Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
80-72 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS MAPS #2 3 OF 4
The State law requires each city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan. The mnt Of General Plan is essentially a body of public poll and internally guide theU ture consistentdevel�F�I emust the community., It must be comprehensive, long at a minimums address the issues specified in State law. it may be organized in the manner w'itich best suis the city or county and it should be clearly written and available to all those concerned with the community's development. A. Purpose of the General Plan While the State law contains no succinct statement of the purpose of the general plans P P -, search in a 1978' report to the Legislature} prepared iia the Office of Planning and 2e _ 1 resp^mse to House Resolution 441 (1975), identified six objectives served by preparation,, adoption, and maintenance of the local general plan: 1. "Co identify the corrimunity's environmental, social, and economic goals. 2: To state "the adopting agency's policies regardilg the maintenance or improvement of existing development and the location and characteristics of future development needed to achieve community goals. 3 To establish within local government the capability to 'analyze local conditions and to respond to problems and opportunities concerning cohi-. triunity development in a way consistent 'with local, reglonai, and state goals and policies. 4i To provide cltl2ens with information on their community and with, opporw tunitles to understand and participate in the planning and decision-making process of local government. 5. To identify the need` for and methods of Improving the coordination of community development activities among all units of government. S: To promote a pattern of developrnes t consistent with goals grid policies of the Stag and with regional need B. Issues To Be Addressed in the General flan The Issues to be addressed and thOr e ek,en't 'to �vhich eac�ntcs Ue i5tat�rlaw�and in b-cl1 cal county's gage nd 'needs.plan is determined by the reguir1. em w.. Rt squired Elements Government Code Sectirin 55302 cor stitutcs a legislative expression of statewide cdhnens to be addressed by all cities and counties. 1"t specifies nine elements that 'roust bit inciudetl in the general plait: land user circolatlon housing, COnservatiom, open space' seismic safety, noise, scenic highway, and safety. Some elements, like the open space element, "include a number of issues while others like the scenic highway element focus on a single issue. Because local conditions vary, the relevance and importance of each specified issue vary from community to communit{. A general plan need only address each specified issue to the extent and in the detail it is relevant to the jurisdiction. T' e general plan should include an explanation of how the document satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 65302. Where an issue specified in State law has been found 'irrelevant to local condition, the general plan should document the basis of this judgment. Special, Requirements Beyond these basic planning law requirements, there are a numberof special requirements for issues to be addressed in the general plan, depending upon local clrcumstances The California Coastal Act, for instance, r,equir.es that special coastal- provisions be included. in the general plans of all cities and counties lying within the Coastal" -Zane. Under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, a juris,4iction's general plan must include special mineral resources protection policies if the jursidiction contains mineral resources of state or regional significance: The Forest 'Taxation Reform Act requires a timber preservation element in connection with timberland preservation zoning. Optional Elements Most cities and counties go beyond this minimum set of state mandated elements acid issues. Government: Code 65303 expressly authorizes cities and counties to adopt other optional elements. Most of the optional elements listed in Section 65303 are really elaborations of the elements required by aection 65302. The omnibus provision at the end of Section 65303 leaves completely open the number and type of additional issues which 'can be included in the general plan. Because optional elements have the same force and effect as the required general plat; elements, the adoption of an optional element can expand the authority of the local government. The factual data :and policy adopted in the optional eidment can serve as a basis' for broader regulation of zoning and subdivisions under the consistency requirements as well as a basis for other regulatory ordinances, such as growth management ordinances The Quimby Act provision of the Subdivision ,Map Act provides that a city or county can require park dedications based on an adopted recreation element (Covernment Code Section 66477) and under the provisions of AS 2466 (1978) (public Resources Code Section 25133 et seq.). State agencies may delegate certain authority over geothermal development to a county that has adopted a geothermal element. Social and Economic Concerns Because the language of the general plan requirements emphasizes environmental and physical development aspects of community development, it somewhat obscures the importance of economic and social concerns in community development. Physical develop- ment, however, is based on economic and social needs and in turn profoundly affects economic and social conditions. Whether explicitly recognized or not, general plan policy is social and economic policy. The manner in which social and ecunomlc concerns are addressed in generalplans varies m frocommunity to corhmunity. At a minimum, cities and counties should give caveful consideration to the social and economic ramiiicatlons of all general pian policies they r W adopt.. For instance$ how will the policies and plans affect low- and g soups' How will the policies and 1=, mo'dera.te-incorne and the costs and revenues to local governmenteco��mic condlrions, employment, busnesM, p Luny communities have attempted to raise the visibilityo% these cuncernr social elements, economic development elements and the like. Other cor,, byi fee have. attempted to weave these concerns through each required element of the Plan. St others have developed economic and socia,l impact assessment r - shave mitigate the adverse effects of physical development activities on individuals P 111 p ocedurF s to identify ;and community, viduals and 'che In the 19$0's ocal governments in California will be operating under new and the role of the genera, plan as a fiscal management tool wl11 be increasingly fiscal constraints The mix, location, and ihtenjity of new develapment,proposed in the general .plan determine the services and facilities the local government will need to provide, Plan Ieterm n e decisions are made on a clear understanding e with new development and the Possibilities ofdrhfinanc ng themacI al ilities overnassociaare likely' to find in the future that they are unable to either provide the required services and facilities or even rr,aintain theta at exlstna � � governments are o levels. q new C: How Issues Are To Be Addressed Whether the issue is required 'by .State law or inclu�t ed the city or county, each issue should be addressed at three nleels., backgthe general round option of and anal sig• y, , implementation measure;, g Information y , Policy; im le Background Information Analysis Sound policy is dependent on solid information. L3frfoe decision -makers general plan policy they must have a cleat understa1301 g of cils n -ma ers can establish their community: and needs in The requirements are uneven with respect to the type, amount and and analysis necessary as a foundation for general plan policy. , The form of information requirements call for an inventory of open space resources. p- space element contains detailed instructions for the collection of The noise e]ement requirement Elemeht Guidelines contain detailed instructlon i�r no�Se data. Similarly, the Housing, the other element requirements are not as cls, documenting housing, needs. While ` forrnatlon necessary for ,hese other 1 est! ,at asy these three, the 'types and amount Of In es can, in most cases be log` • Because collecting and anhlyz]ng information ,a ' logically Inferred: the capacity of any government agent. to Can be extreMe]y expensormation ive and" because government must use their best judgment asotoSthe amount s and Use, fand detallsoflmlted, local needed far policy-making, It also should bet remembered that data without a n ldnm useful: analysis serves as the brio information isse analysis is gee of logic from raw data to policy. Policy The •" and ]no so courts have placed ma•or e "constitution for future land use dec sio s" n !aha constit The Policy loo the general emphasis on the polity have ca P y content of the general plan consists of those parts tof the pl n etlt of the general provide CHART 1 The policy content of the general plan --community 'values and commitments to future action --is norrnally expressed in a hierarchy of statements fir, -)seeding from the general to the specific, with each ;level in the hierarchy supplying the foundation for the level immediately below it. State law refers to objectives, policies, principles, standards, plan proposals, and programs in the general plan. The state law does not define these terms, nor deer it prescribe a standard hierarchial arrangement of these terms. The following definitions are a guide to the use of these terms in these guidelines and are recommended as a guide to the use of the terms in local general plans, Policy (1) - Policy is a collective term used to describe those parts of a general plan that provide direction for action, including goals, objectives, policies, recommendations, implementation, and the and use; map: Coal - A ,goal is an ultimate purpose or end toward which effort is to be directed. As a value statement, it is general in nature and immeasurable. Exalt;pie: "To enhance the open space amenities of the community." Objective An objective is a statement of intent or point to be reached, often expressed, with respect to time and In measurable term_ s, Example: "To reduce peal; -hour traffic congestion to service' level 'C' by 1584." Policy (7) - A policy as a specific statement, is a guide to action, implying clear commitment. Example: "Recreational uses in wildlife, refuges and nature preserves shall be limited to those activities Which are conservation oriented, such,as hiking or horseback riding." aPrinciple l u de forA lante prnt of a oposals, standards fundamental nd imalementationi, Exam le: A neit or truism to ge ust�d at hborhood' hborho d'___ is guide by arteria streets Which carry through traffic and which are located so as to avoid unnecessary traffic within the neighborhood." Plan :Proposal - A plan proposal is an explanation either in text or map of how policle5 apply in specific terms or to specific geographic areas. Example: "Establish a green belt along River X ton from point Y to point Z.'i Standard ,il standard is , '-�� I c, quantified guideline; expressing a desired or required relationship between two or . variables. These stalidards are often directly translated into regulatory controls. ExAmp< "Three to six dwelling units per net acre (low-density residential)." implementation Measure - An 4,�nplementatlon measure is an action, procedure, program or technique- employed to carry out the policies and/or proposals of the general, 'plan. , p g d` i y "p apply it to all xam le. "Developa eolti�ic hazard oVerla zoning classification and gftologic hazard areas identified in the general plan. Action Program - An action program is a coordinated set of specific implementation measures to be used to carry out the policies of the general plan. Example: "Open space action program 'for implemontat on of open space policies." Policy as a collective term includes goals,, objectives, policies, recommendations, standards, use proposals, principles, and programs.