HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-122A UPPER RIDGE & LIME SADDLE GPA (3)STATE OF CALIFORNIA-1RANSVOR7ATION AGENCY
EDMUND 0, DROWN JR., Comnor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISIAjCT a
KO, BOX 911, MARYSVILLE 95961
Telephone (9.16) 674-92.77BultoCo. rienningComm,
PIAR 18 1981
March 17, 1981 Orovillo, C:alliot&A
03-But-191
Paradise vpp6t Ridge
and time Saddle GPA
SCH 81020322
bit. Dave Hironimus
Butte County
2.nvironmental Review
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CF, 9.5965
Dear Mir. Eiironimus:
Y
a Thank you for' the b general comment upon a Notice
Of Prearation of apdraftn=R 'to
rraview and plan amendment and
rezone ,for the Paradise Upper Ridge and Lime Saddle community,
,
Caltrans is concerned about impacts to traffic circulation as a
result of full build-but in the area. The environmental document
should include a traffic study which takes into account the develop-
menu potential and the effects on the transportation system.
Cal,teans' current plahning program does not include major roadway,
prbjetts in this area.
Veti, truly yours, }
UO J. 'I'ROM8ATORE
District birector of Transportation f'
R. b. Skidmore
Chiefs 9nvir0nment4l nranch
STAFF COMMENT8 FOR 11,'IR FOP
UPI"l+R RIDGE G.1. AM1,,34,,I)ME�NIP Cw l3C�zONlJ
General ": Pion: Land_'Uso Mrrr7
Tile current, General Plan de8ignatuoa rapppoximat+,ly pVl of th(, 18700
acres in the pvojc{ct sitO "Low Density Rosi.donLial" (1-4 dwelling
p �g:r.o - acre and, "Medium DWIIA ty Residontiol" (5-8 dwelll-
units ��r ' wrt )
1.119 Units per gross act (,) . Appla oxi.ma b r l7 80i& of the situ is cu- r-
rently de.signe'ted taa.Lh�,Ip "TiMber-Mountain" or "Gr'4zing and Open
.hand". "CommerCiat" and. "Public" doss nation acco.ant ,for only
1.5/ of they total projerrt Stc,,,
Approxima`Lc�ly af00O yac:ros (11%) of the project site are proposed
.Cor ,how Densi Ly Residential. (up to if, dweal ling Units per acre)
and "Medium Density Residential" (u ) to 8 dwelling units per acre)
with an ndditsior.al 5000 acre; , 27%) proposed for "A tri cul Ltrral
Rc�sid��ntial" (1-"t0 acres pr x' dwxalling unit). Timber -Mountain"
and Grazing and Open Lnrid" deoignations are proposed foro approx-
imately 10300 acres 050,6) • `:these designati.ons account for move
that,. 90/0 Of all acre: -age in the pro joct site.
As noted in the General plan tort; "because.... dosi;r<+es for the
future are so numtarous; diverse and idoalistica some conflicts
betweenpol.ici ar:O Unavoidable and, to be €:xpected.j No one
1 policies which ore re
makers eruct consider all adopted ; decision--
policy by itself' should always detapmine Count acti on;
to
a particular situat ion. The continual interpretation and applioa
tion of policy statements to individual situations will .frequentl.'y
result in ooinpromi.ses rogler,ti;ng balances and p:biorities a+iaottg
conflicting policies."
Proposed General Plan revision ,for the paradise Upper Ridge
areai vThe olves oomplex is8ue0 which, as noted above, may also
area involves
conflicting County policies.
There are atJ 1p,"t thrce primary- Planning issues relate
d. to the
Proposed lroJr-ct. 'ahoy involve: (1) population growth; (2) re -
Source management, and (3) residential devolopment. Rath of
these i08uQ0 is discussed in the following pallagraphs:
Since 1970,the product site has ;experienced one ofthea highest
growth rat0s its the County dues in part to the development of
over 4200 lots in the :pa.rradiso Pi nes project, and i n Part to the
"overflown i'to the City OT l'�xradise. The highest growth rate
is eGenei;al to cols bets well itlto the future The policy of
the General plan is o 'tbllow reasonable tfrog.,dom of choice t' of
Sites and facilities ,for the lropulration growth of the County. y:
and its various sectiotrr3"; and to "designate r=adequato hand for
i'ree-»market compt4titiora among land suppli ara to avoid arti.f
cital,ly constricting land nvoildbili 't
i'laa Map d.rrsigna tions would Al, l' ow a mrrxifumeOX OVOPe13600eral
aind a population ole over 30,000 in the Uppor Vidge area: Con"
sid'oring tho ,probabi.l it; that trot allland will, develop to tluie
maximum densities allowed by the Oeneraj. plan due to ,styptic, access,
lot configulr'at'on and Otherfactors, it can. be clxpOcted that the
population Will double or even triple from the :present population
Of
the approximately 6000, and remain Within Lhc, density ty constraints of
The llppe•r paradise Ridge has two resources that are especially im-
portant to the On Linc- P'iradise Ridge as well as the remainder Of
the County. "The manufacturing of lumber and wood products accounts
for about 4/ of the wage -and -salary employXrre T1 L in the County and. a
healthy abate of basic income to the County economy. Timberland
also has Significant value for.- Wildlife habitat veare�ation and
watershed Protaec�tion." The watt-+rshed is paPticul.arly important
in this area since Magalia R080rvOiv andparadise bake are water
15UPPly for the Town of Paradise. The proposal will "limit the use
Of timberland to forostry activities and. compatible us ss
a "Timber land"" category areas on 't ; retain in
wand Use Mopwhc es location
and natural conditions make lands well suited for timberland, while.
Considering for tion -timber uut; areas where urban enc. oachment has
been made fc,r inroads into timber areas and where past official
actions have planner areas for development; maintain quantity and
quality of water z'(,0Ourc(js adequate for all uses in the Coun
Control. develOpmon.t irl watt,=a:she±d a�leas to mi,nimiz el ty;
on and
water pollutyOrl.,,
i
While the neem for homesitoyo of4 various sa.zes, densities, and to
�:ations has bee' diScUosed� the rieL_ to limit d,era itse4 in the
UPp('fr 1'�4rgdiOO PdigO area has not. Aside from the provision of
Open Spacers and "elbow room" pax ound individual lots, densities
must be limitoll in some areas because of soil, slopes septic
capabilities, water availability, and other natural send ite charac--
tesrist i.cs Proximity to
and commercial. areasis also ia�consaderaLibra�m Agmajurservices
ng
concern in the Project area is the traffic -carrying capacity of
the road network: Almost all of the existing development in the
Tlpper Ridge area xsen Skyway as Its sole access. As the
l.ation grows and development intc risii'icys traffic CongestiO u-
wihe i:ncraaso. blockages Of Skyway at MuCalia duo to gccident or
Other Cause ei"f ci;ively isol.a to s utast of the Population. Ori. A
suited policy Of the General plan, is to "balance residential
denOitiOS with tvnffi.c carrying capacities of e:tisting acid pins--
posed circulation plansti,The
e !Plan
the: limiting influence Of' Skywa�ra�d�'Will ahelpnd sreducs travegl gout;
ge a row b
Jovelopment w3.Lhin the ax4 aP ov ding ar
of the UppOV Ridca for ample commercial
In another section Of the; Oene:ral Piall) the purpose for separating
land uses is discussed.. '.1.'he plaid explains that; "land use ceto-
Prins combine similar and. Compatible activities into groups With
diPfe,ring needs XOV location and spaces.:. , The various location
and space requirements Of laved uses can only be satisfied by sep:
grating uses into categories and attempting to provide suitable
sitee for each dategory:" The goneral goals hone aro to meet; the
unique requirements o each lataei, use: activity, and'reduaW po inial
conflicts talnoaag land U80S in pro�cimity to one another« Where nt
cott►pati ble hand uses appear to be 'developing near each of her,, the
C.1
Plan recommends the adopt opt of measures tho t would mitiga L -e+ po- �
tentiil. conflicts. The preforrod Good., bowever� i..; to au.C.t'iciOntly
sepax incompatible land u,,ws, -to the C'xtLt.'!t tl ot, W-10i.r activities
will s "; intrude upon one another i
r'
The Coutity recognizes the eae-ed. for a sali.s.Cactory sur.ply and variety
of housing for its residents. They Genoral Plan postulates that
" ^atisf"aetion of housing needs are :.. de pendot t on balancing housing
supply and demand... `t'he�ry County can best assist thea housing market
by assuring enough suitable space for iiew housing construction".
Zoning i.
The project site is now zoned for a variety of uses, ranging from
commercial and re,A:sieletatial to timber pveservo and recreation and
other public: usoo Most of `he proposed Lend Use designations
will conform -to the: ekicting .•:e>r.e s a few areas will require re;-
zoning in order to conform to the: revised Ge neral :Calan classifica-
tions.
" knvitonrti�n`ial fi4v',ow D,tih
A1)R 2 4 19 1
r�PARADIS0IST�P
MESIRER OF IRRIGATION DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION �F CAUroRNIA AND AMICAN WATER "'.'ORM ASSN,
c.
�, i ��'� ," � 4✓�r �.: �� x 877.4971 � AAAIUN6 ADDRESSi 4P.O.,
5325 OLIVC STRUT - PARADISSt CALIFORNIA. 95949 TELEPFION6: ( 9tA )� , „ BOX
April 23, 1 gB1
Butte County Environmental Review Department
3 County Center Drive
oroville,California 95965
Attention: Dick Molcar
Gentlemen;
This is in response to your invitation for comments on the Paradise Upper Ridge;
General Plan Amendment and Rezone.. My comments are organized in the same order
as the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
Page -2-'Water Quality - Impact 1. "An increase in concentration of coliform
n N n " u ",
indicator would occur, in storm runoff that passes through developed areas,
and�thelstatement needs clarification, runoff and dry months are
Page -2- Water'QualityjImpact 2 - (paragraph 2) The first sentence of this para- t'
graph beginning With "the above impacts" and ending "consumption" is correct but
in�omplet The referenced impacts also pose a serious health hazard to down
Stream users Of water obtained ffr"m Withiil the Magalia Resei voir wat:rshea.
page -g- Item 2.2 "Project objectives": The five object=Ves shown do not re-
flect concern for effects of land use 'upon hater quality. It is my understand -
Ing that the effects of land ose upon Water quality is in fact an objective of
the General Plan and should therefore be so stated.
Page -18- Section 3.5 "Surplus Water", The last portion of A.rrntence 2 beg"nning
"Little and ;Middle'' and ending "Middle Butte Creek" requires olirificatiOn a$ it
relates to direct and indirect storm runoffs into various reservoirs. May I sUg-
gest the sentence be broken into two sentences heading: 11Little and Middle Buttb
Creeks drain much of the runoff from storms in the project areal_ Paradise and
MaAba butariesR1 it shouldrs Cbevnoted thatoff from
no damslareButte
locatedCreek
onand
MiddleeButtesmaller
Creekr.i~
Page -21- Item 3-a,. A second groVe of. MacNab Cypress is located on PTD and
Forest Service land located in the S/E 1/4 of Section 24 hear the West shore of
Magalia ReterVdir=
i
Butte County Environmental Review Dept:
Page -2-
April 23, 1981
Page 3)`b- The approximate location of the Magalia Reservoir watershed boundaries
has been added in red to this map for use in determining zone changes recommended
Within the watershed.
Page -45- Section 4.1 - Impact l and Impact 2: Same comments addressed earlier
regarding Page -2-.
"Mitigations'" the list of 13 mitigating measures is indicated aw: having been ex-
tratted "in tato" from the 1979 Montgomery Engineers Report on Water Quality
Management Plan. That Montgomery report identifies its study area as being with
in the boundaries of P.I.D': and the Magalia County Water District; I suggest more
relevant mitigating measures may be identified in the 1973 Department of Water
Resources Limnology Study which concentrated on a geographical area within the
paradise Upped' Ridge General Plan study area rather than an adjacent area which
may or not have comparable conditions:
Page -755- Section 8.0 - The Draft EIR refers to material contained within the
1973 Department of Water Resources Magalia Reservoir Watershed and Limnology
Study but no mention of that study appears in this section.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the dt,aft. We will appreciate a
similar opportunity when the final de.ument is ready for distribution.
Very truly ,Yours,
C. 'Phillip Ke , Jr:
Manager
CPKab
eliCl5
:
i
T, Environmental Review ntrector's Response; Comeints
noted,, this :information has been incliWed in revised.
portions o,t the draft Environmental Impact Report, uncles
Sections l -l; Summary of Impacts, 3.5 Hydrol(Environ-
0mental Setting? and4.1 Poterl,'.1il Adverse agnificant
m acts and, Mitigation Dloasures.
Specific responses are included below.
Comment 1, "Storm runoff" and "dry 'months" are not in +
congruous, since storms do occasionally occur in the
, producing generally
y
summertime �roduc�.n runoff. This runoff enerall
carries a higher concentration of pollutants, since
flushing and dilution factors have much less effect than
during tho "wet months" or rainy season.
Comment 2i Comment noted. The referenced paragraph has
been deleted.
