Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-26A SOUTH CHICO AREA GPA (9)fl r � k SOC N0,11C AN L.-SiO, Coin' PS taN 0F� EKJ't") wft; • ; �+ :Qit a f'LAAlO` 10 ALhiONR ORCHAP.t__,USA , F I R31" YR- > u �n rt. �rC051S t)f2",69 ACRwS P !~R ACP TOTAL BAC�A�I�E �, '. Land`LeVe1� I,oaa0 ��y,aao.ao "Reck' [3ernttv`s i 15,;OOa.00�,•, �I.03a LOCO 0? purchasb Lime Iia. ,230.0. u PfacaLima 28tl+t;0 0,01 Cull vat On I'IJiIak7 Ti�� d. >i.1 h ict`1 P( line' 25 .i1 0 b r. i,rri' a an' 15.a j;0 5.0�J o l" u t,r'1 lp ir~tr�j �u � h aa�rh'i~ad Vol ��.# rt a 590�a0 Iry 7 C''Or" ".t3.fW`� .5..: 2� $1 40$ 41 9.( lnier r,°E a �, 1� fAf 1 s +10), 11 l"S ?Qr E�9 Acro~ �r x ire, ,�^,_if�5k�,a37i0 , �RULNLI Net pro t3 , 5,, d 1 r7 i phi ��� �� \ �3 der xA= 7S 'r�� ,` ��P�R _,ACF TO f Al. BA I AWE ? , C� GtjI f I vpIf ba S 0.'00 $ 31 0, bo r I rr i�Uwf,l t n " f 25.00 o 1'rut� spray 5 X0.00 2� 07Q. 0A Q �Yig 50.00 fi, 450: l70 6�j t aed; h1Ts�:�, AFFice► Etc'` ID.00 ' f90.00✓ x14. J Tax &Insurance 7.00 483i'00 dig aagemt�li} 202.53 1. S75�00 , a _. 25,498.00 r I lill e rp sf Expense for $1.,525,3,s5.10 9 14% `Fa1'Cost fir 69 Acres for 'ewctC Ye;ir, 0,4T 0.00' t F'r"ofif or (Less) ($I►>�5:,9Q.'00)^ U't"' A rr n. .•;.Ilann +q= .Li YC• M ACRS �'I: Ag, KI T0'fAlu BALANCE! ` , f i t i v l i Qrr a 51 5 $ l C. U►' S l► 052, 950:00`) Ir°ri�trtinn N I►9!#y.00 �' 4. I .7a I . oto ; �'.r,0 "'t.5ti x,965 00 �U-�ared.Misc.-� 0fft►_ 10.p0"6l11..OfJ �,, Ta � r 00 48 .00' ''� ' 2Q:"y;; 13,:9"15�L t'[88% I 6 2.00-00 3. � , ,tost ,Ibr 9 A Y ai for v � 290, 52", 0 �° f`orll,-dr il.,0sti) � to „ ti , �F'WRTH YEAR COSTS Fo �i9 ACRcs ,� P�R�' AG�� , 70�AL 8ALANCB"'; CuItIvation, 5 65.0 S 4,485.,pq' f$x,lq' ,292,. ? , 1`rr' i ria r f616r MOO 3�r�50 qZi', f � Pf Uf1 i'nt� 90.00 4 6',-210 0 {j „` N9rvast 50.00 3;45x.006" r, Over!Aadi MOffice`, Etc. 10.00 .0d. 00 r� Td k AlInsurance 7.00 A,83 Ob' fe P�arkaeme t�20.5 ux 13.75.00 „ 41 I ntereat E:kpense for $2 (84,57q. qp 14% 30 84�q.O0' 'tea°, a I Cast for 69 Acres for � u x 47 208:.00 x RQ��C,NE,i f }. +� L� q �', ` \Si L I" —5. $250. 0 -Per Afro xn Nett Prop i t'or (Loss''), S�2 958:04 e ($2 447 , i 60':00? „ s{ r - rOc1' 1't)I�.� g;, ACRES EPL -ACK 70T�11 : f; 13 LAN CUI vatfan S 86,00 4,485.OQ Mi4l0000) 4, iCri�Y, hIot►` 50 1, 00 5,450. 00' ., 200100 ! ,;8g0�00`.�i': of=' 1 Prursln f MAO 8 010.00 ; _ #arve i - r, �•` 100 t-00- - 6,:4 0, 00 - - OV0—htad, MiSO.'` of, ftce, E -,rt 10.00 690,00 Tak 3 IhSUtah4e' l.00 48 .00' �. Marlog rripn'I 5" 75 `Y. W . I hfatosf ltxp - ii-" toe 525: ! 5,' i£?tot co!'F for 61) Acre,6 for r ��� • r:,. ��"tr $40.60 3111 .00 tltmv o Per A hof 1J -of i t�dt' I6rsm) $354,011W t4t, "v,) 141 00� C �.4�mtivatIO[1 j $ �.J..t}0 �``y� �• "�•.,�'r• "i.w. ��.MJ+�l�t�'1'eft9i.��}}t,� ; i'rri�On�. f° gat. ' SP ray` t' ' "„ 250.:700 (50'04 'A `<I �, iierves� /� � � � � 150 :(fit? j aver`heL1d Otfiwa> i"i 101', `icr,, 700; � 3rS�Cj9tft rl'r Z02.53 ff. x P 1, f :1 � � �,.•. �, . � r ,, I r'C Ey'6%e i i j,} //�� �j ~y OS 4'.00 -4", 1,4 ��+. }y "M�' J r 1•, ��' T6'tbC;'Gos� r, 69':avre i, r c,i'xth„Yer Gia "r rG-4 S1,200 N, 1�• I', O'fl �Lost7� � � (.?. :�}� ,�✓::y. ar (1 #N',r$dyh..pk4 b 9�,�i,�� ., 1J v ^ ; r1 , �1 �F1iIt YtAF 11 60 AV:- 5 al w,r45p r'I'O .y y qty 9n i it("' �?00; 00 ►; M F'arvea� ! Roi 00 ..., • , . �. . �V)f Z 1. w''•, : { �° .�t� S r4llt 7. OC +ww r , . tyyyly S; �,^ � t3 G IX "j%" R4*':jV:o t 14S ~a..-=-�I*��,y» �� �'`�'�� i C°d�' �i� U`,1 f1 .�,� ` �• t4"•'r►•R l} Y��a�t; •.5°`;�,..� :. „ .1.v4wri t. .,y, 4(i t - �. ,G"' �, ����ae�J '•'I �o-�y*a-�.� , j�!/d ` �0 5.�' � `av:8 , �-�� t7 �. a _� � c/�%� a s•,a-�o-s :; .5'. �I All, 10 ji .7-i + L .� l -=V.. a.." 4-I .... it lM. .{ I ♦1w.�{ wK , s /YG1jC +A•.� ���J.!!'/�.l7ruu��= I ! qa Al 13 2oraee� rI-- 1..�a t oaf f / 2bm dam+, jj +A. 10, t �� ' 1 • -. ...1111. I 1 t � � ;, i q .� - � �` ! i f" C F� 1 • {t F �_ ' 5 � 1 � i, r • F I .. t 4 t. 1' ,� { '� ]ltd , 1 F ,� (• , { � xf � r . �� , tf' . ."..fir-• . I P � ",11 ,n .AFI s+ � i' r N fi• II!`4 ►f1lt � .,, ,�" t ! I "1�^'`.t..+-' "! t'. L°:.a �...t. f * �+ ', w i ha+l. Jnwih IiWNN4'+! (i t.'�bY Ilk'I 4 vA n^"diE:'f,'F�1f':*1lki'�h`.�'4.'sa>k'gt ''�.�sa Haar. -•.: wa.. .. .., 'r""':.•„^.n .+-a-rr.-..:> � ,,..-:. .�” -:.:. �M k.t.::i?R.M-+.r^" `.w�n`wsrta�!r:7 r • AtA 4 Irl CuuF�ryfC-LY D`fia%Chica Pian: , ry .` i%UGCE�T.F.D. 1101AL P•ECLfI.G' �O:i '�.l4:I' •,, s JJ. c -.,. :LI.&nca with i �! • /�s' a Udide, �to Caiint3.es ;�I�d G1.tic:s IL 1, Lion )1,ct of �1.915�• c v 2 $ur aee ImattLS ant"Rec].^ w +. .. - i .• » " • ., •� • «ate. i <} ' • i • • M � � :� - • , •...� • � ♦�, 'y Nit• ► ,' . x �, .-,3 .,..,,� •" •x �w i►C1ri1�OR j•t_atnt:to • 1, •' ��.� y y-.�.ti�' u• • it n. ',/4�SYF r� +� BttQ.Cc lagg Rcio'comp nY, 44 U ' :� , • . 1 ��%(�,� •: ivy• � rw, \_ .. (f •tY?FiQ.. , + ox. 729� .� i _ , :yr .:�^ •' ...�+ a. z...�; �, '' ' i`'v,� cltltRss` P..;•;0-: {I3': M. ►+ f( i z �� r.Chla�, Cal If 95327 _ �• - ., ,- 891 •-6555 y-..-.--- r w"�darz . (*f.'ITropar�y' ,� �._. ' •��•' y .° • y �'j F eY. �y p-,sr•��e�-r_ s, pax o.�m.,� xs f,..o1.: :;.ti 3« l?o i{,nc�a n wc17C.9Ba I &I n Contr�ctin9 Ca: cf } ` 9th and. Yuba Streetj Actctre s : - _ l'6. S., •Tcune ��• .�• Marysville` Calif 959QT r. •f:. 35 Pine Str'9+► T,_ `++S`r 1_ TLA, pyo a Sah Francisco, C i$4�_.. r a' 691f) 7 . ICA t!5). 78J -•57 E35 •a: t: C i . • c .�0 1 ` r 3• f}� - f}:rtbers • R - • i x+• � . ---'-•• x 'Naris -. -. °. �. ; � ^ �+ ' SAtjE AS PIPERT1C, • ♦ i / / .J. '� F� je see-,Sk•. •..i. .. • t ," w w i .raa,:es�`�► hpi.I:cABLr, ' ieOtor �• 6 Prxal,t4r. i ,, • i I jtrtdlres�' z x . 5Ah1E1 A3 APPLLCAlrt' 1 ,I M46 14i. f+ ... .: :..:. .. .. .. ... .... .: • .. --`::_.._.�..;.,:., . �',., _. ,.: ....,.W...,:d�..,,.»h m+.w»+�,om«.wu.�•�' ,.,- wrr--^•...mew-. � 1 • - EycaVation is scheduled to � iompleted in .1930. 3.�. AFtE'.�1 '1 � he;3ulel �1ae Reclination of ArP-a I will consist ofcx�nstL=t%. sK for use as. ;recreation, water storage for fireprakect Loti, „ r, e building home sites, roads, hik Ing ayd zidlin . t'rt1z s and _ designating area aprivate wildlife reLtx3e. ;^ AREA 2 Excavation is scheduled to b>. carleted iin Reclamation of Area 2.will'consi sh ofcons, u:ting V' lakes: for recreation,, hiking and riding, tran1., way y deilgnaating area a private wildlife ref ge. " ` ARFA 3 - excavation is scheduled to beccrr ±plate. " Reclamation of Area 3 win consist 62 c6.istr : hiking and ri&irg ttcails and designU-i k� ,-a• raildlaife refuge. AMA - Excavation'is scheduled,to Le ccVlet iii K, F • Reclamaon 4 w " 4,,popsist of ,=rIstr��t� L--X `Area ti � es for r anon, ground watdr re`,, tion and. fire prctectiori reclaiming of the balance of the tai..lins will ba :for r i t: mekaUOviaKlAn'enixm . ,.... ... .. L ,F7� llk AU -151. I" i { /�Frlrf ^�,, t' , ) } of ; A", L/i ° .-. + .L i1tt.�1 �, co C3 ;V,4!9//) V, 4!-9 —Al v-0, I V. b vironmental Review Director's responses to comments Ja red William 'Conine r; Baldwin Contracting m Inc. Malcolm i � trading :Company, October ncdated 8, 1980. Comment Number' _. Responses' An area designated Agricultural-Residential,,y amot ting to approximately 35 acres, is located just south of Commanche Creek between the Southern Pacific u Railroad tracks and west side of state Highway 99. The°+ designation was inadvertently omitted fiom the map. �.'. Figure 2, a neap of this, project site, iz, not drawn to scale, artd represents an a ` ppxoximation; of site 'boundaries. ' Scale maps are, on file with the Count) Planning Department. ' A-2 Response.. When the 'draft EIR was in preparatitin, the proposed project site was still zoned "Into ,rim A -S", The County had indicated its intention to review this status until the General PJ,an amendment process had-• been mpl' coeted. The Environmental Review Department was 'hot ftO ficd, when _a decision BMs made not. to renew the in- toninge The'project area is currently governed b tlx by existing General Plan Map and is zoned A-2. A•3 Response: Refer to Section 2.2, "Project Objectives", in the Elft. Butte County Planning Commission goals are stated in this section. A -'a The County Planning Commission has submitted a proposal for a General Plan and zoning change; a variety of projects may potentially be developed under the constraints of the proposal. The EIR cannot address specific projects that have not been proposed; not adequately consider ..a multitude of variations of potential projects until the projects have actually been submitted for review. The EIR is responsible for assessing the broad and general impacts to the environ=. ment that 'may potentially occur under the proposed General ' Plan amendment <. A-5 Res establonsseeti. County General Plan policies and the "Green, Line" , rural -urban boundary are discussed a on pages 23a, 24a and 24b. While agreement has been reached between County the and the :City as to proposed location of the line, In as or- this writ i,ng, 't lids net been officially adopted Put" suant to,a public hearing process. The line, therefore, Cannot be treated as a legal boundary on the County General Plan slap until formal adoption has occurred. In the mean, - timer it cdn serVe as an unofficial guideline. 0Pf cia1 Policies for Greenling implementation remain to be tivprked 'out. Additionally; the public hearings on this project as well as those on the Greenline its will Hopefully resolve apparent conflict as to tiltimat.e groenline location and designated land uses on either side of the Idle. 7a q Comment Ct Number' B Response: General Plan policies are discussed on pages 23a, 24-,ts—d 24b. This discussion adequateYy addresses >; pertine(it issues contained' in .the General P1e(a Land Use and Res' irceElements. i1 The premise , at affordable Lou"sing exists throughout ,Butte Counti�s based upon historical vacancy rates and v market ,;i.�ce for housing. Present vacancy rates and selling prices for housing would show that, compared to the rest of the state, measured against local household ► g (to rent . or buy) is indeed availableainoButteeCount�h Y According to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) maps, Chico's primary urban sphere of,in£luence does not include most of the area within the pxoject site. Most of the project area is not included within the, current or Planned service districts 6f California. Water Service r Yfie;, Company, or the Chico public sewersy stem, As Butte;' , County increases it capabilities-far more, thoroughly evaluating potential land uses, shortcomints''in the existing General Plan become more apparent. Although much of the project site is reserved for low density housing in`lthe < current Land Use plan Map, the County, considers the blanket residential, designation as something which shou;id be re- 4' viewed in li ht of long-range _ g County goals and policies. ^, k'hile housing costs are generally higher in urban arda's• ,than rural areas, this condition iw not inconsistent With, Projected increases in the overall supply of afxordable housing as residential densities increase tiithin urban. areas. Response; ►tiith reference to the residential development ,section of the Land Use element, 'Policies A Fr B, the Chico area has a Variety of building sites both existing and planned. ,According to the County Planning Department., these polidiles are,, in general, for the entire County, and apt for mandatory use in r„very cievelol:ment ar project; The policies invelving densities are applicable in ,part of the project area. The areas -involved arc the existing lots on Skywdy Avenue and Cessna Avenue, and the area located west: of Midway, south o.f Speedway Avenue west c) f ' State Highway and north of tha subdivision lots of the J. Vi hntler Ranch that front oil Entler Avenue. The first areaisalready developert into lots of approximately ° acre, while the second a`rKa ranges frr)m � acre parcels to t ` a 4=cre parcels with sot.: lots of ap?)ttiJ�timately lb acres; r_ h Nun, - The imposition of the Orchard and -,Field, Crop designation ; r in this area would preclude any ,infilling with similar sized parcels,, regardless of the .choice of consistent' zoning. 