• It also includes Land proposedamplementation i and plan prop > P diagrams in the general plan. The distincurn between Policy measures is largely a matter of detail• {owever, implementation measures„are discussed separately in the section that follows. H to be useful as a guide to acti_ any it must snated in �lolcyear ►sunaccelptable. Ir or of y_ p __ _Is - - terms. Ne common practice of ado tm br_i an must�vbne capable of accomplishment and. o__T' cal as well as practical r y pu is p ur ose. Because a city or county's resources and implementation: that is is very purpose. Owers are limited, policy should be tailored to reflect the particular needs and capabilities of the jurisdiction. o and va ue_policy,alsote?ltg p_r_o. zonin M4 _ consistent C ear direction and s�andards Broadl drra n 3 prl jmlementation. Th” p°licY °f a_o t eons standards for population . w_.. -- for ins the consistenc - of tonin .and siabdiyis�hrnu$deh�sr� re ug zrements of Government ) Coe ections 6586 l and 66573.5. Among at t, S ljensity density and land use intensity called for in use in he general plan, must be clearly specified as appropriate for each land udesignationreplaced ran es that are overly broad such as 1 to 20 acres e-er dforl t�ieas�sianoent- of densities , g by several narrower ran es or ^riteria should be._proyded _ witnin inti r�n�; The use of works such .as "shall" and "should" is particularly important to the Clarity of general plan policy. The use of "shad" is appropriate where there is unequivocal which be commitment. "5hould" signifies a slightly less nsidera commitment ns,which should be specified en in the absence of compelling; countervailing co P give the impression of the general p actually exists violates the spirit of'the tacit contract between _ Plan. The manipulative use of the word should to more commitment than Y local government and citizens, Itnpleireritation Measures The implemewstation program of the general els ncias t j axpenditure0 the ocal government , and actions (e.g., zoning, subdivision procedures, P ecreral lan. T1, irtterlds to use in carr In opt the policies and o o,po�sals of the ign ram is s largely distinction between general plan polir)+ and the cmpi..re�entation p `- g matter of detail. with round information and analysis; the element requirements uf. State lacy are As with g of uniform concernin how- ;,p _cific in7plementation uses that in tt�e general plan 1'nt i the open space element n to be Government Code 5ectian 65564 the le 'islatve body Intends to pursue need bcific programs which contain "an action plan of sp �- i' The Housing dement ruldellnest requiis re hr rocesshtif�simpierrient ng„ac' Intends he description, of those plans tivhir•h the localolid' is,, and Priorities itself must specify how Noise oals, to implement in !furthering the g . PWhile the I element requlrement provlr�es that the �"oi e elem general plan should let the polities egrat.1d with zonxnp =and the local noise oedin„nce. olities are to be in requirements for the forgother ti ;jet addressedhot as ein�the egeneral plan as well. rnple►tjentation meas al matter; the .t �fe�yeness of the, en »racy Plementat on measve uresmore effepcotl As a prootic — - �. ,�..w uida for :the future actio)P wh6�1 It nti u e � Ifi�. imp that is tied directly to an implementation program will be more realistic and practicable. A. detailed implementation program also provides a direct link between the policies of the general plan and the capital improvements program and annual budget cycle. Addition- ally, the explicit statement of specific implementation measures in the general plan establishes a .commitment to action and clear accountability. The implementation program must consist of those measures consciously selected by the jurisdiction, not merely a list of possible measures. A few well, conceivedmeasures will accomplish more than a long list of "possible" measures. D. Internal Consistency As the _list of required elements .grew over the years, many general plans became collections uncoordinated and often conflicting 11Y in 1975 the Legislature reaffirmed the unitirynatureof the generalU anbYaddinGovernment Code Section in construing this article) the legislatctre intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. This internal consistency requirement has several implications for the structure and content of the general plan. These cannot be stressed too highly, they underlie all areas of the general plan y is esse ial to maki process. findings of l consistency non consistency onin hand of general pian ' �. subdivision actions, Iirst, the internal consistenc�equireinent implies that all eie are of* e ual im�oi�tance.the�ti f11}5--of� the._gengr_al . pian cannot contain i# event land set density an land element and the -open space: element .. nsit standard. which are rationalized y a statement' suc as "fin any i'n`stance then s a conflict"'i;etweell the land use element and open spice element the �� �» ....�.�.__.�tld use element controls: The open space element, is not su or mate tate and use element, and only coriilicts between the two must be resolved within the general plan itself, ilarl' , all goal objectives poilccies, principles, d ... sroprams set -out a n the plan in the general_plan must be consistent, the implementation p -----p--- �� must be trueY to acid fa oI7 w to Y_. ' fromth ; pCan's ;goals an Qpo.. . consi tent i�either s suhord.inate to~ the -other. R -"'p"''`"ra earl map must be 1t fOR ows. from the first two implications that th�e��thnerat lan text arts of the - ermore, the data used in various genera pian must be uniform an consistent. Population projections in the land Nous nause e eilement, for exaMple) must beconsistent with population projections, in the element. When a new element s adopted or a part of the plan amended the rest of the plan must be changed to eliminate any Inconsistencies created by the oew element or amendment. Updating the plan should take place at the sarne time as the adoption of the ,hew element or amendment) or Irnmddiately'thereafter: 1Vithout consistency Wall these areas, the general plan cannot effectively serve its Purpose. Citizens remain confused about the policies and standards the community has selected; land owners, business, and industry car`tnot depend on the priorities and standards contained in the general plan for their own decision -Makin ublic confusion in the general plan to defend' their own idiosyncratic) pewpt)i ten peyohd the the more inconsistent tithe general plan more open the jurisdiction is to e.cpens ive and lengthy litigation to resolve what snould have been settled in the general- plan. E. General Plan Time Perspective Fundamental to the concept of planning and the general plan is a long-term perspective. The. State law defines the general plan as a "long-term" policy document (Government Code Section 65300). The general man is "long-term" in two senses: (1) it tries to identify trends, events and needs we-11—into the future as a basis forty current policydeter determination; and, (2) it sets forth lona term �oll�y direction to guide sd-ay-to-Tay ,; dec1s�}fin-rnaking. --- Each of the issues in the general plan has its own time perspective. Geologic hazards, for example, are clearly long-term considerations, on the order of hundreds to thousands of years. Sewer, water, and road systems are often planned for within a 30-50 year perspective. Economic trends can usually only be projected with confidence a few years into the future As a guide for cnordinating forecasts and projections eneral plans t ,pically specify a target date, anyWFiere rf Qm rr 30 Years_ inti, the,,tuture,:a 20, -year, targ�`et "d te"`5'ein fairly corriman� : "fhe�purpose of the target date is not._to,_pc.rtray..an,_..'e cl-Mate"+bu, Y to set out a_general direction to� KN shorter"term decislarjA. It is becoming common fol' general plansr: whiie still 'maintaining an overall Lang -term perspective, to guide_ community development by te poral increments such as short, - ,middlej, and on ran e o iectives and policies, to specify geo ra ick riorities nor growth i? g_„_ g wing concern for specificity of imp entation measures in the generalrpl�lan, tl*ej shorter range perspective is becoming or to establish annua opulation _growth increasingly .important. The revised Housing Element Gutdelinesi for example, call for the establishment of "a reasonable timeframe .for accomplishment of the specific- objec- tive(s)." This temporal scaling of the plan riot only establishes short-term policy guidance, but erects benchmarks for monitoring progress toward long-term goals. This shorten -term policy guidance ius particularly useful for - ding capital improvement; budget decisions, zoninn, and subdivision actions. , Regardless of the target crate selected or type of short-term and Intermediate guidance provided by the plan it is important to remember that planning is a continuous process and that the general plan must regularly be reviewed and modified as new information becomes available and community needs and values change. A general plan containing outdated information and projections that pare no longer valid is hot the "loh -term" document required by law and is deficient as a basis for short-term decison�makin g F The Planning Area The general lar P is a g,eoQora hicall p comprehensive document in that it. covers all territory within the boundaries of the adopting : cityor county and includes any land outside the city or county boundaries which in the planning agency's judgement "bears relation to its planning" (Government Code Section 65300). This has two implications: First; the general plain must cover all territory) including land and waters, both public and private, within the legal geographic limits of the adopting laity or county: Foe cities, this means all incorporated territory must be covered by the plan. In the event that newly annexed territory is not adequately covered by the city's adopted general plan, a city must amend its plan to include the area. County general plans, on the other hand must cover incorporated as well as unincorporated territory, even though counties do not direct regulatory control over 'incorporated territory. Thin is more than a question of land use. Counties cannot simply ignore issues such as housing within incorporated cities on the basis that these are the responsibility of the cities. Because cities have their own general plans, county general plan maps and policies do not have to be as precise for incorporated areas as unincorporated areas. Rather, county plans should focus on the cumulative effect of city plans, _provide an overall framework for urban expansion, and serve to coordinate the policies and -lans' of the county and cities. Second, effective planning does riot stop at arbitrary political boundaries. The need for extraterritorial planning is clearly recognized by State law. Traditionally, extraterritorial planning has been of greater concern to cities than to counties, particularly where a city expects to annex adjacent unincorporated territory. Because development in either' Incorporated or unincorporated area may affect' adjacent city ;or county areas, it is important that both city and . county plans include territory beyond their current legal jurisdictions. Extraterritorial planning by both cities and counties serves to identify those areas of mutual concern where particular attention must be devoted to developing consistent land use and development policies. For cities extraterritorial planning is a means of establishing development patterns and standards for these lands which the city may ultimately annex and serve. For both cities and counties cooperative extraterritorial planol- - will .guide the orderly and efficient extension of public facilities an services in uninco— poratedand urban fr nge, areas,influence' he DCser:ation of `open,,, space, agricultural..larids,and resource conservation areas a� estsh consistent developmentstandards; and identify zones o�`r`future urbanization;: in establishing the limits of the planning area cities and counties should xake Into account those physical features beyond the boundary of their current jurisdiction which tend to form barriers to local growth - freeways; large rural or open space areas, and natural topographic or hydrologic .features, .for example. Also important are those physical features and significaot: land uses located at or beyond the city or county boundary which are of common concern to the adjacent jurisdictions such as waterways, airshed, water tannin area of currently subdivided or potentially developable land, The limits of the sheds) and planning sea should extend as far as necess 2r;,y„to _in lune 11 areas of cra` rri at d those requiring_ joint _actianta so I e `rr�lems. ..r., .... nre�_ Cities have an additional consideration in defining a planning area. The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) in each county is responsible for adopting a sphere -6f - influence for each incorporated city and for each special district. This sphere-of-Influenceis "a plan for the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency" and is used by the I.AFCO It, reviewing proposed annexations to cities the formation W expansion of special districts, and other activities related to muhicipal boundaries: In dcterm ning the sphere-of-ihfluence, LAFCO must consider at least eight factors including; mastimum possible service area; existing services and agencies; level and type of projected development,, present and probable service needs; agencies providing services; social and economic interdependence; agricultdt-al preserves (Government Code Section 54774(a) -(h)). A sphere analysis should be based on adopted general plans, capital, improvement programs; and operating budgets. Taken together file adopted sphere�of-� influehce for cities and districts Providing develo.