Comment 3: The concern for effects of land use on wat,e.
quality is implicit in the plannivg work and resulting
pattern of land use category dos .gnati.ons:i-or the project
area, but was not listed here since it was:;.ot explicitly
stay: d by the Planning Commission WheA they initiated the
project. However, water quality conceets a -re definitely
animportantplanning conside*atic�n.
Comment 4: The suggested change )Ias 'b,itsn Mado 'i
Comment 5: The comment reg ardis:,,; a secrnd. grove of rare A
McNabe Cypress is noted,
Comment 6; information noted.
Comment ., See Previous response to comment 1 and 2.''
i ed BIR text Ma , 1981 has addressed on pages
The revs ) _ (_ p g
( Y,
46-A,8 acrd 2) ditect impacts expected to occur from
development adjacent to or within the Magalia and Paradise
Reservoir watershed. The referenced 1073 Department of
Water Resources timnology Study was utilized for this
analysis and mitigation measures from page 1 of that a ,'
study have been identified within the text of the revised
Elia (edge 46-A and il)
Comment 8'. !'he following reference document is hereby
added to the EIR text and should Tuve been included in
tbe_Jist,df,:refereaces .on page 76.
Ma A!id Reservior Watershed LiMnblogy and dater Quality
Study; y Department o I' ater Resources; ParsT se rrxgatil6h
istriet and Butte County, April;, 1.73.
y
r.
State of ;.CalifoFnia The Resources Agency
w
'Me
To t 1. Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator Date., April 24, 1981.
Resources Agency
2. Earl D. Nelson, Director
Butte County Environmental Review
3 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95.965
From t 'Department of Fish and Gama
Subject Comments on �Draf t :EIR for
app_ 81Q20322Ae Ridge General Ply;.; Amendment
and Rezone �' `�.
I
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Draft ETR fo'r
Paradise Upper Ridge General Plan Amendment and Rezone and finds
j 3.t adequate in its treatment of the fish and wildlife resources.
f The subject protect encompasses 30.4 square miles north of the
town of Paradise.
The Department recommends the proposed mitigation measures in the
subject report be adopted' as a condition of county approval to
provide protection for the fish and wildlife resources. The following
mitigation concerns are especially emphasized;
16Establishment of 20 -acre minimum parcels in the De Sabla
area to protect migratory deer and the spotted owl.,
2. A 100-fo6t streamside buffer non"structure zone be
establisheA along waterways to protect riparian habitat
and water quality.
3 Buffer zones to protect endangered or rare: plant- 8houi,d
be established,.
4;, Large parcel zoning should be established in and ut she
edge of canyons to protect the fish and wildlife Values in
the watershed.
if the Department Can be of further aSSi'stander please contact Paul T.
t Jensen# Regional. Managerr Region 2j 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova;
CA 956101 telephone (91t) 355-7030:
Director
Page
M-y
'Mr. pave Clironimus `
project, adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the problem,
selecting an altvrnat.ve to the project, or disapproving the
project. In the event that the. project is approved without
adequate mitigation of significant,offecLs, the lead agency must
make written findings for each unmitigated significant effect
(section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written
statement of overriding considerations (Section 15089).
If the project requires discretionary approval. from any stateagency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the
Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk.
Sincerely, i
Ste hen Williamson AnJn
a Polvos
State Clearinghouse; State clearinghouse,
Attachments
CC., Ken Fellows,, D'W
li
9
tt�md c(;114-- Mng Comm.
t i 1;tdl)
�Y
t7rOYlI�y4l�idII�GFCI�
�trctc ri{ ��ttlif��t`�rctt
0OVERNOR'S OFFICE
OFFJCE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO 05914
64bmuNb a, 13ROWN in.
d7VAONO"
May 15, 1981
11u l � � Qui f lu�t'1{rls C:dlniTl.
I"!'gib✓ 1 1 1431
Mr. Dave Hironimus I _,
Butte County Environmental
Review Department
47 County Conten Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
SUBJECT; SCA#81020322 PARADISE UPPER RIDGE AND LIME SADDLE
COMMUNITY GPA
Dear Mr. Hironimus,
State agencies have commented on your draft erivironmenU),l impact
report. if you would like to discuss their recommendations and
concerns, contact the staff`from the appropriate agencies.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The traffic impacts were not completely assessed concerning th':
two -Lane portion of State Route 191. The report should' also
address impact a to the Skyway InLer°changd at ;:Highway 99.
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAS
'.Glia, department recommends that the proposed mitigation measures
in the report he adopted as a condition of cout►ty approval.
Concerns especially emphasized ,are: the establishment of 20"Acre
I"in5injm parcels, a 100 -foot streamside buffer tion -structure zone
establ'i;lhed along waterways, buffer zones to protect dhdange :ed
or rare plants; andlarge parcel zoning to be established in and
At the edge of cahyoris.
When preparing the final LIR, you must include all comments and
reOpohses (RIR Gui.deliries, Section 1.5146), The certified EIR
must be considered in the decision-making process for the project.
In addition, we urge you to respond directly to the agencies'
comments by Writing to them, including the State Cleariiltghouse
number on all correspondence
Section 15002(1) of the MoA Guidelines requires that a g6Ver'h�-
mental agency tli s
c�ar%ain actions if an EIR shows ub,�itantial
adverse environmeiica,t impacts could _'result from a project. These
aCti`ons include changing the project, ,U00bbirtg conditions on the
14
M -y 15,y198
M'. Dave fiironimus
project, adopting plans
or ordinances to avoid the problem,
selecting an alternative
to the project, or disapproving the
project. in the event
that the project is approved without
adequate mitigation of
significant effects, the lead agency mush
make wr.ittt:n findings for
each unmitigated significant effect
(Section 15088) and it
must support its actions with a written
statement of overriding
considerations (Section 15089).
if the project tequires
discretionary approval from any state
agency, the. Notice of Determination
must be filed with the -
Secretary for Resources,
as well as with the County Cleric.
Sincerely,
A
Stephen Williamson
Anna Polvos
state clearinghouse
State Clearinghouse
i
Attachments
1
cc: Keri bellows, DWR
i
i of Calltorniu i1
To s 1. Jim Burns, projects Coordinator
Resources Agency
2. Bar! D;, Nolson, Director
Butte County Environmental Review
3 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
From : Department of Fish anti Gam®
the Resources Agency
010
Date: April 24, 198.
Subjects Comments an Draft EIR for Up4-z se Ridge General Plan Amendment
and Rezone -(SCH 81020314A a 81020322A
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewers the Draft BIR for
Paradise Upper Ridge General Plan Amendment and Rezone and finds
it adequate in its treatment of the fish and wildlife resources, d
The subject project encompasses 30.4 square miles north of the
town of Paradises
The Department recommends the proposed mitigation measures in the
3 p
subject report be adopted as a condition oounty approval toc
provide protection
the fish
and wildlife resources. The following
mitigation concernsfareespccially emphasized;
1. Establishment of 20=acre minimum parcels in the De Ssbla
area to protect migratory deer and the spotted owl:
2. A 100 -font streamside buffer non -structure zone be.
established along waterways to protect' riparian habitat
and water ,quality.
8i BUP:Fer zones to protect endangered or rare plants "should
be established:
A. Large parcel zoning should be established ih and at the
edge of canyons to protect the fish and wildlife va�Ues ,in
the °iatershed.
If the Department can be of further assistance, please contact. Pahl. T.
Jensen; Recjiohal Manager, Region 2i 1103. Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordo%ra;
CA 95870, telephone (916) 355-70304
A
> ni rpci•r�'r
guslness and Transportation Agenty
a of caifoonn
MY
r meme'rand'um
...' Chief
Ann Barkley,
Dote: May 11, 198
;To
Division of Transportation Planning
File : 03 -But -191.
Paradise Upper Ridge/
Attention Darrell Husum
Lime Saddle Area
GPA
SCH 51020322
From : DEPARTMENT of TRANSFOR AT10N
' District 03
Subject:
Distract 03 , has revie-,4ed the draft EIR for
Paradise Upper Ridge and
the gent+ral plan
Lime Saddle area. �.
amendments in the
The traffic impacts on State Route 191 are
assessed, with rQspect to the
not completely
two-lane portion
particularly
of the State highway. The chart on a 50 shows that the
could have 1
(Clark Road)/Pear--r ;_ I page
Highway 191
a level of service of C/D of Lmum, buildout of the project
four -lane facil.i.ty-
area. This level of seryls, :d on a
" this is only a twos ersect on. The fCouz�lane
However,
section of Clark Road does r �,,�.�� until.
-mile. _ w)uth of the
past Bu shms^� Road,
intexsect;icn. The
approximately.a quarter
two-lane section does not have the ability
to handle 'the voles
umes as predicted.
The report should also ;ess 1:mpacts to
the Skyway Interchange
at Highway 99
LEO J. TROrtB9WRE
District Dirdcto'k of Transportation
By {
R.D. SRidAtoxe
Chief, Environmental Branch
a;
i"ILQ'A �{o'er►', `�8jnin�j �o►rirtit;
V
btoi'�jbk �idifU1 t
isVfraltm�tin� Raiuw l'}.,ai.
MEMORANDUM
du�lo Gaurliy,
TO: Earl Nelson, Butte County Director of Environmental Review
MOM:Steve Smith, Town of Paradise Assistant Planning Director
SUBJECT: E.I.R. for Paradise Upper Ridge
DATE: May 21 1981
d
both is supplement for the Upper
reviewinge
4b
GeneralPlanmendmentandIrezone project, the staff of the
Ridge General
Paradise Planning and Community Development Department has no added
comments to be placed in the document itself,
Staff will have several comments regarding the project, which
we will direst to Bettye.
Judging from the superior quality of the report-, 1 can only
surmise that you are driving your troops too hardi
;.
P
,I
Steve
SS:bf
t
\I
Y
Inter -Depart Menf i Memorandum
TO,
Ron Max, Chairman of the Butte County Tlanni7.g Commission
PROMI
Planning Department'
said}
Background of Paradise Upper Ridge General Plan Revision
File x}80 -122A
oAtrt
May, 27; 1981
The Butt°te County Planning Commission initiated a proposal for
a General Plan Amendment and Rezone for the Upper Paradise Ridge
ar
the 1971 General ea in June; 1980. "The existing General Plan map was adopted
Plan. The Land Use Element
:ori 1971 as part of
text- . adopted in '1979 The maps of the urbanized
was rewritten and
areas were not changed. Because of the more definite nature of
the new text, the old map has become unworkable, hence the proposed
t areas the proposed General Plan designations amendment. In mos
the zoning
were chosen in order to recognize and conform to existing
In areas physical limitations, such as
and/or development. some
excessively steep slopes or inadequate access were the determining
factors.
If successful, the General Plan Amendment will be followed by a
to the
proposal. to rezone the A-2 and A-2 Ltd. areas to conform
General Plan and existing d?velopment, and to be compatible with
surrounding development. In a few cases, rezoning is being pro-
posed where the existing zoning is unrealistic. Eg. a small ,
lot zone applied to an area of excessive slopes such as a canyon
wall.)
i
V
Inter -Depart n` len oradu s
M.M.4 _ 14
'Aanning Commission
FRot1r P7;lnn -Ag Department
StJ VJ F-CTi
General Plan Amendment Revision of the Paradise Area Land
Use Plan - File #80-1.22A
DM'Zi u une 11, -)81
Thi. s,
pMdect consists of a revision of the Paradise Area Land
{ rJse Plan map off the Butte County Land Use Element. Initiated
R
by the Plarin�.n CommiNsion, the revised map covers that por-
tion of the County of Butte known as the Town. of Paradise,
Upper Paradise Ridge, Magalia,DeSabl'a and Lime Saddle, all of
Which are 1F�„a ;ed ,east of the City Of Chino and north of the
City of 'Jre,,s, e I,e in north central Butte County. The objectives
Of this revi, on are to update the Paradise area land use map
to reflect the designations and policies of the 1979 Land Use
Element; t(t provide for consistent plan administration and , -
plementation,, to establish a land use policy in this portion
of Butto County Which corresponds •to the existing physical,,
services ani, infrastructure and to provide a basis fob. the
elimination of the remaining pockets of A--2 (gernral, non -
Specific) zoning.
BACKGROUND
4 Thu officially adopted lark use policy for the Paradise, Upper
Paradise Ridgy%e ma
Wtth theadoption oftheformerliak
was
established J,t {
pe Butte County
t0; .. `
Land Use Ele�a,a� ,y Or�nally depicted on a smal-1 scale map of
the entire C0t0,y, itt)ecame apparent that the scale was.itself
a deterrent to f ffecti'; "t, PI tiri,i�119- As a result; the Planhing
Departm ,n prepaIred ato the ,0,1d of Supervisors endorsed an
e
nlargem ti t, of this ar t -.a oa; �,i t'^e Paradise Area Land Use Plan
1.11 1977 Prera,red and br',opted y',..,.cr to the consistency require-
ment legisla � � aly mandat; sd: in 07�I ,
lot patterns or zoning. the flan is Largely con
oeptual Without a close correlaiaon between existing land uses,
This situation is not uncommon to the Paradise area or to Butte
County: As the County moved to made its General Plan and zoi~Jing
consistent it became clear that the land use designations of the
'19`J1 General Plan were inadequate. Softie designations failed to
specify land use intensity limit$ While others provided for Lin_.
realistically intensive land uses. Thus the Countytxevised the
Land Use Element to provide Work6ble land use designations and
po]iais Bb as to permit consistent plan administration: This
effort bUlmxnated with the adoptibn of the; present; Laid Use
E ement
in 1979• The next phase of the Land 'Use Element ro-
vi.sion consists of the revision of the larger sc;�le maps Which
depict land use policy for the major urban communities of Butte
County, The revision of the Paradise Area Land Use plan is a
t
Planning Commissiot,
Page -a-
Julie 11, 1981
continuation of this 1,hase of the Land Use Element re,ii8ion
process.