1n eithefsarea, the proposed A-20 zone could cause undue hardship on existing lots due to the minimum side and' rear, yard setback requirement of 25 feet. Development ori some of the lots in these areas would be severely limited, while on others, planned additionsi ar expansions might be precluded altogether. A General Plan' designation reflectingexisting development would be de,. i sizable; it should be mplemented with specific zoning that Would not create either hardship::,nr spot development with .no possibility of orderly infill, G t. bee res oases to Eco -Analysts comments on p ' the economic in hIR, " )- analysis section the D The,EIR's evaluation of potential. agricultural 'uses for the project area ia. based upon available soil data and produ'c'- tion information, Additional data that suggests certain parcels are economically unviable .for commercial agr,iculw- tural production shall be included inthefinal EIR docu- Ment, so that local decision -makers nay evaluate this { information. The intent of a lard use and zoning designation in the' General Flan is to promote activities on certain lairds that are consistent % ith, County Qals urban �EiistoriGal deve:lopinent patterns have consistently aemo,,strated that r: i commercial agriculture declines when substantial residential development occurs on parcels less than 510 acres in size �- in proximity to farm lands. The preser�fation of produc ,rve j agricultural lands within Butte County is a primary goat' for many residents Glad local decision -makers. TI , preservatioit of agricultural lands near urban areas is an increasingly comp'.lex problem, It is, hoWever,, I primarily a social and �lannir -, i.sstte, and not the only major concern of this -Ni The MR, as an informational potenti^,1 coiitlicts between agricul- tUre And other types of land L.U' 1, anc? potential impacts on commercial anritulture. While the CIR Adhnowica es thatµa �'axiet r d E non -a rlcuXtural uses are casiblo on soils with poor roduct ve ca acit impacts on surround- productivep Quad- � t wsi hed in `'lamd;'Uses must stall The i;lk also mentions the establ: shment of buffer" areas between iriccamiiatible land uses as a mitigation measure, To d!eterutine the nature k fence or open space) acid ext+~�itt o a buffer zone r;�rild rogUitd detailed' info'llwation ' S onty.pas of,planned land uses for !speci.fi.c, project s.i`tes:: Mplic';over, a 4erent types of land us o, are not recessaftlY incompatible, This a too; must be determined from exte:zssve pr�t{i;;i,ect in o raa A, nand;, studies a£ t:�� '"p,roposed. land uses; ��' a• ].P1 Yol ��3�d e 1 • �,. Gia Ccmmnint r; NUmba r _ part IResrponsel `prposeh project ;description nas been , �nc]uc�cE , iir� e f,"Ji al JBI It n i r s P- VI. a. 114 UUeSt Seg:. -V) Avonue o Chico, Cal formia'95926 ;i @ (91 6) 341,2-69M,; �, J ,Y� +i+ f ''' Ii�4Y fd �� f ♦�^ M,r1(Y ,,r r�`i � fi y ����1x�1 Y r October 84 1986 Mr. Chris Baldwin "Baldwin " Contracting Company In'd. 9th acid Yuba;. w f >titarysv3 1e, ;alitornia 95901 ` -eur Chris r -r lobed find my review of; the;,ec( tialysis In Ch uco Rezone MR.. The anal ears def cient; used an, s ar�n r,L 4ldete:cl aZ.A?iscussed intechnthees attachecl ys A more detailed analysis and coil,§iddka` A.en of more reolist c alterna.ti've� tvouxd take�,clexab�y'ymoxe time ; than 6M ilhbl.e. i Albert ,T. Beek -Ph b: Principal;,, and,.Seftlor Analyst AJ)3: 'Vx' • _ µ t: M EXHT81T I'D" 1 luation of Economic Analys'�s truth Chico Rezone DEIR t q TTRODUCTO' l ' The 'techni clues for economic: anal sis � � 0 y patterni�d after those bused by ,Ott Engineering in the Chico Airports Envixons ., EIR, appear to be inaccurate and misleading. .: Costs arer uador- A =esitiinatte.d and a bolected bias' is X0,1 d in computipgrevenues. �. Specific areas of concern include:`, ,- E` Use of Multiplier "assessed valuation iverage%Property, a n, a ricu;.tttral and not for residential nevel.o meat revue' tax for g �; A ..,:. entree-; The 'Value or rationale of this multiplicir and its .rQ- lationship to agricultural land values and gross hcome ,"Js not' , ;. explained. " �. Use of a local, impact rt�tiltp:lier for agricultural' Y..- t residential 'use§ and no dential construction. Development and con`'- struc.,tion are major industries in Butte 'CoUntv. 3 Use of the entirepraperity tax,- date (4, 20c-/100 -"rather / than seP aration of the rate into agency components.` Funds for school districts, other special districts and the County Gen._° oral Fund are not comingled in practiWe. ,.r tip''' 4Omission'' of longa-term county service c6zt, s; which are the ma3ar cost factor's not capital improvement costs Selection of alternat`' 5 Ives �Vhict are highly* unlikely fot both residential and ,agricultural sceneri'os. 1 r1 R� ANALYSIS The use, f an impattt multiplier` -'to indicate that in- come circulates m re than once ��through a commi nity or area practice. Use�-,of Q° ratio estab=shctl economy is an accepted b"�� Assessed valuation averages/Property tax and,;a tax =ate 'do ci - ear to k,e a ro riate° ,since these not seem does not Tapp \ 2pp ' P The ca�abinatiohb oft this factor ani a property?; to'.,be s�.k3 ated. i tax rate is not a stan&Lrd technique, t'nor is its use e;�pjained,. r� Dei:*ex'bpment and "construeti6h are mcc4or atndustries 3n,. Butte County.. Average monthly employtnp•it related `to resideutia] construction""probably exceeds 2,000 individuals, 1.� rP-Ltoxs, in financial insti.tutk ;ns are 3.n " their ass oc3 atc s, and staff eluded.. Since most employees of, these firms and bt:ildng supply farms are local, the multiplier effect is equ,3tj,to or greater than that for agriculture. Construction may be„a short-term w; impact fora $ p j , £ut is a continuing source of lso ailaree number individuals Those el.”.rnings a7.sa p�;oym g " circulate through the community or area. r ' 3. Use of the total property tax factors in stivating income distort:a,,.the_ bendficial impacts' of this revenue soi;rce. r ButtE County's share of the $4.20/100 tax rate is onit" 24 perceh-C $1 30/ 00' or 96 cents. Bducati�ori takes 55-60. percent,t;ncluaing for the Chico Unified School District anti $0.52/IM- fo- Butte Co:�..lege. The remainder goes to special districts or to repay bonded indebtedness. the cottt`��ty's share, $0.9611.00 assessed vttlua't=ons, goes for County. services. ` Property taxes only amount to abut 10 percent of the county's annual revenue, and other sourzes of '�•!dgct. in determining income are more crit caY the Co"ubty s sales taxes, which provide more revenue than crop^rtt• tares, are the source of more monies :for General PunO,6xpehrli"urds. $42,000js 'r foe= not the estimate of $84 fo-r families eiiarriing " incxuci capsid jxatiaii of pecita pltrchm8es stidh as au`tL Y ].:F niajor appliances or itIenishi,ngs wh�',ch nets hor�co��°ti es P'init ai r and replace at rites gals this additional sales ta,: may produce average of $00 to $50 in added income per Year per household <, Tho reteritioh Of $185 jperso" i ft miscellane ' ds revenue mat' 41so be misloadirig, sihce it is derived'by divi�iin5 otladt toUeees of funds by po iu� at ion. Many of the funds transfe'rred from other govortitnental ageric%es are not based oh popttlation and. -ay be loted for specilic purposes rather than beiri'g as`i�aab:e to corer casts rotated to, now aevolbpment. 4, The combination of economic and fiscal benefits is inappropriate if one is to compare costs with these benefits. entional method of comparing fiscal benefits The„more cony with costs provides the only Means by which local decision � maktrs Cxn evaluaite impacts upon their tauclgets. Agriculture, „because of its lessor demands upon service agencies andlower , levels of planned service, usually-generates net revenues in, range of 2-4 times the costs incurred o:c a revenue to cost ra io of 3-5J1. Residential projects, howeverr usually"generate deficits. These deficits have been markedly reduced or!el im-t e developers are mated after propositionf19 becauscharged .f or "ttiei�r share of capital improvements, and because service:" levels Have been severely, reduced; i Many special districts are solely depen-dent upon tax '+ revenues. `and have no other reliable sou'r'ce of "funding.. ` l7ety construction provides more funds because it is taped, at our- 11 ur-- , rent market value, but still may, require more seruices thin can be provided; n`ith available funding. School districts rave a variety of funding sources; including :state and federal monies-, y�. but have had difficulty in obtaining, funds for expansion 'of ek. feting schools or cont” tion of new ones. The dEIR addresses the impacts related, to public �vorlCs; fire and sherri,ff, major consumers of the County-'s budget, ' but ignores all the rest of the departments tli"at also provide services which must be paid for from the budget. zncreases.in population density usually result in demands or requests fox increased levels of s$rvice, with resulting higher costs, This does not appear to be considered in thc;- c�_culat16h of` casts related to residential develapment, 1 5 The mast logical alterria.tive seems. to have been;, over looked', namely a combination of residential uses east of the County's proposed green line, and L, mi:cture of agricultural uses West O t�1i5 line. Designation of most of the 1,100 more a#-ea as Vina loam, S C.S, Class I soil, implies a fax greater agricultural poten tial than may eti'st in this area: The only property that tial been examined b a soils specialist in the past few years is Midway or ands and it has a mixture of Classes' 1, IT and Xix, The ref►„ainde"r o'f the area pre8timably has a similar mixture, ' attct is more �i.kely to "remain a hiaxture tt,C �,gricultilral iiSes r + , ucing lr 1n :i'ds. rarl�or thnn be ins conte tccl 11.11 to high iticct�te p fod i Davelbpment of tate entire 1 ,10t' ;�,” l-5 acre pare.��s is also unlikely, , 'rho total numb�'r t�{ 4�lat might be do �° undarl,�0�f. .? t 220 but probab,# veloped is probably over ,t, p r rv_ robable number is 500 develbpod� on onawnfxx:z to more par � .., �l _4 j A,lterna. .e 1, 1,100 acres 4 almonds and c; d :� , tValnuts a _ This alternative ass umes �, level o;� agr�teultural :prodxlctiv;ty and, 'economic gain tha�C 'dodo ';not "�,,�p sable. ear fea ► �y Ecc►no�c ��ri � edits ESR - 4.9,/Acre or $ 493 970 r ki`oa1 13enefi is Ex 8 92 00 Ecor►omio .beta' is more;',. bdetierio ,m 1/3 ,orchard` and :9/3 fie 1d craps $1,`155 000 no affect the County's budget direcC.X��, t�)'� �f,�6G0`,. i+� acres ofrtie ldecropttland Q�'4C000t�" ...' ;,...'�, r $ , /aore (x.. 5. X. .01008) 8 652. 460 Acres acres of or aha ds }ti x 8 000/acro (x .3o x .01008) '9 072' 4i Revenue to tbunt w f ; `Itis EiFt assigns total'xoad a xd �lrv.,. nage O & b to the 'agr'ic aX,tural' t."'Velopment with an f annual e`t nmost of $9 ,000 Net, gevenu to -County $6j 724 �. Imparts upon special 'distr ct9',and schools not considexed'' }. ' 1 i , i Alternative.2z 220"15 -acre lots with 2.5 residents/unit. This is unIikely to occur',L since many existing farmers and J thotro1aidi,lies will continue 'to farm their lands. The figur&-bf 2.5 residents`%dwdl'aling •uni.t seems low far this type of aev !g-'pment. A figure of 3.2 scams more; reasonable. f 4 Cotinty of Economic beheti�s none .est'imt1tiod, Fiscal benefits - $466,730 x 2.0 x 220 x A$C,640'406.0, 1 � } Economic benefit's $60,000 � assuming $60,000 for cost .of hiii] ding" a hciuse ,� 22iciuses 2.0, _economic multiplier , 4 0.l 10 percent annual buildout rate 'SI CIal, Revenue prespert}y tax,, - $150, 00,0 k 0.25 x .01068 003 x 220' _ $s 83 y 160 :�, L taxes �' $ 84 x $35 x 220 . 26,.180"' .Sales fisc: irevcnues 150 x 220 33j000 $143,340, Casts from LiR" $386"482. Net deficit244'142/year T t AXternative 3, 1-0 3.00 houses oil �1,100`1-acre parcels. x This alternative seems less likely than either 1 or 2!' County MR estimate of Economic benefits none 1 Fiscal impac.ts-property tax $265,650: sales tax 140080 Y± misc. revenues 508,750 �) $788,;4$0 a County estimated costs 1$401,998 Iet '$386,482 ^, F.A. analysis Economic benefits - 20 year bu.ild6ut $75,000 x 1,1.00 x 2,'0 x .05 - $8,250,000jyear ( Fiscal Benefits Property taxes $115,000 x 2:0 x .01.008 x 16100 = $318blab Sales tax ($.64 $34) x 1,.100 103i 400 ?a Mise. rdvenues 165,000 -$587 180' Less costs estimated by County - 401,'998 net�� $155,132 ', Because so, man incidental costs were omitted by the 'y omitted County; at►d E no figures for capitalreplacement were included, this figure is ` probably high. _ �v The impacts upon the School District wouldbe mt;ch*„}. .,.ter singe one or two new elementary schools ul.d bt re41, red,, atm additional spade for junior and senior 'high school studet cs moat aYso'Abe ypro” p t'upon special districts is ori)tna;'hi vided. The iin ac 7` } ... ,I i `^`.. ' ie .W i KbW Awr itiM.Y IWM,.VA�1'�""t'1!' Environmental Review- Dire ` cto�'s response to the letter ofd ' October 8, 1980 from Albert J. Beck, Ph.D., Principal and Senior` Analyst, Eco -Analysts �,-!Wialysis" Section' Comment :umber S; 1. Responsb ) Ott Water Engineers, .consIOtants to 'thLI Environmental Review Department, ti's, y"apt economic f� impact multiplier (t.0)` and proper0w)'�-,°tax multiplier (2.7_) in a similar analysis for the county. , The property tax multiplier has not been retainedas `� part of the economic analysis in the,faltai EIR. Z, Response; Dir. Beck provides no documentation to support the statement that rote than »,000 ihdi�iduRLs are employed monthly by residential constructioa. Moreover, this statement implies ;other conclusions � that trove no documented basis for sup5,rt, :or is simply misleading: 1) it assumes continued emplo%•rtcnt of an unspe`ifisa�'. number of individuals depends upoa :essential develo meet t+�ithIn t1teaiect area. Evan £ + t -the' ro est area were zoned for, resp dentzal(" ani tnc construction would1i1.e1� occur i.:cre• menta'11',r over several years, employing a re..ati,ely small labor force; �r c1. . 