-rnieht=related services comprise a county -wide services plan. Me relationship between a city's adopted sphere -of -influence and its general plan area is often misunderstood. A sphere -of -influence and a general plan are authorized under separate statutes, intended for 'different purposes, based on different assumptions and adopted by different agencies. A sphere -of -influence identifies those unincorporated areas ultimately to be served arid, therefore, ,annexed by a city. A sphere is adopted by LAFCO and used as a guide in LAFCO's review of individual annexation proposals (Government code Section 54774). On the other hand, a general plan PStablishes land use and development policies for the city's current and anticipated jurisdictirp, and should also include territory beyond the city's anticipated service area and boundary Which "bears relation to its planning." A general planis adopted by the city and used as a guide to its decisions on the development of the city. Given these differences, aannin area, will sphere-of-influence Include territory beyond its adopted s p versel here -of -influence. city's ' sphereof-fluen completely not cover a city s entire general plan area, except where the city is comp tely surrounded other I ncorporated communities. Chart 2 graphically illustrates the relationship between the planning area, <sphere -of -influence and current city boundaries for a typical city. Finally, the 'issue of planning areas underscores she need for intergovernmental cooperation. One of the major planning problems of local governments is the coordination of city and county actions in unincorporated fringe areas. The State law provides no clear- guidance for the coordination of city and; county plans and actions in these areas. Even in the absence of legal guidance, 'however, cities and counties have an obligation to work together in the clear delineation of planning areas and in the development of formal understandings for the processing of development proposals within the agreed-upon city planning areas. To this end, cities and counties may create a joint area planning commission as provided for in Government Code Section 65600 et seq. or undertake joint planning commission action as provided for 'in Government Code Section 65650. (33. The General "Plan Map The general plan according to Government Code Section_ 65302 must include "a diagram or diagrams," as well as text, "setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan Proposals." There are many types of policies and standards that can be most effectively portrayed through graphics, such as street standards) urban design concepts; geologic hazards, public facilities, and the distribution and densities of land uses. While graphics should be used however they can be effective in the general plan, the plan must contain a mail or maps of proposed land uses. The "land use map" as it is generally called, is a graphic representation of the general plan policies. In this sense, the map follows from the text, not the reverse. The map is an extremely important part of the plan for its ability to show the synthesis and interrelationship of policies. State laHoe w s not specify eexactlyi5 hat the .land use map as distinct from the text must However, some de Section 6502(a)provided by the description of the land use element in Government C . tl land use element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housings business, industry, open space, trncluding agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and the enjoyment of scenics beauty, education, pt otic buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other public and private uses of land. The land use element shall include a statement of population density and building intensity eecomrrte.- 'A for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan . . The number and type of land use categories, miployed is a matter of local discretion and _depends ort tr e size; and nature of the planning area: General plan maps in rural. counties will usually have more open space, resou ce-related land use categories, while general plan maps in cities tend to have more residential commercial, industrial, and fnstirlj Tonal categories. }-low specific and _detaile, the map,Z Co be4tyill,depehd on thea, 'tie of, the planrjing area and the trended„ policy uses �of the ,map, In some jurisdictions " the map may function as a general guild with the plan text providing guidelines for geographically specific Interpretation, While other jurisdictions may Want to develop their map as aparcel-specific guide to land use. As a general rule, the general,, plate map and the text sh_oul 1. together set, out guldande.i enough detail _so tiiati the vAtious uisers, of t e plan stuff, elected and eppolnted oifjcialts prbpeety owners &Izens - 'coWd inoopendently��r eachtTiesme general' coniclusions on `Fie approprYate use of any partjcular parce o an(M In all cases the Mao should be directly linked to the text. Ear.h land . use category depicted on the map should be fully 11y described in the text as f' 01 uses compatible with its purpose. to its Purpose, and the type The general plan maps, in Most cases, include specific density And intensity ,standards for the various land use categories, While these density and intensity standards must be sPeci-fied for all basic land use categories - residential, Industrial, I commercial; and Open space - they need not appear an the Mao itself, if the text. I they are clearly set f Orth In In addition to 'the land use categories, the general plan Map s I hould contain as much additional information as possible without sac 0 riliCing clarity. For instance, the proposed circulation system should be included, although ins cases a separate map may be more appropriate. The map can also be used to indicate I icate special environrhental management areas - such as hazard areas and urban limit boundari boundary Mao es. The delineation of urban growth manallernentems and sortin-v L planning responsibilities between citita-q nni-4 H. General Plan Format L ne orate Law specifies_ the c:t, t n ents 01 a4eneral Plan but le tEP format of document. �—It�-V—es to local discrq�lon While in a legal sense the general plan Is Government 'Code re—ction '65301 provides tha single document, av The general plan shall be, so prepared tha,' all or individual all Or element M(2Y be adopted by the legislative body, L`id SO Of It the legislative body for - that it may be adadoptedted by Part of the territory of the coullty or C' t and such other territory outside Its boundarfe which W i to its planning. ch In its ftldgment boarsati6n PU This cumbersome language adapted roughly from the 1928 Federal Standard City Enabling Act means in simple - le terms that a, Planning document, as ;4 Z�a�.-r—alg—lancan be adantpr4 -ne I U�FCL5 aUrouof territa - Elements and Element Consolidation Many local gcJVdrnmehts hive adopted individual elements way they tee list - corres0briding direct) to the tends ted in the State la%v,. While of course this is perfectly acceptable, It to CtL-a�te a number of problems$ particularly if I the elements are preairedand adopted over a long span of years. In the first,. place, thp Ifficult to maintain. approach Makes internal consistency di . separately in reviewing projects The Individual elements are also often considered when they should be considered together. Since the ,Scope of the elements reviewing there tends to be heedless duplication among th - And, sepacate elements50 e elemdnts. tend to be bulky, expensive to reproduce and difficult to use. A general plan It i usually a more useful and LIfective document if at least some of the elements are consolidated: LOveenmeht code Section 65362 sPeclflcally' authorizes the dombintng of elements. A Ma)OrItY of local governments have, in two or More state -mandated elements: The already combined most Popular combinations are Open space With conservation, seismic sajety with safety, and t number of ;ue%'-sdIct1ohs have adopted scenic highway with Open spac,�ai A combinilig Environmental ResoUrce Management Elements,: tainly other combinations are possible, yCer- Y hi, eerc is intended L srirtaulate your thinking ahoy.: L your general plan. It presen`, cn aPproach for evaluating 'L�;a adequacy of your Ll,,, ,neral an ofticial OPR Interpretation of general Alan d quacyPlan' It does riot Legal Adequacy Yes No Notes 1. Are all n:r q re1quired elements adopted? 2. Does the plan cover all topics required for each el,errwnt? 3. Doe:, the plan .'Include adeq'iate documen- tation (!-lei, nvchtoriesassns;,y��?n'tI anal - 4- 4• Docs the plan set forth adequate direction for implementation? 5. Is the plan internally cc nslAent—elementsi. map and text; areawi& and; ; ub-area r` plans? Common Sense Adequacy L Are policy statejY;ent,� set out clearly (i.e.; goals, objectives, ppl.;ries, and ;MPletnen taton measures)? 2a Is the plan underst, atdable (free . f jargon and overly technical language)? Does the general plan and indivldt "1 ale- ments include an explanation of ho-. they will be used? 4 Does the general plan conslst of a manage- able set of documents? 5 L the general plan available to declslon-trtakers the public E 2, f C :ta^fx q,4. POLICIES {PkOApPOSED} 'LIC 3LE To THE CHhCO AREA LAr�TD (AS REVISED D USE PTAN 23-81) The Eoa; d of Supervisors Of Butte find it and Planning Co Land Use Element necessary to amend the mmission of the Count use Policies to Chicofully articulate ando�lthe clarify county below• in the area. i'hese Policies `1 the land THE E are described GR�,ENLINE Purpose Th e or ,Chico Area Land greenline L)se plan establishes ' * "• The Purpose o �.shes an urban lim is of urban develo f the growth boundary greenline is to define on *** agricultural �*� development which,have the Provide for the lands The occurred resources long term A or tectongreenln" S or may occur of the 'Chico intended to Coutes from the area, The threat tto agricultural. soil Inddxton encxaachment of these resources agricultural the greenl.ine is intended version to urban canfxicts including to reduce Other urban . agricultural Machine. g the reduction an chinery 'vandalism, conflicts -the cts of Urban slow the s the avoidance "othcroim.itati on of cap�m�ffi0c location peculation in agricultural l p spraying exposure tinting and Operation of the land r and t"o. Vi=e pol�,cies below: the defy nation, greenline are described in. xn accord With the Element, the Count policy es con of ar * zgrictzltural of Butte shall in the Laird trso 1 mow _. bresn�,i,,, , ...�zrric _ u �. conve " ----. v;r 'rile Coun4� -�� 1L r1ons> an uses. rsion of agricultural; *�* of Butte to "green line" to define purpose, the county estba`"''`�?d to Urban develo a5'ricultural 1, fishes a in coo e pment. This urban, growth as and the limits o p ration with the C` bounda r Coordination policies ity of. Chaco �' is eStablished Page 29) (x ntergovernmental The greenling shall be Plan with i bold identified in C1se Eagan map das�zed lane as U80 Chaco Area 1, considered the+5, north on the Ch.i co and Use hortherl and south or Chico shallebeLand g�`eenline w� than the y and sou erg. extensions of om the s a res of rifluce _„af the -Cit s —Cit The gre�the :nl�.ne s sped fJ., rern, ne intersects say of Chico fs ed her the p5 snn�n g _ scale a w ------ of, a d s g Ditector shall be cex � xt maps cert Aute onsulted an the event The. greenlxiie was ea such -r streets , tableshed, to follow, rroads railroad �►h;Ysica,l bOundara es line8r dreokSo etc., bound- �.1. r ` cries of urban. use. zones div-- is _ion of parcels was held toand oa ran lines, only when the sha a minimum The ** Pe or confi and occurred k*� of h sical boundaries guration precluded'_-_ amen m n t - y —�__,_ as des crxbed h e u e riples, o-` the gree should above. uture adhere to the same 4. It is the. poli prin- County line shall of the my of Butte that the mark the boundary between agricultural use. That land *** urban develogreen-- oucl��xl�c of the to the u pment and uses��n accord with land be than side nxd Area Land Use plan an to ur an land land *** as amended designations of the t0 --_e non --urban side time to time. Chico limited exclusa.ve y to of the_ That General Plan. �agr�.cultural us�seenline shall be as defined in the 5 Pockets of existin the greenline g non-agricultural land uses are identified in the Chico A ;resterly of The green line shall surround these Area Land Use Plan, integrity Of f agricultural soils areas to Policy shall be construed to and Use. preserve the t �e Land �v thin these areas in the uSeNothing in this land use and development of Policies �`lhd accord 'with the overall .