HomeMy WebLinkAbout80-72 MINUTES & STAFF FINDINGS #3 5 OF 7Sighs A ., �ns, .sr.
Notes.: 1. Average gross value per, acre, based on 1980-1981
Butte County Agricultural Commissioner's Annual.
Crop
Report rather than the higher values suggested
C p
r
t tion 1 750 ko
by .the Department of conservation,
or°chards and $750 for rotor crops -
2. Acreage based on planimeter measurements from Table
3: Includes black walnuts, kiwi fruit apricots, pista,,.hios
and pltris .
4. Niultiplicrs suggested by the Department of (.onsex`vlton
"s l for orchards crops and 2.S for row crops.
These estimates ugg
est that the existing crop acreage in the planning
area account for 10.7 percent of the County's total 7.981 crop value,
estimated at $2.3,S,750,000 (planning area estimate does not include
value of livestock). Total agricultural production. in the planning
area is estimated to have an economic value of �77,6g7,320 resulting
from the multipliers involved in successive transactions t-h.rouA-the
community: Based on the existing crop acreage, g
mission's draft plan would result in an 18.8 percent reduction in
.`
ncnntxast,the
a r.Lculturally related commnnityecomicaloj
Coalition proposal would reduce based economic value
by
14.7 percent.
The above atalys is examines the
economic impact of the conversion of
e c�. sting crops. Because portions of the planning area's agyicliltura.
Is are fallow,
soithe potential. economic impact could be much gt ate
than the existing crop types For example 5 as timillg the current
crop proport otis (�4 n orciaara and 36%, ro,Wa ivriga�ted pasture) and
average gross value per acre
$$, .1 or almonds ($1,267.92) and roll crops
irrigated pasture (08.25), the total vol" aC the 8000 acres of
SCS Class 'I and I! soils which would bo converted to urban uses
=
under the Commission's proposal could result in a lass Af app
roux
Mately $1,089)460. Using tiie a��prapriate multipliers, this re,,ire,ents
an economic loss to the cCmmtin,617,`ay
it;y of,approximately $11 480.
conserving greater amounts of Class 1 and Il Lands, the coalition S..
proposal would result in an etonomic loss Of approxi.niately
representing a loss of $17,6831100 to the comm tnitY,.
a G
f,
5.A Comment provide an additional alternative which directs
growth to the north and east away from the prime agricultural
lands located on the west.
B. Response - In directing that the draft EIR prepared in con-
junction with the original project be revised, the Board of
Supervisors specifically sought to focus on the Planning
Commission's recommendation with the Coalition's proposal
as the designated alternative. The principal difference
between the Commission and Coalition lies in the extent to
which development would be permitted on the agricultural soils
of the west side. The Coalition proposal does not address
all land use throughout the community. The poor soils on
the east side of the community require selvage, collection
systems. Two large sewage assessnteint districts were formed
by the City of Chico on the east side of the community. The
General Play amendments accompanying the formation of these
sewer districts ate incorporated into both Plan alternatives.
Toth districts are capable of handling many years o:E popula-
tion growth and are essential to any policy to preserve
agricultural land. Development on the west side and not the
north and east is the focus of much debate and controversy'.
Section 2.3 reviews the history of the project and includes
a discussion of how the proposed sewage collection districts
will 1 facilitate the development of the north and east
portions o,C the community-
An additional alternative which conserves the maXi.mum amount
of agricultural soils can be developed from the 1981 MIR band
Use Inventory maps. These maps depict the existing crops and
areas devoted to urban uses. Add the following to the DEIR
1.$,A MiX mum Conservation Greenl ane:.
An additional alternat:i-Ve
can e developed from the 1961 n1YR Land Use znventor)�
maps. As a regular part of their data gathering process,)
the DWR collects information on. land use. This informa.
tion mapped on the USCS 7� minute (lr' 2.0001) topo-
graphical .laps is the sage scale as the Chico Area Land
'Use Plan .cap, MR) concerned more about water needs
from agricultural uses, provides information on crops
and areas of urban development. An ag-ricul.tural -urbat
growth boundary could be established by locating the
boundary. around the existing large scale, contiguous
urban development on the west: side. This alternative,
,pi..g'ure would convert fewer acres than
the Pl.a� ning Commission and fewer than the 4oal.iti.on.
While the most apparent difference is a reduction in the
loss of agricultural soils impact, this al tolriat'lve
taould also reduce traSfic ':L, pacts in the ;,oath Chico area
and drainage localized flooding in the northwest and
south Chico areas. Numerous pockets of urban develop-
ment and sma lien agriultt[ral paTccls would be located
on the agri.c:tcltural side of the boundavy, The pockets
..
of urban uses could be treated as non -conforming uses, or
islands with a Greenline surrounding each or 1+'.1ressed
as
through policy statements., use of this alternative
the area Industrial., Agricul-
would reduce planned ."or
tural Residential and Low Density Residential. uses.
This alternative should be given more study before
adoption.
6. A.
Comm;, - question the large amount of prime agricultural land
on 11rj)gjj side of Greenline-;
B.
Response - Much of the controversy has cent red on the location
of Some feel that the Planning Commission''s
theGreenline.
recommendation permits the conversion of too much agricultural
the affected land
land while others, particularly some of
believe that the proposal adversely affects property
owners,
rights or believe that circumstances (economic factors,
parcel size,, adjacent land uses or soil quality) do not
justify inclusion of their property`on t'he agrlculturl side
of the line. The Commission was guided by the principal, that
Agricultural Residential (rural residential) uses should pro-
vide a buffer or transition between agricultural uses and
higher density residential.. The
urban uses paxt'cul.arl,y
Commission sought to balance the need for preservation with
the v etvs of the property* ojv7lers . As a result of public
testimony, the planning Commission revised the original deaf"t
and in doing so increased the amount of agricultural land
proposed for urban designations. The difference between the
Planning Commission's proposal and the original dr, ft Plan
it 'be
proposed amounts to an estimated 1.588 acres should
noted that the impact report t ido'ntifies total. soil loss
r
(all undeveloped parcels on agricultural soils regardless
he total
or zoning) Thus, the 5,000 -is ta
c
of parel size
Class c and xX :land and does not judge the economic viability
of the indiva.dual parcels in the area.
See also Comment - Response #1) :
7 A.
Comment - disagrees With planning Department's recommendation
or �overriding considerate n
B.
Res ease - Th+� matter o,t social. and. economi.o factors for use
i.n, the final. analysis a matter
azz overriding coatterrations is
for the Board of Supervisors as t�tb t:%c al dec1,si.tin. ma`kirtg bed`.