Tho area generally corresponding to the Paradise Irrigation
District incorporated as -the Town of Paradise in 1979. our-
rently developing its own general plan, the Town of `'aradise
is included on the map to preserve the continuity of the area.
Since the County lacks jux sdietion over the Town, the effect
is advisory only. Adjustments to the County's land use policy
may result from the t'own's General Pisan expected later this
y early y 1.
,, _
year or ear next year.
A not�apec..�f�.c, general. zone, A 2,, was appl,�.ed in this area
whish prevented only the most obnoxious uses. Much of the
present specific zoning for the Upper Paradise Ridge was
applied in 1974 and 1975 as a result of the area's major
developments and watershed conditions. The "Magalia Reser-
voir Watershed Limnology and Watershed Study" prepared by
the Department of Water Resources in 1973 cautioned against
potential water duality impacts Which might affect tbh water
supply if development within the watershed was not r�"al.atod.
As a result, the relatively lame parcel, Timber Mountain and
G.°,°aapi-Public zones were applied east of the Skyway it the water-
sheds of the Paradise and Magalia reservoirs. The relatively
flat portions of the Uprer Ridge area wast of the Skyway were
zoned RT -1 to correspond to the Paradise fines and Sierra Del:
Oro residential developments. Subsequent studios in 1976
("Community Development Policies In Oenti,Mal Butte Count and
"
prepared ►i'by the Butte Count: Association of GovernmenM
in 1979 i Water Quality Management Plan for Paradise and Magalia"
proparod by Montgomery Engineers for the Butte County Division
of Environmental iioalth) reiterate the potentia' gi)mulative
Water Val.ity impact potential from the effluent volume of a
major urban community employing on-site waste disposal systems.
Doth studies caution against high density development under
these circumstances.
r lAtyS18
the Paradise area is Butte County's second largest urban corrt-
munity exceeded in size by only Chico. Preliminary figti,^es
from the 1980 Census indicate that the 'Town of Paradise had ,a
population of X0,813 representing approkimately 15 percent of
the County'o population. The Upper Paradise Ridge had a popa-
lation of 4,874 representing three percent of the 06unty's
population. The entire area experienced a rapid growth rate
the, past donade averaging over five percent annually. Much
of the growth was centered in the Town of Paradise during the
first half of the decade while the Upper Ridge appeared to be
Planning Commission
Page -3-
June
3Jurae 11 1981
the focus ,Cor growth in the second half..
Retirement aged individuals attracted by the area's amenities,
location and climate comprise a mador segment of the area's
population. Statistical information from the 19175 Special
Census indicates that the Paradise area had a median age of
51 for females and 45 for males. In contrast, the overall County
median :age for females is 30 and 28 for males. The Paradise
area is the only area within the County where the number o:
retired persons exceeds those who are employed: The population
per household is substantially lower than that found for the
County as a whole. Retirement aged persons often prefer mobile
homes to conventional dwellings for ease of maintenance, monthly
cost and availability. The Paradise area accounted for 24 per-
cent of all the mobilehomes in Lotto County in 1975•
There are three main planning issues related to the proposed
Plan revision in conjunction with established policy in the
Land Use l;lement, These include! (1) population growth;
(2) resources management; and (3) residential development.
proposed g p `' (the "
maximum potential) b 5 percent from 89j300 under thi, old
The ro osed Land Use Plan reduces the holding ca ads
P � y 5
flan and old designations to 31,(' „C (a 45 poicent redtm•tion using
the old Plan in conjtnction with, the new, designations;. Respite
these reductions, the proposed plan. W"11 07'Iow a five �o sit fold
increase in population much of it com , 18 a result,` off; lots
created in the Paradise Pines develops but not yet acoupied.
Septic system., access, lot cornfigurati6, 'slope and other factors
will no doubt reduce the actual development potential by 33 to
50 percent. Clearly the Plan, even recognizing these constraintsij.
meets the County's obdectives for an adequate, free market com-
petit5,ve supply of residential land for a twenty year period.
The Plan proposes to focu- population growth in the Paradise Pines,
Sierra Lel Oro and Fir ,, in areas through the designation of',
those areas for Low Mensaty Residential Development. Lower dohoi y
rural residential development is proposed for the areas around 'be
Sabla, himshow, the northern portion of Coutolene Road, portions
of Viv Haven, and other areas Which are proposed to be designated
Agricultural= -Residential, Supporting community aammercial ac=
tivities are proposed for three areas along the Slgdy, on both
sides of the Skyway south of Porry Road; oast of the Skyway around
Lokeridge Drive and smaller areas in the Magalia reflectling exist-
ing commorcia,l, uses located along; the highway,
The Plan reflects the County's obdectiv'es, policies and concerns
Sot the management of important timber land and watershed re-
sources. The watershed is particularly important in this area
, .v.. ' .. -. tWj
r
Planning Commission
Page -4-
�Fune 111, 1t�81
since the Maga:�Ia and Paradise Reservoirs provido domestic water
for the Town of Paradise. Protection of these watersheds has
played a major rose in establishing the present zoning in the
eastern portion of the Upper Ridge. Pursuant to the poricies
of the Land Use, Conservotio,i and Open Space Elements much of
this area east of the Skywa,,, and within the
Swatershedsothese
reservoirs is designated 'Timber Mountain. t
y, f pl y
sloping westerly portions of the area are designated Open and
Gvezing: This designation and appropriate consists-nt zoning
should help ,reduce erosion, protect water quality, and reduce
fixe and wildlife impacts in the brush covered canyon walls of
upper Butte Creek Canyon.
A major planning concern is the traffic carrying capacity of
the Skyway; particularly since the Upper Ridge area is totally
dependent on the Skyway for access in and out of the community.
Traffic and the attendant congestion will incroase as the area
developer. Blockage of the Skyway at Magalia due to aocid;at
I r other cause such as an earthquake affecting the Magalia
Reservoir Dam would effectively isolate the population of the
Upper Ridge area. High fire hazards in the region, add to this
concern. This issue needs to be addrel,%ed in the Circulation
and Safety Element of the County General. Plan although Supor-
visor Lemkeiscurrently investigating this problem. The pro-
posed Plan seeks to implement the policies of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements in two ways. (1) through the provision
of commercial land to reduce the number of traps made outside
the community; and (2) through an overall reductioti in the
development potential of the community, 'to "seek a balance
between land use and circulation capacity".
The attached table provides an estimate of the holding capacity
of the Upper Ridge area and a breakdown of the relative area under
the oxisting (with old and new des;; ,nations) and proposed. 'Plan.
The Upper Lime Saddle area vofleats the land use designations
male in the General Plan Amendment of last year:
EVIPOMENTAL RVI:V
An EIR Was prepared on the Plan. The RIR identified traffic;,
noise, school capacity, loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife
habitat; and incteasod exposure to earthquake and fire hazards
as significant impacts which can be unavoided or only .partially
mitigated through zoning and/or project conditions. The BIR
identified ,rater -quality degradation; erosion/sedimentatlion;
threats to rare or endangered plants and cultural. resources as
significant impacts which can be reduced tri insignificance by
the uoo of mitigation measures as outlined in the SIR. The
tIR. al4o questions the Agri cultural.-Residontia! designations
of 160 acres in the northoast corner on property thought to
A
e
Planning Commission
June 11, 1981
be owned by the USDA as a part of the Lassen. National Forest
and on a 160 acres of steeplt sloping land in the Jordan Hill
area east of the West Branch of the Feather River.. The Asses-
sor's records indicate that nearly all of the area thought to
be in the Lassen National Forest is in fact in private owner-
ship and zoned TM -20 (Timber Motintain-20 acro parcels). The
concern over the designation of the steep lands around Jordan
Road appearsjustified and as a result, the Planning Department
recommends the Timber Mountain designation and appropriate
6onsiztent zoning.
COMMENTS RECEIVED (only those r.''vant to the Plan itself,'
not the EIR)
Resources Agency, State of California - recommends 20 acre
minimum parcels in DeSabla area to protect migratory deer
and spotted owl. habitat,; 100 feet riparian buffers; large
parcel zoning along Canyon edges
Paradise !I-rigation District - makes recommendations for
zoning within agaliaeservoir'Watershed (see attached
map); generally regard development in the Magalia Reservoir
as an impact on Water quality and potential health hazard
(see comments,revised Draft FIR) -
Butte Country Mosquito Abatement District believes a public
health element of th general plan is necessary; increase
the exposure to tree hole mosquit5s an impact (see comments
revised Draft EIR)
RBC OMMEND.AT I ON
A. Change the designation of approximately 160 acres of land
in the Jordan Ai11'Road area from ASVicultural-Residential
to Timber Mountain; and
13, Recommend the adoption and eiertification of the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Report to the Board of Supervisors and
in dg the
Planning considered
theEnvirotmohtal lmpactReportireaching its
deciq.Lon
pursuant to the California Enviror ental Quality Act, and
C, Recommend the adoption of the proposed revised paradise
Area hand Use Plan to -the Board of Supervisors as an amend.-
ment to tii.e Land Use Element of the Butte County General
Pian; and
Pi Adopt the resolution meowing that tho Pl'znning Commission
approves of the proposed revised, Paradise Area Land rise
Plan as aii amendment to the Land Utio Clement of the Butte
Comity General. Plan.
1
Planning Commission j
Fags -G.-
June 11, 1981
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Paradise Area Land Use Plan map �
Draft EnViVonmental Impact Report
Draft of P16nning Commission Resolution endorsing and �
al)provng of Plan
Table Estimated, 1-1olding Capacity
P'Ltradise Irrig6tion District Watershed map
t
r:
.l
VD PARADISE UPPER RIDGE (2.3
Popula}tion/Dwelling) '
�4
ESTIMATED RESIDENTIAL HOLDING CAPACITY BASED
UPON THE
BUTTE COUNT`r LAND
USE EDF1IEN'T
DESIGNATION
EXISTING
PROPOSED
UffA.NtG
ACRES
%
ACRES
A -R
0
0
504-7 27.04
+ 5o47
L.D.R.
1073
5475
1961 10.51
+ 888
M.D.R.
2462
13.19
35 0.19-
211,2'f
Comm.
27
0.14
2111 1.13
+ 134
TM
9878
52.93
4266 22.86
- 5612
GOT,
4974
26.65
6064. 32.49
+ 1090
PUB
250
1,34.
1080 5.78.
+ 830
18664
100. GO
18664 100.00.
,
Sd
PROPOSED
nESV14ATION
ACRES
o AREA
DWELLINGS
POPULATION
5047
2'?.04
5047
11608
1961
10.51
7844
18041
M.D.Fi. (8yc ,
�."
0.19
280
644
G.O.L. (a5/�o)
c� -�r
"2.49
248
572
TM (.025%ac)
4e-66
x.'.86
105
245
Comm.
211
PUB
1080
18664
100.00i
x '~5
31110
EXISTING, OLD DENSITIES
L.D.R.
1073
5.75
4292
9t?72
�4/ao)
M.D.R. 8/coo
2462
13.19
19698
"4�'3o()
Comm.
27
0.14
-
-
TM (1/ac)
9878
52.95
9878
221%19
GOL (I/6c)
4974
26.65
4974
11440
IUB
2
186
1.54-
1001.00
89331
38842
EXISTING, NV DENSITIES
L.D.R.
10'73
5.75
4292
9872
�4/ad)
M.D.h. 8/ac)
2462
13.19
19698
45300
Comm.
27
O:11�
TM (4025/ac�
9378
52.93
247
568
ram (.O5/t,c
40.,74
26
24E
572
�U
.. 2 y0.
` 1. 3y,
186
�) . 00
5h G
%.. ... ...
'.'YS .
4444. ... et. .•,...
p 09
Sowi da it-/
A7�1�h�
ai
+y
ri�l .� yL�i/ �,� ���b� ti ♦ r
Tree �<
rid
( 1 �
• �1 u
I�
,ark �� wrtruw '
0
M•
�1�11
,
, T
:r
,i
TIM -40
r 1
RI G013R b
PROPOSED N,E��
IN UPPER RIDGRAREA F�� Cj `n.9 ,�MAG/�L'!ATM
w
hRAP, u
v ,
" 1
r
+. m
• , 011
CNJ
+
21, i Vi
t. t" Y 1 w r :. ... cv
+✓� �>� , ���, it -+"'a-`' , :` " ` ( a•i + � � �� . � � � • ,
� p 1, '• h 'rth ` i � ` t ,` >.