-..maw of the count' Of But�Le 6` The greenline is established To ensure that the 1 for a Period of 20 adequately planned and use needs of the Chico Years. ***' location of the the land use needs o area are being often than even gfi ine, shall bee f the a.reaI includi.nct y five years~ valuated not Moro 7 • Amendment or chance in the devoted to agriculture a`ch reduces the area greenline , ha tential area for urban and canversel UPOII a specific Urban deve3o Y ncrease ; pment- shall. be clone the po- visors which findings c,f .the Boarrl of, s_u only -----�-�-- quantitatively documents oonsderecl or re assns why tl�e cahvesx 'he , soils i.;s in tl o j seed, 41-ternatives public itlGrO:7 ,f agricultural �• Agricultural. lands ` line shall be to forty the nonurban grcu 'tura side of the green parcels of not less than *** use via. minimum less than the minimum shall beQ acres in .8 with t 1e al Parcels Of g allma rights associated thereto .non conformity in � s is that t g parcels special consideration. �**int to ,protect a ai study and find- that areal Y o fNc�twithstandingra culture requires zoned X1-5 Yang wesferl g the fore o�n bounded b r generall r e green n,: w icli"i's p� esetitly y Bell between state with northwest sand Muir route 32 d the Esp�.anade;. dial* rAmaa�n zoned 1�5 i,n accord cable ha co rezone: *�r* x111 of these a C shall; be automat�,ca� l v' itb t'.he a � teas and appli�- poi �.odi c rev, Y reviewed in accota procedure In herein, . 2." Buffer or setback oa at. least 1.00 feet in width or greater for higher density development (nm -)re than four dwellings per acre) shall be required along the greenline agricultural -urban interface on the urban *** side of the line. An easement shall be considered acceptable for this purpose. Despite these precautions existing and future dwellings, residents, livestock, pets acid other personal and real property may be exposed to agriculturally related Sprays, *** chemical applications, smoke, dust, noise, odors, etc. This policy is intended to address the agrzcultura - urban interface problem of future urban development which might be located directly adjacent to agricultural areas. ?othing in this policy shall require the special setback or easement on existing parcels which lack sufficient area to provide such an easement. Furthermore, nothing contained an this policy _shall affect the liability -)f the county of Butte *,'* fo& the exposure of persons and/or _property to igricultiirrA,ly related sprays, *'** chemical applications, smoke, dust, noise, odors, etc. 10. Extensions of streets, roads or major utilities westerly of the greenline shall not be precluded. However, such ex- tensions shall, not in and of themselves, providea basis Por the relocation of the greenline and/or any subsequent re -designation of agricultural land to urban uses and where possible shall be extendedi.n such a manner as to _cause minimatl pt on of agricultural praMctian. ll. The ektension of urban. services (sewer and water services) of the greenline shall not be permitted unless there is a specific finding made that such extension is necessary to proveyt or mitigate a specific hazard to the public, health, s. safeand welfare. ZONING,_CONSISTENCY AND TIMING 1 Tile Chico Area 'Land Use ' plan establishes land use designa- tions which depict desi.reable future land use patterns.. State law requires consistency between general plan policies and zohi.ng. 1n order to encourage an orderly transition of land use from the existing to the desired pattern, the County shall undertake to rezone those lands consistently with the Chico Area Land Use Plan. in more peripheral and predominantly undeveloped locations, zoning to less than the maximum provided in the Pl,,,an shall be established. Zoning in these areas shall be upgraded through time with a commensurate showinq of need, adequate services, drainages etc: as pro- vided for in the Sutte County hand Use .Llemeht zohi.ng in these areas to less than the 'maximum provided for .in the Plan's designations shall be considered consistent with the butt: County's General Plan by virtue of Policies directed at orderly Development (page 30), and resident-lal Development (pages :i3,-34) , Priority shall be given to those araas with in i rastructure i ap aci ty 6-3 ~ CIZCULATION 1. The circulation needs of an area shall be considered sim- ultaneously with the rezoning and subsequentamendment of the Chico Area Land Use Plan. Such consideration shall consider overall and off site circulation needs. Adequate circulation is a necessary pre -requisite for development particularly those more intense uses which generate considerable volumes of traffic. Special attention should be given to the arterial and collector components of the circulation systems when considering zoning and development approvals. 2. Proposed streets, and roads depicted in the Chaco Area Land Use Plan shall be considered necessary to meet future cir- culation needs. These shG:11 be considered as part of the County's circulation element. ANNEXATION 1. Those areas designated for urban uses within the City of Chico`s sphere of influence shall be encouraged to annex to the City of Chico. �4 May 13, 1°9 81 Ron Max, Chairman Planning Commission County of Butte Oroville, CA 95965 Re: Proposed Policies Applicable to the Phaco Area Land Use Plan Dear Mr. Chairman: The Agricultural Ad Hoc Committe(a is an organization whose purposes are to promote agricultural interests and whose members include: farmers and representatives of agr cultural- related businesses and organizations. The committee has reviewed the proposed Policies Applicable To The Chico Area Lana Use Plan and proposes the amendments as set forth on the enclosed document. Changes in the original proposed text are designated thereon by asterisks (omissions from the original text) or by i:n.torlineation (addi- tions to the original text) It is hoped that the Coitrmissi.on will consider these proposed changes before reaching any decision on the p,> oposed policies. Sincerely,_ harry McGowan, Co -Chairman Tied Montgomery, Co -Chairman .]w Bnclosures cc Pay Wheeler Prank Bennett•. Mike Sr rader mina L' ,Ubert t S - ars.:_.�.:;1}{I5".,4„'.ia psi':, .•,.yymiy;==�xaervc4.Aa - Y i (PROPOSED) POLICIES APPLICABLE TO THE CH ICO AREA LAND USE PLAN (AS REVISED 3-23-81) The Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission of the County' of Butte find it necessary to amend the text of the Butte County Land Use Element to more fully articulate and clarify the land use policies in the Chico area. These policies are described below: THE GREENLINE Purpose �Xhe Chico Area Land Use Plan establishes an urban growth boundary or "greenline". The purpose of the greenline is to define the ** limits of urban development which,have occurred or may occur on *** agricultural *** lands. The greenline is intended to provide for the long term protection of the agricultural soil resources of the Chico area. The threat to these resources comes from the encroachment of the conversion to urban uses. In addition, the greenline is intended to reduce other urban - agricultural conflicts including the reduction of urban traffic - agricultural machinery conflicts, the limitation of crop- ma-chinery vandalism, the avoidance of crop spraying exposure and to slow the peculation in agricultural land. The definition, location,stiming and operation of the greenline are described in the policies below: 1. in accord with the policies _contained in the Land Use Elemeht, the County of Butte shall preserve unci protect agricultural lands,." For purposes of these policies, "agricultural lands," sh•311 mean those lands situated on the non urban ~side of the "gXeenl1nean wit in the spheres of influence of the Ci of Chico ana which are zoned ai"r 1+�tsalA--5, A- 0, A-2 and A zoning desrc-nations, rc>sect� - , , It is the policy of the County of Bunte to w,.,�. *:�: *** prev the-nnversion of agricultural lands to urban u;..es . Por thy.:, purpose, the County establ s es a "greenline" to define agri .,.0.t: -u al lands and, the limits or urban development; This urban growth boundary is established in cooperation with the City of Clvi co (intergovernmental. Coordination Policies, page 29) 2. The greenline shall be identified in the Chic:^ Acta Land Use Plan with a bond dashed lineas shown on the Chico Area Land Use Plan map. U.S 99 north and., south of Chico shall be considered the northerly and extensions 'of the greenline within the.. spheres. of. influence - of the City of Chico .rrom LWc.UU1.ll1+J.HAAWaAeoy The greenline Is specific, large scale MiS E maaps certiw fired by the Planning director shall be consulted in the event of a dispute. 3,6 The greenline was established to follow physical boundaries such as streets, roads, railroad lines, creeks, etc., bound- „0 aries of urban use zones and property lines. The *** division of parcels was held to a minimum and occurred only when the shape or configuration precludedthe se' *** of physical boundaries as described above. f ii ture amendment of the greenline should adhere to the same prin- ciples. It 4. It is the policy of the County of Butte that the green - line shall mark the boundary betwe,' urban development and agricultural use.. That land *** tS .;:he urban side and golitkax-1E of the greenline shall be evoted to urban land uses 1n accordwiththe land use designations of the Chico .area Land Use Plan as amended .from time to time. That land *** to the non -urban side of the greenline shall be limited Planus; General Planvely tU agricultural uses as defined in the . 5. Pockets of existing non-agricultural land uses westerly of the greenline are identified in the Chico. Area Lai'id Use Plan. .Phe greenline. shall surround these areas to preserve the integrity of agricultural soils and use Nothing in this Policy shall be construed to limit the use and development of the land within -these areas in accord with the overall land use policies and law of the Counter of Butte. G The greonline is established for a period of 20 years. *** To ensure that the land use needs of the Chico area ate being adequately pl-qnned, the nand use needs of the area, including location of the greenline, shall be evaluated not more often than every five years 7. Amendment or, change in the. greenline which reduces the area devoted to agriculture and conversely increases the po- tential area for urban development shall be done so only upon a, specific ;ritten findings of the Board of su er- quantitatively a tris need, alternatives v�.sors Whichdocuments co dered or reasons whyt1-in- cua ,version of agricultural I soi.l.s is i.ii Lhu public i.ni«Zros L. I 8; Agra cultural lands *** t`o the _non"urban side, of the green - line shall. be zoned for, agricu. tura. us��; w h minimum Parcels of not. less i hwi *** 20 acres in size. Parcels of less than the minimum shall be legal noir-conforming parcels with all rights associated thereto unless a stud and find- ings is _made that the intent to }7rotect agriculture requires special. consideration. **`r Notwi bstan:ding the_fotectoihct. that area lying westerly of t e g,reenl ine WhicH is resentl.y zoned A -5r generally between state route 32 and the BspJaaade, bounded by hell. and Muir, shall remain zor„ed AA"5 in accord with northwest Chico -rezone. *** All of these areas and appli- cable policies shall be automatically reviewed in accord with the periodic review procedure described herein. 91 ** Buffer or setback of at least 100 feet in width or greater for higher 0ensi t_y development (more han four dwellings. per acres mall be required along th,- greenline agricultural --urban interface on the urban ** side of the line.. An easement shall be considered accepta:,')a for this purpose. Despite these precautions existing anu future dwellings, residents, livestock, pets and other personal and real property may be exposed to agricultural-,/ related sprays, *** chemical applications, smoke, dust, noise, odors, etc» This policy is Yntended to address Te agrieu tura urban interface problem of future urban development which might be located d:rectly adjacent to agricultural areas. Nothing in this policy shall require the special setback or easement on existing parcels which lack sufficient area to provide such an easement. Furthermore, nothing contained in this policy shall affect the liability of the County of Butte *** for the exposure ofpersons and or property to agriculturally related sprays, *** chsmical applications, smoke, dust,, noise, odors, etc. Extensions of streets, roads or major utilities westerly of the greenline shall not be precluded. I*owever, such ex- tensions shall, not in and of themselvesi provide a basis Por the relocation of the greenline and/or any subsequent re -designation of agricultural land to urban uses and where possible shall be extended in such a manner as to cause aunImal als'stupt ..on of aar culi-_111a i The exteiisi.on of urban services (sEiver and :water services) 1l» Th the greenline ;shall not be permitted aiiless thei e is a specific finding made that such extensions necessary to prcvcnt oz mitigate." a specific hazard to t}ie public, health, safety and welfare. 