The staff's` reco1metldatiOn was' Intended to alert the culBoatural of
inl)�Lct (;Loss of ag°ricltltural
1l erv* SOrs to the fact that the
be int ti and as 5Clclt c'rLYI only be adopted b
land) cannUt gsted
makirig the fili(li.ngs pt:lrsuhn-t to Ch A. "I'ho findings rez�uired
under CPQA are revtoWad for thO Board of S�.�pory sons and
the in the beginning ng o f those res .pensee to comments.
public
h
Table
Ci1TC0 ATM
�� ILLrTMSON ACT CONTRACTS
Cern"_r ct Contract Planriell Planned
amc Acrea c Date Use Sta.tta5 Use�Cam. .
Use�Coa1.;
Hanhoman Ffttms, Inc. 40, 6 2m 75 Orchard Active OFC On
iennantan Parm8, Inc 46.0 2-74 Orchard Active OPC OFC +
13erttigna Orchi -Vds Inc 119,Z 2» 7 l Orchard Active OPC OFC
Beotagna 0rchard8- Inc 43...:2 73 OxcharCl Active _ OFC OFC
Dc.tagnn Orch rds'Inc 515.0 170 Otchard Active OFC OFC ,
Cts itaich 148,65 6 2.75 orchard Active OIC OFC
Casey Ranch 8"') 4,1 2-78 orchard Active OPG OFC
Lewis - _ �'� ;, � _2 .'t 7 0r611aTC1 Active OFC OFC
ruc'e et7i ��4.4Ei 2•r7 Orchard Active OIG OP`C
1ie.7•ttx na 5 i� �,, '7� Ot�611a, a Active OFC OFC
Bort gna Ord ands Inc 5 5 2 7u Qrclitti 4 Active OIC OFC
110-tinaman . 20.35 ;.2 •75 Orch,i.rd Active OFC OItC
Leach . 2 78 Orchard ,Active 1�C QFC
1 e tn�irr.52
rnvrarms. IncInd S 2-76 Orchard
ActiveOOTIC O.PC
f 16.0 2- 7Cy Orchard. Active OF -C OFC
Almont Orch, Inc 11.22`.77 Orchard Active OFC OFC
2,.77 Orchara Active OPC OPC
I
Ctt1:r'lot�►l. 70 5 l
Nicholos 28.4 2-711 Active On OFG
,vt1g.i.enos VaTtits I'= 19 10 2-75 or vhard Active 011.0 OPC 1'
Uecltcr 0rc1i;:ir18 Ttitr 24,95 2-77' Orchard. Ac
OPC O,r
r
24,95 247 Orell attl Activa OrC OCC
�► 24,95 1.-79 Orchn-V0 Activa OV0 OFC
Dina mild Int'jil Cop 25.0 2„75 0ra1-1avd Active' Industria. Or.0
,►
S 7 1 3 2-73 Orchard Active Indu8t`ri.al OFC
►� 6 2x.75 orchard Active AG-ht8 OFC
y5r;rh"rdtair 21�`
'
3
SUPPLEMENT TO THE
LAND USJ' IMEMENT VEXT
Land Use
1
Including PU'rbaneGrowthiT3oun da.rable y,: the Chico Arca Land Use pian,
y.
TIM G RE E �NIL I NF
Purpose
The ChicoArea Lapel Use Plan establishes an,
an, t�tl�ttn y
,or 11green:l.ine". The xo�4th botindazy,
cxl 3' ximits Of urban veloPmenttwhiclithas o� is
ytoccur 1 t oclu v ,.-
,��
a,gticul.tura.:l lands The Veenline is intended to Provide CP duct�.on�;..
term protectio t O the a
the throats t o these rcSourcestconics iron the cds of- incr. hIcO area. Otte of
version to Urban uses. In aidi•tion the oachilrent Of and con,
clt�ce other urian-a iclt _ grco ll:i.ne :is inset d id to re-
urban tra:f ft.c W air i�lr nach.111orycconflicts �ts ,n rl�ehl �.m�rlttc`t: ion 01"
c:x�op- ilia cllinery va.ndel isin, the aver slay cc a cro "- ... ttt tion of
to slow the speculation in a.gr:ictalttiral �.alld: `J+1tr��c�eCinit nsuJ~oca cl
talon, timing and oper"-ttion o�f the groei�iillo are cl.cscn� b li in , J
-policies belotiv`
In accord with the policies coma i.necX in the Castel CTso I ' F
~� ,anent
the Cotitnty Of Butr.e shall Ptoserve and protect Paroduct:i,�re '
a 7•i cud titr a .a
to nds. It iA the policy of the Country o;lr nutte
prevent t:he premature and avoidable conversion of product i re
a "ticultura lands to titbttn uses. po' this ��trrpose, tli; County
`
establishes a �►
xecniine" t o t1e,Cine agrI ctl7 tttxax l.ahtls i�nirl t1�c
3 ifilits or urban dcsvol.opanent: "Chis urbLtn f
9'roWth' bounda
mc.n tla l Color. dingy C bnev'�tiones -Withthe9 7, Ly p.r. Chico l; triter roar., .
2 The j roonline shall be i.ctenti ►�1,t±cl i.�t t}lo Chico Area X"ka.atcl
U a ci I�lttn
maPlt t�Tl bold
�.ehl,cl at►o s shown cin �Ixc C1aIto Area and tisc pItin;
. i .y
s �� re cniine -is s ec.�l" c, 'large sca'(; exhibit Tnap , cortified
by the l 1,caniiing JJi octor shall be Cott s'UItO lI1 t:hc= -4..e , ri rt c�
puto. 4a.s
. The l;recnlino mas esti:blished to follow physical bot-,z Ittt• :o ;
qLjcjj
as streets, vanas 'raj"Itoad �ltnesJ cree�es Of
UI-Iain use zones; and lio ert j *ttC5s. � a etc. µ �r'i
to p y he separation o l:�a.t`eols.
was Ildi . to "t rnalitbi lin ait,cl only • hon the shape or con, 1, t hat ion
procl.racil Using the jricttY s dose z��a ct above . t FutureitXctltliTlGtt`i' p;C
the ;reef:l3.ne 1shotilel _ horo to aac S1,1410 iprinc:i.pIC8
I
Land
Use Mealaent Text
Vage
4.
It is the policy of the County of Butte that the gr'e,enline
shall mark the boundary between Agricultural Residential, Low
Density, Mod um Density, and liigla Density Residential, Commercial,
lnclu.stvi al and Public land use designations and Orchax d Banc, Field
d
Crop, Open and Crazi,jl , and At-ri.cultuxal-lZesiden-t:la,t land usF
designations That land on the 'urban side of the g,reenline shall
be devoted `to'urban land uses in accord with the land use designa-
tions of the Chaco ,Area Land Use Plan as amended from time to
time. That land on -the agricultural side or the ggreenliAe shalt
be :Limited exclusively to Orchard and Pie,lct Crops . Grazing ajid
Open Land, and Agri ctiltuv l Residential uses as � oX i 71ed in the
Ceneral Plan,
S.