• ! it .. Z r ' °' + ` w�'l ++..4, (, i _ • x \ ' �\c +
\`+4rcr
F
CY
ri
♦� , '
s � ,
i (..�,. V �! LLL + 1 +,r y,i •h ., , k f w \ \�
, ,.1 �� 1 +=T'�'"t• `+4�F.,,�!` '�I,i' + r+ 1 A I I. r f1`� ` + w d .
VV �
y ' f a� � �\ Y � , 4s " f Y .y,/ya r+/�' � � a, + • + + 1 y �:
r ♦ aI•
34ti+a r f�F k`.. .o,+ 4w"',�y�+'� .1d'r+fS `' ra' t� tr\.,• r + , w.i + "' �. k
1 'Tt, ,� • `; �� (•� � f t r 1{ .° . p .i T•h'r "+ a n`r'• _ + i 1 t . � r
+�
r 1 t
�.•V 2 f � ..���^^^ `�,A Jf/ f r f �'"��� iii/// "•��+��`'-•t µr+ i`• ��' 1'�}` r .
r..r►'rr' �+' "r�� i !- Y� . � `�+�✓� ,! + ,! 1 �l ,� i n f>r 1 �, ,� r . N W , + f 14 i� a Y".� 1" �` ..{ �4 1;y ' �� ', ..
r' ' t �, � r, , r ,-�+ .� Vit, � .,. � , �"t , r� ",� �; ' •� ► Ls +'4
i" � +
y i�`
rP�• ,,.•� `�'+ ,/` , �.1 t\J \ ! it '.i rnt .,4, .. ice. ,y. .� .a'1. �i i .t�. : +'sly. 1 +
y ' y i ". �.4 ", r. 1 �.{ J• ir + � .r'w \ } 4�+`\'1, \�.
w'c�.. A,yI , ♦•r"' A.iY P+ME V
bAGAXZA tAp
�.
�' Jrn 1a�++I,CJ+01
•? yy y 1 ;' •' f r ! +.j. fl ' p rad i `, �i ..�,C+, O.�i� 1
/ C. \ ' r + fi1+ i + 1 �� ti 1 `, �' j.+ f1 !f+.d •'7Vi 1,',
•-- ems.
F
RESOLUTION NO.'
A RESOLUTION Or, THE. Ptfi NNlNG COMMISS",10N Op, TIl ;
OOUNTY Olt BUTTE RWOMMrLiDING THE ADOPTION ()V THE
REVISED PARADISE AREA L1ND USE PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT
TO THE BUTTE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN`
WHEREASi the existing Paradise Ax,oa Laud Us(� Phan pre-
dates the copsistency, requirement of the Government Oode (9 65850)
and fails to reflect the existi,g and desiveabl.e future l and tise
pat.,.erfto in the Paradise community; and
WHEREAS, the Butte Cojanty- Planning Commission finds that
the proposed amendm-nt -w7,] , be consistent wj,,b the land use now in
the area and will, conform iao the text of the General, Paan and be
In conformity with policies in other elements of the Genera. P"an,
this finding being based upon information presented at the Bearing
hereon before the 8,"4'e GountyyPlanning Commission and the resea'rch.
and studies on which the amendment was based.
WIEr AS, the revised Paradise Area Land Use Plan has been
reviewed and studied, by the PlAh—hing Cottrmission and the Planning
Commission
has held public hearings on the adoption of the revises
Paradise Area hand Use Plan as required by l,aw, at which time all
interested peraons were heard; and
WRtPEAS, the Planting Commission has reviewed and con-
sidered tl,t contents of tie Environmental Impact Report (Exhibit
A.) prepared on the revised Paradise Area Land Use Plan including
significant impacts descr bed 'within the document itself pursuant ,
to the Califo
rnid Environmental �uaiity Act;
r
NUW NERL�'oRl:` the
` Planning Commission of the County of
But; to dodo Vp..80tvt as follows =,
i
1
M
I. That the Map etld ibled Paradise Area Land Use Flan.,
a true copy of which is attached. hereto as ZZFIIBIT 13 and incorporated
by reference, is hereby adopt ed and approved by the Planning Oommis_
aloft of the County of Butte as an amendment to the Butte County
General. Plan Land Use Element adopted in October of 19?q ap amended
from -timeto time.
2. That the revised Paradise Axes Land Use flan is hereby
.recommended for adoption by the Board of Supervisors as an amendment
to the Dutte County General. Plan sand Use Element and said. amend
me-at be the land use policy for the County of Butte in the Paradise
area as it pertains to all findings made pursuant to law.
ADOPTI D this th day of 1981, by the planning
Commi;:;Mort of the County of Butte by the following 'Vote;
AYES:
NOEL:
ABSENT.,
CRON ommission
Chairman of the Planning
n
d�
WHO CO, Planning Co"I.
iw t Ci )981
Orovilin, C�lifrarnf�i ?
MINASIAN, MINASIAN MINASIAN, SPRUAllliCIE a SABER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P.. JACKSON MINASIAN 1641 61R0 STREET AT OAK STREMY
. DAVID HANKINS MINASIAN P, O. Box 11679 'CELKPMIONG 0�9`$flbs
PAUL RYAN MINASIANc
. AI.IEORNIA. •Dp66 - ANEA LO0E 91t
OROLIILLE
WILLIAM H. SPRUANCE, -- K.
WILLIAM H SABER, I"I - h PILE NO. IN 1q kp1.Y INo RCI�61t TO
Julio' 12 , l:.I s~',L
JEFFREY A MEITH
CERTIrIRD MAI
RETURN RECEIPT REQUL87'L17
Butte County Planning Commission
7 County Center Dive
OrovI'ilei C . X5965
Re t„radiso Uplger Ridge Gewtj. al 01an Amendment
G eiO-`Lcmen,
i
This office represents Miss Norma Vrances Cohn. �
Miss Cohn owns, as trustee, the itinerals and mineral rights
in approximately 13-4 acres of tha' North,2a8t Quarter of
Section 2, Township 22 North,J AVAge ,, '01st, M.D.B. & M. (AP
Woo 51-03=10),
At present, the General I?L,.h desi;onatos this area as
"Open and grazing". The. 2oninq is A -z., Under the pxcesent
situation; the mineral rights h:;,,ve value and can be. exa,r,
cised:
However, We are led +.o b,31Levo tivat the General Plate
Amendment may designate all or apart of the at-oa as "'low
density residential". If th bappened, ' of co'ursdo any
zoning in the area would nave to be made compatible with
that dosignaton. The problem is that there is no zone
presently, compatible. Whiz both the logit density residential:
designation and. Miss Cohn' s mjh6ral rights;
In other words) our client's interest in the property 1
would be rendered totally usel(4ss by an amendment designat-
ing it as low density residcnt,al. )n our opinion, such an
amendment would constitute a taking of her property by f
Inverse condemnation. "lust compensation Would have to be
Paid, We understand that therq are ether miftral rights
owners in the same situation,
i
y}54va�{trM'�'Aaucr*lainl -
St � t
*�I
i
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNINC COWISSION
MINUTi s - .Tune o, 1s81
1�
NEW iMARINO
B. Butte Cnetnty Plarnning commission, Upper Paradise Ridge
Amendment to the land `se Flemwit Map of the Butte County
General. Plan POW proPox'ty Vncrall.y described as being the
Upper Paradise Pidge located north of Paradise, southof
Toadtown and Stii:li ng City, taest of S811mill Peak and the west
Branch of the Feather Rivov and east of the Butte Creek Canyon,
containing; 30 square mikes, mora or less. Goncxal. Plan designa—
tions to be 4�onsider ed are: Grazing and Open Land; Timber-
Moa _,nta n; Agg ituitural lZcsi dc�at al Lot! Density nt.si,d.ential l
Medium Density Rosa dontial ; 00=0rcial I Gild Public:
Charlie Woods called attention to the draft Paradise Area Land Use
Plan (Exhibit 8) posted for the convenience of the Commission and the
public and pp;ifited out the objectives of thin generali PI ah revision
to update the Pai�oadise area Land. Ilse Map to reflect the d`Usignations
and Policies of the existing Land Use Element; to establish land use
policy correspondinE to existing physical services and nfra5tructul-es
and to provide ,the basis for elimination or, inconsistent zoning, also
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNTNG COMMISSION
MINUTES - June 17, 1081
elimination of the A-2 z, ling in the «area; Woods also indicated that
much of; the area was spei..fically zoned in 1974-75 and that the Plan
i,s Largely based. on the oxisting specific zoning which is widely sup-
ported by the community#
fie pointed up the concerns regarding water quality ('on the eastorly side
of the area) t,.d to the recent rapid growth of the Lipper Ridge Area, be-
cause of the attraction of retirement -aged persons --and that the area
now comprises some 3$ of the County's entire population. Woods then
enumerated the 3 main planning issues which are: 1 Population growth.
2. Resources management; and 3. Residential. development.; and eM
phasized that this proposal of low 04xmity .•esidential under consider-
ation, would reduce the maximum hold,.,yg capacity .from an estimated 890300
to about 31,000, and despite these reductions would a] loin for a five
to six -fold increase in populatioa--much from Paradire nines develop -
Ment yet .unoccupied. The plan depicts and plaits urbaTj alevelo - -ant
(proposed Low Density Residential., Medium Density Rt ^ d� ential and
Commercial) in the areas of existing re-i•dential deVeivm6nt and zoning
cn the Upper Ridge. The plain proposes rural residential development
(Agricultural - Res 1.dent ial) for the areas north and west of the Paradise
Pines
He also emphasized, the importance 'of watershed resources '(proposed for
Timber mountain) Agricultural Residential designations) of this area,
sided the Magalia and Paradise Reservoirs provide domestic Crater for
this Town of paradise c,s "tell as other areas and that the Open and Grazing
de;aignations on steep 5-10pes would tiot only protect water qu,�Iity, but
halp prevent erosi+in and help reduce wild]ife and fire Impact An
An
Additional major planning concern is the long cul-de-sac of Skyway
Effectively limiting circulation of the area. to a single road= -the Skyway,
The plan addresses this concern by reducing the growth potential of `,he
area and provides Tor commercial uses to reduce the number of trips in
And out of the area. High fS*xn hazards add to the traffic concerns.
Concerning the EIR, ho identliled traffic;, noise, school capacity, loss
of vegetation, loss of wildlife habitat and increased exposure to earth-
quake and fare hazards as significant impacts which may be uhaioi6able
or only partially mitigated through zoning and/or project cohditzon.s; anu
it
also questioned the Ag Residential designations of 160 acres im the
northwest corner of the projects and on a 60 acres of steeply sloping
land in the Jordan Hill area east of the West Branch of the R'eathor
Ri cer. Fie noted that the first- nuAt-ioned. 160 ~ros is noir zoned 1 114-20
but that the concerns over the steep ►ands around Jordan Bill app,mr, to
be justified, and staff would i,,ecommond ti W- Titmbea Mouhta.in ,d.esignation
for this 'aro«A.
He also, directed attention to a tetter from Minasian Minasian, Miivieianj
8priaance anis 'Mder, signed by Bill =Spru;ance �' oncerning the mineral tights
of his client, Fuss Norma Ptantds Cc' •'03.101 rated to a memorandum
from Steve Smith, Assistant planning . � uur for the Town bf patadise,
concerned with proposed rezone within the Lime saddle �amffiunity 809'Viccs.
-16L
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMNITSSICN
MINUTE'S - June 17, 1981
District --copies of whish had been ,Garnished the Commission. There was
also a letter :From Paradise Pines Mobile !tome Estates, Inc.., asking that
the current zoning be retained.
Dick Ntolcar, environmental review, enumerated the environmental concerns,,
but had little to add to coimne its already made by Woods
The lieai E; was opened. Bill Cutler, 65'98 Torrey Road, representing the -
Upper Ridge 'Coordinating Council and Sierra Del Oro Haffieowiker8 Associationp.
said that he had been authorized to cast a positive vote for the plan..
Bill Spruance said that his client, Miss (:olin, was one of many owners of
mineral rights in the area and ;asked that her rights not be inadvertently,,
or intentionallys taken away by any action the County might take -and
asked the Commission to take a long look, offering to work with them to
solve the problem-. He added later that the mineral rights were 100 ft.
downward from the surface and that Miss Coin's casement gave her the
right to bore ,from any point on the 134 acres, but that an agceement
had been worked out With the would-be developers of- an overlying sub-
division to limit excavation to the extreme southerly portion of her
Property,
Nathaniel ' nnedy) 6310 Rustic !!ills Drive_, Rocklin, said that the same
problem existed in other areas, that there could be an overlay zone to
extend 100 ft. arta then, at that point, the mineral `rights would go into
effect;
Robin Kennedy, 2397 Marysville !toad, Marysirille, said that the mining
operation could not always stay underground -that it would have to sur-
t face sometime and that zoning could take care of the probl..,.n.
In respoiisc to the reonterng of A. B, Ford about his 1.30'acres that now
has 2 zones; it was pointed. out 'that this is the hearing only on the Genes
oral Plan portion and needed adjusuient of the zoning boundary can be
made at a later date.
i
Joe Pike, Route 1, Box 1700 Oroville said his oniployefr; Paradise Pines
Mobile Rome Estates, owns tlio minora 1 rights `tinder all of the Pdtad'lse
Pines dovelopmunt and they see no problem there.