20�11:9G, CONSISTENCY AND T:CT 1NG 1. The Chico Area sand Use Phan establishes land use 'designa- tions which depict desireable future land use patterns. State law requitds consistency between general. plan policies an zoning xn order to encourage an ` orderly ttraftsition of land use from the exxsti.ngto the desired pattbtn, the County shall, undertake to rezone those lands consistezitly With the Chico Area Land Use plan. In more peripheral and predominantly undeveloped locations, zonirie' to Jess than the m provided in the Plan shall be established. Zoning in these areas shall b- upgraded through time with a comtx}ensuxate showing of need, adequate services, drainage:, eto, as pro-- vided fo,r in the Butte County hand Use Element. zohing in these area. to less than the mnxi:murA provided for in the Plan's designations shall, be consideredconsistent with the Butte County's d6neral Plan by virtue of policies d,zrectod at Orderly Development (page �0) , and ltesidenti al Development (pages 33�-,34) +riority shall be given to those areas Rqx .h infrastructure cap4ci.ty ;3 i ♦. . , 1. .' !� Y iµ ✓ CIRZIULATION 1. The circulation needs of an area shall be consideree'' ultaneously with the rezoning and subsequent amendittml. ra of .the Chico. Area Land Use Plan. Such consideration shall nonsider overall and off site circulation needs. Adequate c.� rculation is a necessary pre -requisite for development pard ,.L a �Y those more intense uses which generate considerable 1 limes of traffic. Special attention should be given to Cie arterial and collector components of the circulatior.1 r' - stems when considering zoning and development approvals, 2. Proposed streets and roads depicted in the Chico Area land Use Plan shall be considered necessary to meet :Future cir- culation needs. These shall be considered asof tine County s circulation element. ANNEXATION � ' 1-: Those areas deaoi.gnated for t �', uses within :he City of hico's sphere of .influence shall. be, .,, ouraged to anne t o- City of Chico. -464 i Wie Co. Planning comm. MAY 1 r Qrovllle, Califarni:i { 00 it 4 ..., ... «,...M, . liitr,.,i'yyr, r 1 Ai,, 00TJtlil n0 �.Mtl '7rJ''-fill it, r',11 Fr�Yro,�t, o 7 r RG50LUr10t1 (IF TIIC CITY CtiIMMIL OF Tilt: CITY Or rnim + I SGTit Ili FlJttitl flUlprt.ItttS il9 1 r Ttt I,f uSl�rx rpt: nrvrt,ntyi 3( trill" 011 A LAND USE r11:11t;flr rrnTnc CiltCO �€tICRAi LAI ttfr�T tlTt.t� P ; ."1 f wild rtf,tTrrttri ,otrrvir. trrnlor twlvr nF rgr,slsttttT trr7 1 It Tilt~ LAnll USr Iai"I°.a or IM BUTTE CGruttTY Gi NFIitVL'Ff:Att Ir,t,ittr , '1,11. Ia t f, I•IIII:itCAS, the City Cotrricil'x TrtCtrraovrrnarnta�iuftfrlat'irrlr5 fnur,titt.'r IIIc, flip •r tatcn (I f'r r nt n,,i f ,ri,tare -n rrart iryq it-, i*os'ittfln tont, rnirt, 1110 r 'hico r.t'r,rr.tt tatjn t,liirh nrYvr ur pnnstdrr tlnn ii.r n ittrrr ArrhYi ,lir Cnrplty % with Autte NIALl y ' ervf or , ild • o p + tlt a llhaetnr and ,Carie ,}01411 nra rebi'uary 4, 103QO i ,�n,t tan 1'Yrfulit^ 1J11T flit, fl, r i"loatninnt roY:.pik0ort the Board' � 0 rebruory 71-t 1300, and on roGruory p0, 1030 ti) dlscuy City/County t rr t°YYuntil, .tt i'iS !r Toth rrntinnr una�lmnu Iv ,tfhlrna`tr;rl itr, Prf*vltttm posIttori ell, rt,r ,911111 +i'r nht t tr : " r+at ,, ita t tltr:. ttl 9 Lortst U,o Elcrtlint grplioncel dntt ca 'Yr+t1Y Y: alltl t r!«6;n tirYV{'rr�TV 'Cntrltltt4r'YI ltY ,list .rnlrmiLll or'C.thrrl t., lnn. inrfYa°ntZtinn nrt rovtrtr.. rrhitrit A (tan ma ti rr., ' „ - �' ttx tl,t voil"lratirnt I, till -rile fit I•irr< r:t, lntlr filnt i r or ri. f l0 lyhtCttCA5, at said rlr@etit4 s z:v r ti c r, aI alternative Iwati solo raw cont ninrr ,1111 ic, , flip '9,tlr:ll f'"Cil•?i5t,t Cllr Vnirtinlit'd 0,11fltNl"!t tnr rir,iYdtrur tilr,'rryl'rft� tint!`" ns { ,+ f'Y3:,itr1r' tfn ,list r, a5l ridrr, 11 laid lrso elmllonty, mir* sutllgoMd and studirtli ,and i V Cllr Cnuncil 10014 IIPP to encuueone huill the Coutit,v� s'IY"a`rYiq.i nrIIlly;itll'Ai i i.l;v rmill i rrr "utrtjrvtrurs Lei aplll'tl+rt thr atlolation Y'ur;trn 1� W'tCttCA it mita, the chmton tictirr, or r ttir CouncTlnlemitcrs and 5ut,rrcisoral at A ; Tn t,) Clio p'lin ,y5 r�uttrrlrrY'i in k. a tr aknr° r .nlut,mY. t7 present at Paid nr cting's to devatop a lyra 11,761 1 e U eodinry to Adoption, Ify rr� rtravYt'.rlr =c,�lT t•hnt, tfir rrrnrr`Al pltiu illmll'r:+Afr^rl Ill pk, luHnil 111 ,Ft- r lrl t:•r v'* w.# 1. ,1 iraiak rt,rtxttlrir of tlte_tat't on,t Irninty ctitit tat+��Toulrty tsr'irn 1YY�t rtY'' ' °r.ar+rvi.rtr, 14 t•,r•.IIx Char vesoectlyr.11Q0Rctr.r. ,_ tk 1 of General Plan Land U q titstar nts that are In omed wit'll itnlan diul Ilhvelor, Ya.. lr� dnouliptttae anti lh r i'Ytrr"'t P t 9. ,.11;1 Irl ntY9 trY ill rtltlll lfrtll th,rf It Frlr+ryrrl`t>G lhr! altil(Yr I;rralltfrr'!i rtt iC r ... rr :YrYyrY'Ttlrrirr.r,Yarir";fail affil;K ttir tr.ht,+tr;+tl) Ilppm UC.,mrl ugrr' S ,l the.lt««,.«:� 14 1 ,�k� ltilCllT,A ri ! 5, the, estiiblishtaent orpilidelfttos roe devhloptilent south,;ft t tloid lltrh"1, r,r« ,,l r , tYa ,,lta✓ .r,' yrr,t r,lwC of llutr Aruur 'tn nYatr Olt Claw vurro rrIt vra�Ysl .rpt U', ti � S•YYIYUItr'tr�V. f 1 rrlltd`r. � -~-1� of r .► trot. w land use 01enlenCs Cor r(AN _,_.. .. tile Ciiito 0enr!rol Plan and hullo Chun, 'Gnnrl�at Plan + y lu 7#fa'"ltu l•rirltt ill ntiC+ An,tilt rll,itoS ill trYtrrfa«S it`i �tieirnriatTon to tho N1 n(v tqi' ii, v;r,rt ren ,.list tYl�is Terri nittd•1liirzr + tt, oa,YYr �nr��rY«.``"l1l r f(r i,� an a1pr tr{t ond*mt or Clio Chico Gnnornl ,,pant a t i rrrt`th tlltrrfr+nt Mit trfrt!}'lnnt �, n'r in lone) r;n ,�ttYnfs r fn Clar ftftr{Y fmr.7 roe i"list lienrri; hfi, ts,ltinfat. itt ho r i lrn! tt;r'lntdrrn'vtrrlrrt atn ttV Airtt aullound. �-�ryi� ,ftYYrYn !.„,. 11apr 7 4l IL II �� i i I .115, tire! Cittco Citizen , Arlvimwy'CoerriLiotl Cur Cho titnrrra Plon ;girl —711 rcr �i the Ch1co City planning Cnt�,li0fan support tho;roncept or A slnnle laita�. ua,� (pion trier rattti, �//%% " '"-°~�- 1 kn�-w«-•...".:. �� ftir the Chico or:e,i,' anti support tho concept t. 1'41` t1eti'spPVttlt"r hriii10 d�JYtk"d1tlA"nil � ��,,%%,, t' liht rdllplti, Soilsc and � tta'>fr r'/ w i >•IMMAa, it 1� in the host i"ntnrnsts or tho C N Y of Chico And the Cnultt� Kifw JW r t Y +iinf i" Y 1 tut��rSlnn hicotjban VO4 pnd allafna fitrrrtrr rYYurri�r t�lnuniu!r nirrr,tut ,r �J " GrthcCdliCios�ceitatn dn , tllis rosolutir9n Miall v If 26 j Gc 5ub1octr ,to Clio Caltrurnta Envirennrcnral gntriitit Act , r ,I_ W I I rai 711mroRt, ilC It RESOLVED 9Y TIIL'' CITY MUM Or TIIE CITY OF CHICO 1, governing agent,+ lr,"0posin+I said urban area to otiewro brat ap;rr0- 7.AS FOLLOWS: 21 priote: urban sery it: t (i, r, schools, roads, draina+lr, strant i That, the following policy be established in an effort tv develop Lansis- lightiAg, fire Protection and polive protection) ,ire av,lilabin nr 4 tent falai use aiement� far Chicoi K y,lll butomu available whin naededt and That the attached "E%i118117 All; entitled Hutto County General. Plan S C, CStv 1rzL rasidcntial zoning wt -Pi be enwctpi by Chet Il0ars1.01 Snlrnr 6,jCh1cO �i Area Lana Uso malt (tlavised 1.4.00) shall ropt`oisont the initial p`oposett b visors for PrWr•ty west Or the apin•ovcd'sulidivisions in ;Ow 7ilconsistent land use 016tientl And j vioinity or Sworamp+Ito Averiuot wed 0,1 Z That said IVIil1 IT ff shall be. TL they amond'ed ,In(! shall beInLor� � r. 1110 r'gr"11 line". hw.iphgntl by the County and shop+.n on "i I[I,IGIT h"y tJi prretad�as follows: 9 , hall ho tentatively adopWd as till western limit or u0mil, dtwolnpy l0' A. 'Arens i'naide the Chic itrimsry �pherit of Influencu sh4i`corrrs= lb rnant far the Chico arch., All land rrst�of said line shall, her 11I pend to the exiSLing Glty of 011co Ilnnci+al plan "I.aild Ilse Flrma,it: ll zoned into adrieulLural dIiAricis with a miniawai lot sire of fivrl- 171 dosiiahWontl extept that ovHcultural land use desipations i (5� Bt for "EXI1l017 "wql rt 51 except thane areas shown on All as i- inside said ♦ri,na,y sphar Iorlutihco shall be ch,tn!lrtl Lis coeveS� e u I` yb hull'urwl-=rOsiriq^;tial°, 141 frond to existing COOLV zoning desitgnatienat UniosS saidOrua it, 11 � The, for'ogoinq roWuLioh was adapted by the, City totincil of owcity tri xor,ad it -21 and r it, B. Tile land use for those Prow, within the "Airttnrt ilmmvr'i 15Oilth 15�� Chico lit its rogulm, maetinrq hold on the uth day 0t` Mily , 1C, IWO, by Che f0llowinp VOW li Chico UOZPhW , "'Horth G'wpi,�nade Raznno", " tal,c!-MNllhw.r 37 y rrrec tsd YIa/tr ory.) ttaztcy, ijti y' hn,ralik t;v+rn:'rr 11f ' r, r rr tloaOhu r" N0r(i,rast Cb ►to Re;;Onr+ lnnl smil.heast Chico Rotonr ` t,Ill * roateil i S/Ill r l is � i CGSt rano lmnlnl ,kst Flhyet�, Wile,cod 19 be proolsoly, desitinated after (lit` Warrent reznn art Irrapasal, oro d 1I )I' AIiSEPII t ?,l to al+et0d jK++ tict+ r°a".Irr_etivr, lartislaLivtt lrn+lif!5t andW) Nuns, ABSTAIN. fttsntt, 71 C The Word of $upervlrors wills In eomidoring paid roYs.r otpi., ATTEST., hndoovoe to Implement that Iominitl,I project aiternative T • viable,bmi which procerves a siglniricnnt Irrrennt,ygn of prp`Icul23 ){ arid' �rload; + " 44 , For tholo rirhall ,!i't+PaS out0tie iii Chirots primatry olid Seconeal'y, � f} r mann, tr:i A r rgdv, Y rs � tI t4 III tt A t,,te ur 4 hl"l, aft t ,"'I y r r,�tv ' At i"ir V�p tont rrun ut:r err;, n.m rtnr, i tcgrr r•t ts.w t u,r.n i n xt,! ` 5plrere nx lnrluenco linifsr Irrecto pitn� alit) :fru ad0pi;rd by tl,n ,y.;rgai tr rV-ryl k .;�. .. JIM? 41w, Toler -Departmental hlemorandum To-. Planning Commission FROM. Pl.annilig Department SUBJECT: Documents Relatedto the City -County Agreement on the`Greenline DATEe May 8, 1981 FTZ:E iNoit Chico Area General. Plan 'Revision 80-72 The documents related to the agreement between the City of Chico and Cortnty of Butte to include the greenl,iiie in their respective generm]. plans are attached. These documents begin with a memo from tae City c Chico Planning Director expressing the City's concerns and conclude zh the City of Chicols resolution incorpot,ati:ng the guidelines for a mutually acceptable land use policy. Summitries of the various meetings during which this agreeittent was reached are also included. While the City's portion this the agreement is ciorntained in a formally adopted resolution, the County's portion was contained in a memo :from the Planning Department to the Board L�p Supervisors darted March 5, 19801 accopted: by the Bc}xrd. The distinction was made because the City►s portion of the ,,i,reement involved a commitment to amend a jL,,ecently adopted general plan, whereas, the County was revising a mapped portion of the general. plan: CW/ext hticlosure '1 1 .,...'. ........ .. .... .. --�..-fit CI"'y OF CIECO • Icy Cot C « DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1979 TO: CITY COUNCIL (MTG. 12/18/79) ` Fc�t; GENERAL 'PLAN CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE BILE: CP 5618/P-GP-14 SUBJECT: BUTTE COLI"ITY LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION �.. MESSAGE ' Atits meeting of 'November 27, 1979, •the, Geheral Plan Citizen's Advisory consider General Plan land use Committee (CAC) noted the County Will soon proposals for the Chico urban area. County Planning staff is preparing an to analysis of current and `proposed land use element designations prior initiating ti,�a public review process on same. The CAC agreed this review period, although already, underway, could provide the twogover -iental bodies the opportunity to improve communication between land usbring the County and City General Plan; maps e issues, and relative to into closer compliance. Therefore, the CAC requests th�:tt the City Council joint City/County citizen's committee t. consider initiate the formation of a the proposed County Land Use element. It is 'recommended thut said committee appointed lay �..«+ rt Council appointed and 5 Board of Supervisors consist of 5 City p P from the respective planning agencies would assist the members. Staff mex�ibers committee: The new ci ti zen s committee would review both the 'County MOWN Department the City's cul,rEnt General Plan : • "recommendations regarding their element, and land Said committee would then suggest possible compromises. use policies. to alleviate areas of conf1ict between the two plans- ,' If the City Council agrees with the above CAC recommendations, committee members to directed-to the County Board of Siipetionoof.tho y; urge this matrs ter be immediately deterr�iine if they are agreeable to such a proposal; Because prepara « the of a committee , County s element has now b�e11 initiates, delaying appointment ' -• d• l their chance for meaningru study and 'di scussion. "• would greatly reduce Respectfully submitted, .. GENERAL PLANCITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE .,.5; Lloyd ione5 Chair An, BY ;, • x oo e, l ann Director /M•�"`�P. x VOtTI� JPH�km •���A Ca. Cia�ning /'- , r rS: Lo� rodUltii 1nIA j y Y aG CM OF CMCQ CAUFORMA OFFICE OF CITY PLANNING P, O. HOX 3420, V5927 (DCHICO TCLEPHONE (9161 343-4401 — AFTER 6:00 P.M. 343-7331 ` °Sacro�ae� UtW County Planning Commission i$u;; Co.F%n""g�=m�nS, so. �' g Francisca 7 County Center Drive L• l w' Oroville, California 95955 June 14, 1979 �'?rovillu� �..