Pockets ot, existing non-agricultural land usOs iJOsterly of the
groonl i:ne are Ido_nt UlLed in the Chico Area Land 'Use plan. The
groonline shall suTroulld these areas to prrostrrve the 1pteg'rity
of agricultural ,land: and use. Notha.ng, in this '��olicy slwal.1 1)0
construed to 11mit the use and development of, the land within
:hese areas in aCCord. With the OVOTa.11 land. use pol�l.c:ies of the
County of Butte,
5.
'Elio groenline is established for a period covered by the Oeneva.l.
P1.an
7.
a,men'dment or change in the gveenline which roduces the area. do-
V ,o toted to agriculture arid. conversely increases the D�oton-t;i al area
urban development ishall be -clone se, only upon. Specl lYiYc
Wri,tt.oli ti.ndings which cliaantitlt:tivoly documents the nood, alte r-
Tlatives coxts.id,+eTed or ;i; oason,s why the conva s ion of a.grietiltural,
l;a.fiN 'is In thvo pu'IMt; interest,
3.
j �,►".i �� taItLt1,a1 �,and$ sues t o K" the gx+oepl.inC shall iie zoa>cc1 i=dx
V tiic�tiltuial uses a5 cleSC"fxi13 d in the land use categot' s:
l'a.Xrul.s a.0 :less than, the minimum sluall ho;xion-c .T."0'1liliit
With all ri rights as:Soclated thera to unless �� � � l.- ani
Rrcol$
ndiixags'are :made that the intent to protact
special, ons3,rC.era,ti.ou The tale pormi.t rrocoss to seg ''l to ;1oal�ra—
ai:tes aan:d caagrictil tura�l �)ro ess, ng Cac Ll,°l't ie.s shah bo ail tib e
to address sp'etia;, needs wi.t,fiin agt"lcu.l.tiral a�•eas, .-���a Of
A-z zoning shall be rov.LOWed a.ricl TOO �,,ra.c.ec1 14"t4h aai , c n ist na~.
with, app:laictablo :Land U.50 dZ?.sign:11;:4ons ti
9,
In Girder to lessen the Impact or Urban and agn-1, cut l px"aeticoS
and to
i-romot o toloralic.e and iiildors'tand�tslig bgtlger en th+mt'ir 85rOups
that a1t1lftoT
w oa is' to be, eb L`a.�bll shed- Or Providod rut lac w0ea
ittt°C'TISI re a�tr"LCUILU'Vll urban de-f sit' os,
`�. ,
Ca
Land Use Element Text L
Page
1
10. The extension of streets, roads,
solver lines or. otlxer, majortitila
utilities into the agricultural side across the
l
not be precluded. I.folvever, such extension shall, not by tliem-
selves, provide a basis for the relocation of tl�E gra�nl i�tr, nor
Shall such. extensions be the basis for any Of. the
nidesin
nation Of
productive a.g icul tura lands to urb,ar 1,-sage.
ZONING', .. CONSxSTENCl' AND TIMING
1. The Cha.ca Area Land Use. Plan establishes land use designations
which depict desirable future ,land use patterns. State lajv
requires consistency bet,reon generallano
In order to encourage an orderly transita.onoIciesdand zonintg.:
the
existing to the desired pattern, the ndea�take to
shall
County hl t
r"0110 thoso lands Consistently iv 1;i1 the County sA
Plata. ironing in illerea Land Use
so areas shall be upgr��tdod t.hrOt)811 tilno a4itl
a. commensurate shoAving o'(; need, a' eq ate serv.ic�es dx4ait�age etc;
as p�'oiridecT dor in the Butte Count), ,band Use 1?lonctjt. zoning
in these areas to less than; the maxi.mu►ti provided for in tiro
Pla'aIs designations shall be onsidered con"is�tont with the
Butte County cc
ty I s General. Plan by virtu() of policies cl,a:,a.=e c�:cd at
Orderly Devela niettt
;�. P Claago 30j-9 and Residential heveloptne ,t
Inullastiucture
ges X41 l�xioxity shalt be capacity. �ireri b tTt.oso areas with
g t
CIrtC IATTO'
Area ingid. and
proposed s,troo.ts �,txd roads depicted in,
1 ]y�;�s Cita and
�� tlta Ciaa.co
Tall be cons.cl��t,cd necessary to )neot ,i a tttr o
cii�culatioxx needs. These shall be con icl,ered � s partai the
County's circulation `el.omont
ANtN%,�AT10N
l.
'd7aose areas des:i gimt0d.:Po) urban usos tva ttz n iht? Gity of Chi��ca s;
P, ere of �,nfluettct
sh�1� . be e �c.ouraged to am
tox to t'ste C,� t.y of
' 1
Clt��o
lli;l�1'N�;ITlONS 11Ni�_ t�li'CT'�,,
Porusotl site be
o:i' this sec.tlr)ll the :Collow,Ing do rim, ttolls shall
b�
1, "Prod.uctive agricultural land" is define t, as :Land:. which
1j'as the riuti .� tier necessary to Provide the pror:ttabl+
coatltner�%�t.l 'Prodrmti011 of agricu,littral l `odt.�Cis
.i:n maidttg
Laird
use Llement Text A
D'R
Page
4
the 'determination that land is "productive agriru:ltura'l
land", Butte County shall, Consider the following character-
istics of the land.
A. The ].and is of sufficient sizo and shape to tallow
for the commcrcial prod -u tion of al r icu.ltueal
products; plus
Bi The ].and is not land fol' which .fifty percent (50v)
or more of i-ts per.imo•tcr i i.mmedi.tt'toly a 0 j acent to
land which is used or 'zoneu primatily .for jOon-
agricultural putpo8os, other than Toads; plt; s
C The physical condition oft4lYe land is condttci.ve t0
the CoataaalC'TCiftl prod.11etioIl 01 - atgri.citltura]. JM(tUcts,
In making this determination, the presence off; absonce
o.f Soy]. Cow"Orvation Service Gasses T and 11 soils,
iho, avai.labili ty of Avator, t.1to' depth OF the 8-011
tjj,l , presence or absonces of soil I`utrioll'i.s, „the
presence oi, t,Lbec ice ofrocks, tho px=oscrto,o o'a` at7soarec
of tC1xZC st1 bstailcc s a d -soii f 11SeasQs) and '010
steepness of the terrain, shall'all bo taken into
consa.dera:ti on
2,
The term "COMaterca.al production of a,gricultt val products"
1,s tlefi`tled els agrlcultural prodltc°t'a t�Il Capab'1C O� pr411i.ding
suf;l i.ca ent cash income to pay for production costs,; pay 'Eos:
p-toperty taxes,pay .f.''or trio of inary anti custom, mounts
sari
01' debt Se ti"1�.I t~C' for such, pvopbr ty, plus pay' suf T.c l.ant net
Incoaneto. pro`rYido a nomal and Iriora Ouablo C11111ourit, off amilv
ill UtZ1G' when, l; Cotitj led V l.'t,'I normal agricultural ilvestv"-suta
_
and practice
3..