2) ,potential cons 'tructior. rela�ed er..;ola,re individuals wouid still exist if the prc.ject size = were primarily reserved for ag'ricultura! uses, since residential growth 'tiOUI:d be directed Into other arras of Butte County; 3. man y individuals Who sell 'real estate o, Wok as construction laborers in Butte Count;• e;,gage in these activities only, part-time, and detend upon other employment for a major portion of• their income build necessary public f.`acil.ities t at serve dent`ial development, the contribution but i on made by the developer *.; May only, partially defray total capital facilities iti rovoment osis„ �}oroovb, the developers share does not ortliaa ly ittcludc ma 11 otic►, operation costs for a diarticular public Facility, y 2 .. Comment Number ?t, 3 RospanseWhile it is true that a substantial share taxes I(60$) are designated Of revenues from property ``for school use, the overall revenues to the County, nonetheless represent income to operate several public services,. including,e'schools, According to the County Auditor ts`� face, the average County tax rate for real, is approximately $4020 per. $100 ofoasstssed } property assa a oproposition 13, amouults value Since .the f voter -approved deb ts (usually above $4.00/100 must pay school bonds). Of the remainart,g $4 00/100 an estimated'. 23t�;($0.92) is assigned to the County General Fund, J' for school operat©ns,, and 60% ($2.40) is. earmarked special di�itricts receive about a:7$ ($0.68). 0~ There is no reason t6,,Assume that most pets rj ✓ o-ts Who withi'n. Butte Count _buy new move to new residences furnishings and appliances; a large number of i'ndivid- uals who relocate very likely transport furniture and 'residences. Further-. appliances they already own to new more, many neW houses and apartments provide built=in appicances in the kitchen. This comment May- infer an analysis that double counts from sales of specific items within the County. r - evenues .venues return to the County by the state from gross of appliances�d retail sales presumably include sales hom furnishings . I,t would therefore be incorrect to ' assume the County Would receive an additional S30 td"� $5.0in reveintte income per household, The use of aper capita figure for estimating incomes ' is a standard to the County from miscellaneoUs' revenues While of these funds are indeed fiscal technique, many transferred from other governmental agencies, ►lith certain funds earmarked for special programs, the amounts silo. are nons•thcless frequently based on population 44 ReSponsi~: bconbt",ic benefits also occur as fiscal benefits waiucs appreciate among the serving sector since property (business property) that thtr•ives as a result of basic industrial activity'+ Although deveiopers must share:a p'roporti'on o costs to h_ ltt)iV resii build necessary public f.`acil.ities t at serve dent`ial development, the contribution but i on made by the developer *.; May only, partially defray total capital facilities iti rovoment osis„ �}oroovb, the developers share does not ortliaa ly ittcludc ma 11 otic►, operation costs for a diarticular public Facility, y 2 .. the difficulty of obtaining increased tevenUes to t ,, operate schools adequately is well documented among tia the voting public. The development of new housing 'projects away from existing schools only exacerbates the problem (i.e., co,�,,ts are usually 'loWet to expand . a'x $mprove an existing facility in satis'factar}` cQ]{� sli,tioh and buildt` a. new one than purchase property Increase in populate-�',`rn dtnsx ty, as the c0huftent 'voters,' usually results in an increfi'se in demands -for a variety„ of County services. }� Since propasita.on 13 '' cutbAcks 'howo�°er, the County has only limited financial resources to selectivelyrespond to essential needs: Some sery ces remain constant or even deckno in the face of papulation increases. Comment ;dumb e r Comment noted The economic analysis by Ar. Beck. has been incorporated iftto the final. EIR. It repres .4 anot}te_ p erspectivo that should be conlightsidered in light he EAVironmental Review Department's, xcspon`ses .ta rof the, the whole of Air, Beck's comments. 3:- h a1 %,.ate I if ani ul GOVCRNiDR'S OFFICE; t ,.� F1► OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO 95,814 a a. Jra, �DytUNp BROWN c J �, , aoVtnNon , October 14,, 19,90 z¢ Buffo Ct:nty Mr: Earl `D. Nelson Butte County Environmental' Review bepartment X16 --F. County Center Drive Orovlle, CA 95965 SUBJECT: sq! 90051314 PROPOSED REZONE AND GPA OF ' COUA` SOUTH OF CA1CO.,, I �e bear Mr i.'rt t t+a�.o � !, . , s rr 'gave re Several. state , "' � h��`;L.°�i viewed the subject dret£t environmental,.' .in1a i �" L't. ? f. ,you would 'like to discuss tiffs:, 'o concerns 'and r s(: aiitmendati� ,� 1�'.al �:h attached commants contact the staff whose); nam6s. �:."� .a :tip ` :'r1as., appear., on the comments." The following is a suu3it'ar,;,, !if "1;���ane, cot en s •i mhe review staff of the _bepartlnent of -Fi9r i_ Aad r, c� r"';j ` ;gest ;Lad -. Adoption of 20 -acre minimum zoning f riparian feet to protect the habitat along Camanche Cree;c, aria ea u,e+,� for the protection of valleyoak roves which is a., dr:.ticai � r habitat type. A ,-, Calt> ahS Distt l ct,, 0,3 is. concerned that theit previous conv ents �` �W� on the p draft EIR Were not iribibr orated into the revised c�cttk~ent. these 'Comtents should be incl,�,t�ded in the final 4VF - the Hydrogeologic%Geotechnical jijction of the State Water Resaurcs control Board's concern is that' the project is located iri an . ` important, area of groundwater recharge to 8acraz�en `o t`alley z ^usfsrs A Discussion of Alternatives should' bexpnneesoofadres., potP�tia= imipactS to groundwater and Butte .cteek realized groundwater recharge, the cahtamihation from hazardous 'materials, degradatloh by agricUltural use of fertilizers/iDesticLLdesj ce races tion £rom. Septic Sytem leachates, and erosion cau�•h- -Y ci,uit`-uie y' associated with the project 'The draft t1A should also address whether gorundwater withdthwAls associated with the proposed 4, project will cause sutsidtrw'itii fljYou sh6Uld attempt to .resolve these cohflicts before any Yurt:e: action is taken on this project: You may formally ,respond to the agenciescommehts•by writing to them (including the State October 14, 198Q Mr. 'earl D.: Nelson Page Two Clearinghouse 'number `6n all `such correspondence). When Sling the : final tlk2 you must includeall commentiP and responses (State L'VR. Guidelines, Section- 15146),. environmental,document +will thea State reivieV of your drafts, be complete. SinaezeJ y,:, Ainna polv`as teph n Villiamson State t16atifighous+ State C1e rin house' q, ' Attachmehts M a kk " l "�, 'aFi �l 'r`n'kk,Mr 4: n _. . ..;'.. ., as.. `vY'P1 rnYV+sa.-..l,�A....,�:!k�„).«i+ta+.•ur[YN+�'hallairS"URX'latw+,M:rc� rraz-tY..;.4..n.+�rYd}iM11iTf..,biLrnwaMtAn.f-+.•xYlhWillP.Nwusve+nw Tho Rosou+weo�' Age►vry 4rim Burns, projects Coordinator dais, Septe::5er 25, 19.8D' J; esources Agency D. Nelson,., Drector��, Butte "County Planning Department m 10-,P,-County Center Drive � 95 'Or oNilhe, CA 956� ? r f iotme"t of Ri' ,and Game ,1 &ubf*Ch PxopaserI Rdione. aid General plain MLA dment' o£,-Coun-44 Land Borth `�. toi Chico, Butte County- (SC11 80051314A) Thr D,epartn9ent of Fish and Game- has reviewed the Draft Eli on tte Propoadd Reione!And General Plan Amendment of County band South of.,Chico and has`the.-foilowin lcommentsc 1. Adopta:on of 20--acre minimum zoning will haue 'the lust adverse impact ons wildlife and habitat of the alternans, de`s bein , considered. Agricultural lan4 has greawer ',wilcl ife, valUe'than residential or commercial areas and 'the g ct ,. proposed. ,20-acre minimuiil's would tniti ato project impa 2. itlpar`ian setbacks of 100, feet' shatild be reghite't alo .3 Camanche Creek,. to protect this critical ",habitat:. No builda.ng or clearing should be all9wea ih tris area: ' ,a 4 3. oakegrovess4��;Ucriticalbe �nabitatained o�yp�otection of valley _ 1 y p y thank " ou fori'thc ya�p" artun�t to comment on this Draft Exp. S£. t a Department can bl*, of turth6i assistance, please contact, Robert~ W fla: a Regional h1ana er, Region `;2, 1101 Nimbus Road, Awichc Coibdovi CA 95670, telephone (916) 355-7020. u , Director r:Jfi '� 1 ` FI r V11. b _ ix nvironriental Re-l�ew, Dz�ector s response to the me�+oranc:um ' dated 5ep.tembe'r 25, 1980 Froin y the Department of Fish anc'.''Gaue. } Comtnena ` �) o 'Number: ' { C ��- 1. Response; "Comment noted. This conditio ' :r disGussad r� in sections 3-.6 and 4.22. .�IT , 2,. Response; Satback requirements from Cb mmancae Gr es would addressed. when spe.cxfic site: development piano- 'subtc,a�tted_ are to the Coup; ry, Habit-a conserva ion, zoning iy� a possible mitigation measure. `.. 3 Res ory�e `` Most vane oaks are p A ? y W/t f nt1}�, located in r agr a,.ltural areas or on publicAF Old w�thzn the.,pro ect site. Measured Far prof-CC4JI O axe t would, be reviewed: V fj W' f when specific site developmen;3 pans are subma tted to. r -,the �rIuounty. Suchprotection measures are ',not always,`' r effective as tree removal presently Can occur ;at, any time tfithout regulation,. In add ticn to. easements "as `r a possible mitigation,. sore type cif"protective Zon ngcou. be edreservet-kee re, pew ; andla plied tod pp p Y areas'Movawithdthe' atesi habitat value Y r. ,t 1 ..�.f �4 _ _ a r 011 A . INTERNAL MEM 70: John Nudd]eson == ,� FROM; 'Bud Eagle 1 +r OATS - SIGNATURE: F< , .IR or Pro SUBJECT Revie� o.. " used Rezone and Genera3 Vlan.A...end�ent K ' o f, Couc►ty 'Land South of „biro (50 80051314) i i� Comments k 1. The proposed project is located in an important area a f"`groundwuter„ ; techarge to Sacramento Valley aq:}ifers (page�� and 18�. Tite ciacuWsion . of each alternative should be expanded to adc�ll`':eas potential impacts to ,groundwater and Butte Creek in terms of: �� c 1 . a R educed groundwater recharge from overdov+:Eing and, iricv�aaed runoff. b. Contamination,fram t kaiiufacturing, Onao atorago, p (,disposal of ht�zardou-s mzri�tlat' - s in pr,jtosed industrial tongs; c. DeStadat on by ag".j.cultural use of f'et't3lizere and pestl4ides. ' d. Degradation from septic system leachates. ; e, Erosion caysed.;Iby actiVities ati�uciated with the p1toject. 2.. Sect"n 3.2, "Geology", contains a tatement that subsx`ddnce is a potential problew_'in the Chico aree. However, in Section 4, "Bnvir niaental Impadtaand Mitigation Measures", subsidea6e is declared to be bot y significant ioz'each`of the alternati,►es. This position is apparently based on the fact that no subsideha-;)has been reported in the area. The draft EIA should directly address the question of trhether groundwater 4i'hdzawals associated with the proposed project tdll tause sUbtidence. �i ^n: ScQ 7, , _, ..�.nhrt,.l��.:?e«w,�,...�wrpr ,- �,-«_..,_.: _ __ ". ..c .:. ,e :.:' :.._ .. .. -..... .. ,�,., ""`-r' x+.,•,�;�•, l;,tsMr,-w J'?,�a�iP -. r b. Bnvirorimenta_l. Review Director's response to the itttern3�. ,mezzo T srcm Bud Eagle of the State Water Resources Control B lated;, r Septembe2,5, 1980. cr J7 Comment Number' ( i ] a . Response' 011ercovering in the pro, ec-t!�), e }}aII �bUId small tho la44 oveil, `J affect a vet } densities percent of ; . dwelling ''t �,nJilt o�:'one unit per a646. ve 3) . The adoj;itzon The of Alternative .3 far N t er�kta�}re area not t1he hearings; ' 51;�me probable outcome of. it} 11 1V �lxo�g cgmbination of alterna& i b,r : n a lcgwer oveiallh, ,'es dens;ray ;';s more probables '`J =� most of rechftrge�' A% js are " n fo:oth 11 i utr funding the veli ;ey b;ts�tin' 01 lb. Response: Udder a pro pos�.y, general `p hn° amendment and re�3�ie's)5eclfi'c data are not avaiIN'O'lle fath.at va0uld identify the precise nature of a poterfti'al ''Obc,updrit ; i�as ness or indust"ry in the project ��4 � ,he'BXR recognizes the potential threat to tk�g�,, „environtent from hazardous wastes or use 'of danil' dustria materials, a31d adcIressos this issue j,';q page", 2:9 in the MR. lc. Response; Tate regulation of fertVZ. i-�ei, herbicide and pest cid�a use is largely tre r`er.,,bonsibifliiry of. state, and feiieral agencies, The Bl�', addro:�ses the problett of itlicompatible uses of ttte,',land 'iL agri- cultural operations exist adjacenf tol res pktitial developments,: 1C Response.: T}ie County }rttvironmeritat' health bep'artmeitt regulates the location and construction of septic systems, Their- installation` must conforrr'to local safety and health ordinances {hied §rohib. ft the contamination o£ subsurface wateis: t. Response Since most of the project. siteis located on flatterr&ln and heavilyplanta with orchards, crops ani other vegetation, no se,,r`: bus erosion is anticipated �f present land usos 0XLd cohtihwaL Afiy residential construction Mould req tt1're measures .to reduce or pre,vcnt ,soil ero$:iot1 in tho stoepet :trees. Most of the project area is flat 3o erosion is not a probletri;; in, ent !