Ms. Blair commented that perhaps an overlay zoning could be considered" -
that an overlay had been used in other .instances Max discussed the need
Pot) and the investigation for, a secondary access to this area.
Chairman,Max pointed out that improved accesr to the Jordan Hill area
was trot feasibl.o, at this time, and that this proposal would reduce
dramatically tho ~otential, for buildout as it is now and then made a
motion whicli was seconded by Commissioner achrader to
w17F
BUTTE COUNTY 'PLANNING' COMNITSSION
NIINUTES - June 17, 19P1
A Change the designation o1: appro ima4' ly 160 acres of la cd.
in the Jordan Rill noad area from A +-,:.cultural-•Re8idential
to Ti)nbor Mountain; and
B. Recommend the ,t xoption, and certification of the Draft En-
vir6nment,61 `impact Report Lo the Board. of Supervi.sorr, and
in doing so ! .nd that, the Plonni.ng Commission considered
the Envirunmental impact Report in reaching its decision
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality .pct; and
C. Recommend the adoption of the proposed revised Paradise
Area Land Use flan to the Board. of Supervisors as an amend-
ment to _the Land U e Element of the Butte County General
Plan- and
D. Adopt the resolution shot ino that the 'Planning Commis: ion
approves of the proposed revised Paradise Ar --a. Land Ube
'Plan ns ana io; dmont to the Land Use Element of the Butto
County GenePal. P1,1n.
AYES! Commissioners Ldniher.t, Wheeler; Schrader; Bennett and
Chairman Max: �
NOBS No one
AMM: No one;
Motion carried,
hta, hlair roportod that this 1Pr0ject will be held in limbo until tjyo
board decidos to use its second annual d0noral IPIan amendment= -perhaps
sonstime in August.
FIPIPPeaaradife'Pinet
IXBILE HOME ESTATES; INC.
P. 0. 13OX IVW, MAOALiA, CA 95954
813-1121
June 17; 1981
Butt.; O}unty Planning Commission
tutte County
nroville, CA 95965
Re Re -zoning per General Ply
Upper Midge/Paradise Pines area
gear Commissioners;
In reviewing the mai printed in the Para,%ise Post, Which we under
.stand is not an aMcial map but an article map, it indicated some
zoning ;changes relating to properties our Company owns. It is our
desire to have those properties retain their current zoning; Pledse
find attached a map designating those particular parcels.
_ Sincerel
JOSEPH L. FRANK
Vice President
Paradise Pines Mobile Home
t5tater i Inc.
Ar" V
Cnc,
a
Butte Co. Planing co"M
JUN 17 1981
Orovillo, C HQMk
MEMORANDUM
TO, Bettye Blair, Director of Planning, Butte County
FROM: Steve Smith, Assistant Planning Director, Town of. Paradise
SUBJECT: ",per Ridge General Plan Amendment and Rezone
DATE Ju 17, 1981
The of Paradise foresees no conflict with the proposed general plan
amendment _<< «I subsequent rezone for the area north of the flown limits. However,
the Town is concerned with the proposed rezone within the Lime Saddle Community
Services District.
Although the County amended the general plan for this area south of Town last
year; We believe serious consideration should 'be given to reviewing that decision
by incorporating this area in the Central Butte County Rezone proposal currently
under study by your staff. The "WH -l" zone appears appropriate only for the
area West of Kunkle Creek currently designated "AR -MH -I,' The plower -Subdivision
south of Country Club :Drive contains one-third acre parcels and the large area
south of Qua 1 Trails''and east of Kunkle Creek i"s probably not developable in
many areas fpr one acf'e parcels, Therefore, the "ARMH-1" tone appears ihappropriate
In this area.
The Town w1ould highly recommend the County eliminate the Lime Saddle area
from its Upper Ridge ft2bhe proposO and include it in the Central Butte Rezone
Study, This would allow for an alternate general plan and rezone proposal to be
developed and presented before the Commission.
One additional word is in order, the BIR for the Upper Ridge proposal appears
to be of superior quality and the Town itiay Use it as a model for future studies in
Paradise.
Steve
SS,,bf
y
µ�
MINASIANI, MINASIAN, MINASIAN, SPRUANCE & BABER
ATToRNEY.S AT LAW
R 3ACKOON MINAWAN 1401 BIRO STRACr AT OAK STARKT
OAVIOHANKINSMINASIAN P. O. BOX 1679`i`.EI.EPHONG i<]�-x9E6
PAUL RYANMINACIAN AREA CODE 916
WILLIAM BFRUANC6 GRi1VIlLBy CALIFOfiN1A 4ef07
WILLIAM H. BABCR, III IN HC1'i'.�Y1NO NICFER TO
1 ialrnREY A. MKITH auly 8, 1981 fili:F NO.
1 y
f
9uHo Co., vinnning CoMt,
JUL 91 1
CrnYH"Qj Callitania
Ms. Bettye Blair; Director;•
Butte County Planning DdPartatient
7 County (Centel Drive
Oroville, California 95965
,
Rt., PARADISE -UPPER RIbGt GSNErz L PLAN
Dear Battyi;,.
At the Pl,ann:i.ng Commission meeting on i7ufte 11, 1981; I
came away with the following understanding:
F
The adoption of the proposed General. Plan Amond>ttent for
the 'Upper Ridge area is not intended to prohibit oxercise _of
underground, mining rights, particalarly on tho property
described in my letter of lune 120 1981.. -
However, r understand that some further proceedings may
i. become necessary. One alternative# described by Del Saim=
sen, would be to change the enabling legislation to specify
that surEace zoning restrictions do riot apply to mining
operations below the 1.00 -foot Level,. Al other alternative;
aescribed by yourselfj would be to adopt an "OVerl.ay zone"
to achieve the game result;
i would hot want these supplemental proceedings to be
Lost in theprocess of adopting the Gendtal flan Amr3ndment
Therer"oro, l would ask that you disciitb this matter in more
detail, with Del Seimsen at one of your staff meetings so
that a specific recommendation. can bte made to the Commis-
1 know that this is a novel issue,, However, i bCAl.i,eve
it is one quite likely to be raised by any opponents of
y
Y
MS. 130tyd-131air, bi).ecbOr
F
Page Two
°
Ju];, 8, 1981
future minihq operations in the area. 1 cannot advise my
client to take comfort in the fact that the issue has noir
arisen be;l ore. 1 hope you will understand.
Very truly yours,,;'
MINASIAN, MINASIANj 14IMASTAN,
8PRUANCE & BA8m
a:
yWILLIM4
H. SPRUANCE
WHS njm
ire
cc: Miss 'Norma Frances Cohn
bel Seimscn, 'sq.
p
a
A
'
Vis
ti
7 {I'
a
a
t
0
2388 ADOPT RESOLUTIONS 81-210 & 81-2,11.1 PUBLIC SEARING BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION GENERAL i'LAN AMENDMENTS
The following public hearings were held regarding the Butte
County Planning Commission General Plan amendments as advertised;
1. Draft environrtental impact report and Upper Paradise Ridge
amendment totheLand Use Eleme'st Map of the Butte County General Plan
of Grazing and Open Land, Timber Mountain, Agricultural Residential, Low
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Commorcial and Public.
Charlie Woods, planning department, set out the background of
the amendments.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing:
1 Bill 5pruance, representing Norma Frances King, Mr.
Spruance w+tated that Ms. King is the owner of mineral rights on 130 acv s
in the upper ridge area. He was not speaking against the plan. Under
the proposed amendment, the area where the mineral rights are situated would
be designated as low density residentia:, These mineral rights are at
an elevation of 100feetbelow the surface. There is not a_mining operation.
on the surface now. He was looking for assurance that when and.if the
time comes that the underground rights are looked at that there is
somLkY ng krn the zone to protection of those rights, The entrance to
the type of mining would be outside low density area. At Lhe Planning
Commission hearing they were given some assurances that it would be
possible with a General Plan amendment to accomplish what is needed for the
mineral rights] either in the form of an o-,melay or an amendment to the
zon4ng districts:
Mr. Woods advised that the amendment under discussion does
not have a major direct bearing on Mr. Spruance's client. That is in the
nature of a zoning issue: There are probably a number of ways to handle
that type of problem. 40 has contacted other counties where mining is
active acid it has never been a proble.m-
2. E. M. Burges'd. Mr. Burgess stated that tate amendment effer-Lad
his property, He set out where his property was located. He would like
his property low dent;ity. He is working otr a project at the present time.,
The railroad dividds his property and there is h divisiotl on the amendment.
Mr. Woods stated that the`amendiaent proposes this property as
for agriculturdl and rural ,residential. tie did not think there would be
it problem for '14r. Burgess.
Hearing Closed to the public and confined to the toard:
e
Rearing reopened tri the public. Appearing:
3. Glen Russell. Nr. Russell stated he owned nine acres adjoining
Mr. Hammons property. He was in favor of the amendment;.
Hearing closed to the public and confined, co the Board.
Oa motion of Supervisor Saraceni, seconded by supervisor Wheeler
and carried, the -following resolutions were adopted and the Chairman
authorized to sign:
li Resolution 81-210 accepting and certifying the final environ-
mental impact report for the revised Paradiae Area Laird Use Plan (Paradise
Upper Ridge).
a
two Or
.IN
Bridging the Cap iii December 80, 1982
ACKNOWLIDGRM- S
The Local Government Unit gratefully ackhowledges the kind, prompt, and in-
cisive suggestions and commentary that many, friends, colleagues, and
contacts provided on earlier drafts of this advisory mr-morandulii, wn esp'-"
cially wish to express our appreciation to Hon Bass, Projects Coordinator
and Clearinghouse Director, Projects Coordination Unit, Governor's Office of
Planning and Research; Peter Detwiler, Consultant, State of California,
Senate Local Government Committee (.cormerly Director, Local Government Unit,
Governor's Office of Planning a a Research)'; Barry Steine °, Deputy County
Counsel; Sacramento County (formerly General Counsel, Governor's office of
Planning and 'tesearch; ; Dava Frank, Ne putt' County Counsel., Shasta County;;
Robert Logan, San Jose C#t;y Attorney; JaAet Gladfelter, Stockton Deputy City
Attorney; and ban Curtin, Walnut Creek City Attorney for their encouragement
and thoroughness. We are also indebted to the following for their valued
contributions:
phil Block, Planning Director, City of Merced
J. 'Steven Lempel, Attorney at LaW, Fresno
Edna Walz, Deputy Attorney General,, State of CELlifornl,a
Robert Hunter, Planning; Director, San Joaquin County
Tom Riggs, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Fresno County
Arthur Saalfield, Assistant City Attorney, City of Bakersfield
William W. Taylor, Deputy County Counsel, San Diego County
Joy Braun, Attorney at Law, Santa Monied
Ron BrWwtett, Principal Planner, kern County Council of Governments
Last) but riot least, We extend our thanks to the 'Santn, Barbara County
Resout-ce Management Department and the Alameda County Planning Department
for allowing us to reprodLice their staff reports.
1 Decembor 500 198�
BRIDGING 7118 GAP:
• US1NG NINDINGS IN LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS
In recent years, the struggle over land use planning and development has be-
come more intense in the state and local legislative arenas and the 1,
l courtrooms. Typically, the parties have focused on issues like vested
rights, growth controls, housing elements, and voter -enacted land use con-
trols, These controversies have had their share of impact upon the J
continuous evolution of modern day planning in Calilornia Meanwhile, a
less heralded, but equally important progression is affecting hour local offi-
dials make land use decisions on rL day-to-day basis increasingly, local
officiuls must now explain their land use decisions through the adoption of
findings. Because many citizens, planning c.ssioners, elected officials,
and planning departmdnt staffs have indicated a, ool:cern for clarity in what
courts and state laws require in the realm of findings, the Office of
Planning and :Research has prepared this advisory memcira.ndum to explain the
legal basis for findings. While this memorandum attempts to present the,
most current information available regarding firdintss, land use legislation
and se law'p3riodically establish new rules. For these reasons, local
agenci'iss should consult their attorneys for advice. an the latest
develoo'nents
r TOpANGA'„ TE'iC OoitNF.�sIM FOR FINDIMS
s
Any discussion of findings and deciskhs affeeti.n?, land use Must begin with
the .ym ;nai cake in the area, Topanga Association fora Scenic Oommuhi"ty v.
County of Los Angeles (t197411 Cal,- 1 . In 9.2angai t e court
defined findin►tsi explained their purposely and showed when they are needed.'