.y Y
Tho tcrlit "urban s:id,e 'o of }tile Gveen Line" is defined. as
.th
side of the Green Line Jot witch tArban-typo land use we5ag'~
nations (Tndustrial) Commei`c:i.al , 1 od"lutii ho'ns-ity ite�i�•°a';ki��!]
high Dor . ty ltesIdenti.al,, boAV ponsity Ats d nt.ial,� Pvl,) ct
Agricultural lZesa.'dontittl) have boot es°:�.blI'shad by 115uttj
County.
4o
The torltt ",q9r' cu] tu't,1l sWO, of the Green Line" is dex irod
as the aroa, away ,from =tho Urb"Mt areas, f6r which ;VVX CU1tUI'd1.*
type land l sty dogigal� t:�oas (�1 `thlYrll"tt and ii'aolCl C'i'o�is, �6`tlt.:lrig
ancl: iJpeil ,H11t1, gt'ICIt tU'"'cL'�1.'�i, es'.I.CIGI']'�a.al) il.savc been C«�tit� lishtld
1;yDutto County,
711
-a
Land Use B1Cyttent Text
Page 5
S. The term "designated urban areas" is defined as those areas
which are currently being used for agricultural purposes,
but which have nonetheless, become irrevocabl)r committed
to urban use because the close• pr0x.imity of existing urban
neighborhoods and communities makes impracticable the cbzif-inued
use of such lands for agricu ttural purposes or because past
official actions have designated the area for 'urban use.
Such past official action would include making substantial
capital investments in urban services such
cis potable water,
surface water drainage systems or other public utilities,
6. The term "buffer zona" is defined as an area, of interface
between intensive agriculture prac and densities of ?
residential, nature higher than one per acre. 'i'lt,ese areas
may be only one parcel deep in `the Agr.Iculturai Resiaon't'ja7
category of the 'Land Use L'loment o:L. one -t:o :Rve acxes in
size but in all cases providing for a xses:r,r�e�xc rK � .0 xcc .trod
of 100 feet to minimize the impacts of ova, sprays, dusts,
noisos trespass, vandalism, etc.-
inter-DepartifidAIF� iem®randunn
TO Board of Supervisors
Planning Department
sua,tect: Responses to Comments, Chico Area Land Use Pl.ai.
File No 80-72 #3
DpTi June .18; 1982
According; to Clearly v. the County of Stanislaus
(attached),
n, app -
eellatcourt case decided last year, the lead agency
pe
County) must respond in detail to timely state agency
comments and presumably to individual comments as well.. Tile
volume and extensive character of the comments received from
state: agencies and individuals has required, addit,"conal research,.
This includes information available only from other agencies
which the department has not yet received. As a result, the
department will not have responses prepared for your consider-
ati syn on the 25rd.
The overlay maps requested lay the Chair are prepared and willbe available at the 25rd hearing. Th, i.s shoitici nod prevent the
Board from soliciting additional comments, considering closing
file public hearing, therefore enabling the department to prepare
a :Canal. FIR (draftEIR, comments and responses) for your-
Board's consideration prior to making a decision. Unless the
comments received by the Board. on the 23rd are extensive or
complicated, ,a date in the latter part of July wall. probably
be adequate.
GDI� i lkt
Attachment: Cleary v, Stanislaus, reviewby OPR
i;
GENE CHAPPIE wAbNua�frcrricc,
•` 14r nicrnlcr. CALIFORNIA 1730 LONOIYORTf1 14mot ()rricc Bui .bINO
WArkltwm4, G,C. 20314
COMMITTEE W4 AGRICULTURE (W*2 XZ"076
bIWCOMMIrTEe61 ♦ �j n � j�j' PISTIIICr O['i^..
COTTON, RICE. ANO SUGAF2. - � „ L �+" of 1je QeM6..� iiL+rii Otatez 270 EAST ATH $TREEY
CHICON CALIFORNIA %i,9926
FORESTS, FAMILY FARMS ryrye*// f �j }� �rny�/.rr (� � � (9 16) S<�JS-J33S
AND CNERGY Vtwe of Ai:,prtssClltatlbe.
DOMESTIC MARKETING, CONSUMER
BSLATIONS. AND NUTRITION RUQ' >t�jtlC�fOit, �a:.6i+i.. 2V LJ
June 8, 1982 uutte Cao. Flanning C•titrtiyl.
Bettye xi rcher JUN 10 198a
P1 arul6 Director
County of Butte QrOVIN, Caillorn ll
7 County Centex Drive
Oroville, Ca. 55965
Dean Mrs. I�i.rcher
Same questions have arisen which I hop you or your si:e.ff cmt1
help me answer. The questions relate to two maps appearing in
the Revised, Draft Enviror rental Impact Report for the Chico Area
Land. Use Plan; An Amendment to the Butte County Ceneral Plan, dated
:April 1982.
A constituent hes asked for the source of the maps aprearibg on
Pages 45 and 51 of the report: Ixe would like to know who originally
drew the maps, what their original purpose was and what alterations,
if any, were made on the maps before they were inserted into the
EIR
r
I knowossibl+�a pp mouthful. I would appreciate a written replay
as soon as
Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
Best regardsr
..
I-%yt R.lkins
District Coordinator
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
�G OFFICE: OF PLANNING ANDP- F_ARCH
1400 TENTH' STREET
SACRAMENTO 958x
EOMUNa G. CROWN JR.
'
GOVERNOR.- -
9 T V32LY-8515 Buiie Ca. Planning Cwrm
JUN 15 1992
September lgg.Tl
Oroville. Carawrie
RGLE OF STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ANG STATEAGENCY COMMENTS
GrVEN,BOOST BY APPELLATE COURT
by Rom Bas
R California appeals court has, recently issued a decision re
Q the State CTearinghouse:and the responsibilities, Of lead agencies tong rerole
spond;
to state agency comments in the environmentaT review process. The case Cleary
CountFr of StanisTaus,. 1.T8 Cal. App 3d' 348,; which was decided in fipril T9Ll,, held:
6 Tead agencies must: respond in detail to timely state
agency comamrts:
• late state agency comment, do not require respatises by lead
agencies, and
lead agencies Dust make specific findings when an 'FICC'
identifies significant environmental' impacMs.