�t 2, Response: No reports of subsidencehave been reported in the .Chico area that could be attributed to �r'-thi "water withdrawal. The cumulative impacts oft *, e�Chico been c,ce subs ' region from groundwater withdrawal have., is ject of hydrologic studies .by the _ tse" Department of r!, tt lreser�resp draft . 'Water' Resources.(Yater quality] rates and recharge cycles are impo'tte* t cpnsa.deications. Hydrologic data containe:3„an tt=s'Depa`rtmant .o f;, iyatcr r. Resource's 1978 (;Bulletin 118=6 �rndicates ample water stofa'ge reserves in the northern Sacramenta'Vallay: The proposed project is not expected to significtu�tly i crease present draft rates and therefore .ould nct substantialiy 'increase subsWence,risks. 4' r # L1 � �t l Y f 4 c Malcolm Jcryrod., William Towne 13aldwin Contracting Company, Inc. P1.01 130* 720 ) Chico; California 9592.7 c' October 8, 1080 U Earl Nt l aori r L:nvl rohrrrerrta l Review DI rector 04unty LnvIr•canmontoI Review bep7rtmont 1�- J_ ;_r= County Can4 E r Drive ve Opoy`t 1 10 0 Co I I torn i ro 0965 n RE f 11SV I RONMENT'AL IMPACT RE;POW(,�'t-OR PROPOSED Rt" ONL' AND GENIERAL PLAN AMENQMItNT or COUNTY LAND 50UTI1 Ot" CHl�O011DAT�b APRI i , 1980 AND REVISED A'iGWI` 1980 boo Mr. No i,;�oil ; rThltb 'i.(it•tor'is In rosp'ohso to the Chvironmontal tmpac+ Report f6t, county land u soulrn of Chico oatcr1 April, 1980 and revised August, 1080. 8peei f i cal y an (1, ombodIod in. Port I, ccarriinohhs orr dl're61ted towards the revised edition of < August, 190, 1n addi tion, Pari- 2 offers a specific alterh�ative pertaining to ,,?our land., conhltluous and contained within •the -project aroe, f VU_,=, NV I R�'nl 1 MPAOT REPORT Th l u M t i Oh WI l i addross the Cnv l ronma ita 1 1 mpacl• Repot ' In Its aht l rdl{y and also os 'it portalns to our 144 included aures. 136VIOW of t'he Lnvironmental Impogt lldporf has roved I ted tour basic a roas which are felt to be Inadequate,,. These four orotos are as fo,l lows A. Kipp nnd-Toxf 1, Page 7 of the Chvirartmenta't Impact Rnp.ort 8•1•ates "orchard and Flold, M Crops, 1185 acres; Induntrial, 85 across Commercial, 90 acres; Agr°�lcuIturoI-ReaIdovit 1,0 ) 35 acres; and Pub ic; 205 ocro8ll, In t;elation to the mop,* Figure 2 On Page �, 'I•heso� ,acregO5 aro hot ropresentod_ h frail, It may bo .rated that the Agriculturol.4ResidehtlaI Land Uso ifa�)q�y I s rio , shown, Oil 'Page H of- the toxt, it is statod that 9I;'h projoct• Is stow under 'Interlit A-5 zon l nb: Th is Is) as we understond If, misleading as the 1ri,terlm A-5 was not rcnewcd asof ,lutre •t•hIs year, 5, Ag61n on Dago 11, the boocument states "The A-2 zone and Iarge amounts of ocreage dasighnt64;iR L,b, in -the oxls•ting Cotteral Plan are bothg t•'svIowed in i i ght of the goals forma l ated by the County Planh i ng Comml s,s i ori °''torr this area!', 1110 'Document u"toes hot P'eferohce or site such "goals" os forou I ("tI by -fie County Planning Commission, The heal- sentonca rynds propose revisions to -the donvra I Plan are 'des i ghod -to romedy Jr ncoi�s Ir ;_. teho ies i n the pr•oson`P Plan, find aeh i evo stated land use goa 1 s for $ouch. Ctrl �;or', Iier ci age i h) tho "stated land use gore l s" are not rOferahned to th i s sect Ion 0 hir. Earl Nel soar Envl rohtmonta t flet i ew Director f�: Butte county EnOromilen`1'al Rsvlaw Department bctobor 8 1980 Pggo, Two .� PIge I I otd-l-es "Dove Iopmont plans f1! ?especI f It gree, or submission of ., '-.e b('IHd'inrq desic�J•'as are riotIncluded ir{ project pr-csoosal"• Cfi`ls is one- of, the geoptos`t shor•�comlrigs of rSpe entire Envlydhment5l impPct „•;, `„” udod to re f IOct `an Report a9f�s�l r3ci tic situ inforlr�ation, haufd bs' incl acGurafe and comp l o l e eva l u7 ► f?n wI46n a now General Plan amelldn!o t,-aitd, � i-ezone As proposed, g ' r a Ggbrtiy..,,proposed Urbain C3oundar� 5;Palo 74 shows ure 7;�,,.t.h IndlcaPes .Fl t" teen 1.1 no"'") . ThI d `110reen Line'! which was s�kdoptod or!' ,P�by' 6; I 13b b;' the. C111co City Go"cl�OnfIICtsi wi-I•h tho exl'.N,n , iand use designs f Iirxe ceparol-1n0 orchard and hold crop from ioty density rasltitintlal ,as shown on Page 10i FIoure 3. This I Ihe, also confIIets'W1 th &ItOcrrl aj e Na: I which sughos•ts a movemorfl- to tho-.east sIAO r;'1,tho.;prr,or'h area O'f land des ignat'Ion On Pago-•`% orchord and field crop use a1,,. ri1d1catQ, y. figure 2 The Env I ronmenta I Impact ktport'does `ri`o't• adequately, �tddr.Oss �a. o ramifications af�'tlto County Genera, Plan Iine:waryi.rig frarn t tho ramifications } adopted �i ruon Lino"tn rel,ation to land divisioh clisp.u•ho5. AhfS F at 'has not been made clear which land use deslgnatloht are appropria'to tho urban stele of the I Ine' and tho rural side of4 ha�l the tfernati,ves I and Z Do Not Noros8ar_i I Pe I�' >.''r �Y..,� Oct� The Pnl 4c:ios andcoag of. The, Pidn ' l as i= rom -f he Rosolirco '_Hartaggrnont sect I ort of the adopted oho Use t I etpon'1', Fact I 10 A l�, 1 and F should be considered in conjunction wlth fho prdposnd alaorna t� •f 1 ves , `the s by i ronmarlta l Impact koport In its text does no+ make spocl f i c thOl i- I nd1 reforonco to thate, pttr tl cu l rtr 001 iey, ,tatemdnta n6r do they d i souls �bctldn,;_ ef,red., Fur•1'hormor`o_ finder tho 1',esl�entlal Development vid-U61 merit arl -. '(I Subsectlon Housing Suppl:yk and Vartoty; Pol lclo� A. and' E} aro not adotloateiy di's- 2; cussed: in 'rho lrnv ronmo�ti.il Impact Report= Also under gubsection F'zn I i.c i as •'A thrs�uyh U Shou ► d be d i scussod to a tgrtai er ex tent i i! re 1 at i cn to, rolwvlhg la'�00 portions of -the projoct aroa frem the res►dt r,tlai inventoryy � 1 Page 24 of tho Wcument cortioitirng i•ts-Iiscusslon of General Plth goals and pal I c I os does not adaquat I y take Into �cohs 1 dd atl on b I i oaf 11he €SboVo hci, ed t pollcIOe4, , t M �, �'IY' . �` CSr1 I Kr o ��br the la lcrneitt fhe civai III I I+y of of fordabl6,,�housing his.y d&�drally 5 fjounty residents" would have to bo,t". mhiod iliore cui��fuliy's y Afar tlic 10 vide nceftri,' his s rrtemont atirnuId ben provIdod 11) is dt�cumenI, .' S 1� ,„ e e =od g6l"Is Of, 'a t"r ultural prey in `on. Pago 244 in ac;rordp,reo with htt the r lel er a� It r7 gild nrt wgy r,.oriservo i6nr 'the county rarrinrrrends Ithof now" tauslrr cans1rua�,� k. Molt4u4�r wltltln dofirttnd urten arose+r. A tnajrar portiern of ,the l'rO.ft3C1 area t, W05.1- ni,,tfighwoy 9g is curruni,ly dos'q.tated as en urban area under' Aa category of low density �`osiddnttal, t�iarrc�iverr It should be noted that `tho•projod area row i ns one of, the 1 a rgost uri'devo l oped rq, , I don�i l a I areae i dcai bfl i h very a l cbii proximity to urban service!!. r r ar j nOonS I $tehc1 e's agi 1 between a to httrttan t on Po t o and cast llnny !31' s #r!c I enor' I I �� h i char I n the u roan areas uf' �^ grid a � ra eras �rh uu Meme on Page 12 tr,thrx avid itibi l ity of hiore affordoble't ,. ., loft -sets f � dons P't os ON i ttoruo,sedrr, �YrrrirY f�: r>> `ar, Mr. 'earl Nelson, En' iVroprhonta l Rev ow bi reol 'Peview Butte County Environmental Department 1..+ Octolbpn S, 1980 r rr page Thier to Conclusion, it I s f e It that so 1 ected sta+01nents t n. t he body of thejaxw � concern tng goals and 001 iCI05 reflect prejudice 'far lmptotP0htatlr0 of Alternative .No. I and Its remQ.vai G� residenfia'I inventory. The Goo I's and Policy socl-len of the Document i s I nadequate.ly adds essed and shoua(6 `be" d g� ref'I ned. �� 0. Innde4urtO Ccono-rc Analysis = �� "' C i sr'raa`y Ion. of 1't ,cohoina c Analysis h been I o_f t 1-) eco-Aria I y5f9� and is � rr, present-ed In Exh i b 1 I tD,- In general, adogPacy of, the Cnvl rbhn eats i Lmpset pertai;n�,nr� is voenuestiandtcosts onplyrto. r rowhichearefpor�t'lrove entaia thehCountynbudoef � "i�,Q l a� Cost AnaIYSI� a�tuti should b�. tm Ie>titen'I'Ed u ins` I U' & 0 r va'Pe- sec' ori y '. p r .. , Iternativos., gains and losses, with respect 1•o rho varj The icgnpmlc Ana.iys.is prosontod in the CMV lrcnmen,a"IImpart Repert 81OWt an ' u r� r estimated market vaiue b4 $8,000 per acro. Wo have rcceiv0d a schodule bIt showing assessed Va i ue and fu l 1 value of eri' i 1100.. lohd; See FxhI rJ p These values � shoul d. be correlated to they $8, OQO per a;dre a suggested in the �rrvi,ronttiehtal 'Impaot Report, D, 1.nodo tiote SItd, SPe0i 0 .Information Ufl Ij: ation In wRqf0r6h e To Ct-neral �= C1 an 'Amohdmont and terns lyi vol Na. L anis .'No: 7' Major 1 ncohs;:l stonc I. shou I d be mora edequa lc� i y t-ep roe©nted coftoern i nn t,alaticnship of AIternai`ives No. I and 2 with our 143 atroes which ars I tided In the; prOjOcf area. As proV I OUs l y indicated in our l otfo r dai•�zd` July 28, 1980 concerning the first Cnvirartmenfal Imp7ct Report of IiilS project, i t is our conNol-lon that our loads do not eonstifUte primo 04r(- cultural sol IS,_ 1`urfher evirlehco_ s noted In the revised Cnvlromm'nta�1 Impart Report as seen ort page la, 'nand 005.1 and south of Midway OrchaPds 'C 0 May live sgOgtor,tlal amoun9`s of clay and cobbles, rondariny sire ,soli lass `i`e'ferehce suitable for IIni-onsive agricultural' cultivation". In addition, is made to Sections I i I and I V of e I e�l•+&- from Thbill ti i.. Edon r, Atto,rngly ai Law) to Izarl Nelson, Hnvironmontal Rovtc�w Oh- ctor•, Out-1-6 Couni'y fShVf onmetitol t2evltw Depari,m4ni•, See Exhlbit C. in j-hi;s publlmr+Ion Mr-. Edgar vor�J spbclM f i ca l l y po l:ntt; out -hal' prime ag r i cu l tura l so 'i s do nos` ox;i st in 2onc 0, " This polhf should hovo rrodo on Impact ori 'I-h-0 vaHoUr. project altormbflves p resen-Pod Its file revised edition of the Chv i ronmohi'a l 1 rnpact ftaport", r -- We hove p14av i dod o aper! i f I c twnoin t o Ana l ys 1 a perPa i n i ng t6 the conveys i ori Of our Oxlsting IRtnd Into on Almond Orchard capacf'fy, >ee r=xhlbit C, Atter` r•eviewir,a tine noted analyij]s, the conclusion may be: drown that cohvert lot, ' of tucn, land 1'a exPromaly r.rneeohornical, The ItitOrrrt Pexpense derived from nidal OuflaYS COrICON11nr1 1011d leveling, rock r•eilovol acid lime purchasra nhd � p 1 scar W I� for ou wo1 ghs revenues geherat-ed f ram o fu I I 0raoduct 1 vo orohaH as `l i i ustrMi ed I n the Suv�enth Yoe r AhO I y51 s, This analysis assumes a e tatl c �I ovo Iof i nf',lati on ..ind i ;.' ,rest rotes tis needed for comporab I e oma ly:fl s, t"uriPrermoru, ii' lasts boat, felf that ever with t so Implemen-h tiom sof sell Cort" vo tirr ,oil rrPl I 1,40d In the I rst yeti y „rovonuet, per acre- wou 1(` not r ef,c;h tho level I nd l eofed In the i"nv i ronrnentei I rnpac.t' 1100ot Of per ar~re, j� � Mr. K,rrl Nelson, LnvVyf t , 1,1, Rev Iow D recto / `'1 13ut e County , ChV i ronr , . ►.r ew Depa rhrnen`h P,ctvlter 8, 1950 I.,age hour t �' The agroat)e used for anolysis purposes w s derived from 1.701bits A aria. G and por-1•6Ininr) to remai lrtg land showing 70 acres. Sixty-Nine acres Was used as a net ocroage ;­i, one ac re WoU I d be needod f0 :,hoi�� bar i I d.J rich ar'�ea = and storage of egUipme,hf, etc. rurhhor evlidehco of inadoguato Gonoral Man Amendment and Rezone, as'Pro- itased under A l hernat i ves I;Land 2 1 s supp l'i od by L:xh l b i •I• q. F.) rst, Who urea oval leblb for cuI+)vation Is less than 50 pereont of our pereatlt3' i;. involved in ��ho project: site., The tmplemen•Ia1'iori` of the A-20 A-5 Lnrt i ttg would a (so const i tote a comp l ete logs to hire aconbto of 36. S acres . W✓ �aff �� of dredger Talitngs as Indicated on Cxhibl,t' s A and B aho. got I is to' suppbrt cu)tivotioh. secondi'Y, a rezone of A-20 from ihp ,c Lst•ing R-1 r zone provided far Southgate Acres Subdivision; 1Jni l Kia.;f'':�icompleiely 1n�degUatc. A subs(antial differenco can be noted in the A4,20 sohing. vorsus the SR- I ion l ng. A-20 zon".