivision.-, proposing a total of 1,086 new parcels
in the rural areas encompassed by the map proposals. Of these, 13
projects accounting for 89 parcels would 1',)o affected by the revise(t
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 fi-tr-
ther on this matter.
Staff Recommended Changes
At the final, Commission heariP.9 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 Mill Ridgy: and the addition of an industrial designation along
the cast side of Cohasset road near the Chico Airport.,
summar,
,Y
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 theyossibic
need for a middle land use designation between the one -acre minimum
Rural Residential and the forty acre minimums containe,l 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 setti,,ng 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 re-
visions.
/1r
September 21, 1979
Mrs. 11. L. Johnson
2012 RUhland Ave,, Apt. 2
Redondo beac1l, Ci.
9U^78
Re: AP 41-05-11*11
Dear Mr. fv ,firs . Johnson:
In ref crenCC to Your letter dated 1,2, 1979 =oncern-
ii'll PrOPOrty located noir Pentz-V7agalia I'lighway aw! identific-d
:-,
-is Asossorls Parcel 'Xmbar 43-03-11,20 Butte C,
Oulity is curre�ltly.
in tll(,- process OC revi3illg' the Lard Use Tilen�it-�nt orl- t1j(, County�
Geiw-ral Mail.
The Planning Commission has rOcOl-1111011(led thlit Your property be
desiomate,,11 as (1razing wid Opon Land with a min ircel
40 , C.1 pq
size of 4n acres. As your property is all existing (.)+ acre
u
parcel, the se would not bo a:Eoctcd, This cNnPc woule, not
Preclude om from dtnvL�j.ny -077ron
. . . . . a-resiST.ence or—FwMle home
0
-SO Ing Jiis property. It lvoula� now preclude ynu -TioiA-
156R'1-61�'IMLMs -on--o-f't1w parcel and wmild not p(-,,m.it a I a gI
diviSion of less than, forty acres ill the illmedi.1te vicinity of
your land.
Ilee you should have any other questioilt,, please fool free to
contact our office.
Sincerely,
'Larry Droolks
L I d Planner III
"0