Facts
A Stanislaus landowner sought approval cf the County of a general DTan amendrient
rrom; agricultural to planned deveTopmen;t to permit.commerciaT and recreatior.'aT use.
The County Prepared' and: circuTated to the State Clearinahouse a Draft Environmental
Impact Report on the proJEct:. The- DEIf? was sent to the
review irr. October T9 8_ The review period set L* SLate Clearinghouse for
dance ,With CER - p u the State Clearirghouse in aeeor-
Q guy oeT ones ended on November 28, T9i8.. During the 'CTeari nghouse,
rev ewr period, several agencies commented an the inadequacy of the' DEIR. On
December .9, the SCH sent the comments to the County W`
indicating brat State revieri of -he GEIR was complete,th its usual caves Tetter
zn responding to tfre state a Enc cofr�rents,. o
ad address many, of the aTTeged inadequacies. TheeCoun s responses nses� oscificalTy
general: --in sola cases indica`ing. that it thought F comments �verz
were insignificant, he concerns of the state agency
For example, comments. of") Air Resources Board Frere:
'The potential ef,eLts on air=ual4rare q 1 not discussed. The County
needs to address the existiag emissions from the project site, esti-
mate emissions generated btu the project,
'�
. - , it�';;Etion measures and
Project related i:roact tat.- -Zfte distr-,tr
Air QLiaTt>`f r1a[1¢`t3emEf?i
- c
.
h il"oi ` j'
The County's response wast'
"The ARB seems very concerned with the ffect of the proposed pro-
ject on air quality. This was not onto ,' ;.he concerns of the (county)
Environmental Review Commission and as .uch was not discussed ex
tensively. On a regional basis, the inxrease in traffic generated
by the proposed use is insignificant. or this reason, mitigation
measures were not discussed."
The County presented no evidence or ,support for Nlis response.
The Department of Food and Agriculture commentrzi r
. there is a lack of detai l ed i"nfot•mat i on concerning the
extent of surrounding agricultural lands and the present zoning
of the area sur}ounding the site, This inFormation is essential
to make a clear analysis of the ci:-gent g)-'owth trends and the
conformance of the proposed use w r.Cc sul-Tpunding areas uses
The EI R i w wholly inadequate in tt.I lj respect.ll
Food and A.g'ricultUlff omments also indi.cai3O that the EIR inadequately addressed
the effect of the p► ,,-V Lt On the Wi l l i amsG n Att.
The Countys response was
" .The Department of Food :nd Agriculture is concerned
with the effect on agriculture in the area. This concern has
been addressed in previous resr0hses."
- In thofie "previous responses the County �i,d not include any of the specific
n
factual information suggested by Food and Agriculture, but merely indicated in
very general terms that the land would be converted from agriculture to other uses.
The Department of Health Services, Office of Nome Control, made some very general
comments about noise 'impacts. The County did not respond to those comments
in February 1979, the County certifie,+ 410 EIR and approved the general plan amendment
In May 1919, five months after the SCH rt.view was completed and three months after
the project was approved, the State Reclamation Board submitted its comments to,the
Couhty on the EIR. These comments were ignored,
Issues
Cleary, a neighbor, filed suit challeniliitg the County's decision as violating CERA
on several grounds, including-,
1. that the County failed to vespotid at all to the Reclamatioi
hoard's comments, i,e, does a lead agency have to respond
to late comments;
2, that the County failed 0 adequately respond to state agency
cotriments in its FEIR, i,e, what is the obligation of a lead
agency, to respond to comments, and
3, that the County failed to Make' the fihdings required under CFQA
when there are adverse enviro"Mental i°mpactss
r
-3-.
Holding of the Court
On these issues the court held that:
1. The County inadequately responded to the Air Resources: Board and
the Department of Food and Agriculture comments Specifically,
the court indicated that comments must be addressed in detail,
giving reasons why the specific comments and suggestions were not
accepted and factors of overriting importance warranting an over-
ride of the suggestion. Responses to comments must not be con-
clusory statements but must be supported by empirical or exper
mental data, scienti''ic authority or explanatory information of
any kind: The court further said that the responses must be a
good faith, reasoned analysis. However, the court indicated that
there was nn need to respond to the Office of Noise Control com-
ments because they were too general, and noise issues were
adequately covered in the Draft EIR
2. A lead agency has no obligation to respond to state agency comments
received after State Clearinghouse review is completed. The State
Clearinghouse Was created for the purpose of assuring that DEIRs'
are distributed to appropriate state agencies and that replies,
if any, are received before the deadline.
3, By certifying an EIR in which significant adverse impacts are
idehtified, the lead agency has to make one of the three
findings set forth in CEQA. In this case, the EIR identified
the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses as a signifi-
cant impact and approved the project without making any of the
three findings
Importance of the Oecision
The Clear decision is a two-edged sword forestate eto theOnehand,
the decision ci" rly indicates that state agencies.
Cleary � J
< agency ken seriously
by local lead agehcies: it empha§izes the importance of all agencies] not just
'`responsible agencies." On the other hand; however, the decision tells state
agencies in no uncertain terms that late cortnlents Will not be tolerated. It re-
affirms the rights of lead agencies to expect comments from state agencies on time
and in a single package. Unless a specific extension of time is granted by the
leadapnse by the lead agency:
lead a"ency, any comments received after the SCH clearance letter do not require
For loeAl agencies, the message of the Cleary,decision is also very strong; state
agency comments must be given serious responses. No lohgor can local load agencies
ignore state expertise just 'because the state agency is not a responsible agency:
In fact, the message of the Gloat decision 'is riuch broader -that all comments
deserve serious, well -reasoned and well -supported responses,
w
u
J
Inter- �� ' 'l'. Memorandum
De arts����
70: Board of Supervisors
PROM: Planning Depart tent
sue;Ecr; Comments Received on Draft Chico Area Land Use Plan EIR',
File 80-72 W3
DATE- May 20, 1982
Attached are the written comments roceivOd f om the State
Clearinghouse and individuals on the Draft Chico Area Land.