Definition
The Topanga ooiltt definedfindings as legally 'retevant, subconcluschs Which
expose a agel�cy's mode of analy8is offacts i re-'dl4tion8i and policies,
and 'bhldge the ahalytical gap between raW data and ultimate decision
('Topiti�ipa, sup'ril at pp. 515 and 5lG}. to other words, findings aro the legal
footer ts`3`oc;al adminiotrators and officials leave to Explain hoW they
progressed frait the IN%ctt' through established policies to the dedision
6
Bridging the Cap 2 December 30, 1982
pu rpose
The Topanga cour� also outlined four purposes for naking findings, two of
which a,re relevant rmtinl,y to the decision-making process, and the other two
relevant to judicial functions. Findings should:
1. Provide a fraunework for making principleddecisions, enhr,iicing the
integrity of the administrative: process;
2; Help make analysis orderly and reduce the likelihood that the
R ency will, randomly leap ;from evidence to oonclusions
3. Enable the parties to determine whether and on 'wY,at basis they
should seek judicial review and remedy; and,
4. Apprise a reviewing court of the basis for the agency's action.
(Topanga, supra at pp. :514 aid 516 (fn. 14])
Circumstances Requiring Findings
While the four purposes seem clear enough, state law has not clearly distin-
guished between the situations which require findings from those which do
not: Ab-.ent a specific legislative=requirement for findings, the courts
determine when their are necessary. in general, case law has required find-
irggs for land use decisions that are adjudicative in nature (also known as �
quasi-judicial, administrative,, or :adjudicatory decisions)► In this type of
decision, a reviewing body holds a hearing, as required by the Constitution,
state statue, or local ordinahce, takes evidence, and bases its decision on
the evideade. The action i',,-,volves applying a fixed rule, s-Mindlyd, or law
to a Spec if ict parcel.
of land. Fxamples include variances, use permits,
con
.cancellations, coastal zo&- development permits,(i),
local. coastal plans, and tentative subdivision anu parcel maps. In each
case local officials apply existing land use or other development standards
to specific parcels.
(1.) gnacted by initUti've, the California Coastal Conservation Act,tiOf 197?>
provided for development permits in 'the Coastal Zone until $ts"repeal,
effective January 1, 1971, The California Coastal Act replraded its
also providing for development peruilts. The present Act act'}; requires
local governments to prepare local coastal program-4hich include land
use plans, zoning ordinances-, and other' action's implemeflting the
Coastal, Act at the local level: The State Coininission may i ella permits ;
until a local government has 'taken steps to implement a certia*0d land
use plan, The State Obhinission also retains an appellate functubi In`
any event, courts have classified 'coastal tzone development Z;lrmits
issued under either act as adjudicative actiorsi
Bridging; the Gam? 3 1)(cOoni'uor :3n, '1982
Not only do these approvals cx)llst,itutc a, je+cii.cative acts, their dr,nials arc
adjudicative in nature as woll. E,specin,Ily ir► the case of tentative sub-
division taps, if the decision-making body makes certain stritutory findings,
it must dolly time subdivision trap (Government Code Section 66474). Pt the
body trokos certain other findings, it has the option of denying the subdivi-
sion (Govprnliient Code sections 66474.6 and 'M174.7).
8;; way of comparison, findings are not necessary for legislative or quasi--
lCg,islative acts, unless specifically required by stacute (tnsign Bickford
Realty Corp. V. City Council [19771 ,FS C.rt],: App. 3d 467, 973). In contrast
w,t r tcative at:ts, legslative acts generally .formulate a rule to be
applied to all future cases rather than applying an existing rule to a
specific factu^,l situation. Exzmples are the adoption or amendment of a
general plan or zoning ordinance. Even though a zone change or general plan
amendment may be specific to a inarticular parcel, it is still, a legislative
act because its underlying effect is legislative in nature; regardless of
the size or geographic zc;ope of the property affected (Aenel Development
Company v. Cit of Costa Mesa [1980) 28 Cal. 3d 511, 519; Ka.rlson v. City of
r to [1980J lo Cal. App. 3d 789, 799):,
JUDICIAL; STANDAEiDS OF RE'VI1 al
Before a court determines if findings are faulty; sufficient, or even neces-
sary, it must first detormite into which category the agency's decision
fallsi adjudicative or legislative. This in turn determiners which judicial
standard the court will use to review the decision. California courts use
one of two different standards of review depending on the nature of the
decision. dor legislative acts, a court will apply the so-called
'etraditional man(. amus'' standard in Section 1,085 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, reserving the "administrative mandatnus" "standard in Section
1099.5 of the same code for adjudicative decisions.
Alt,sough statutes designate which standard of review applies to given deem--'
bions, courts routinely examine the nature of the decision itself before
determining the proper standard of review (City..of. Chula Vista v. California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission t 198133 Cal. App. Z�u 4-7-2-7j-06)
Therefore, statutory designations of the judicial standard op review do not
automatically categorize a decision, and the courts are not obligated to ob-
serve them. Table I separates the various types of local land use decisions W..
into two basic categories, showing their case law precedents.
Traditional Mandamus Ot Oedinary M4 lidamus)
when a party challenges a legislative act, the court will use a deferevitial
standard of review, traditional mandamus, to determine:
w Whether the action was arbitrary, capricious, or enti're'ly lucking
in 4,'Adehtittty support; or,
en
ilridgri.ng tt1c: Gap lkecember 30, 1982
2. Whother the legislative body has failed to follow the procedures
and Dive "t]1e ,notices required by law.
In decisions atfecting 'land use, the courts have unwaveringly employed this
approach' first in Miller V. Board of Public Works ([ 1928 J 195 Cal • 477,
490), later in Acker v. T3aldw n�i J-3 i Cal. 2d 34x, 314), and ) Swanson
v. Iiia rin 6tunici-15E Water 1str ct ( [].976) 56 Cal. App. 3d 512, 519) . These
is
courts 1e,. 1a icy wx not invnl;idat�: a legislative action unless it
basis, or unless the notice of hearing was
unreasonable;, lacking a rational
defective or nonexistent:
In addition, it there is just one reasonable argument supporting the action,
the court traditionally will defer to the legislative body and uphold the
legislative act's reasonableness, they
decision. ,llthough oourts consider a
refuse to impose theft'. judgment because a legislative body's acts
generally
art, presumed ttlid carrying ou-� its con rti.tutional power to promote the
the community (Miller v.
general health, safety, morals, and welfare of
Evidence Code Section 664).
Board of Public Works, supra and
The second eleriient of traditional; mandamus- review concerns observance of
of hearings
legally prescribed procedure. Failure to give notices public
improper (Brock v• Stinerior
required by law constitutes Such an procedure
Court:, [1952] 109 Cal. App. 2d 594, 605), as does a notice so defecMe as
to be misleading" (0. T. Johnson Corp. v. City of Los Angeles [1926] 198
Cal. 308, 319):
The courts ha•'re consistently applied the traditional mandamus standard of
l
r '
c-
ahave further ruled that such ac-
not elfindingsslative Atoirezoathem. Tim and again, case law has
requi.rocal
tions do requirejustify,
precluded the need for findings i ng actions 'unless statutorily re-
quired (Onsign Bickford Realty Cor oration V. City Council of Livermore
o not require fain ngs
[1977] Cal. App. 3d 4 7, 73). Also, annexations
(City of Santa Cruz v. LAFCQ [1978) 76 Cal. App. 3d 381, 389).
HOWever, recent legislation requires findings for general plan amendments
that can be
and zoning ordinances that limit the number of housing units
in a given jurisdiction (Government Code Sections
constructed annually
65302.8, Sia 606 (Foranl, Chapter 949, Statutes of i979, and 65863.6, SB 1656
[Foran), Chapter 823, Statutes of 1980). Because these statutes govern
legis ative actions typically do not re-
legislative actions, -and cause
quire findings, much speculation about how courts will treat such findings
has ensued. 'These issues are di,souseed in this memorandum starting oil page
,
�1d►ninstratiye rta:ndamus
Administrative mandamus is the standard of review that courts apply to ad-
' judicative decisions. It is fate stricter than teaditional mandamus and
the court's inquiry to the heaving record, such as staff reports;
focuses
public testimony, minutes; resolutions, and other submitted documents and
exhibits, to aecertaint
Y
Bridging, the Gap S December 30, 1082
1, Whether the agency has proceeded without or iii excess of its
a .jurisdiction;
2: Whither there wits a fair hearing; or,
3: Whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion.
The first two of these three inquiries are similar to the court's inquiries
under the traditional mandnmus standard of review of challenged decisions.
The nujor difference between the t,wo standards lies in the third inquiry tin-
der administrative rrandams;whether there was any prejudicial abuse of
discretion. Wnen coourts i*evico t.hallenges to an agency's adjudicative deci-
sion on the basis of abuse of discretion; they will review the record to
determine whether!
1.' The agency has proceeded in the manner required by law;
2i The findings support the decision; and,
3. The evidence supports the 'findings,
The last two elements arc commnly Ceferred W as the substantial evidence
test. Under this test the court reviews administrative decisions for com-
plete links between data, analysis, and final decision. The substantial
evidence test requires that agencies diake findings for all adjudicative
decisions in o�-ier to assist the court to "bridge the analyticA gap between
the raw evidence and ultimate decision," as the,Topanga court noted in 1974.
t In contrast:, the traditional mandamus standard restricts the level of Judi
cial scrutiny to a ;lower threshold, and local legi8iative decisions remain
virtually invulnerable. As a result, local legislative actions will likely
withstand legal challenges mote than adjudicative actions will.
Table II lists 48 significant California cases relating to findings and
standards of 'review.
Principles Regarding Standards of Revirn
Tin many instances, locally elected bodies sometimes act in both legislative
and adjudicative capacities. Por exa!:uple, a city council or board of super -
Visors may perform a local legislativefunction by adopting a general plan -=
or a zoning ordinance. The same body May also perform an adjudicative faho-
tion, perhaps during the same meeting, by acting' ori a tent-ux.. subdivision
map, use permit; ur variance+ Courts have shcwri that '&.ev will use the ad-
,. mini.steative mandamus standard of review for any adjudicative act,
regardless of the type of body that makes Ithe decision.
In 'sierra club v. Hayward, supra, for ekainple, the kate Supreme Court set
Asi e a Williamsoft Act contract cancellation (an adjudicative act) by the
Hayward City council, holding that contract cancellations are adjudicative
tarts r0iewable under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1099.51 in spite of
the fact that the City couhcil oftep sits as a legislative decisi.on•-making
body.
Bridging the CRIT 6 Drcomber 30 1082
Legal observers concede that the distinctions betwe:,n adjudicative and
legislative dq, 6ns are not often clear.. The frost recent eXfort to di.s
tinE;uish R�!twc:er, tut rtdjudi,cative and legislative act came in a July 1982
Court of Appev,l decision, ho,l.dinEl that local coastal plans are adjudicative
in mituM, and therefore reviewed under Code of Civil procedure Section
1094.5 (City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court of San Diego County [19821 133
Cal.. App, 3d 7T `5,�s or inion Mves a dctaa,.lcd analysis of flow local
coastal plans resemble both adjudicative anti leg:Lslative acts, and serves to
underscore the contention that the dichotomy between both types of acts is
not always clear;
The diffet'ences between adjudicative and legislative acts become less clear
when a decision-making body makes both adjudicative and legislative deci.;
sions simultaneously. In Mountain De .80 U -a, a0 V. Board of Supervisors of
San Diego County ([19771 E'"Ci,1.. App, d 72;3,729), the Court ruled that
when tWo aeci.sions are made simultaneously, one requiring findings (a
Private development pewit) and the other not requir,ing findings (a general
plan amendment), only one set of findings is necessary. However, judicial
review of the entire decision crust follow this more stringent standard -- ad-
ministrati're mandamus, Code of Civil. Procedure Section 1094.5.
Statutory Findings for Legislative Actions
The Legislature often requires that specific findings accompany. certain
60c,ision8. Specific statutory findings requirements for adjudicative deci-
sions are :commonplace throughout California land use la1-. Such requirements
for legislative decisions, however, are rare. In fact, statutory iiindings
requirements for legislative land use decisions did not exist at all Uh,til
.recently. It is important to note, however', that a stutu'tory findings C'?-
quirement does not automatically categorize the decision as adjudicative,
resulting in the hurt applying the administrative mandamus standard of
review. Rather, it will con,;ider all relevant circumstances surrounding the
decision to decide the appropriate standard of review (City of Chula Vista
v- ,Superior Court of, San Diego County, supra at p. 488).
Land 'Use Control by'xnitiatile
California voters have often used initiatives to este fish direct controltof
land use issues. These voter approved actions are restricted to legislative
style actions of planning and zoning, Wid may not be used for <adjudiea.toey
acts (Arnel v, Costa Mesa, supra; 'Redevelopment A **ency V. City. of _Berkeley
[ 19701�$cic .� , Hpp. 3d . 8 ;`3'io) n pct ni n 'egis la five cap,
voters are often bound by the same restrictions applicable to the city wunw
cil or beard of supervisors (Associated Home Builders.Of., the Greaten Bast
8ay; .Inc. v, City of Livermore, sum at p• hus; the fun. aIi'Fn-
issue aT
comes`' -Wt ie `an ini-tatUe must oontain any statutory findings that,
would be tequired of a city council or board of supoevisors, if t:;ir same ac
tions were approved by the council or board.
Byway of example, recent state statutes require findings for growth limit-
tag general plan amendmt�ts or zoning ordinances that limit the number of
housing Unitas that !nay be constructed annually. the two statutes,
Bridging the Gap 7
December 3o, m,
n GOddi) S 05863.6 and
Section require
ni findings that, reourin regional housing opportunities beforeaYvznig ordinanceor mandatory
general plan element mqy be adopted or amended to limit 'thr
number of housing units that may be constructed annualty. These statutes
aro silent ns to their applicability to actions taken by initiative.