-aGEotnia P, Proposed Butte County General Plan Land Use Map Dear Commissioners: ra The Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Chico General Plan has reviewed your proposed G e;teral plan Land :Use hiap for the. Chico urban area. The following comments of the CAC regarding the County Map are provided for your consideration. The proposed Butte County General Plan Land Use Mapi 1. Is riot consistent with the Chico General Plan's land use designat`iohs and existing uses, for many locations within both,incoIrporated and unincorporated areas. 2. Does not take into consideration the availability of current and prOPOt ed urban services to accommodate the projecteti level of development. 3.: Provides for urban development on prime agriculcure soils - a serious conflict with other County and City General Plan policies. Said cohflct could affe�.t the long-term economic stability of the County. 4. PruVides for a population substantially in excess of the City of Chico' ois populatian�projection of 75-100,000 for 7935. ges urban sprawl by justifying the 'urbanization 'of underdeveloped 5. Encouratl, i ere are considerable existing bypassed vacant lands t�ithin areas when there the established Durban bbundaries. Bbsed on the above Concerns, the CAC herewith recommends I. The County General Plan Map be amended to more closely reflect the City's land use designations. 2. The Spheres of'Nfluende as adopted by-LAFCO and the aVailabilijy ofurban services, be considered when establishing 'land use designations. Thank you for your attRhtion to this matter. Sincerely; CHICO G�NBPAL PLAN CZTIM 'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE Lloyd � , ha r n All 04 OFFICE OF LITY PLANNING - P.O, aOX 3420, 9sg27 �CHICO TELEPHONE 1916) 343-4401 — AFTEPSIDGI P.M. 343,-7331 DC 4Gi72r 4, 1978 Son Ftwx1=a Mr. Kyle Butte'roick,R Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Croville, California 95965 REE. proposed lana use element of the Butte County General P7 an _ Dear M • Eu*. 1 ii Ci., ,. Reference is Trade to the above-noted Gienera.l Plan Elerenf: jghich ,,as Recently submitted for revi0W and comment by the Chico �P1'anning Ccm . iT1iS51On end stall,rrR Please be advised that members of this department and the Planning pT l.A N a Cowa i scion Gave had the opportun`lty to -the ar000sed Element and are .. pleased to adVi $e that t`ie "see no probl ells a•ii th tile document and we are generally in agreement Vrith the numerous policies and' pr posals. Both Commissioners and staff are looting f'or-Ward to ta!�ie�,in the proposed Land �;�e i�1ap 4�then it is couple Cy your epar nen` ":"""- w PI?at"e acc� --t 01!r ?WMC:iation for t.�! opp0rt11nity to reVievi and CoVent on the above ;hYaject. Should: you :have 'furt.idr question, please contact the Planning Office at your conVenienre. 5ince'rely, i JPH;ntd J hn P. Hoo e , CP 4391IA-8C- i ILA � .i %o AgoFOR oA Cm. O. ;pax .3420, 9$927 :"1 '•' , OFFICE Or CITY PLANNING - P. 1`ELEPHONE 19151 3d •440t AFTER 5700 P, M. 343^73 1 �uNe Co. Flanning r; SEP 1 Mr. Larry Brooks Coordinator 4 1979 Advance Planning p�o�ll/Q Butte County Planning Department� �Gfo,�} 7 County Center Drive Orov i l l e, California 959:5 RC; Proposed Butte County General Plan land .Use Map September 11, 1979 Dear Larry: • Land Element and Chico's g enter is intended to summarize the concernsraisedat our recent meeting This 1 regardi ng conflicts between th pi^oposed County L of General plan policies: The following seriouslytunderminee the Gthel�integrityrofscur • trent concern, whichif unattended to cou planning efforts. The proposed land use element would: 1, Greatly increase densities in areas outside Chico's Spero of Influence, ' Plana At build -out and exceed densities described ,n the City's General ca acity, these higher densities would. raise Chico's pojectedogrovtrt 30p000 persons an amount whic.� exceeds the h g, p: to 1995 by three times! Clearly then, far more laza ddptionSeMost rof urbanization thcated�in areasnwitiiout thesidered edesired level of urban said land 1,s In services; 2, Undermine the City s General Plan Policiestes concerningrn border, Threservation of prime agricultural soils on Chico's elo map appears . errt oti the west: side a standard to make eXisting scattered urban deVelopm by 4�hich new land use policy for said a rea is determined- 3, Create traffic conflicts on out arterials due to eXtensivL- strip commercial areas. As previously ootedVacantnC7yt ndustrial zone existing City commercial ginning is va a it 1179 amounts o 70%.� We see ne reason for. large additional areas of t commercial or indu Arial land use where necessary urban services are not available. 'Should' you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact the Planning Office at,your convenielce. n rel Oh P. Ho e Planning Di or ' CP 5799%A--BC-1 } r . pF 1 ICG. Ot Till: M/',YtJR'C�Ty OF i]. BOX :342113. 05927 L�` ;�a TCIt r'r1il1IC 5lGt 3d3-4401- hrTP'R S:pO. i5. Ma. :i•t3-7 :a1 Decom rcpt' 21, 1979 0ama GSetrord J Son 1 �Inniitr 1 cr.;.d 0 S U1)aZviscr coatl.ty Or ntltt.e 25 County Center Orovillo, Cs. 95965 &t• its mo(,tinv; bel.d December 18; tl - City C'nittit for thed c+ o.LnLtr.cnt Trott its General Plan t,iti zens Advisory ,.Len ttec for the t�pp O� F! Cel tltK;llUc3T C'] t;l'Lirns culv.."IlLt eu to YC'trii'tp L'1ttY iU'tt'l: �C�uttLy Ci CaTtiru.l« flan cen- Uue r cit.tt f.or the Chico Area. and, 010 City of Chico GenetAl P1.an 1,attci; Use Blemcilt• It is oua' u11aa1.ttallditl;h that the cK>u: ' V• M pp t����p n�/� CA �U��°�pal!!�=J �eHtco " OF CH�Cva �� t+�>Ey ti +t ' - 420. 9592^ E C(TY'@(.Ei2K - P. M. ©OX 3satramtriilq aFF°iGE aFT.I(, (916) 343-4401 AFTER 5:00 P. t1. 3d3.73a1 .�.. ..• •�'.r.A' TELEPHONE San , Frnn6WIP a January 3, 1980 Board of Supervisors county of Butte 2a County Center Drive orovi l l e', Ca: 95965 documents Wh'.ich were, considered Enclosed are the r'ollo�°ring in City Colincentainits and approved' by the with urban developm unincorporatedeetinareas connection vest of Chico: ti 1, Letter to Board of supervisors signed by the 1-layor. , ._ 67 75-80 concerning urban developiient west 2 Resolution �!o _ of the City Limits. Si nc:erel y 8ARWA A4 EVANS w City Clerk cc! Cityt Council 8uttd Co. Planning planning Dir, pir: public Forks _ City 'Manager w • JAN 4�sao a 4•� .� CM OF C'MCOO CAUFORMA 3 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR — P. 0. BOX 3420. 45927 TELEPHONE: (916) 343-4401— AFTER 5-00 P. M. 34:3,7331 �$tl((gRien 0� Son flontisto January 3, 1980 Board of Supervisors County of Butte 25 County Center Drive Orcr✓i l l e, Ca, 95965 The Chico City Council has had a continuing policy encouraging annexation of,a''ll (;rban areas within the City's Sphere of Influence. Some basic reasons are: to avo-d duplication of essential services, to preserve prime agricult- ural land, and t0 develop a consistency within the Chico Urban Area. This council is encouraging development on marginal hands to the east, and past councils have expressed their desire not to encourage extensive develop- mentwestt of the SPRR tracks without making adequate provision for emergeticy service access and facilities. The City's objections notwithstanding, such development has continued, And, to provide, essential services where requested., many such developed areas have'been annexed in good faith. This Council is how concerned about future traffic problems that will arise in and around the Sacramento/lord Avenues intersection and aiong the affected areas of Sacramento Avenue when large scale developirent occurs viest of the City's Greer Line. it shoufi, be noted that City and Caltrans plans for the improvement of -said intersection etre scaled to provide only for current needs, and they are not geared to meet potential do-mands of greatly increased urban- iiation to the Westi �n view of thefactthat all o� part of the area in ques*ion may eventually ,)i,,h to amnex , thi Council feels that the Butte County Board of Supot'MsQrs should carefully consider the impact: of all problems such annexation would create !"or the City. This Council further requests that a committee of three %ouncil members (Inter- governmental Relat.io'ns Committee) and two Supervisors be fm,-med W-jthih thirty days.to, at soon as possible, begin discussing and resolving the discrepancies botw� en the City and County General flans Within the areas surrounding the City;: } I a : 1 1 " R1:SOLUTIOA � 10. 79-80 " , y RESOLUTION 4F 'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFA CHICO CQ0CERNING URBAN DEVELOPMENT WEST i 2 .3. , that the C1 y of Chico Inform the Board of Supervisors, 1 County of Buttes its 3 OF THE CITY LINiTS._ of continued unequivocal and absolute opposition to the 3 several deVelopments proposed on or near West Sacramento Avenue, Westerly of I h .1sER�AS, the huR,.tn race hos been endowed with a limited d the Gren i+ n Line shown on the City of Chico General plan, i amount of G productive agrioultural landi and 5" •f^ The foregoing resolution v'as adopted at a regular � 9 meeting the u 7 i+'HEREIS, those Who achieve control t,Ver this land have a Vital G; of City Council of the City of Chico ha.d on the god day of January, 1gE0, by the s' and Unremitting responsibility to humankind, bath present and future, to use 7 following vatar this land to produce mudh.needed food;and $ tog WifEREA5, some of the richest and most prroduct{ye C AYES: ouncilmembers Enoehr Hackman; Ory and lbrli',V. or "„ soil is 11 Iodated near tfie'City of Chico, Califaroie, particularly iminediataly to the 10 Councilmeriber$ iia,s, NOESt Grieco and Evnas, 'AG5 ' 12 West,, and Il M None, ' 13 'WHEREAS, urban and suburban ,developmeht are traditior1111y and , tt - td rationally the responsibility of chills, rather than counties and l3 ATTEST,i : 4 13 WHEREAS, the General plan, zoning and pheres of influence are id ell is universally considered to be legal and legltirate tools to Affect f t the type' and 15 '�P ; r t7 amount of growtht and id' Pp 15 WHEREAS, the irgat; mohal find th3ditioital posture of the City of 1T.a Comfy Attvney a 10 Ghica (as 0pressed most clearly in it3 Gentr4i plan) toward Urban and suburb ld o All development ItaS been ?iroeted away from the most productive sailsl THEREFORE, GE 1T RMLVED BY TNE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS; 20 � nn w� 1, the be Chico 1•eaffi"rta its hiefdrita�l r isitio'n of _ 21 pWt �City 'ime �l rasidentia:l develb rent on p grfcultural land. 22. )d 2} that the City of ti,ito ekpross its moral intant'to matiltain 23 xd ss the integrity of prime age tultural land through whatever lawful "ah$ aro it disposal, 7s 2'6 TO! Planning Commission FROM: Larry Brooks., planning Department tUBJEct; Chico Area General T)1a.r. Land' Use *,ap, DATE: January 10, 198 The Chico area General Plan Land Use 'Jap proposftl has been deve-loped. by the PlanningDepartment to reflect policies contained in the recently adopted band. ifse Element Text. The Map proposal attempts to eliminate serious ambiguities contained in the existing land use wap by delirieatin,g various land use categories by physical factors wherever po8sihle. Existing developments, recorded divisions of lana, specific zoning, and a desire to promote infill development and protect v�.able agricultural lands are some of the more signi- ficant factors which have been consiCerod in the development of this Proposal, The proposal a.ncoxnorates recently .adloptor map eban� es in. aria, around the Chico Airport area, tl-,;forth' Fsplanarte, and I13ighwa.y 32 West, as well aarea .area �tvliic#tare caverectar�etll,isutm��e of .the 'Chico delineated study Ry way of-' contrast too tl,e exi-sting County Land Use tap for the Chico urban arotz, this proposal designates more than ,300n acres of land: west of e Highway ..P to -r Grchavct and Piel,d Craps which is currently designat=ed for urban use Conversely, 212 acres of Land pxeviouslY designated as Orchard and Field Crops is designated fur urban use under the new Proposal. To the east of fxightwway 90 more than 3,300' acres now designated for urban development have been proposeda for Grazing and Open Land, while approXijngtely ISP 41cres Of previot,isly designated Grazing; and aper: band has I7een placed in the. Agricultural- Residential gric ultu'ral Residential: category: The effoct of ropos-1 is to place approximately 6419 acres of previously urban aesignated land 1Aito either Orchard and Pleld Crops or Crazing, a'nd open Land categories, wile approximately 31P acres i have been cles•�. nia.ted for urban use from z rxculi..irral categories. The map wil be circulated to various public F, private agencies, organizations, committees and inclividua.ls for roviaw, comment a.ntt sug$;estions prior to the initiation of hearings' 1,efore the Butte County Planning Commission. It Will also he 8uM nctect to enViron- rental review prior to i.nitia.tion of hearings, Ar Y �ill'`vt td kaY+ar"`S�i•y��.