Use Plan EIR., Staff i. -ill collect these comments along with
those from your May lith hearing and prepare a :final environ-
mental document for certification. For the reasons described
at your last hearing in February when the Board directed that
the MR. be reviseds the subject of the revised .BIR is the
Planning. Commission's reco.mraendation and not the original
Draft Chico Area Land use Plan which avexged From the joint
Cy -County committee. The comments of John M00rehead et al
appear to be aimed at the original Draft Chico Plan and not
the current Project, The comments of Norbert and, Lloyd
Heidinger appear to state reasons for disagreement With the
Proposed Plan rather than comments da,,. ected at the environ-
mental document. Perhaps the Heidingers will clarify their
comment.. during the hoaring
Attachmonts
Letter from- John. Moorehead et al
,Jctte'r from Herbert and Lloyd t-ioa.dinge
Letter from Stephen 11illiamson, State Clearinghouse
With attached correspondence :from:
State ,Sept. 'Health Iervicts EnvironMental Rpalth Div $ion
Resources Agency - Dept, P31sh and Game
Resources Agency Department of Conservation
Business and Transpottat:i,on Caltrans
CUt�: Mkt
1
a
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE a C o. Pian"Ing Comm,
w OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
p�/ {
. d 1400 TENTH STREET MAY ,L 7 1982
°..�."� SACRAMENTO 95814
OrOAQ, (Ulf"nia
EDMUND G, GROWN JR.
r-oydnNQR (916/445-0613)
i4ay 13 r 19 82
Ms. Bettye A. Xirchner
Butte County Planning Deparbient
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 9b965
SUBJECT 8CT1480092314 - CHICO AREA LAND USO PLAN REVISION
Dear Ms. Kirchner,
State agencies have commented t1 your draft environmental impact repbrr. If
you would like to discuss their recommendations and concerns, contact the
staff fron the appropriate commenting agency.
The Deparbr' ,J 4,� comments concern increased noise bevels and 'the eftect. on the
residents &:,3acent to industrial areas.
FISH XD-.G=
The proposed zoning will have,,signiiicant adverse impactoon habitat and
wildlife should development occur at allowed densities in the grasslands,
foothills, and riparian areas, and if drainage is directed into stream
channels, it is recommended that the above concerns be mitigated by the adop-
tion of Conservation and, Open Space Elements to the Hutte County General -plan
for the projent areo;r
DEPAAU= Off' 02USF T7Clj
unmitigated primp lands . oss i eguires a d 800,ssion of alternatives rather than
mitigation measures. The Department recommeiidg that the Board of Supervisors ,
pursue a disdUs8ioft of alternati'vk::s b%wtead 'of an "overriding coi, dorations"
approval thvt is felt to tv, unwarranted., It is alsorecommended that the fol-
1 owing inforwation be inclua b.d within thy: Viral, EIR
A description of they agricultural acreages that Would
be displaced upon full implementation of the Plan--
Data
lan,rata on, the amount of non-prime agricultural lands
that would be converted under the Ilan;
A lisping of; Wi.11.iUson Act parcels in the, plan area
NLS; Bettye A. KirciV 2 May 13, 1982.
to estimation of the dollars lost to the local community
froth the elimination of surrounding agricultural lands;
Project Alternatives,
�rAn•E F��-rTrHocrsl,
When preparing the i:i.nal. EIR, you must include all comments and responses
(CEQA Guidelines Section 151.46). The certified. EIR must be considered in the
decision-making procesq for the project. In addition, We urge you to respond
directly to the agencies' U-MMentsa State
by writing to tnem, including
Clearinghouse number on all correspondence.
A recent Appellate Courtdecision in S tnyyr f . Stanislaus clarified
requir(ments for respo:iding to review comments. Specitically, the court indi-
cated that comments must be audre Msed in details giving reasons why the
specific comments and suggestions were not accepted and factors of overriding
importaiace warrant an override of the suggestion. Responses to comments must
not be conclusory statements but irlust be supported by empirical or experimen-
tal datta, scientitic authority or expl.a iatory information. The court fureher
said that the responses must be a good faithr reasoned analysis.
Section 15.004 (f) of the CsQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency
take certain actions it an ETR shows substantial adverse environmental impacts
could result from a prajr-at. These actions include chane}ing the project, 9m-
posing catldit ons on the projectr adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the
problem, selecting an alternative to the project, or disapproving the project.
In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of sio,-
nifitiant eftects, the lead agency must make written findings for each
significant eftoot (Section 15000) and it- must support its actions with a
Written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated sig-
rificari' eftect (Section lbU39)
It the project r wires iscrctionary approval. from arty state agency, tho
Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Aegourcesi as
well as with the County Clerk,
Please contact Anna 1Pol.vos at 916) 445-0613 it you have any questions.
Sincere�.�
t
it p e Williamson � rJaj'(P olvos
Mate earinghouse State Clearinghouse
etc t Kett rel l ova, OWN
*NOM,A copy of Caltrans District 03 comments are attackd; but not summat^iked.
The comments wore received' just as your cbmoiiance 1�,tter vias being Ma led
out,
State b •CaYriorniw DeFartrnent of Health Services
em®rcin durv9
To Steve Williamson
APR 2 g 1982
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Subject: Chico Area Land
Use Plan Revision
n
SCH #80092314
From ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISIOJ
The Office of Noise Control has reviewed the subject Draft ER and offers
the following comments:
g p g
We recommend a change �n emphasis in Section 13.6, Noise Miti ations, page
137.
Item 1 should read: ",To the .maximum extent p oss:fble, residential develop -
meats will not be permitted ',n areas where noise levels exceed 60 &A Ldn • "f
The reason is that about 10 percent of people exposed to that level from
motor vehicle traffic will report being highly annoyed and each increase
of t dBA in Ldn wil:� result in an increase of about 2 percent in the number
of p6ople being highly annoyed. If aircraft are the noise sburce, about
Y Y urthermore, research,indicates
twice that number will be highly anno ed• at home and in school do not
that children exposed to higher noise levels ,
do as we11 academically -as do children :with lower nIOise exposures-
Items 1'. 2 and 3 should be changed to 2 3 and 4, respectively.
Item _q. should read; "if incompatible noise zones are contiguous, themore
restrictive no3.se <tand'ard Will apply."
The reason is the on
reashe nihUse Plan se'veral �oca]esdehtial Hence,uses noiserfrohv�vn to
be adjacent industrial m an
industrial area which permits levels up to 85 Ldn (see Figure 13.2, page
185) may impact upon a residential area where qUllet is needed. providing
this 1nformat3.0n to a potential rtsidehtial or industrial developer in the
Land Use Element will constitute a forewarning, and the developer will be
able to design the project a rop riately
` pp ,
if you have any questions; please contact Dr. Jerome Lukas, Office of Noise
Control, 2151 Berkeley Way; Berkeley 94704, 415%540-9665
,,llarvey Collih6i 'ph.U,
Deputy Directer-
The Resources.Agericy
'State o{GalrWrold
Mpernorand urn
To = 1. Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator Date May 1Q, 1982;
llesourees Agency
2., B. A. Kircher, Planning Director
Butte County C
7 County Center Drive
MAY 11 1982
Orovil.e, CA 95965
From : Department of Fish and Game
subject: Chico Area Land' Use Plan, Butte County (SCH. 80092314)
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the Cl- :o Area Land
Use Plan, An Amendment to the Butte County General' Lan Draft EIR.