Pending ' itigat;ion may help rm,51ve these issues (Building Tndus t'y
Association of Southern California, v. City OfCamar�i110 Case�7�1162,
Qentura ' unty Superior Court l,it gars )ts expect the Baso to go to
trial early in 1983.
a
l TIM GUIDI�'�i,IN1 S MR fAUN( VL )INGS
netpi-p the unce thlnty surrounding land use controls by initiative' To
panga
stili provides the clearest direction for making findings. Case law den
tifies three other guidelines, some based on IT2panga, that local officials
must consider when dealing ';with findings;
1. A final decision -awaking Wdy ►nay use a subordinate bod '
but it is not obligated to do so. Y s Prdings,
2. Findings m1pt be substantive,•not Just rec tationls of the law; and,
3. Findings reed not be formal and may included,Pn the
der •or 'resolutiotli
agency's or-
1. A final decision-making body tray use a subordinate body's findings, .but
itis no o w'`3att to�0 So
Final decision-mai-ring bodies juch as city council; are fvee to rtieet
the i,`ihdings of their planning cormlf.ssions or boards of zoning adjust" y
went, if they deem appropriate Foundation for :San Francisco s r.
tage v. City. and tAunty of n rano sco _ 106 r
+ pp. 3d 3 9 ) , easpecia y in light o new evii�=f..,. a4 submitted
Architectural Bert
1 o1i appeal La rut �y Council- of Stockton 3W ev fl dal. App. ed
ate, 895),:.. g to v Cit
Administrative a i'
ppeals also involve issues of the adequacy of findings.
The'extent 'Io which a subordinate bodyrs findi►jgs `govern `thea ellate
bog pp � .
y'6 decision will be determined by locals �t•ocedures: I,flocal
"69ulations rOquire a hearing de novo a new hearing in which ne
7 evidence and testimony are permitted in
the body conducti-ng the heAt•ing
is not bound by the subordinate body0s findingao It other jurisdic-
tions, the appeal- hearing may be limited to only those aspects mf the
decision actually appealed. in these cases, pti oe findings not raised.
on appeal are It -it undistur�d, I
3d
Whitman vi Board of Super 'visors of yentura County ((1979 8t3 Cal A i
3d 397, A1C) illustrates howV local procedures governing apbeais affect
p i}s.
the adoption of i'ridin
G in .1Vhith�, the Plannitlg Cd;nml.ssioiw and ,.
Bridging O)a Gap 8 December #j 1982
staff reComr coded that the Hoard certify an 1,IR and approve it condi-
tional use permit with 59 conditions. The applicant appealod seven of.
the 59 conditions, but the Commission and staff recommended that the
burtrd deity, t,1ie appeal. The recommcindation included findings to support
the doni.als. In keeping with a local ordinance, the Board's approval
of the eondWonal use Hermit automatically meant approval o.t the find-
ings that the lower body in this case the Planning C:omnissi.on made.
The Board granted the appeal, `therdby eliminating the seven conditions
and retaining the rest. Acknnt,-ledging that the local ordinance
resulted in thou Board's auto=,, . :option of the lower body's find-
ings, the Court held that when ioard certified the FIR and approved.
the conditional use permit; it also adopted the pertinent record and
findings concerning the EIR and conditional use permit. Thus, the
record lacked findings necessary to support granting the appeal, and
the court remanded the decision for the Board to adopt the necessary
findings:,
2. Findings must br substantive, hot ,just recitations of the law.
Generally, V .ti.ngs are not sof!"tient if they merely recite the very
language of the local ordinance or state statute that requires them
(Carmel---By-Tile-Sea v. Board of Supervisors of Monterey County [1977] 71.
Ca i�, 92). 7'iiie i.s, w e- never a statute requires a 'local
legislative body to find that a proposal be, onsistent with the local
general plan; the board or council cannot discharge its responsibility
by simply stating thin: there is consistency. The decision --making body
mist sot forth the basis for the consistency between the project and
the plan. The mere recitation of statutes is a self-servingexercise
that is more conclusory than analytical. As such, it normally 1$A is to
satisfy the Topanga mandate because it would ,lack the intermediate
r, lytical st p ming the basic data to the decision. However, there
are some instances when statutorily required findings are 'so uetaAled
and precise that merely reciting them would satisfy the Topanga mb.ndate ,
(Jacobson v. County of Los Angeles [1977,] 69 L1.'.. App. 3d 374;'389- i
.
i
3. Fundings neednot 1 fotmaly but may 'be included in the agency's order
.or _ resolution.
Fihdin,16 CtLhhot be implied; they must be clearly set iot-thi, However,
lova.l agencies have discretion in the tanner in which the findings are
recorded. Tn Hadley v. Ontario ([19141 43 Cal. App. 3d 121 ,128) the
COUrt ruled that an admin�rative agenoy's finding,§ need not be immial .w
but may be included in the alkene y's resolution: similarly, fi.nditigs
contained in the tni.nu;.es will satisfy the oottrts An early environme!t�-
tal caod established a related guideline reg'=vding' the formality .o.�
findings; reiends of %mnoth v. Board of supervisors (['1972] „8 ^a]; 3d
2470 279),` evolve "Elns an'kWtiRf- q :°indings rdgUiedd by 16ca1
ordinanco. The court determined th,.t when an n.M provides the taro in-
tottatj6hajL benefits that locally required written findings do, iko
additional findings are required
}
k
Hridgi tr Lho Cap y LSeccmier �O o 1962
PIUMARATION' OF FUTUIN3S; A:q,'JrSTTW OF TIMMY
in resolving the question of at what poi nt in the process -should the
decision --making body:' adopt findings,--T--o�pu—riga again provides guidance
ToprLnga suites that findings should enhancintegrity of the administra-
tive help make analysis orderly, and reduce the likelihood That the
agency wi11 'randomly leap Irom evidence to conclusions. Thie. requires the
decisionmakers to identify the reasons svpporti.ng a decision prior to taking
action
However, in the daily reality of acting on a myriad of different ,land use
j applications, a local body may face a nlicnbee of factors making it difficul*;
s to formulate detailed and Well -articulated findings and reduce then to writ-,
ing at the point of the dec%sion. Factors affecting this include the nature
of the decision, tae evidence, and 'the presence or absence of external fac-
tors like state mandated time limits requiring local agencies to act within
specific time periods. The following example illustrates how I ies- factors
operate to influence the adoption of findings.
Late in the evening, after lengthy public +_c-stimony and extensive post-
hearing disctmsion of the iasis for the decision, a planning Commission
has reached consensus to approve a tentative subdivision contrary V)
staff recommendation. The staff report contains Suggested iind3ngr1
s-upporting denial of the tentative subdivision. The commission muse
act on 1be application that evening becwuise of statutory time limits.
The planning coamission acts by motion on all matters, and the sponsor
of the approving motion, a lay ,Berson, has difficulty articulating all
the reasons which have been discussed for apprnving the project.
Because of the time Batts, there is no futures opportunity to incur-
poste the finding:, into the decision, since the plx.nnng commission
acts by motion or. all matters.
This illustration shows several practical difficulties in adopting adequate
findings. First, lay counissionersmy not readily assir%ilate new informa-
tion and way have difficulty verbalizing thes.r ratio,ale ta the form of
structured findings lr.,eded to suppor-t their decisions, espe hially it Stich
decisions closely' follow lengthy :psiblic hearing:n and o s atutvey time limits
Aare present. Second, in -jurisdiptiots where Commissions act by motion
1aithout a required rosolut;ion, no ready mechrmism exists try which to prepare
fiu,Angs
In this eEample, had the coaniesirm m ad with the stet =alysis it could.
have adoptee findings by refeeren&) to the staff report, since making find-
injo 'fir reference is permisnible (MdMillkh V. American General Vi.nance
2M12MY [19781 (30 Call Lpp. Bd 1?5,84)i� .�MM sMaies have their Mutts
prelare proposed findings for their decisionmakers to consider and then use,aesevi., or .rejec;t. she suggested'findings cwi help 'the decisiora�ztirs iden
tit$, the appropriate information, ;policies, and regulations governing t)ae3
proposed project and &ide them it makinj the necessary findi> C� t.;. Of
ex-virsel before adopting any stn.ff-prc.-�gred fi'ncli.ng '. the decisichmakers Midt
objectively rev�.ew rw.d where necessary, ret se them to make sure than they
accurately reflect both the ev Bence in the 'record which
is
likely to be
supplemented in the r %zing after the preparation of the staff" re „rr) and
Bridging the Gap 10 Dectml-,er 00, i982
their mm conclusions, In addition, failure to objectively reviews these
findings tA, The decision-making bode exposes them to a challenge for actinl;
withot;t appropriate deliberation. That is, in the end, the commissioners
would not adopt findings of their o%m design but, instead, would adopt
Ings tofu leczing the staff opinion of what the decision should be.
Where the opporrusity exists, many loca'.1' land use decision-making bodies
take tentative action and then direct staff to draft a written statement of
the supporting reasons as reflected in the evidence and the deliberative
discussion. The staff draft can then be reviewed for adoption as the
agency's findings at a later. 4�eting. This method provides the opportunity
to carefully review the entire record, including the evidence presented
during the public hearings. Of course, if this review of the record reveals
that there is an e''videntiarr ga.p, the decisionmakers must be prepared to al-
ter their decision.
Whether or, not a decision-making body relies on staff -prepared findings pre -
or post-hOmring, the goals are the same. These goals are to ensure that
decisions are,•made in an open and reasonab)e manner, based upon articulated
reasons which in turn are based upon theevidence in the record.
SUMM MIDGING THE GAP
r
California. colxrts have demonstrated their concern for rational and open land �r
'use decisions '. Y ;; protect the public interest. The Topanga court of fered i
four purpcses for findings, all emphaeiizing these 'concerns. The nc'w ;.
familiar
decision" language
1 agelof "brill ugbththanaly Ali gap between raw data and u'.-- a
ntend decisionmakers to follow
an orderly path of logic before arriving at their decisions. While the �
political reality of making land ase decisions involves compromises at �
times, politics,l reality should also involve rational and dispassionate
deliberation in the decision-making process.
Zn the are& of land use , planning, 'local decision-making 'bodies mast adopt
findings then maktng adjudicative decisions variances, cetditional We
permits, tent:.ti.ve subdivision and, parcel maps, Williamson �Acr, 'oont=t can.-
cei�ations, locil coastal plans, coastal c mmi►ssion peftits', gid public'
street abandonments. 'Further, Public Resources Cbde Seeti.on 21061 require's
decision-makLng bodies to make one or more findings whenate statutesidentifies
a
proposed project's significant effects. Though Soomerequire
findings before Jurisdictions approve certain le;tislative &cieiWwo Bich ,as
growth limiting general plans, growth limiting moaning ordi iomces, and t1m
berland preserve rezoning, ccaur,ts have b0f, yet reviewtA there findingb
requi.reI en-ts
The process of tnakipg land u86 decisions has its tough Oges! econdmic Im-
pacts, election magas, gender egos, and neighborhood conflictsi Making
findings as an intogrcal part of the decision-making process will tot
guarra+atee that all of the rough edges will be smoothed 'out. However, if
d6ci.'si.on-making of:icials take findings seriously, they can reduces the
` Bridging the Cap 13
Nx,ei,hbov 30, lPS2
Table Y
r
Table i shrnvs how courts have separated various types of la>>e, use and plan-
ping :I-cisions into the two basic categories of adjudicative find legislative
acts. The lists are not comprehensive since not every conceivable tyre of
land use decision has been challenged.
Two statutes, Public Resources Code Sections 21168 and 21168-5, establish ,
Jud dial st;zndard of review for UQA decisions. The statUtes require
substantial evidence to support any = decision, in spite of the adjtidica
y tive or legislative categorization of. *m underlying action:.
!
Table 11.
Table 11 recd ,A,tructs the 0hroriology of significant case law d6mlin9 with
land use decisions, finding—., "and their onco:nitast standards Of review
li
IF
TIMI.g i
LOCAL 1.= uSE DCCfS10tv's A,"rn .n;IDICIAL 'Sr.,maDS 6F IL•vmw
Adjtldicativa Acts (also known as
Legative Acts Inlw known as
quas !--Iud !--ucis ad, udicator_v,
gsttsi-;islntive
an -n miltl-ative)
Revtowed under Code of Civil Procedure
Reviewed under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1085
Section 10951,5
e Rezoning and Zoning Ordinance
e
Variances (To anga v. Ct,. of Los
Amendments (Ensign_ Bickford Realt
Angeles) �'
V. C:tp`Council; Arnel V.
Masi; ;.nt—l—, arina'a-Homeowners
•
Cooditioca 1 Dse Permits (Essick 06
V. Bon o pe cors
City of Los An i.: s)
e General Plan Adoption and Amendments
r e
Tentative Subdivision Maps (Big Rock
(Karlsan v. Camarillo and Duran vi*
Mesas v. Baird of Superyisors-SCa.
ssidy)
•
Tentative Palrcel and Subdivision
a Certain tapes of Planned Unit
4lapw (Hoffa v. Ventura)
Development, including_ Project
Precise Plans, Floating Zones; and
•
Williamson Act e o n t r A c t
Cluster Zones (Siillbra.e Association
Cancellations (Sierra Club V.
for Residential gUrvival v: Ctom! o
Hayward,>GoverntrM Code Section
$iIlTirae'; 13 cta-*end U-ri�a
5rls� aj)
homeowners Conrsittee v. Boa` r-ai-57
dupe` so[sct=K '
•
Private Developtent Plans, when
coupled with it tentative sttbdivi,
a LdFCO Detachments Mtii i valley
sign anp Ndunkuin Def eise Leime
recreation and Park District v,
v.Board of'ree*rtsors) —"
M=
• Annexations (Santa Cruz v. 1_iyM
a
Public Street Ablydonmpn"ts i:lc�acbo
Palosyettle3 v. City Wunci'L) —"`
• LAFCO Buundary Decisiobsi e.g.,
a
Local Coastal Programs (Cii off'
Reorganizations;, Dissolutions,
Consolidations and Incor u►Stions
pServices
Chu%Viet v. Superior Coin
lliorro Hills Communit
•
Co_ntal. Zone tYevelo meat Permits ,
P
Dlstr Ct v. _ and of Supervisors)
(Natural ResoUrcatl Defense Council
o CEQA decisions not 'requiring public.