-;,gf perm) is uses of mobl i _ lrbmes,, ml�M i hg� A .. quarrying, commercial exoav,,j-ribin anu-wood progess)ntr pItints`arid ;eyuivies ' cer'ra I n set backs Concern i nd(,bu i I d I pg p I acernenf �: The zanl,ng does ,h f a I lbw 'these use:; rrnd tut therm�,� u; "l as d i •ffer i ng so. bricks. ` The A-20 ton i ng ti q a. have ro!;fri'ction piaoed on Qrnvtrohinental 11-vestockrasudoesufhelSRT�IizonIngi The Impact Report tat the ` bottom of page II? speaks to the A-20 zoning overlay In conjunction with tj parce'Ls of, lop's than 2,0 macros ih slze„--',Jho :question 1s raised as; 1'o the of feC"t of these additional d ffereices �i3tWeen The two zon l ngs o-1 her shah prevented further division 01�l parceIsr Coria i nUa ( reforai Oes aremade in fh'e 1;nv t i~ohmenta l I mpac h Repl�rf by coilft i ci \ t of agricultural ectivit'ics vett!sus residential and commerc`r'+t dbvelopmont, "Where , °,1 )• rtm 'Fhe Roport) Page 244, the County Is--unable to//tmo i ota i h the ,l and j in a9ficult'ural production, the, General plan recommends vblapmenf on 1�4 r` t iddst productive' sol )'s, and rulal rosi4fentia l dbvb)bpmbnt` ras a buffer between urban development and lhtensive crop land', As illustrated on �Cxhiblt A, no buffer would exist If All•ornatives t and '2 were Impiombnted = + between the agricultural land and lands now.zoned M-7., Thls III`ustrafion reprosents a direct conf11ct with fho statement on 2Ab "The preferred goo 1q,, y sop p 6 o howbvcr; i s frs su f l i c i bn'f• 1 vo araf'e I rtCom at),lt l e �t end us s; to the e,ttcrht �•> " that the,tir act I vitt es wt I I not i Mf rude on one bnofh6t=r . Ti"'O ChO ronmehfa l lwpact R.opoirt' does ttof address this parftcuIar, sl'to' speci flc problem and thbrofore can be soon as inadequate In this area, An OitbrnafIve mustbe presented whereby subnt: ntla'l roco�hifion is given to the far;4` 11hat prime agricultural soil's do hot oxlsf 'and which wi I l also refIoct ” othbr econotnl c and 20h l hg Problems as evI deuced Without the I ncbrpor'- of l nn of .8h a 1-1•ernat i vb 0this-nature, the bocumon'f 1 s bbf l h I,+O I _y t hadeguato o t r r M►•; far l: Ne l son, CnVi ronmenta l 11ov i eW Director e � r ctar A 'Q : p I \r 8Utt'a County FnV.I rorrment•a I Review Deportment October S, 1980 Page Five I` PART, 2 = PROPOSED SM TF spic i f 10 Rrzor U After a careful and ccmplotWanalysis of our remaining lads as :Ilurs+e, —qd ;tin. Cxh l b i t A and In con j un& l on with tho acreages, and zoning' a� t i l usl`ra�fad on, Exh1b"tt B ,,we.Ira"ve designed a�general project alterNiff.vo a'sshown bv`Fxhlbih F.� ThIs general project 'proposal Exhibit 5, and rezone -hakes lht ac�rqunt the ��,.. � !;Pd �.ific characteristl'cs of the Iand and ihcorporates those cheraceri5hics with uses exist on lands contlgirous and geheraliy``to tha.'wesT �rgjdiCouthraf oual romai;ninocr property. This proposal would, add;f the projbof -' ,•by inclusion -of drodoer tallings area of, 89 acres previously zoned M.40 See Exhfbits A and 8, J)Our general projec'i' propol;al and rezonb Is consistent with the or6joctivet as found in: thc,) Erre) ronment a I lmpact:__Ar' port on Page 7,� S/a�t ion 2,12. poi�ti 66 A of the objectives Is i►nplemeritbd by use of Open Space acid Suf` ar zoned thus separat ing .. . .� lands pr6tontly :In agriculture wifh lands Less suited t� 5" 1rulture utke- i.e. s aur roma10hg lands and•,-dredge r to! l ings Use of `Mo Open Space and 9uffoi' zone x, wI II' mI°highte "separation" concerns expressed in the General Plan' .ftp„1'ciea d section on Page _24a and 24b of the Environmental Impact Re' ort, Censer p p �Uent i y� Portion A of the objectives could be realized as agrl cu lture production wou l be ,b preserved and encouraged to the west and soufh wit•hou'f 4w of lntrusion between the Sect lci; B of -I-he project, ob,j'ectives will be satisfied by a sheeny, forthcomi1l"g .. da't'a I led project plan and spec i f l c rezone vo ubst'. ` izurtl ermore t end use �i t po,l Icy ,• ' ., Will be uphold for both resource management and residential development os°found in the Land'`Llso Clement•i basic additional Information for the proposed r Ono dwolOng unit`,per acre d0h8lty is Oresenflybeing considered for the proidot' by use of cluster type develo einitial plans show epproxiratei'y �5 to 40 Percent of the project area would be left in Open Space and Ruifer. Zone. Sept It systema could be hmpIomentod either by ln�ividua1 or common (each fields or byy �.�. Incorporation of a sm7'li ohsIto `l -batment plant, 'it Is possible that ponds wII'l be excovated I n 'bile d redger `ha l I I hgs area prov I do for excess storrl d i•a Inago, bbd lire protection resorVoir roqulreiiients, Our Roelamatloh Plan for -1-ho Chlco Ptant and Pit amonded robruery 16 1070 shows` tFb stated project as Area 4Ine.luded In thof the Reclainai'io►t Plan, reference liar been ma i fon of tl�c� ra act area for ho�rtiasite `e to then reclamation j t recreat loh,; construct ioh of, lakes, and otc: Site c cl gn, f f aril porkic�n� of -the l�bclamatlon Plan ar, 'found 'in Rxhlbit G. � It must bo 'romembored that this 90hcral project proposal and rezone' is presented In t'hlt letter as e project 'in its flhrt stagers ot'developmont, 'there may be minor changes made botween fids prosen•ret ion and the aotuo l project and rezorio ' �ubmtt'ta l , Mr, Carl Ne l Son, i;rfv 6-006nta l Review Director Dutto .County EnvironmontaI Review Department October 8, 1980 � page Six We feet that the time 'ie appropriate to express our, development plan for the a " area In light of the ensuing South Chico Rezone. Mordover; tett would he far better to inc�oi-por'ate, burrrezonedans atthlb $-J-ago reh6r than submitting a rezone ragdcagt' `i coned l efe I y.,, 0for the .County rezone for the area r flopefu I, through the utas of good pIannfhg technCques and suitable apP11catfon ri.4 the L' land;, we haVa Sugcgested a Vlable proposal which can be lncorporeted in the General South Chico Ro;zQne s an addlt"r6nai 'a l'�erano.tive,l Very, truly yoursi� i Chris Baldwin Agent and Manager Lhnd D6veloprieni" �. CB; sc (' J: / l j" is i ; ' L ti ' ' imrtranmegiel '.Review d �pt. . OCT 141980 TO• Wm Sands FROM: R. Rose t8u4td Caat11►' SU911,v CRIT.IQUn oF AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FORRBUTTE COUNTY ., UTt a purpose of this mento is not to ch the derivation of mu] tipliers c� or assuiaed statistics but `Co review the methodology for correctness in " E terms of application.' 1. ri ALTERNATIVE 1 dik assu7 tp'pns, on1 property tax of p y valuation averagejthat pptiepassessed . is a'mult list mixes 2. a ears ina' ro riate. it p multlelier two related toncepts without clear def inieiOn of what the author is r"! '' trying; to sayiCtpossibly, the author means to say,,that the assessed ; valuation (A.V.) of raw unimproved land when compared to a more.,�'`rodu ive u'se, e.g. agriculture, usually yields a 2.7 increase in A.V. PerhAps, !� - f17 'it 'is of the income multtplier' required U generate a 'gr'ass 'income' tulGiplier necessary in determi (1980) (200) (�25)'(.042)t�(8000) (.25) (.042)x-$126 per acre <J rD = The need to ,clear up the 2.7 multiplier is ossential. Perhaps together )" " thea 90o Multiplier along with the assessed °valuation le cba'bined,;by using these two Multipliers "of 2.0 and 2.7. �h y kpcommcmdationa axa as follows. �) 1,. Read Chapter 16 of the Fiscal,, impact Handbook b" Listokin aiid Burchell 2 Demand an 'explanationof­'both uhe 2,0 and 2,7,;multiplier( 3. Adopt a county policy requiring, tulle+le documentation of such r, coricepts: �, � i" n 4. Requi',Ce infromation on employment , it it is necessary. rS' 1 5. Always pltte the burden -of proof on the applicant! , -` ALTERNATxVE 2 it ,Household Income numbers are always suspect. Taxable goods 'alae typicallyy calculated on a per capita basis rather than on a household basis. The`��` suggested method lists the dollar ekpenditure per person by typeof good (Taxable Mail Sales from the Hoard of 9qualitation). The total say $180 per ereon, would be applied to the number of teidents,bedupying the subdivision. The one percent sa1e,1 tax:rebate would then to- ecalculated calculatedfrom. the total,. dollar amouu+it, Usilighousehold income is it adequate, if you can sujport the result along with the dollar amount spent on taxable goods. but method simply uses ;population and the: state information to detet'mine sales rebated back to the county. In y, y addition, the X85 �" $ per person received b the count in t,`L'iier revenues is detiY,ed by pinpointing fines, fees, licences and other state F' subventi'onu usually- �f ting With the population. If the $185per ers p on is aotrect, then the formula is corrects , Recc,pmendations areas follbwsst I. dbeck authorts calculations using a per capita method,'b oppoaed to a household method. �`sysetvice costs may be cortecti but at some point in times all excass capacity 'must be T; p y gone and expansion :must of, must aicaur, provide an in lieu fee progtsm to finance lorrig range projects ori ati incremental basis. 3 Generally,; residentia, coats more to service than other land use ponse times for police and fire and, the po.Gentialsto decrease existingserv�e'to residents because no faciltiy apjAnt expansion, is indicated: Eventually water ,and sewar i''s'sues will n+ . k3surface 'with sortie, significant cost problems. 74� , 40 t;EAMl TO i1Sg YOUR FxSCAL IMPACT BOOK. " r �f , c • 1) i .1 y a �'j .1 Vis. • , 1 •.1 i3 Y1• ryl N4nw?N.«rnY%Y99bYIHCNIM TC�IIN•�`IIIu'1•L'n'�;�ii�Y1��i1�11YLYESIILiYi -� ``�`�1;�TM}(.I^4'�y�.�` �!� •' ,..., r �v5%¢,w� ( Y\ r BUTTE 'COUNTY PLANN%NW'aOkNi�,'881 )N > > STAFF FINDINGS,- October 20', 1980 AM END THE LAND USE P�,AN MAP Or. THE. BUTTE 'COUNTY G1�tiN6�KAL� LR INVE Pn:UT UFL CO AKhAIY r"ahronolagxca1 `iistory of Pro ''e7 ct, 6/6/79Preliminary hearing to consider punning policies . and fttture�lana Uses for the. area; CI :'tV WO Planning Commission study session. (Continr'sed to A'uEust j 8/$ Commission accept Lid propim�i1 •asshown on: Exli%bit �} and instructed staff° to proceed with prof eco a and ghat an environmental m ac.t.re ort `be P d,P« r P p pre are Correspondence redeived`s 4/2079 Kennet, :'_ p regarding tz�afficeoii Fntlerr Avenue conc�0r�ns expr r.essed ,a 4/26 Aa'uis d. Camentind, Jr.--asking for agricul,t,4ra_ residential type zoning '(sthall parcels) 6/Z,0'John Uwaas, Jr. Chico •2(000--Preserve ag:land 6/20 Kevin ,7 'Gamble, R-3, Eox ;32-P,--Preserve dg land ti ' g ( Y R/7 Wm. P. Mace��ob`"ectzn to anter�tn xo:ne Aiidt�ra Orcltiards) , ajlU/roti LeRoy Cartwright'. Ord fi;�rry StagoW :supporting agriciflture. �� A/ln' Kevin J. Gamble, g-,3, Box 37.-P--use this area' dor Food production & ni:,other purpose 8/14 John Luvaas Chico 20(10, supporting A-2q'toning Two basic elements 61,11e involved ift c�,nsideration of a possible General 'plan Amendment of V o South Chico Area. These two elements ate: -'rpresent Factors": ,=gay,,, 1'Near Futre Pt'oposals't dor the land user T4t98VT JFACTORS. „Soil types and c� stribtition Lot splits approved with h past p Land Ilse yo,ar Zon�r►a� Current trafficcounts General plan Current taring districts woltek table and Water avail'a'bil tv vithin areii ea,in'a.ge Gphdtdt of influence Afticu,ltUtd! tdgtrad�Lts Fire 4 Sheriff' School infdrraation `. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING dOMMI'SSION STAFF FINDINGS - October 29, 1950 r . Yl4 n ..4 r. irt1M t t NEAR FUTURE FACTORS: Proposed subdivision, Proposed Sewer Plan`' Proposed 'Road -way -improvements r ` PRESENT_1ACTOR5 L Saa.1 Tv es and PiStribution. There are seven A.> , r � di:st���, and (' identifiable- soils in the subject area. Viria Loam - Approximately 185% of t'�e Area is covered rwitlh,, ., na oars top soil, This r th brawn sail retains moistures :is easily,cultivated, and is'`�well,,'adapted to 'i ri at! on t "2` r to s' deep 2. Nitta Fine Sandy is found to the eastern tThisusoil property k?long Butte,CreeIk near, ofesu ect14proper 0rea This s brolln to' rich Crown sail is' r 21 to 3' deep; retains water flirty well (not as well as - Vina Loam). It is considered com arable to the reduction h r level aIN ind value of Irina Lon1m. 3. Bina Stan Loan _ Y -The only area iYhcre t:'lig 5a].1 fiCCuTS is: z,I VIC central Part of the subj6dt property And is nbt 6Xtens1ve lwo to 70o deep, retains moisture rather poorly - not considered valti,abie crop. IandT contrasted td -Vies. Loam; - . 4. Nord Loam This occurs in one area of ---.,.._,...._.__ � approximately lQ acres, s�pl►rox.imately 1/3 mile so�itheast of 1.looanbane hear west lido 'of �!IdWay, It 3s Arevish brown with sandy 1. texture retains moisture fairly i�e11 and is ve•l^y easy to cultivate. Considered a valuable agricultural soil. Redding Clad Loam - Small area of subject rrondrty. 3s` covered- ea.r ; center of Area, It is 1S,' Co 200' deep, retains water Ea.irlj w01 ,, eas'y� to cultivate. frons"ideted ' average crop soil: 6. Corning_Gravelly s�andy� Loam - Small ddVtrage'� in sauthern�-,, part ck' sbJect lrea a nng OroVille Chico IlighWay, 10" 1.6 rercenta 201) deep, with high ge of gravel; Used mainly for postale land: 7. Tail"in s - Co'Vdtd8d ran for adstern sectidn of subject area, This soil made by deiposi,ts from dre-ging*. Vo cuXtiv3tion possib e; 1 a 2 Vfk•:'MiG+uMi7}f.fiu TLSla!'N=t4u zm..,....;ab..y.w;r.,.._.,.w .. _.. -_ _.. -.. __. .. �• . ....�����a a ._. Y -«,... .. ...: _r .:-a.• ... w....