The proposed zoning Wil?. have Significant adverSE pacts on habitat
p 4 at allowed t. sities in the
and wildlife should development occur
grasslands, foothills, and riparian areas, and if .;ainage is
directed into stream channels.
The loss of 1.4-,000 acres of grassland would be significant both
locally Iand statewide as this habitat is being rapidly lost to
commercial, residential, and agricultural development vernal: pools,
which are Areas of Special. BiolOgidal Importance, would be lost When
they lie in residentialr commercial, or `industrial tohes
Anadromous fisheries, other aquatic life, and riparian habitat Would
be adversely affected in Big Chico and Butte creeks by drainage :into
area stream channels. Water quality in the streams could be
degraded by run-off containing pesticides, petrochemicals, and other
waste products associated with residential and industrial development -
Increased runoff from drainage into stream channels Could generate
the need for flood Control measures which would threaten riparian
habitat (another Area of Special. Biological Ifiportance) faith
de8truction- -
Since much of the projected open lands may be bordered by developed
areas on two or more Sides; these can be expeCtcd' to 5uff-1 a6vette
impacts. Chief hazards to wildlife would be dogs, cats, pollutants,
noise, harassment, and illegal hunting. Wildlife, habitat could be
affected by fire or fire prevention, procedures, erosion, and lowered
Water tables.
We recommend that the above concerns be mitigated by the adoption of-
Conservation
fConservation Ann Open 'Space Elements to the'Butte County General. Plan
for the project' ea.
lit RF.SOURCCS' .ADEN
,r
1
.. _ .f' CY OF CALIFORNIA
State of California
y
Mali orar.du 11
i
Date May 6, 1982
To Jim Burns
Assistant Secretary for Resources Subject:. Chico Area Land Use
Plan
B. A. Kirchner, Planning Director; CH 48,009'2314
Butte
County County p p
'7 nty Center Drive (� U
Oroville, CA 95695
MAY 11 1��2
From, t Oepattment of Conservation--office of the Director
BtiAtA
p AsoDOCDOs), has reviewethadmnistrator of�thei�Cali�ea
The be artment of Conserves
Land Use Plan Draft EIR.
fornia Land Conservation Act (Willa amson Act) and is mandated
nitor agricultural land-losse . we are concerned with projects
to mo
The. Chico Area band Use Plan, which will
displacing farmlands.
guide Chico area growth until the year 2000, wolus result in the
eined
ventual lass of 17,700 acres of prime soils, P ears that
number of non-prime acres. Of the 17,70 acres, it app
9,100 acres are already urbanized or planned for urbanization,
leavinga loss under the Plan of
8,000 prime acres (12.5 square
miles)
The Draft ETR for the Plan has several areas for which we fee]
more information should be providad. We recommend that the fol-
lowing items be included in the Final EIR;
A description,,a.s fats is possible, of the agricul-
tural acreages_that.would be displaced upon full
implementation of the Plan. 'This should be crop
specific, least category-specific, such as
Row Cropst Orchards; Otc;
0 Data on the amount oot.-prime agricultural lands'
that would be convertedunder the Plan, if any.
m A listing of williaason Act parcels Jr, the Plan area,
thein current contract status and a,discussion of
their planned uses:
® Aii estimation of the dollars lost to the local.
community from the elimination of surrounding
agrirt ltural ]:ands: The Butte County Agra cul total
Extension office estimates an average gross crop i
valve per acre at $1,750 for orchards and $700 for
row crops. Assum.hg a split of 50% orchard lands
and 501 row crops for the 8,000 acres of prime "'allds
to be converted under the Plant the agricultural
production from the lands would ,have a gross VAI'de
of $9x800,000. 14owever, dollars earned from crops
y
are rec coed through the community in terms of
` 'Jim Burns, et al
Pagv
May 6, '1982
product processing, fuel,purchases, machinery repairs,
etc. Agricultural Extension studies for Stanislaus
County have shown community multipliers of 35 for
crop land and 3.1 for Orchard land for every dollar
earned by the products themselves. Using multipliers
2• crop .lands (due to Butte County row crops
requiring less handling than Stanislaus Count 's and
3.1 for orchard lands, the value of the 8,000 acres to
the Chico economy is estimated at $28,700,000.
q Project Alternatives. The Land Use Plan DEIR presents
two alternatives to the recommended Plan--No Project
and the Coalition alternative, which would convert
1,362 fewer acy;es of agricultural land to other uses.
While we favor the Coalition alternative to the
proposed Plan, we feel that 'the Plan lacks discussion'
of a third alternative; one that would direct growth
to the north and east, away from prime agricultural
lands. Consideration of such an alternative should ,be
° central to making decisions on how to accommodate
housing and agriculture in Chico.
We agree with the "Greenline" concept tlsed in the Plan to separate
land suitable for development and more protected farmlands. We
question, however, the large amount of prime lands included oh
the side of the Greenline slated for develei,pment,
The DEIR (p. 1.46) states that a prime lands loss o* this g
.. ins tilde (8, (8,000 acres) is a significant impact for which no imitiga-
tiori is available. In the Executive Summary (pi) the Planning
Depa'rtment's staff states that the "usm of overriding cansidera
tions is recommended" for the Board of Supervisors tobe able:
to approve the Plan's Draft iIR in spite of ai-
,.,►a unmitigated prime
land loss and other impacts: The use of the "overriding con-
siderations approval for a project under C20A requires that
the lead agency County
g y (a,n thas case 'veerBdine ocial ooardoOfStiper=
o ,. g �c fact
visors) state. that there are o
that make it infeasible to ma ti ate the � cars
g, Project's adverse irapacts
Such a conclusion, howe'very must be based on substantial, evidence
in the record of the pro7ect,
We have not seen evidence of this type the Plans bEIA. In,
fact; approval. of the Plan tight g provide a negative economic
Which couldcnot beeconstru'd7a jan�overridingarea's
econom coca Y,
tion in favor of plan and tIR a cion of,
Ppr«val. Without a discussion of
altornat ve- growth areas, we also feel that the lack of housing
` 5301t` of California Business and 'Tramportalimr A9011cy
Wemorandum
Mr. Steve Williamspn Date: May 12 1982
Executive Officer
State Clearinghouse File 03 -But -99/32
1400 10th Street Chico Area ,and Use
SacramentQo CA 95814 Plan - Revised UEIR
SCH 80092314
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOF TATION
District 03
Subject
District 03 has reviewed she revised draft - EIR for tAe Chico Area
Land Use. Plan.