�.'�1 .,`J`ilbIi+i: T'0: INTl RGOVER130TAL RELAT:IOUS, CORMUT'EE VATE: JANUOY 29, I980 FROM: CITY CL5RK FiLE WERENCE: SUBJECT; Agond'n for reeting on Honday, f:ebruat;;r' 4, 1960, at 4:00 P.M. in Conference - Room 1, Chico 11iun i C.i p ;1 Center i 421 Main Street, AU St SA(ZR Discussion with Courtrcy eorosentat`ivas cohC'erning discropan es between the City and � County General Plans concerning the locations of the "Green Linc" along the westerly poc-tion of the Chico Urban Area meeting ', p -+ lop- , m{ent llest�o•F Chico, result of ceancerns expressed by the Council ct, �certi�►��;, urban leve RE2prosentativos of the County Planning DePartm:.nt will rev•iet" the proposed new County General Plan Land Use 14ap arm the City's Acting Plaalling Director will review the City's current General Plan Land Use Map, At tine conclusion of your discussions it is requested that the City and County represent- atives make recommendations tillrit;h may be forwarded to the City Counc-11 and tine Hoard o7 Supe,kvisors for revisio*rs to the. General: PlAns concerninti urban development along the rvosterly line of the Chico Urban A11ea r • , - it ' h S , _�s � ' r� • ,..3 � . 0.i. t�lo<I���1ttery, Although the Council and Supe,r�r scri~s tia� a agr� ed to appb7 nt l0- member citizens c to review both pl a,l- for tho Ch'i cn urea, the City and County represent•auives this s meeting have: boon as{;ed by Elie Ci t�/ Counc� l to prove de specific rec:ommonetati ons concerning 1 ' ui flan devolopmrnt alGsig h+ taesterly limits u•i' the Chico urb�t�1 area. Disti•I Coui;-tTlman Grieco;, Chr ., t ✓ ,�� .-�`e..u+° Counc Ilma,n Hays fti.��w�� ✓� �� �;' * rt,T Councilman Ory } St"pory i strr Marr ,uporvi ser W'hosel ell l,o(!?lty Pl anntng Dept County Public la!orks County Admin: Ofcr Ci{ty Manager City Attorney Acuing planning DcOVACi'{ City Dir, Pub. Wks hews h c!i a C4 7 II -I 1.174 264 Is a ar-Depuremental Memarandum .,� a TO., Intergovernmental Relations Committee and Supervisor Hilda Wheeler FROM., Supervisor Jane Dolan SUBJECT' City -County discussion on differences between General Plans DATE: February 4, 1980 Certainly we are all. aware that discrepancies exist between the General Plans ped by y o and the County. of Butte for the Chico area. These dPvel ori�a the Cit of Chi�ti conflicts have existed for nearly 20 years and numerous attempts have been made to reconcile the differences and numerous arguments have ensued. The first attempt for agreement on one plan came'when both governments were doing their first General Plans in the early 060's. The City approved its plan first and asked iihe Board to also approve it. The County then approved its own Plan "for the Chico itrea which was d Xferent from the City's, the City did not change theirs and there have been arguments ever since. recurringargument and conflict have been land. use designations to the Nurse of I believe it accurate to say that the major differences and the so est, 'northwest and southwest of Chico. Certainly differences exist in land use designations for other areas (including within the city limits) and differences in land category descriptiorist densities and 'policy are there, but IL submit the argument is 'how differently the L county and thQ city view urban encroachment ag into r3.ci�.tira7 land. Therefore, to focus the work of our 'committee and otic staffs, I propose the f01owing i • Vor all areas asasWithin th hd-diy t s -Primary Sphere of luonce, the .and use init3�e neces developedand the county shall do this .so it can coincide with other General Plan changes will Plan to nary steps to change the county plan. The es so as not: to jeopardize timeliness of other pxo�eets because of, the limit. of three r changes a year'. 9. All roshall thattateh"inea the wor 8" shall Stay,oft course. 'The City acid county s of etch other for input and d buiission on these so that there shall be no uniia.rraaited delay or the tacking on of another b res tcxyat3 c loop to ;dump through, rfh6be projects '$in ' he Hocks' shall include - ;�ttirish pl.anade rezones _ gb;ay 32 rezone igoi,th Chico rezone - - Pobthill Park Tie Village .: Ca.iforiia Vark ri Satitti.!ieeeti Chico 3 ^'he .;urat,ky arra the city, should drak its land use designation =linos to Intex5overnmental Relations amit��es City -county land use - Page ,2 Feb. 4, 1980 ` coincide with the 1978 Northwest Chico rezone. It should be noted this will represent a majorcompromise and a major change in the General Plan on the part of -the City. For its part, the county will have to draw in its Urban lines somewhat, but that seemed to be what was promised when the rezone was accomplished. This will mean that as much as some of ust and the, City may have disapproved of this rezone, we will rot debate it further. 4. 5. Staffsshould meet and prepare a report on the differences between land use categories and density designations and provide suggestions on how concurrence, or similarity can be reached. (Example: City plan has one agricultural designation that defines no dwelling units per acre or parcel size and that is the designation used for everything not in an urban desij ationy while the County's plain has three categories that do list density. Staffs shall meet and prepare e, report on where and, how they have differently interpreted ,planning da,td,,ard stadies .for the Chico area;i.e. populat-" , ;- studies and projections, housing demand pxedict.1ons, availability of lwjubing► .etC. Car Council member -Supervisor committee shall review these reports from our staffs' to ascertain if a policy determination can be agreed upon to recommend to our respactive council and Poard If, the above can be agreed upon it will mean that some major and, in my opinion,. obvious compromises can immediately be achieved,. it will also mean that projects that have long been proposed and for which studies have beon, or .are being, done, shall: not be burdened with another layer cf unnecessary review: Then, the focus of the discussion shall be the differences in land use categor- -- ization and the diffe�»ences ,iii density designation to the west of Chico. From there we look at reality and, it seems w0 are closer to agreement than it may seem. f pp g. , _ p » The Board has approved Bi Chico Crei.k Estates, tentative ma and other tentative �P ape ovals exist, between the City's Greenli.ne and the County s urban designation boundary, As much as one may not like those decisions (and 3: don't), they 46hetheleso exist. Since. reconsideration .is ve y unlikely by the County, further discussion of, these approved -but -not -built subdivisions is out of the purview of the legislative process.' We should not set up a debating society on matters, the,Boald has already approved and we should not force those 'of us who do not like these decisions to say we doi We should recognize they exist and: any further action ion them will be in court. Therefore, it seems that the focus of discussion for oi,',r Boaxrl-Council, committee is the area between the western edge OP these developments and the county's low,density residential -line: I propbse that tho county draw its low density residetltial line at the western boundary of these approved wAdiVisions and that large lot (I to 5 acre) land use designation and zoning be implemented between these dove~opments and Glenwood Avenue and that an agricultural designation and agricultural zoning (0 acreas and up) be implemented west of Glenwood. JDijd s ec i City and County Planning Directors~ public Works Departments, 0OUhty Adininistzative OffiLer City Manager; Mews Media ToY CITY COUNCIL (Mtg. 3/4/80) DATEt Feb. 2�. 1980 FhOMt INTERGOVERNMENTAL MATIM COMM'. Pri Meat.ing held 2/91160 at 4t00 P.M: The County could also bdopt a "green line" vasa of the pig Chicoll—I Crock'Entatoe 5ubdi,viaton. County staff agracd to conduit with City staff and nrtpare one nap shoving reconryegifations contained ,in both veports for the nd%t committee neat:ing, The committee rocombended' the Council not appoint its file membeta to :he City -County Gotattitteo until ,thio committee could mta t again aid cutnpletu itis acridy. The tommittoe•ngrcad Pmeet again on Fridav; February, 29. 1980, at i0b P.M. (meeting to be .held In Oonferdnea Room 2). City Clerk Attach. .Dts�tr� �;uuaeil (7 Clary (5) City Mdnager (2) . bCM/.ACMa Planning birector �!"1 bit+ Public: Norka t;ounty Planning Coumit•tee (3) Nave 'Modic (7) " " 4 CITY' OF .CHICO CIS" COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO- CITY COUNCIL (MTG. 2/19/3.0) DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1'980 FROM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE FILE: CP 6159T-1 /D-1 PRESS/CM AGENDA SUBJF.'T; MEETING 0E FEBRUARY 4, 1980 MESSAGE At its meeting of February 4, 1980, the IntergovO,nmental Relations CommitteE discussed a strategy for bringing the City -ands County General Plans into com- pliance on Chico's western perimeter. Members present at this meeting were: Dolan, Whee;er, Grieco and Hays, County staff present were: Advanced Planner Brooks, Planning Director Blair, City staff present were; Assistant Planner Prince, and Acting Planning Director 'Bolster, County Planner Brooks presented a staff -proposed revision to the County Land Use Map for thi's area. Brooks stated that the urban designations 1 4 dwellings per acre) on the pro c,ed Ma enc>om a:�s County approved rezoned d.eas and subdivis" Map ,ns; (e.g, the 'Bartram Re7oneand Big Chico Creek Estates). Agricultural designations extend westward from these areas, a major division line being Glenwood Avenue. Brooks stated that County staff believes the proposed Map represents a compromise between the previous County Land Use Map and the City's Greenline. County "staff recommends -that the City's -Land Ute trap be incorporated into the County Map for the area vJthin the City boundaries, It. was also recommended that the following County rezoning projects, which are in the works, should 'not be included in the Committee's discussion Airport re.ohe, north Highway 32 commercial rezone, acid the South ,Chico 'Yezone. Acting Plahhing Director Bolster reviewed the County-'Larofj Use Map, indicating west side areas where ti,�: plan would result in urban densities beyond the City's Sphere of Influences and stated that the Committee should focus their attention tin these areas: fiupervirsor Dolan distributed a memo making recommendations for the Committee's consideration. Dolan"s recommehdations were as follow.;. 1. Thee Couhty siou'ld adopt the City's Land Use Map for all areas with 'a the Sphere of Influence. 2, All projects currently under consideration within the. City and county should not be subject to review by the Committee. 36 The City should amend its General Plan to include the 1978 Northwest Chi o Rezone, A. City and Couhty staffs should meet and prepare a report describing the differehces between the City ar,d County plans, and recommending appropriate compromises, CITY QF QHICO TITY UO L HEMORANDUR Ey TO: CITY COUNCIL (MTG. 2/19/80) DATE: FE6RUARY 6, T980 FROM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE FILET CP 6759/ASC-ST-18/ SUBJECT. MEETING Or FEBRUARY 4,, 1980 - PAGE 2 D-10/PRESS/CM AGENDA 5• The two staffs should meet and report ori the differences in their databases and tnterpret,3tions of planning studies 6. The Committee should meet to review these staff reports, and deter- mine a ;ompromi"ie policy for the City and County GenpraT Plans, Dolan also recommended that the County draw its urban/agricultur- boundary line around approved subdivisions and that large -lot (1-5 acre) land.use designations and zoning be implemented between these. developments and Glenwood Aventae, West Of Glenwood Avenue an agricultural designation (10 acres *) and zoning .should be implemented, Oolatl also noted that the, County!s existing General Plan for the Chico urban area draws the urban/agriculture line east of Glenwood;.Avtnite, Discussion followed concerning the need for a, buffer zone between the residential uses approved east`. of Glenwood Avenue and the agricultural uses westward, A recommendation that ane_ (1) acre minimum lota be,desig'hated just east of 010wood Avenue to provide for this buffer wars discussed,. The Committee agreed that they would limit their meetings to a C -weed' that their war ,period; and. k would be separate from that of the proposed 10 -member City/County' Citizen's Advisory Committee, It Was also determined that ongoing projects in the Couhty would not be field up by the Committee's discussions, County and City , staffs agreed to prepare an analysis of the impart; the 'i,o vise Supervisor Dolan's recommendations would have on the ekistimg,tityaGeneralMplan The neXt meeting Was scheduled for Thursda , February 21; 1080, at 4;00 P.M, i'n the City Council Chambers. y INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE 8y" 1/1 ' 7 15a Prince ,Assistant Planner M LP/ km �,;, Yom.` r... \ ♦ �. 