�... +!m •+n r......... .. Tl' B11* COUNTY PLANNING COWIT,iSIt1N STAFF FINDINGS-'—"tftoher 29, IROO � S a-. B. Current Land Uso: Northwest''sect on of subject area _has mix- ' tura of small lot residential along Skyway Avenue and Cessna Avenue Cemetery on 'the southtie,t corner of Hegan, Lane to MWIMY " Contractors 6 Electricians office across Midway from Speedway; Entlq�r, and Orovilld Chico Higbjvay. The center area '`is occupied by little League Baseball fi`eld., eastern side of.I:Iighl-.Tay is .a d 99 r� is "minated by U.S. Plant Introduction Facility and NeighbdthOOd P_ Church. The ,remainder is Orchard and Field', Crop, and irrigated pasture Current `yt C. sbuth.e:gi portion' isneral nLow, Density Residentiai�esa.gnated': Industrial, �, and p` p , , western 10 i s Orchard.' eYd Crops. r 17,E The General Plan Land Use Elementprovides 24075 acres ± Low D6fisity Residents'_. The proposed General Plan provides for 80a"acres, a decrease of 3AB from the existing plan, T he Orchard. and Field Crops designation contains 2,148 acres but would be increased to .3,672 actes on the proposed plan, an increase of 5u$. 'The Chico ARea General Plan revision differs somewhat from t;x+ South CL h co Plan in the following partityculars ' It provides for a large industrialL area south of Hagen Lane,, west of t1ie, Midway, and a Public-Quasi Public desgnartion "fax the exibting cemetery; also._.an axtensive area of agrllcultural res dent al;` on tLe east side of the Midway bo.t1K, 9id6p's of Entler. Avenue south on a meandering line, reflective i;f the existing tailings, w to anL intersection frith Butte Creek. The 'Commission may recall that after several monthswork the Chico .urban ARea General Plan was developed between the Chico Planning Staff, the County Plc, ening Staff,'the i e`gislati.ve " Committee from the Board ofSupexvisors and the City 1�f �itiac�r" Yater-city Governmental Relations Committee The arae kiyow1.. as "South CH-6001 was part of the consideration. 'Cl' CH-6001.% I,egisldt ve committee was desirous that the County rursue those projects currently under review and that those projects would be procoyGsed .independently of this latter proposal., ;Th'e Cofimission should consid6t the modifications that this amendment would halve on the Chico urban Area proposal. Staff has prepared an exh3lz t that delineates tt.+ differences between the amendlTtent bofore the 'Commi> sign' and ' chat that ryas proposed on the Ch.i.coi-Jtrban ' Area `F. Yater iable & Avairihilaty: Perched hater comas c,ro5e. to the' ' surface in many areas. The domestic tater table regijis between u aland 4 ell0 �X, witintxmost residential �wol is at a j 100 f . �gricaSt .. bouh p . rat 400 to 600 trha,� rod- c.9 Itirn aIla 0 gums�tnsThee1mipen - , t�Stand, rdsc or. &Ab lava y w; 20 ;allons a,minute, r �` isic C?rd n ace Allows some Well's to Vu` p I �j �n r�' s att"�z7ute . 1 F: Drainage:, The South Chi do area has noiritirK r ti; ist' The only natural dtair.ago facilit�v is Btitto Croel;ti ;r� (Ir,aI runoft into Butte 'C resk reeiil,re5 ;grafi ity flow or a "l`,t►' `� a t�rr�jlertzes t01ich must pump Ara a1:5'o .tib j,oct to tloodit;j. ':t;e Cree otre.rflot�'s a `; , BUTT1; CtitJNTY;, R. fal PLANNING COMMISSION �) --w,J-° STF FINDINGS = Cct`aber 24, 1s8ft G. Agricultural Contracts: The subject area contains tv Land "servation Contractsi AP's 4002-'39 Con (Dixon) and 40-02»116 (Itidtray Orchards) both are Orchard contracts, -In , 150 acres: Contracts date. from February 1972' for"ninon; and �Vebrzl try 1075 for,Midwa'y Orchards.. � •i 1} Lot Si;xs4s--Ther+ 'have bran Zot splits and subdivisions }.«., 'sinco _ ., ap�praved hly 1, 1077 creating g Parcels from 1� .29, ;i<cras to C o�S ach5as. Tgeseysmallex a�wcels were oreatad alon p ,� 68e»C J t�roC. "iso IiT�,e! ,, f> \r Current Traffic Counts:• The`':argost current dally trP'Eaic iri this area (ether than P, P.) is "nAidway where the AvQrage l7t�ily Traffic (ADT) varies from 9-4'0"i near 'Park Avenuef to :5,000,, just south of'Oroville--Chico' Highway. J. Cuerbnt, Taxing nistricts: Tha4, subjoct area contain'S:,tici followilig taxing districts, " Butte Community College....... Chaco Unified 'School Butte Mosquito Abatement ; Chico Area Recreational District ndrham Mosquito Abo:ement Nfaihidnance Area P'S Zone Z MaintananGe Area 05 Zone 3 , �..>. Spheres of Influence: ','rhe r''' o Chico sphere `of 'influence (as Liontitied by LAPCP) Inc �.; e a reltitiVoly small, -nTOa III the> northern sectinn,of tia" area. The northwestern,cornet o£ t4e;�an Uind .and Midway 3s within the Primary Sphere gas is the imst<r,n, Xao -pion of the area, betWoen i orroW Lane and the SoUtl ern racific Rxilroadi•, , The residential development d1ong Cotmia ,4v�ri!�e an yStiVigty Avdhi-e A.s within the Secondary Sphea a of, In `�sence , 7 L. Firs Departnont; ",ro data, is availa�+le for this' spcE!;lf;ic a.+rea r6gatding the nt'tmber of reported Tiros. Pesponses to £fres ,general'!,}'' reoUlte 2 to 4 minutes:£tom the `fair Street Svitim or Durham Station,; 4, ire Chico I nx»I Schodl:; ., The sub; Ott �roa is within t ? f'ed "St hoot `' Diotrict, Students attend Chico M s -'h .School } C(txco uraor Wlgh ' `no of all1d Chaapman 5chobt and ParI;view S l;ioal, Sc lgat�r Servicei Califotnia. i�'ater 5ervize area foil 'Ws, Comanche Creek to the a tte'nsion of Bruce Street to !Idrtibivi Lane imis,terly to the 5ai thein P,acif-1c t aft oc"d ,r .q» , . ._-._ .a.t .. ..:. . , '. .. .._.,. ...:.... ......._.... ..., •,... �....- .•. ... ,,. . .,;....... .. ._..- .,..... .,: ,. ,...L lluwJl..u.i�..v--.v-« .. . iW'4,aK ,•NYw•.l ati rv!-d.n+ u..e.y........ . N1h1I S 1 1 , ^ BUTTS` COUNTY PLA1Vpdi`Nr, C ,QSION int(" g STAk� FINUI..,a_ � October 29, 1980 NEAR' FUTURE FACTORS' A. Proposed Sduvr Plan: Ii�,ette Creek: Estates is: proposing a. an -A tr? Sever` System frr areas slang HightVav h9. This Would connect with the City of Chico. Theproject would,provide 2,,j�million, gallons pcir day of, seivagd when fully dovelaped,, inc.� ding ro � (1 si.deritial ;and industrial users. r " "F onstructivn Y:'buld be `finance"r! ry property owner acrd RutOr County at a �5 to W sIia.;.ed rate.., Opexati6ft,,alid rtairttenance' would be conducted ihothe Cxtr�ofsChico)': yLApCoihas Anot�baon p pp s propos "' X Arra a' L (contracting do ie with Y a r,eaChed on the ro osad,,.iount Service R Aroposed ;Roadway lmproveiiients: E'ltte Cour,�ky anr� C:a�.;., Txa��s a�'� currontly;;,planning major improvements' 0. chc nge .rit?�ir.jr. he s h� j Oct are a,,, The closest, major 14'ork �t 1.1 occur early :��t th x t � ` t h of th is area. ( U'nsn,eci � did an ,rom on Lott n�iia 1%hz.ch is sou, d Cal "rens provides tor. an ovixpass at Pet tdnF Tr cto,r, rteo Syron g g :� ide of IdgfiWay 99 t7e h al flf ; ih3s does'Rnot ` ;IC�Roartto tie'�ernea -uturi�,�\pxo j;ect Y C• An application has been rLcelvec and i's in procLess-`to rezone fri m �`��2 to bi-2 for proporty.located on the south lade of Er lero 'vest of Highway 99 and it i;► in confa tmi'ty` wit�i the rskisting General Plan. ;l �c DI The Planning Commission has scheduled a public hoar1ng or = Novemb„ et 5 to ,:zone from A»Z to SR -1 propertj�''known as the Southgate Acre's Subdivision No. 2 ,S t Ir` r; mITTh COUNTY PLANNING' C.'6 MTS,SiON Ti11tTD35 Qto�,er `�t9, l9>!'n j; „ p• 1'1'PM lt?t7R .WoYCEf AN'ENV f'RONMENTAL 'IMPA.CT R13pbRT`1VA5ti, RF. I 11 t � D`I�ND) Z , ..._ " AmendE, the Land Use P - ' : Ivan p for the�t� t; :� `. - k Ma �,Aul`tte C� r..y r� General Plan in the South Ch Area itt.af �. „'�. � � ,��f g_r g as (in'e�relY- listing soil types on Page t2)iand efocusin5 attention to'' the difference het ee for t.hc Chxcb urban Area Pae .� n,this proposal and that Urcnarns na'a mane applxca�ion t'o� wthr't wal5fxbnsheal4xllia\sontActlich• r E ), was not approVed but that the County has receivF l A �+ ,; %ttF' • Notice �'ot Nary-Rendwal pact in 1b years W- which Will terminate the contx �► 1 tter was' received earlier tonight from D) Wi11,.iam to da s., 14.3q Rs lanade , x ,fINA or 7, Chico firmly opro�ing.tany further encroachment„ p r upon agricultural :hand fa.?r ani .p�Ur�ose� Ar. Coats owns 15;0 acres of almonds in the subject area `noted rca�inni 9 si thata ?titipon inthe nt�'k` .. nation :» erest_,of x` cut gn tune, hid been 1: ec.eived h B �e Y the lalannxn” rt", h rb p that' his department had developed two alternatives b� t is 1166 thatAte nto comds tar�l some Of the thpacts . tte then that are mit.txgable and also those �vh ch cannot beravoided.the Potential impacts to response to a question by Comm%ssiont�r Max 'as to the lack', of 1,41111 fit + the in►pact repot�t red ardinra" cumulritive effects of level ,vines t Alan in His Creek, "and' t�heth,t�r any siii~l�""shad`"!d.q �had':f'een inatle .Fart, ;nelson°'said Butt th e p dn;h�t. tments, Health and l o "Cirtment of Water 1 l '"u cbsttonenstureethat theV6 P-1"e rio i �alth nal g m sttrdxe5 had been mg lea p Mems, and 4 sided that no such to his kaol�ledge* n%iring a discussion re rarcl�' r Y 3 this area,i omp a 1at`it of adoq a;ate Soils Map'+ for the who 16 } g b n t havett6 hetdbanted �ngarti,ngCwhev esioher Maxj(js !id that some deoxsions ate beingto srerlri the mone p(� iarit3.es imay imide that have + Y�Fsnce many,ry'momeixtous , o do with svxl tykes, Louis Ctti:�enz1ha t 21.04, 'Oro Chico ,Flitr),iaay, bb j ecte�l (;, teas publashecl, the 's�!atemettts re,gari�ing traffic impacts that h�celemi� the -environmental im act re , i dart' the omi,r • n as `a natuxal 'osburce,, and. the False itprt gsionf that y 12avtrnuesunPage 77 ,c j b$, gates tie also said fihdt tho a 5ii ��ores he forrr,erly oivned arraacent to 'Butte°'Crehlt r reates, :, ._.:.. M bra+ . :mss 7, i. �• r .v �fY f�. Ivies' .. _ � ...0 Imo' � 'µv. •an�r ... . . ... ,.. V fl S a.,-*-- RC�'�"Cti :Ct►l1NTY MI ssig r�L'p'xNxNG C�r9li �^ �F �' / � 4 t1 w'-SEZ1�ir f�dA .Pwd:?r-"'Y-cG^.i•F',tlmra` $ t', ".. h aaLt�lt.+r, k�naghgH7 '3�1.iLYkf ,..: 'i«�us�i 'A._".w. '[sk.:;.n.✓..x�:v.+...:.t, filo o......x: kY ��gs�;gao on y o..r, �r gate pasture- that no rc�ard�±wouii�":�xow because o� ,��; the „,r�atex' „Lab7�� arr►d �x.�v`o,�.1y. so i 1 ,. , t, ' Al Dixon Foi to 3, , ox\;+ 0 --said that' it all"clepen #ed one the�!indi'vidual ftxrmer someauJ�.d.;'make 3't `d7nc?"somet�coulcln''t, and added titaf .his was a private road' to ,his- xanch anti it ^would not be used. byrdeveloper(,�,. Arthur l4oiiseman, owner of 18 acres along Butte*fCreek, said theme were large gravel stratas;on his property. `.I�'t7), Gwner of 14 acres off Midway s',outh of Entler, said he 1Yad watchod the exeAvation for a French Drain on Southgate Subdivision and saw no rooks oven the size of a pea. 9ris Eal.dwin said that AP 40 -:4o -Z6 was proposed for a PAC development, but 1tat plans were not yet complete that he just wants to ensure his,company's ;ability to develop in that manner at a later date. Tom Bdgar, '682 7th Street; attorney for Midway Orchards, said that he had not had a chance to X,00k at the OdtO,bP4 ���ersion of the environmental impact report and asked that he be perei'-c red t'o make his comments at a later time if the- hearing is to be continued. Chairman Gilbert assured him that; the matter would be continued. and that lie would have a chahtd to speak: Lou CamenziftA ."uestior�ed tiro Orchard and Field Crop designation along, Chico QToviy.le F igl.:vm� i "thdt there were pori -conforming uses. jac k 1 Midway owner ofp ro erty rae west of Midway, p was in faviar of prt►seI ving agriculture. .Iwrraa»eu.u�r�wd�,w+w:auxav�6uF>.:swza+,r.� irs,•r��i'.-�v, k�. r.. laic tithri " ►els haict+ 'by 1°Cd missionef Bennett, second6d by Commissianer Le�n►bbrt fat i,Q't.45„"`l�, M. 'to ctintie 'thi;s matter until` November '191 bl'i�t�. AY>;S! Commiss�:oi �r,s bennett, Lambert, M bort. Maar, Wheeler and Chairman Gil No one ABIONT No one. f Motion:; car'ri`ec�•.�; fid � ` `' Commissioner tohnett rot�uested that before the next hearing the Co,h�issio,� .rs be furnished, a map of this area delineating the.,p'arcel �\ i vfr+�tr.;�ti:'F,�'-»a ��Mr,�"rrs4^ +y —'y", : �-,:”` --r r-• m.,-wv, �"' "d - _ .. _ ..i.. ,.._. 111 y , r , 77- Thrm,.u.'.+ ' BllTTE CO,0N'TY` PLANKING CAMMT-55ION MiNQTRS 'Nov ,I`1.980 -....meq,,.,yet,'�vrrs,«sasyyna�s,>.YzuK"mm.v.ti,«��+raF'ev�'r'�,'.'>r „ lip , in+, L! JSµ1 �wti} t'kiM W5 Ye4Y}Z i}y't } w4riEw.1'•f}F!"xxL .'"i 1YAe"�"4WD+w1.31L1i'Mc%-/.."r�1•5/Y{1 IThM.'F_gR WHIGN7:cAN WlRGNMP.7V'1 1!?11Ci'. RN;i'ON1T WA --�tc16A1,T #L1YU A%fi 4 _ 11mend the Land Ilse -+jap far the BUtte ,G .Ilnty General Phar% iri they SOtN,T1: CHICOVI r, AR A 81' -37 -1 -AU �. Ms: Blair called) attention to the maps posted- including one, shotvi. the propose. Chico General:, Plan AmPridmsit. 