Inc. v, California Coastal Zone
benrings or ;acceptance of evidence;
.oi4nservut, on ss on
courts are limitod to inquiry, of
5 e
CSA dcoisiras tequiring public ben-
prejudicial abust! of discretion
(Public. nCSOUrC4�L' COde Section
v, p rnccj and
ce o p�d
211G /. V
local daccepta` Q vis discre"
tion. in determining facts; courts
will determine whether substibtikl
evidence supports the decision
_ DDiuta are Midentai cbt.�ehts In a
(Public ltesouri es Coon Section
court opinion that writ not necens-
sarilq essential to determining the
21Ylitl),
Cato at hand. ,
_
Standard
Involves of
C"O
pindings Review
eitmiticancb
EssIck v. Ci of_lo9 Angeles (1680) A
x'
Conditiocal use permits (CUPs) are ad-
d 814; UZ1--
minIstrative acts.
Brock v. SuuOeriior.Cdu_rt (1952} 109 Cela
—
fipp.. 2d �t'
X
Standard of &.view for legislative
y3t sob
acts eatabliobed.
Johnston V. City of Claremxont (1959) 49
4 X
Amendments of legislative acts are
MT.-IM-826,E—~
legislatibe acts.
Pitts 9• Perlusg (1962) 58 C,al. 2i 824;
X
�indard of review for letislati've
tto ncarficmed.
Wilson v, Aleden Vai�ley Udhici al Yater
X
(Pater district annexations and exclur
1U strict (i�dr5 CA1i App. 2d 271, 281
sione are quasi- legialative acts.
Illillbrae Association for Residential
X
POD is rezoning; not same as COP or
u va v. �tv of �Millbrae
Cala pp, 2d 2 — _
Stoddard v. Edeimaa {IR70} d Cal APPS ad
x Z
CUPs require substantial evidence to
3441 549
support findings,
4tatdtta V. Cit Council (3970) D'Cal,
ppm. 3a wk
X
Appear of decision; new evidence; coli--
mission findings not binding upon
council
Orinda Hodro.ners Comaiittee v, Board of
JC X
,.0indings dist be made wben statUtorily
uDerr cors • ApP,
requited. Comission findings may be
r
iafannal,
Scott off. Indian belle (1972) 0 Cal; 0d
X
ConAitionnl use permits are reviewed
Under CCP 1089.5; public notice
tequirrm�ttts, ,
Pr Binds of. Namc,o'th v. Board of
u rvisors o '31ono`M_UB 1'9
P���...._._.� t ���aT
X
i written findings rte not
needed
nre<ied if Elft �irovitles seine informs
ticnal benefits.
Wean v. Ca_ ssidy (1972) 28 eil, App. 0,3
585
� x
�.yl{
Ceneftl plan a:a±lldc*ht is legislytitte i
Act; b1} t ct to initiative.
°Selby Colm y v, Cit �of son'
et Csl, mi 11 -
nittt11973) lO
X
II
public hearing notice procedure must be
Observed. Ceneftl plah adoption is
legislative ict.
` �StrUcis�k q'' v, Sks Di(`ao Ew' rZ,s
AeAssM aunn N f„ ,
x X
&Usesof discretion, A damentil vested
,
Y
rte.
a Aanoniatlhn tar a Rceii!c
'o�cunicq
X t
Variances, pUrp d of Oi6diigo trticu- II
v, unty nt Qe es t.� r1}'
Bti'
latod for first, cia,e. j
Prichda rit Uki� Arrowhead V. Mard of
urp4 , a00,`3d`4971revt"
X X
pihdings are bot Ormahtial to appellate
of triat tout-OA decisiant sub-
lwar�rir-
stantiat evidaricslabuse of disdttibn,
Standard
Case
Fi dnd inngs Revi
SiyAis ainca
Hadley v. City of Ontario (1974) 43 Cal.
a
Administrative findindli need not be
of
App. 3d 121;
formal and my be incluuL'd as part
-
agency's order.
City of Fairfield v, Superior Coiirt
-
X •K
Admsnisttutors' 'depositions do 'w7t sub-
stitute for findings.
(1975) 4Cal. JU ` 19
:an Francisco ECO107 Center^i. City and
X
IYndings are sufficient if they appriLd
courts and interested parties of the
�
dunty�oaa r"rancisco (1915) 98 C—. .basis
for the administrative action-
APP- Ob -1, Otm
EIR responses must show reasoned
analysis.
Simi valley Recreation_and Park District
X
Detach nt is legislative act.
v. D3T.0 ( c) 61 Cal. App• 648, 687
5xa nson v. ]'aria 5tunici l Water District
x
Water service moratorium is a. lesisla-
five act reviewable under CCP 1085.
rb 56 Ca-r-�-na-a,i ��
Nitural'Resources Defense Council, Tnc.
X
Coastal Co=ission permit -issuing func-
v, i ornia Coastal 'one Conservation
6—, U-
tions am quasi-judicial.
Coamission (197C,) 57 Cal, App.d
Sierra Club v. California Coastal Zore
t X
In CCP 1094.5 substantial evidence
Conservation Commission, (1C76) 58 Cal-.
review, findings are not required wheu
pp; 3d 490 169
reviewing the record.
Carmel Vallev View Ltd. V. Board of
t;ut`e sons( 6) 5 Cal. App. 3�7,
X
Legislative body any adopt subordinate
body's findings; tentative subdivision °
_
map.
Jlancho Pp lns.''Verdes V. City Council
X x
Public 'street abandonment is quasi-
'I2�9-('r,p` ppi'S7 UW,-=
judicial act; CCP 1094.5 standard of
review used.
MoMllan v• American General Finance
X
City council 'may incorporate staff
Cry tion X1976) 60 Cal. App. 3d 175i
teport into findings.
Lhwsoa,v. Los Altos Rills (1976) 16 Cal.
3
Special assessment district estab-
lishment is a legislative act.
d' M, 685
Associated Home Builders etc. v. City of
x
Zoning is legislative ;act, subject to
+�i VE!rII70re (19.6) 18 Cal, 3d 582, 588
initiative.
M6Untain Defense League V. Board,bt
San DDie�unty ( 977 65
R X
Substantial eP►iience test; findings re-
-Uired„for privilte development project;
ervisors of
�up.
� r - r
,zv 1064.5 standard when ,point applicu-
p--fi
tions decided simultaneously (getdMl »•
plan amendment Sind development
project).
Ensian.gickford Rea'lt” t".or oration 'v.
X 4
Rezoning is legislative act; bo find-
CCP 108tapdarcl of
fags requited; 5 s
ty unci o iaerxre (1977) bb
review.
App. Ud 4UT) 473
Jacobson v. (bunts of Los Angeles (1877)
x X
Cup is quasi.-judicial'act; findings say
a , App. ,
use language of ordinance if it ve-
fidAngdj ngs
irecfUirolegal�lyilic
relevant Mllbnontlustons
cirmel, by the Bea, V. 93ard of N=Crvibo"
Y
lnWfficiency of findings recited in
of 11onterny county App. Cd
utatutory iinguage.
34, 132
r,�
19
'+, statda�d
:nvolvee of
cam c.
Pindings Review siPasifiCJuico
1jig Rock Moran Property Owners
ori 'v� 8o'a'rd-o u�erv�soc^.
Association
x
d-
X Findings 'must be supported by ad-
ministrative record; tentative tract
ssoc at
(1 U1. Ap'p�
mnps.
City of Santa Crux V. S iFC0 (1978) 7G
3
X Annexations are legislative acts; find"
Cal. phi -387
ings, not needed.
ilarro Hills Community Service District v.
X Boundary adjustments are legislative
Board of b1lPervisOrs (1978 j ' c n �TPp.
acts,
3d 765, 778
Whitman v., Hoard of Su"ervisors of
X
EM, adequacy of findings; conditions
of permit approval (CUP).
Ventura Count (1979) 88 Cal. App. 3d
Woodland Hills Residential Association
)C,
X Tentative tract map; substantial new
evridence; adoption of aowission kind-
Inc. v.- unc u Cal. pp,,
SGJ6 t+sa5: (Ay jr26 Cali 9d 238'
Ings.
Kirlran c. Camarillo (1960) 100 Cal. App.
7C Site specific general plan amendment is
Tr7w. 789 -
legislative act.
,,. r Coun of
u •alnut rC`iere+,k�.. _ Contra
X
Abuse of discretion is agency's failure
X r,•r `, : h ,,, va
��1 r'• (..�4 R..e� , rf�w+.%u�%
ra7i.��_
rSnf �
dun t ,:jq) 1t uyC <904�� 6r evidence
•
dors not sup -,3-,r. the findings.
Fouadaticn for San Franciscois
x
11"islative body nay reject commis-
'findings.
r erturai eKtarn-,)v+—.RCrt a_id7n "
i'con's
on OrT- p
-3n
`.
An les f1..81) 118
Collins V. Cit9 "
X
gs are revievr-
a tondo oonrr�rsion findings
�aT-AFP � 'Of
a2?le under CCP 1094 5.
Sierra 'club v. Ci of (1981) 28
X
Williamson Act oontract cancellation is
't adjudicative act; CCP 1099.5 staadard
•�
applies; inadequate findings - no: sap-
pouted by stibstaitiai evidence;
C�lar o. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118
amp;, 118
';
CDOA findings of significant environ-
mentit effects required.
� 3.4 , 3b . as modified
Cal: App+ 3d 1011a
Andersenvc Cit of la lfesa (1981) 118
M. Appc 3d -bu7�
'No
Independent judgment test' variuices:
5diler v. Hoardof su t+visors of Santa
7C
Upbeld findings in support of 100roval
of variance.
r aM Count •) a , APPS
529, 548
Camp V, 5lendcciao (1981) iM Calc App. 3d
,
x CC? 1065 substantial cc'apfiance `test
for gener." plans. Juriddiction must
3 3551 a—`s a�tied 12J Cali App: 3t1
peribein act specificaily required by
931f
law,
Artol bovelo"Pm_ant Comottn,-v, v> Cit,
x Hezoning !s legislative act; subject .to
iditiative:
stn 5e t X81) Ca .1PP� 3 33 ;
see t 26 Cat: 3d 611i 525
City of Chula Vista V. tioerior:Court of
Ca . pp.
X tochl Coastal program are adjudicative
act's subject to Code of Civil Procedure
San scan County (1982)
S ` ° .
lw4,9 standard of review+:
The purpose of including two appendices is to demonstrate how findings are
used in staff reports and official resolutions. In Apj�endix A, a Santa
Barbara County Resource Management Department staff Veport: concisely
describes the background data and analysis for a side yard varianee
application, the staff concludes that there is insa�� a' a' hf: �?;dhtification
for granting the variance, and reccrrds OfMia.i. r°:`0 P; antii i, Gr•mm scion
!�,vP.ii+'11&llq G�-nied the variance appl,'U�a'tJ.or`, an,ii tue applicant dick not appeal.
Appendix b consists of -6o7ee seFara.te.but related Aia:::t-w 0.fit4f,-Y
. ' e. , � roliti.ng 'a Planned .Developmen'4
i 1 A 'B�rd of Supevi, otic res( at�ti;on app.
(PL1,) District,
s 2. An exhibit detailing tate conditions of approval fo'r tFsv PD District;
and,
3!. A sett of mandato ry findibgs of significance prepared in accordance
With (SQA and lc.al guidelines. Agencies most mage these findings
- for e.%ch impact identified-(CEQI Public Aesources Cade Section
21081 and State EIR Guidwlines SO tion 18088)
By comparing both 'sets of documents the variation in the level of detail
abd types of inf6rmation required in differing cir►^wingtances becomes
apparent. In both cases, hcyweveri the agency ;provided iL'4 decision-making
body with information necessary to "bridge: the analytical ,gap between rat=r ;
data and VZltimate Conclusion.,,
In
t
ction
rezonin juatendmentnapplicat6 this ion, ore of �zoningidistrin as a zone manic
i 8i str3,ct or zone district
�s�nlassification
� Y
d