5 • TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE DATE; February 15,, 198(1 FROM- CITY CLERK FILE REF€ RENCF; { SUBJECT.. Agenda for meeting on Thursday, February 21, 1980, at 4:00 in the Council Chamber, ChicoMunicipalCenter 421 hiain Street. The committee Members have been provided with copies. of the following: 1. Report to City Council tin your meeting held, 2/4/8,00 2, Report from planning staff dated 2/15/80 on-propo .ed amendments to County ' General Plan for the Chico urban area. Unless addii:ional review and meetings > are 6eces80v, the committee should snake speciffc recommendations to the City Planning,Commission, City Couneil, County Planning Commission and Qoard:of Supervisors concerning amendments to their r0 pectl Ve General Plans to b)',i ng them into -con f or,,0 i ty: Since the Council delayed making its five appointments to -the Citizens .Coirifl,ttee ' at its 2/5/30 mcefing, the committee: should indicat if the Gounci1 should now.+ proceed with these appointments M D7' Lr _ City Gl �,rk s Councilman Grieco,, Chti Count i lnlan Hay: Councilman Dry Supervisor Dolan Supervisor Whuel er County Planning Dept. REMINDER: Fol 1'owing this meeting (at 5:00 P.M.) County, Public Works the Council Ar,d Board have scheduled a ; Oint County udmi n, Ofcw,, meeting i. the, Council Chamber to discuss the City' Mana,gerproposed -ptqrtht4st. Chico Sanitary Sewer Assess- Pldnhing Director merit District. •Director Publ is ti orks City Attorney DCi4/ACiis Now5 Media (4) Buifa C . F�5;iti a COO, (M' ' J {x'810 �lcw5 i -7s w4t , CITY Or CHiGO -w..�—.:.�.• _.. —moo. _.. TO: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DA`f E�= FEBRUARY 15, 1980 COMMITTEE (MTG. 2/2-1/80) FROM: PLANNING STAFF FILE; CP G199A-C-S_T-18 SCISJEC T PROPOSED AMENUM`NTS TO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CHICO URBAN AREA At your February 4, 1980 meeting, City Planning staff was requested tµ analyze poten- tial impacts of the above named proposal upon the Chico General Plav, and to make recommendations for alleviating areas of conflict., Pursuant to this request., a com- parative City/County Land Use Map was prepared, the "buildout" population of the County Plan was estimated (see attached, sheet), and comments fr_,m the City's Fire, Police and Publis Works Departments were solicited In summary, the proposed amendment to the County Plan would provide for an additional '8,844 persons within the Chico Sphere of Influence, be,Yond what is indicated on the Chico Land Use Map Outside the Chico ,Sphere, the County proposes 5,578 acres for urban and rural residential'uses containing a future population of 18,175. The Chico CLiheral Plan projects a populauion of 87,,225 (see attached sheet) for areas Within the. Sphere by 1995. Therefore, the County Plat! would increase that figure by 27,025 persons, or a Chico area population of 1143250; At an average annual growth rate of 2.2%, roughly the rate used 'n the Chico GenePlan pop „� ,n�"""8.i u,,,. � General �,iatinCti0n, It wo�,kld take 30 years . (the year 2010) before Chico Would reach . � proeosed holding capacity of the Comity Plan: At a more generous rate of growth, 2.7%, it would take 25 years to reach this same point. Impacts on City Se-_rvice Public Works A review of the County's proposed land use designations within the • Chico Sphere indicated that they would not cause a significant impact upon existing and propostd urban services such as roads and sewer. Urban designations for areas -outside the Sphere could ;have Adverse impacts upon existing Public Works facilities, fire Urban land Uses proposed on the County Map for areas west of'the SPRR tracks world hasten the need for an additional fire station in that area/ Police The increase in densities pvoposed by 4he Coun'tiy for the northwestern fringe Of the City's Sphere would have an adverse impact on Police services, This is due to the fact that it is inefficient for they Police Cepartmtnt to service an enclave of higher density residen'tiae uses.. on the fringe of the urban area; P►^eserVatioh.of PrimeAyicultural Land One of the major, underpinnings 0 the Chico General Plan is, the concept of focusing urban development to the east of the City, as well as "infilling" of the urban area, I order to preserve the rich agricultural soils on Chico's Westside, Therefore, �r CITY OF CH'ICO Y REPORT T0" 'INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DATE: FEBRUARY 155, 1980 COMMITTEE (MTG. 2/21/80) FROM: PLANNING STAFF FILE. CP 61°9/A -C -ST -1'8 SOWE'CT- PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CHICO URBAN AREA - PAGE 2 special attentibn should be paid to the impacts the compromise proposal dould have on this policy: Iie eurrent amendment to the Cou4ity Land Use Element would allow urban and rural residential.development upon 3,55Ofacres of prime soils on Chico's northwest (including the Airport Rezone area), west and southwest sides. Clearly, a substantia' amount of productivo farm.l_and is in question. Recomendation.s While the urban/suburban land use*designations of the new County Land Use Map cannot be justified orr :he basis of projected population growth 'alone, they may represenh a compromise that, in the long term, will enable the City to realize itsyX-41 of -preserving the rich agricultural lands on its westside. The City's General Plan, in addressing the preservation issue, points out on page 15 that "The Whole ctncept ofpreserving agriculture and guid4ng urban deve=lopment will be lost unless the City and County undertake a un, tied course of action." Irl°the ` recommendattunsf ares1 Tshi ested, thTheseunified reco�r�nendation,saexpand thosei�lresirjg specific ` ented in 9g_ p Supervisor Golan's memo to the Intergovernmental Relations Committee, and Supervisor' Hilda Wheeler, dated February 4, 1980 l . For the areas within the Ci ty' .c primary Sphere of Influence, the City and County shall work towards a compromise consistent with sound plam'iing prihtipals. The agricultural areas on the City Plan within the Sl,ihere will be amenued to indicate appropriate urban land uses, recogniz'Inq the existing lance developments in the area: The City Plan should, in most Other instances, prevail. 2. For all projects in the works which 'propose urhan/suburban developments un prime agricultural soil's, the County will endeavor to impler.nt that viable projsols. In thisect alternative which pre,ierves the maximum account of prime ` rd, the County should set a goal 'to preserve a signi- ficant percentage of the 3;,550 acres of agricultural sails now indicateu' for urban/sub,crban develOpment 3 I;ot• all urban areas outside nf'the Primary and Secondary Spheres of Influence, the City and County, jointly, should prepare specific plOns so that future. and facilities required for urban deVR�lopment, The City boil then amend developments in these areas will contain the necessary pu General an and Spheres, of Influence plan with the eventual, l,go '' genera P'�' � p �` ventual• :goal. of its ►laving these urban areas within the City limits; 4. The area' i;i elle vWnity of the Big Chico Creek Estates $ubdivis�on 8hould ., TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL ,'RELATION S DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 1980 COMMITTEE (MTG. 2/21/80) FROM: PLANNING STAFF FILE: CP 6199/A -CAST -18 SUBJECT' PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO' COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CHIC,O URBAN AREA PAGE D have large lot suburban zo-A ng west of the approved subdivisions;'and agricultural zoning with at least 10 acre lot sizes west of Glenwood; Fcs recom.,(ended in Supervisor Oolan's memo. Respectfully submitted, rte° Jere Bol stet Acting P1aniing Director J R/ km ct: Director of Public Works Fire Chief Chief of . Police { County Planning Staff i ., _.,.._ -. ...,....... ... ... .-'..war. .,. L' A PbPULAT `i ESTIMATE FOR THE COUNTY LAND. z MAP Areas _Wt thin the Chfto Sphere of Il,fluenre 'POPULATION MIMATE FOR THE COUNTY LAND USE MAP Gross Acreage and Po ulp ationi Acres DwelIIhgs Population Holding Population for the Chico Vicinity Rural DensityCh1co 785 785 11805 Gehell Plan estimate for Sphere of 87;725 Influence -'by 1995 Low Density 63G 2,544 5,850 Not Increase in Inner Sphere Densities; 2,844 Medium Density 312 2,496 51740 Proposed by County . Cortrercia1 226 'Buildout Population 'Beyond Chico Sphere Line 2 18,175 industrial 258 _ TOTAL 114,244 TOTAL 7177- 5 ir- `- 130395 '' Years at 2;2x Growth Rato to Reach 114,2443; - 30 Net Po ulation2 Years at 2"7% Growth ,"tats to Reach 114,7444' M 25 Rural And Low Density 3,115 1,74 Podium uensity 2,02666D Subtotal , Coamerciald 1 Adjusted Net Popuiatibn �, 2 god'. `b?14F A .This h4UVe iOdUdes the 71,160 General .Plan projection plus populaeions for the Northeast-Chito Specific Plan, California Park, The Villages, and the proposed Southeast'Chico Sewer Assessment bistrict areas, Areas Outside the WCis_Sphere of Influence '24eas not included in this Astimatei but which are designated for agricultural Acreago.and Populati,n residential use, 'are the area between Highway 32 And Stilson Canyon Road east of. --- ACA Me1. 1 -hasPo uletion the Chico SphAre of Influonte, and the area between Humbug Road and the SPynay east of the Sphore; Population estimates could not be compiled in time for distribution Agricultuea Resitd'ehtial IoM '", b 6,970 of this report, !. LdFr Densit y 1,D9 0 4,352 16,106 � 3 i.2% was the r, Chico urban arek th rate (dr Chico �19�0-�5) and is Used here assuiniml a GO,O�rj population }'or 190D; , Medium Density Gb 480 1005 4 2.71 is A liberal figura, in extass of our current growth tato, 1. Commercial 225 Industrial 250 Total �7`, 9-0 1 These figures rbprosant areas where the County Utts th)h the Ch to Nap, Population estimates Land Use Nap proposes more intensive are based on a cont6tVati0 2,3 ' per 6e1'1ing figure, persons 2 The net pepulation estiinatt it densities,, the difference betwoen County -proposed densities AM City-prdposed • 3 .Ih several Oros, the county prbpotas commercial `[herefore► uses in. place of City designated rest dential user, 1000 dwellings; or 2,590 people antfdipaied Pian would pdtentiatly_be dis01Atvd by these cdmm6rcial ddsignation3, With the Chico ,_ a�-'S3e Fbotnoto 02,bn the+ fdllowlnn nS,i CITY QF CHICQ ------- REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION (MTG. 3/3/801 DATE* MARCH 3, 1980 . FR OiM PLANNING STAFF FILE: CP 6238/Ae:C-ST-18 SUBJECT: INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETINGS REGARDING CITY/COUNTY GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE The Council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee h at February 4, 1980, with County Supervisors Dolan and Wheeler dfor rthempurpose ufnce resolving differences between the City and County General Plans. The focus of dis- t�ussion has been the proposed amendment to the County Land Use Map for the Chico area and its impacts upon the City's General Plan; In summary, the Courty Plan amendment would Provide higher dio nsities areas within the Ch:co St"bore of Influence ad would allow Urbanizationrofeareas outside the City's Sphzre and Greeniine, Attached to this report are estimates of the County Plan's Population increase beyond what. is designated on the Chico Plan. To -date, the members of the above Committee have agreed on -the following dompromises betwean the City and County Plans and have requested your review and cpmnienfis itnn.n same. 1 (he City�. and County 'should redraw their respective land Use designations to coinc$de with the 1978 Northwest Chico Rezone and all appproves; subdivint o and rezonings beyond the Chico Sphere, The Greenlne should al sty be amended to Include these areaso 2. The area in the'vicnity of Big Chico :reek Estates Subdivision should have large lot suburban zoning west of all approved subdivisiohs; and agHcultural' zoning With at least 10 acre lot sizes west of Glenwood Avenue, 3 The City should amend its General Plc, n Map to reflect all...other changes �ndi�- of Influence, cated on the proposed County band Use Map for areas w.thin the Chico Sphere p, � Works which rb ose urban/su �� For all ro ects in the wo p p burbah development on prime agricultural soils, tho County Will endeavor to implement that viable project alternative Which presbmOs the ma�simum airing,: t of prime soil, Such projects include 06,HighWay 32 Rez0he; North Esplanade Rezone, Airport E`nvirons Rezone and South Chico Rezone, set a oal ' Th this r�.gard, the County shn!;, d 9 to preserve a significant percentage bf the approximately 3,000 acres of agricultural soils noW indicated for irbanstrburban developireht, The Commission's com(Pents on the proposals above will be pt- vented to the Council y,he i � a +. at their C!eti'h,g of March 18, 19807 A11 comments from the City will then be. trans- s Ch coj theto tCityoWill-undertakena Generalhplahthla revised County Land Use Map for p amendment. R, spectfu ly submitted, _ ..'. LP/km Li rFr Ce' Wssist' ant Planher Desk Gay _ Aft Ar, hment