'thairman Gilbert asked thar6i only those Who have something new to .' `loin Bdgar, an ��:°rrtor`nay representing �MidWay grrcharas�, s'dt& that- their " bag est oNi j ection to the environmental impact report was the ecoctmie as flys s.. lie explained, in detail, problems Midway had had, and is halting, with fungus, other diseases and emphpsized that they are t i 1J FW.YPt M1':y='�kAh�4; ;ra- .a, -Y• _ .. :: - • _- .. ... _�_ fir r r: :L BUTTE CCt1NTY' PLANNING ' COMMlSSIQN' „ MINUTES"- Navember 19, 198;0 , Y running at a,' los1s ."exclusive of the paper Loss", and„ that many trees Com - have already been removed; and in response to a question from missioner MaX, said that, in his opinion,; the soil on Midway Qrch600,, '; is, Class 3; Commissioner Bennett commented that tLere is a tvidQ, variety in the o quality of the sp is in this whole area- there are pockets that:.axe ' good and poc;kea' that are bad. Commissioner Lambert asked 'whether the trees that had been removed rl were not 60 years old, i Bill Cottingham; manager of Midway Orchards and owner and operat6 of otter orchards, went intp great detail to explain the problems , caused by oak toot 6Eungus, can and abnormal PH factors, and cal:i al area art of the FIR. �a called at•ten.tion to documents by experts �n these fields --documents p Dave Hayes, R-3;.Box 30-J, said than.:his efforts to make a living' Cyon: his 68 acre"s' had been futile t',iat ,lwithout outside income it n ofuld zonint be whenalurGhased whichhat wastA-2herewh"ichlwouldbe some permitnhiderat3on ' regain -his investmoht p m to Chris Baldwin asked for Industrial for AP QQ,, 40-26 and \ -R for 40-02 126 and 40-4-31 John I`a.ton, property owner next to Camcnind and Midway, said he ca make a living on his 32 acres ",. Lou Camenzind, Jr., 1.4yOro-charcels•h ay, thatetted Rtir,a1-R' d'e 2 Highway, q tial that ;kvould permit l acr p , he br:iage over butte Cree"it should be reconstructed; and that the HIR was inadequate in that it did hot contain in-depth soil ,profiles, M#Otion of the, 114tidfaction factor, nor requirements of the SuffaCe Mining and RecldMation Ad"tw-adding that the green line should be the Midway ' because of the soils to the east. 44 Bob Hartman, Route 3, Box 30-C disagreed with both Camenzind and Cottingham that Houseman, Smith and Dixon have good orchards that shoulu remain in A-20 and A-10 except fot the existing M -2r Joseph Schindel, 10284 tl tanditr Lane, said (541) that thoa're are lots of cobbles and that the green belt should be 'along -Midway. hon Mendoh8do 024'O denwide DRiVe said (956) that the soils that X24 G'Re will, not s will grow good grains and row crops; that we have to.take a little bit of the ba&with the good; that he has never hi'ard o, plowing up houses Mid Putting dg land in and that those who ,d'e "trot vant,;,to farm should sell out to those that do, .2. COUNTY PL KNING COMMISSION �. ' 14, 148(1 8 -1001 I PLED E OF ALLEGIANCN I1, ROLu LL: Present: wheme ssioAers Benh6 t, Lambert", Max, Wheeler and Chairman Gilbert Absent: No one „ lso Present: Bettye Blair, Director of Planning . . Clay Castleberry, Public Works Dire"ctor, u' :! Bill Sands, Vivironmentel Review Ilept. y Terry VauDe 1, Chico lint erprise Record 4 Lorri Jewett, KPA.:`, and ° Hazel Dallas, Secr`etart' III . APPROVAL OF MINUTES -,v with the following corrections: october ZO: Page 13, 5'th paragrap;i from the bottom--dhAnge' I'Ilon '. Barton" to "Bob �artman"; `same page, last paragraph delete Mast Hagen hane'i; page �a, Lih17--change "Biggs" to "Gridley"' November 51Pae 1. 2nd paragraph from the bottom, add. One did no "eel that it was'a proffer zone when 'the proieci: was approve,ii and" 41s6 disagreed with tesvem that we gel "thru the Advisory I, Agency and the Board in getting a royal and then coiwe in to the approval. p i g P g 4 v > of '� rzn roc ss for meetin the��endtlons Commission in a ublic hea November .12;, Page 7., '4th paragraph om_ the 1�otit�in'y I ine 2i- change 5;1 e" to 'since'". Int, PI`�FL'!.0 WPAR1 lC; CONT7c IHO FROM,t 0,11 Inp, gni, A Lo L +�`> ---��._ NVIgl1Nh4 ; 'TAT.,Ir1PAGT ft WRT WAS I�TFM p(�R "1[�1CH Aft h y Ro ;Z1i A Ti 11 �u , Amend the Lancl Use Plait NI, P fo,` the Butte C;o�inty ( ener3l 1 „I:an iii th_, 8OUT1.1, C11IC0 ; AMIA. =A1.37-1•8U ,. M5. . Blair called attentionto t;�e maps posted- 11m 'I]:'ud-` ons;' sho�ling the proposed Chico General."+, Plaii Amendmeht. Chairman Gilbert asked that only those Who have some,tllin ne'# to offer speak. Tom hdgar, an attorney tel ;Midway Orchards, sa'd that their ,{ hgggest objection to the onvironmerital xinpact report wa: the ecoriomi.c` Analysis?. He explained, in detsil, Problems Midway had ad> and is having, With funl;us, otter d..seases and emoh'asited that t ey are i.�n:oiAu'vnus;in+z�t, zw:�ot•�# k=.—.,...,. -.. _ .. ", —=��`w-^ .,,�. � e ,r.,*, . • ' �,� .ate ,i BUTTE COTINTY' PLANNING COMMISSION MIN.7frLs'_- November 19 1,980 RECESS: 9:00 9.10 Jack Me'line,t10331 Midway, representing the Patrick Ranch,,said that kids, -dogs and _,motorcycles resulting sfrom development is iialking it more and more difficult to farm, p 4r' Clay Castleberry, Director of Public -Works, wars asked to com1viont6 concerning traffic circulation, drainage, i-ewage'And,underpasses ,_ G in this area. He said that there was a definite need,for another' i traffic corridor at some location: that the bridge ddros:: I}utteReek did, indeed, need, replacing, but -;--there are no,provisions in 1;'. the,immediate future; that the next Overpass, to be.,constructed1M vauld perhaps be near the industrial -subdivision, that needs, are ieyoneI our means;,.and added that a portion of this area under considorati.on � `s ;,ri the South Chico Sewe"r Dis. rict but 'that drainagee is not• as .h3 g " a,, problem in this area As in some others:` � ;•; Karen, Uercruse, Route 5, Box 21. ,,,(representing Vomen in'Agricultar•e) refuted statement's made by Mr. Cottingham reg'larding soil tyj.ss of►, MrLdway orhhards . The 'hearing was closed. It was`'noted that the Midway prop Y's,' owners have asked for withdrawal from the Willlainso'n' Adt . Y Ms flair cautioned the Commission regarding Counsel°'s recorma'endatibn o that if the Commission desires to change the classifit kion to so e thing different than that which: has been pixblish.ed thai we should;, republish. After a lengthy discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Lambert 4: b'r'at, by resolution, we recommend to. the Board amending the, 0enbtaI Plan as shown on the publisheu map--with.2 deletions: The area south of the Speedway to 600± feet south of Entlai, and the area -, south of Orov�ille-Chico Highway to the existing A-$ zone, identifying',,; on an exhibit map the areas to be deloted, Mer motion was seconded by Commissioner` Max: AYM Commissioners Max, Lambert and Cha'irman.Gilber,t , N01iS1. Commissioners Bennett and Whee1��; ABSENT: No one , Motion carried Motion was then made 'by Commissi'+ner Lambert, seconded by Comrnissionar Mair that by resolution to recommend to the Board amending the fe General lonPlan �an to o eAa xic ultiural-Residential for the deleted axeas as south of 5peedi+ray to '6001 feet south of thtlet,, m . a eacistin ' A S A tha area south o£ OrovilleLhico Iii Awa to th AYES omntis'�. „ondrs Max-, Lambert, Wheeler and Chairman k .,;, Gillyert Mots ,Commissioner Bennett« Motion cktt led. BUTTE COUNTY`'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 19, 10,8 0, r zone. YES Commis ionersr;Max, Lambert, Wheezer and Chairman ., Gilbert. re` NCta Gotrmi sioner Bennett. 1 Mdtio carried*., h lid 4}•- l �� IN a- it R1Ct" b 13 P Tir' C, W R r C' N'TIN Ti�`�N 17 ..—._�..�.� �f,.._ E 1 E. 4', 1989,: � f' ITFFi�i .ON 'WHICti_.1N ;�SVIROMN'1'"Air 79 1 7 Pfi. it E�Z1 "w �z` xEv7toy .� 'Eut.'te QvUnty Pl a nin Cmm�ies ari' Re- o k,; com 11A. -R0- tGenerral�, �' S a'aro par6ei's � to "A-'160"gYicultuz1-1 GO acre paxce]s), 'A -4p" (xxi:cul.t;uraZ= 1"O; anxe parcels) ; ''SR --3" (Suburban hese clerittial-a3` acre parcels)," 11,81m''� (suburban ReUdenti!1-1' acne parcele), "SP -5" (Suburban " 6 � , � r � (,10-� II S " F:,.side`nt;iai,w5 sore parcel�4ti), � R (Suburbatx�-Resclential)��"�. .� (Age icul tur�,ol- uburbanl�Re idenbial.) , "fi.`1<' �1--A"' (Minimum Dex illaay', «' r k�,sidenba.a ",'y pail er) , Rr 1 (M� ni.tnUni Danai t-�,y Rosr,dentia-l' obi "R-I II (S nghe�-Fr m 1y,: Resident;ia7.) , ItR.�-Q1' "C,�-" (G�neral Comuterc .al.') to (Limited Indit,strial), (Ijight bloary Indus tra1al) , forl. most of the unit corporated potitloft)a, of the axe@ bour,cied air-, erally by E Rook' Creek oa the nort=h, ;Hw;/. W on the west t4'° Creek an' u t'„,ho, i:,Ql,it b ail -d Tial.Jd i7urisF.,l"V'dt'ion cTw agi" eetionts dr-nt lfied as AP Eo,�ks 44 1�7 & t�» .39 1 -tai \\ f Ms. Blair cemioridthe toa mammission rearedhby �taat th 5 1` at atheorec�ues'tsed rofthed ' calie�,� att e n 1? p ' either, byft e,letter,eortAtgthe public hearingrop s al pctiaest It special d a agroperty owners e c;onszderations for their prapez`ty, also delinea ing J;. channels and diversion channels proposed within a proposed, d -a n- age district. She addled that the request :dor a Me` ruin»tlensaty y Resiiiontial designation by Sid Cordon, for a portio that had been not be coni dared by the aomm ssioi; ecausesthE General Pl1n does not prov�d'E r`r it, belt that idential could r , Mr. Gordon had indiddtoct that 1 to Q dwelling Unit�i pe1acre would " filifill his el ientiswishes'It also tho request front Mr. Minto for ( ()nttnerGiai could not be considered for the tato toason, 9r Following the precedont sot'�bdfore, CommissionerBennett aid that � be W6tild refrain front discit�ssion nand m moved down into the audience, 1L#s. Bia3. 'r requested Olay Otis tiebovty, nirector of Public 1VdAs, 'to C1ay:'Chstleharry, bir4ctor of rttblic tVorks, .w as%ect tb commend Ili this a�v�i. die sand tl�ztt there And underpasses . • . ncQrnin traffie, c�,rculatiort�r�2s'a�aaede•�Cinito neon tfor a�i'rathcr "" • S Sri h ;+ ttLOf it corridor at someyIocation; that the bridge rl s .Butte CtOelk,, 11 '1 }, \'a RESOLUTION 80-9 PLANNING COMMISSION C0UNTY -OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION' ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE MA P (SOUTH CHICO AREA.- FILE 8026-A) " ... — ✓ BUTTE.COUNTY;GENERAL PLAN /I OF THE -LAND USE, ELEMENT OF WHERBAS_O'Pursuan't\'to Government Code Section 65351, hearings. have beon heldby the Butte County Planning Commission to,consider.-the' `'`amendment as shown on Exhibit "A"attached hereto `,to the Land `Ilse Element. t ""Of thb Butte County General Plan•, and (` , MEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has°rev,iewed.and considered the ° Enviranmontal Impact Report, ''attached hereto farm Exhibit 11B ' p"rePared for�,the_above amendment; and c WHtWS, the Butte County Plar'f;ing Commission finds that the 4 proposed amendment will be consis:teh-c with the land _!\se now in the area, a 4",wi11 conform to the text of the General Plan andbein conformity waCh policies in other elements of the General Plan, this finding'being based upon:informati.on 'presented at the hearing hereon before the Butte County Planning Commission and the research and.studies on which the r" ,amendaient was ''based. , NOW, THEREFORE be it r4solved'by the Butte County Planning, y� Commission,. pursuant to''Government Code Section 65352, that the amendment �to th6Lancl.(is 6 Map, as shown on 'Exhibit)Wl attached hereto, be adopted Land. Eleintnt of the anal incorporated within the T.r,ad Use Map of the sand Use `.A G,��tdral Plan of the County of Butte-. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the -Planning--Commi%sign of the County o£ Butte, State of Califuriid, on the i9th day of r;ovember. 1980; bv'\ tile, f ollowid. vote':• l AYES:Commissioners Max, Lambert and Cha xman'ualbert.; + mmis'siohdtSs Wheeler and Bennett. AI3SETIT t !) , ABS�"ANFT1 h,') one, FOR: George C irmen ilber�t, Gha Butte County Plann;ng Commission v 1°vM t Alr4, 7Fi �z .��ir. ..a,f.L. ��,�'�^ y'�`+1'�'a y�'�:'.t 4;K+r.'i.",n �. xzY,+rw-,;*ro•r• ••• ., .i..1.x<,- F {: vA µ . GT M PLANNING COMMISSION l COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0 RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO THE !.AND USM N(AP (THE AREA SOUTH OF SPEEDI'VAY TO 600* FEET SOUTH OF ENTLER. AND THE AREA SOUTH OF QkOVILLE-CHICO Hi:mi�"AY TO" THE EXISTING A-5 FILE 80-26-A); -� OF THE LAND USE ,ELEMENT OF THE ; BUTTE COUNTY 1�'GENERAL" PLAN 'NHEREAS, pursuant to Gov'e`rnment Code Section G5351, hearings' have been 'held by the+ Butte County Planning 'Commission to consider he .amendment as sI own r n Exhibit `'�A" attached l':oreto to the* Land. USr��Elemont of the Butte' County'''GoneraV Plan; ••and ' WHEREAS, the Butii County Planning Commission has rd,,,'iewq. /and' canssderedt,.c �.,ijlnvii*onmenta,t� Impact Report, attached tie:reto as Exhibit B � ,Prepared for the above amendment and l'�� V f1VHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commis�ri\�n finds that the, ,,._Proposed, amendment w*IIL be consistent with the land use ,now in thd area ' , nd will conform to-, the text of the General Plan" and be in coh'foTmity with the pouc as in other elements of the General Plan, this finding bd n' based: upon Inform6tion presorted at the hearing hereon"`before the Butte on which the County Planning: Commission and the research a�.yd studies, amends, nt was bayed !' NOW;'THEREFORE be it resolved by the 'Butte County Planning Commission;, pursuantto do' ernament Code Sec,".6.in 65352, that tamendment ,Lto the Land U.Se Map, as ��§hown on Exhibit "A" attaphed hereto; be a� opte (' and i.nicor' orated within alio band Use Map of the Land Use Elements of Gener,at-pian of the County of B►itte. 'r AND ADOP'i�Ell by the PI -ginning Commission o,f the Cou, ty of `PASSED A t k U Ei$:e !State of`alit'ornia,. on the 19th clay of November, 1980, "by he, following ,Vote A1`ES C0Mtn Yssioners Max, Lambert, Wheeler and Chairman Gilbert,; =' 10E5 c6mm�'16sioner Bennet ABSENT t No orie 08TAINIEDii.1.1 t T Or 16 v.i..Yii:, foriGrge (Gilbert L a .rman` Butte County Planning Commission I 1 �'-� �;� ��,. �� t• if i,� %( �� k �. Chi Co• % . an a..,i + e ; Yt AP 40-06.66 and Fy oa atclund; £rom propored�-�,-20" .: t,s orchArd andq eld crop`ionin8 �- w,: ch is be a considered for the are 6 •.. a ,and thaC thea a opext be 2 �riculg►�ssl �oid�pttia, xo Y pia'' e4, In erred t 4ith one, a +aao m �tiq�uuq t r"' I -`-., t0 pa�r�els. 141*1# 1 C1o*i4sfcm. J ill > 1� U S ia. 1 71 BOARD° ov S1,r:.r,,,,visoksCo. 6, Chi„tttir, ��n4r;1. = d ? COUNTY OF Bl' mt �• JREFERRAL %'to4il�u� GAICCd„% °� �� NOTJ CE ti� ✓/;' Date March h• 1991 a +io C� ; P31 aommi.sszon`_ y; tic Subject: The Nar�hsrri Sp�crameiita"Ch- � ter. of Ca]..�carxZi.a ?� 1 l 1l { tti`i�e � s let�e� in sti',p�ar�i '4{f .th Womsa dor 3.cul r3outh • fie? �01Y0. if has deem referred to you. f; XX please study'thA.mattar--. XX '#or your informatiaii. Please take the is ilow hg action:74 „•, % ' , f , t •r 1, 1 ir Board on Re o_C toc. _ .. T Ad -rise action takimn sign below, and retutii thlib e notice to the n " °i cierk of the Board of 5upervisoi-6i`, Ohl, 0 IAll( , 1 : -e• U a 1 1 sigtiature:�pf nod ktment Heed y f 13 califrnia Women,,,,�,r,gricnitr, o NORTHERN UcRAMiNTO VALLEY CHA$TBR ,•. March 2, 1901 toh Lemke 1022'Pleasant' -Lane ,Parydisa CA. 9,5969' 3 'Dear Supervisor Lemke : tter srto inform you that our organization tronglj 'Thisa,,Ze. iuprts pothe./South Chico re-zone as, appaoved' by the '`County' Plnni.ng Commission on November 1980. our organization is primarily camprised of members %,rho are" diredtly involved " in agr3:cu�.tura�: production. A such, we have first-band know- hedge of the probler►s facing today's tiarmer o,�r major cori�e'errxs� deal with both the loss of agricultural laft. to urbani2a,tion, and the incompatibility, of certai . z'o,ning. Pip Agridultuts is 'the largest single, source of revenue in Cuurity. As"''af 1977, Zln of county, land was devoted to° agri, ,dultura, and the`7total crop vafue was in excess of 124 million � Y► p y part dollars. Obviousl' we la ori, integral art a,n the en6nr,omii.s of this county; , The proposed Sc":uth Chico to :sone encompasses-:approximately 6010 aeras. Although there are five known types of soil in the "rr" o j ect a.x,d� . Vino !,oat (Clas.e `,1) accounts for 809 of a,3 l those soils. " o+' Jncted annual croii values fron the land it his re-zone range "from Yt634,OQ0 to $],330,OOti 21977 e'st3.ma{"re8,): Y' We rea:L that, in all li'Xelihoad you will hear protests. from �khown througghldridoviners additions to thein this=R�a,.idhte6timonye'befor s 'Cdunty,planhing Commission. said landowners would, apparently;?/ ,,�! rather develop than = f csriR t-L-heir property: M; tje are opposed to any s'-ach diaviation �rorn t`he +,r ap6vdd plan 1 1' fcr a n,'unber of reaso:Is: First; the ove�erhelming major3,t or ;,`' fnrmersl ,iri t'i1e immt�diate area }:noxi that Lhe land in ctuwstion is via.Ale for farm ng. IMple evadence o this is prov3c7ed in the testiihoiiy presented during the nobble hearinq conoerh' iI dway' orchards (Atgust/Sep+�enber. � 979) Second residential dc--volopment of farmland poses i.m�iediate a;►d often instirmoi.ntaal'a proble ts.`to ad 'acen f�rzr.ers: Cultural, ipVactices of�,en must ) - ..; u.. r::. y..r H,.:.o.:::ae� ,. .: W.. A•al .....r. •Sok y cY 1, --bb, seriously ,p:ui°tamed or changed drYastically, Genera'Lly, this n means in6r6AA Ojcost to the farmer. And' finallyp no cine can , 11 ,- ignoxe -the +dus; no° erect" , wherein landowners are; "forced to 0 discontinua fai`�,ing cu�due to encroaching banizatier'. Often, the; r .iarmer�s only�Lhoice is`to se1T what was once prcauctive ag- o„ U xicultuxal land to a develOL66r'> .. r' jl l� Aceoxd ng `to a�zecc�ht report'"by `the Sta*NS De.Rpartment of Finan Y , � the populatior'i of the Chico area will QXde-ed lo0,Og0. in .less than 20:, yeairs if,,.,pres(bnt growth races contint s,, Additionally, yea the count . _;pl nn3nq , a aff `has estiinatad tl,a holding capa�iity fnr thn Chico uamari area to" be more than 1'50;, OQO: Obvo sly, {; this growth, be directed to the Fast and Southeast�yaway from out be soils. recognize that the South thico rQ-zone is'only one paxt o.f° ✓F the "propoaec�l Greenline and Gene Plan Amendment, our argon „ fY;� s .nation ,Paas' ��Studied the amendment and finds ,�itgel,f in agreement with hothf1`the cit y p ,0 who:, have voiced y aid count' fanning a�,aff thoir approval. cu�lturl land is a ri t yea on-r�, ' cable ��esource that must-, be ' Prime„agA ' - fir'' protected for the good of,. sociL V aY, �a whol6 116,encourage .you , to,,�support the recommendation of *ha county°Planning Commission; , : and approve- the South Chico 5incer ar rid® ., Chair, ,and- Use Task Force Local Chapter Califo5ciiia Women for Agriculturo ty' Y , j I 6 Zi - Inter=D,®par r i6dimorn�usm raf�Board Su�e'rvisors �� rI rNo�� PlOhn ng�bep� r�t�ment � ti 4- llU�JkG7f AmendmentSouth Chjt�Cene al r,Plan I � r: March 13.11981 Cl pATEtti�/� - BACKGRO,I The planning Commfissxon xn'tiated the xevew and subsequent',an'emdment: is of the .General Plan in the South Chico area fallowing a study .! exs?tfing zoning in this area conducted'in mid"1979'; The encroachment; af,;uxUan development into ani*,%rea predominantly .devoted' to AdricultiAva production was the major issue prompt` nor this revxe�r The Commission ' heard testimony .fr,om those ,advocating agr.i.cultural���scrvatoni and „from those suggesting that 'the unproductive lands be catsidered fb. urban uev�elopment. Various combinations of ,ag�ficultural! tonin Such as A-20., A-5 and other, urban . zoning such, "as :the eXisting fi>i ' 'was 'considered �o replace the A-2 zoning found in _the area. Jt soon became "'apparent that the General Plan designation's :iii , e area, mos.tlj► Urban, would preclude a more permanent agricultural deiignatibn'aid,' �. �,r p Y ' next Plan r olfic As -'a result the Planning Commission initiated 'a G amendment 4/nd directed -the preparation of an B:IR to accomplish thQs�� en( Int�Oirim A-5 zoning,_wa`"�­,applied to the ,area to preserve they C y t p y g Mural viability`. ; 4 articularl. a.. it r cunt s ol,tions Telates to a rficul An inxtlal proposal served" as the basis for the $Ii?, and Planning Commission hearings. The study area general].Y eti'Gom�assed the area south of Marlow Lane, ii east of the Southern Pacifi 99xatidaB"ttecCtee � r� nor.th of the. Orovxlle Chico highway and west. of 1UU_ . , �. p area south of the Sk way. The area is broadly designated exc'e t for an ar y for Low Density tdsidential and InAustria]._uses, in the a fist ».g 1971, Chico, Area Land _Use Plan. ,The original Commission, Pt p lislind *G asal estaU •�- excepting some smaller M4, „ a Orchard and Filed Crap desagnatx. p g `'D parcels designated. far Industrial, easteTIY and Wei gtQ�!`y;tof the Midway. Th, each of Southgate,ipenerally an each side of the higlwaY remained designated :nor Indust:Mxal use With „Commercial,. Industri.�'�1� and Publ.fic INJ desig4t&',ons on the east side/ of us 99. hearings before the I'lann ng�Commission tes,]Ited in an eValution and various combfinations of land';ase designations; until the Comm'1 ion Settled on the present proposal: This proposal contafired in Figure 1 would designate lands west of the Midwa Y for Orchard and Field Crops Frith the oxcej� tion of two small.. areas of Inr�iistrxitl and, Public, (thd ceih- the, orie ,ossa north of aYid immediately soui:h of Pntlex Avenue 9Y.anc� Presently zoned is pr�osed.for AgrxculturaiYhes3dentxal use, Eor mi' uifactur,x on 'doth _silos of,''.0s 99' vdul ]. US dds19haJ,rorl Ind Ag r+taiae,he: Bull. o.f th, land north. a£ Butte Creek and the Ora -Chico EIighviaj► and east of Ilio Midway would be desxgnated far Orchard ,and l7field "Crop uses,.,_. An area south of 'the Ord-C�iico Highway is,propased e t p � ri,cultur,(,ji-Residential use in recogni"tion of the arctl sues for Ag and use, mmorcial Public oposed east of US&;tI industrial dosignati6ns reflected in the oragxnal',pronbsal are prn9, Board of Supervisor�c Pae -2 c a Marc ll 13' , 198'x% n o 0 o � ` Te"s'timbny before the, Ir"I nning Commission centered on late so5l t «; resa�`jrcgs aiid f6as,�aility of Agricultural use . in rho: area between �tite. Midt ay andx'uS" X99 north of the_Oxo-Chico Highway: Mud «of, �thls; Y" testinton ►� .gas conflicting with, statements' of 'F-90 , "s'oil.s fol,lowd'd �{ by ?de ir.=cs almost immedi.a-tel.y. C1rculation ."probiettie Were alsp discuses" ALY8 IS Uni'ike ®cher planning pr ffosals 'itlitiated .by the Planni: Cotrimas��n, y *.he General `Ptan praposa4l far South Chico, remailis of �yec1y`;Leo�i-R. !' �4 trc verse;y and an, inabi.] X y to reach. an•overall cons nsus,� By. trixr t0 , "I Vl� " oft rho •Orchard and P,i�`eld Crop designatx0.n the `Plannin "Col iSsi tt, 4 is affecting ' "the ocat ion oaf the '��gxeen lAnei' . in this portigrt€ of n Chico. Agricultural preservation his by no- means t1he only,'i issue affecting this area. The Pxanning T�epartment-,Itnd„EIR s h ve repeatedly p out the ser,tOUS CirCU1ati30Il TJi-rfAlb�'TIIS <nt'n^�iltCral;+seA{,r`Ay r&ya . � �,\,t�...r,,, +K i"� � ., �,�y ^r pp e� �.�n; 'v �* � �,.�' X q r 1+�, �. v - � y 'y R }t ,.,�r' .•w; a _ N* »yt y�. �+ n4,...,r„ s a �° � a�.eM,LCi �lt✓td G%-Lf � CL, '�:,� Y *�,,ar,�^"^-s � .�i 18 ��7f�.ww` 4 � �,�.- -...« ?.�^?f syi i .Li� �i i,� i.-. { �"(--.'t�.' . X24 y�� J The-M -Midway serves 1`is,, the only north s:o{ath ;wcol'lector with �nt� err' AIjenue and the speiedway pro vidik� r,ir,ulat'ioit Q,:,;the ahtatting �i�+pkt5= civay is not designed to handle ad�tl:;:ional txaffia. In addition,P n Southern. Pacific ,Railway runs Para �� e�, tri the,,, Midway "separating th+s land east of the .Midway and ,creati�ig ri safety hazard for traffico crOssing tl?,e tracks to get to the Midway. Access to%'the Sou1?tlgate 4u„ The volume andtndustyial aspeedtion 0 f, 3. Is aafntra fk al.ong�this wPreclude, ane �Csafe cr05ss til �..r turning `Movements, And,_-'ve i, entry. This area, 9,s a result ij Virtually isolated aiid as such can not effecti•veiy:be develop d at. thisutih'e re ardless of the ua11t of the;, soli res ' y q y urce,S 'an;.i U `I feasibility of air"icu1jture The Pit nya,ng Commission" proposal for the South Chaco” area as "int conflict with. the> propbsed draft Chico ea Land Use flan curr,ent7v In hearings 'before the Commission: In aUltibn to the ",Green Line" the draft Chide Area Latid Use Plan reduci.s .the Indu§trial designation and enlarges the Agrla:ultural=Residential designatircn i�fratn the Rntletr Avenue area southerly between the'Green ALine and s, 99 ;'he ftannin Department has urk'a 4he Planning Coinm����ion to res�olire hese confliexts in order to more c�lea yl ost;ablish a SUPPort:ali 'e land° use 'policy in '- ths area. Sincrr�"many` is'f the satire issues will be discussed in this process,; the Plthning�Departttlised on a ent,,ho,as recommended the establisHttient of . a land 116,b116,bpolicy I, cnservative (agriculture, retaining) zoning to serve i,s a holding zone until a specific Plan call be nrepaxel to resolvib these issues, The specific plan proposal would focus fitttl on the agriculture and land use issues based on an independent analsoil o� soil-agricultural feasibility, Once more clearly estate 1i: hod the�s SeWific Platt Would address the circulation system needs; servicos;--craindgc requirements and other considerations for the c velopnieth of the area: A factual-p independently prepared Specific pian can help resolve the current land use 'A Auto 3,n favor of a._ t�.Y� t� V .n. w y .,� "nV`l, , ..• v U �- `;, t d v. I ^ 1-�"„��--'"" II•»'Sb4�ti .. } Board of Supervisors P Paie" _3 _ AI IS' .r Max'ch 1;3; 19.8'1 fr" t r r s� �•olicy with greater certain y �ian�isr presentlyl�he- case 1n ,etl� the' (Planning' Commission's South,, Chico A-nendnient or the policy a ,cur: �.ently 'under cons icteYat��ion 6S, a part o ��he Gh co .A•*e`a Lund jt -b Plan. <�o�, �RECOMME�DAT'1QN:,, 4 C? fire, { A. Taken si,dcfad action' osi this ma-tter ani xefer the. 5nuth Chico ° °. Gencr�ll :Pla�1v,,AmCnftent back to the Planni�tg' Ccmmissio to, ' resp e ��he r-tonflicts�' ivith the draft Ch�.ca;, r_bd= Lavt,—?t&q' •` ld, currently i� hearings Y�efare` thePl��anro�n�ns�sion v C ATTACHMENTStm A k M d+" a tls Pialn Amend;nen� (Fig -ore `I) i (f l - u t} o r7 n , t5 jj L r i 1