The traffic impacts identified on page 1201 are essentially those
described in Caltrans t letter of October 29i 1981, in : hich we
reviewed the earlier edition of the draft EIR. Major adverse
impacts will occur to portions of Routes 99 and 32, including; cer-
tain interchanges. Levels of service in the year 2000 will decrease
from Level "A" to ''D" or "E"; which represent intolerable delays ,
Congestion Would be considerable if the Route 99 freeway were not
extended to the -south.
The mitigation measures listed on
g pages 120 and; l22. are questionable.
They' -include widening of the freeway to six lanes, lobbying the
State to extend it south of Chico and to provide an interchange
at Lassen Avenue.
We must re-emphasize; that Caltrans -t planning prop; im does not
ink, ludo funds to provide for freeway widening, a �nsiori addition
Of new inrerchanges�: or interchange modificatioxl, in the.Chico area.
Funding for mitigation of trafficimpact's resulting from private
development. Would be provided by :;ounces other than Caltrans.
LEO J. TROMBATORE
Diatrict Director of Transportation
R. D6 Skidmore
chief, Environmental Branca
M Y`1a1982
May 11, 1982
ctcvv ,
Butte County Planning Departnent
1 'County Canter r4l ive
'iroville.) Ca. 9,159 65 MAY i?
C ico Area sand Use Am .'nc'ment- to the Butte Co. 0w ,eral
Bei4q, that the Chico Area Land Ilse Plan and its proposed Gxeenl.ine
Amend, ent are a non-e~cr: s, t and discretionary pro ject with: significant
effects upcn -hose owning property �rzthin the sphere q the proposed
Greenlire, the fallotyi.n must be stated,
In the area of Dayton ?road properties have exchanged on the real
ma-Aktit prior to the inception of the proposed greenlin e yet; the trans-
actions have occured irithin the recent enough' past to warrant a closer
look. in particular, Parcel, '?pro. 039-48--0-0118.0.. was purchasa4vby the
Heidiingers in 1963 as property with marp,,im:lly e fisting agAcuitural
opera Aon. 'his was a prune orchard of 22 acres planted in 1922. b4Ch
of the attractivdmess and "value of this 22 acres was ih the o6mnon
kni awledge of the inton,ded desi,-;nation of urban useage as population
groruth would occur in, the Chico arta.. Th'! location iii relatibn to the
State College (now, tiro University), to the doa:ntown; area, to the Chico I
Uity Limits, and tb coftmercially o erned property on Dayton Road, comms
b3 ned with the,natura.1 d-ainar e qualit:,ee of this �2 acres main the,
,mater than agricultUtal price OVI &-InAlly and subsequently p,.3-d justiw
fiable. The passage o4 time to theprasertt has seed this property hoac
its value with urban develp ment :.mended and occurinU iti -the neighbor-.4
flood, through; (1) mairntainance of general aiird uruan zoning;; (2) actual
Value
(hln;,• (3) sale of prhperty - with resultant-approciated. s grid;
�ui) rOdii
A4 mprovements*
To :find bi=telves currently facing a Greenline desigbd;ioncorryt nd-
ing only agr icu l turd usea;e fax= the ne�u tzrenty years is contrary to
accepted said, and current property values ln%the immediate area of
the Hee-oi:n or Import✓ s
We Lave rospondod to notices received Ifroot3.ng oar property,, For
a decision to be made or a dP-,=,ent accepted that ;could cause de:vAluation
ad' the Haidinger property by restric tiT1,p its useage to only agriculture
in the fu ate is in reality iu aoceptablo
fJJJr vory ttaly you±si,
j
Her'' er �,t Hettir',aerir - Lloyd 11. 1'ei.diriger
y 1370' Mahzk to Aven.0 '1590 Dayto a Road
Chico, Ca, 95996 Chico)' Ca. 95996
Ulm, Co.P'a;
MAY 12 1982
sOroY��O„ Crtitbrny►
Cufrx C4,. N,ea>ning C
MA 1982
I -lay 11, 1982
�3ra�ty, 4a1+�
Butte County Planning Department
7 Ootinty Canter Drive
Orov'il.le, Ca. 95965 MAY 12, 102,
C:: JZ,,T: Chico Area Land Use Ams.ndment to the Butte Co. aw neral PlaxPtirollias k4ialt=la
Being that the Chico Area Land Use Plan and its pioposed Greenling
A tenc ent are a non -em mpt and discretionary project frith significant
effects upon those owning pr„per-ty within the sphere of the Proposed
Gree.nline, the following must be stated.
In the area of Dayton Road properties have e;cchanged on the real,
rket prior to the inception of the proposed Veenline, yet the trans-
act' ons have occured within the recentenojugh past. to werrarxt a closer
Look. In particular, Parcel 116. 039-48-0"018-0, was purchasey the
he dingers in 1.903 as property with a marginaLly e� sting agricultural
opera;,ion. This eras a prune orchard of 22 acres p1Mnt d in 1922. Atch
of the attractivemess and value of this 22 acres was iri the common
knottled e of the intended desi4nation of urban useage as po,pulatyo
grotrth trould occur in the Chico area„ The location in relation to 11a
State 0011ege(now the University) to the downtown area, to the Chico
City T,a�i ts, and to commercially ot• tied property On; nay -bon Road, cam-
binod with thenatural clraintge eua:4,ties of this �2 acres made the
greater than agriculturktl price originally and subsequently paid jnsti,.
fiabloi, The passage of time to thepresent has saeft this property -hold
its value with urban developtacnt intended and ocouring in the neighbor-
hood throe hr (1) maintainanca of general, and. urban zoning; (2) actual
building; ) sale of property Uithjrem ltant appreciated vaJAM ,and,
(4) road itiprovementEf;
To find ourselves currently facing -4 Oreenline desipne "on comnand-
ing only ar;ricultursl useage Por the Dolt t*Went- years as Go'nt:,,%ry to
LbetheeHe da rt er grope ty ,rent propert f ttaluas xn ":the imine diato a ^ea of
We h8ve re5pw,ided to notices rece,,tve6. affertiM our property. For
a cirzcx savrt to be inado or a document ac:ceptL'�4 that ,,could cause detraluation
of the floia::.n:ger pzoporty by restricting its usea? e to only a.griculttire
in t1to fuburt, 'id in reality Odoceptablo
:r fiery truly ycltrs,
�'i�riJ4'r ��idi yer Lloyd �. �;eic�3.t5�er
1. 10 Manz anita �venug' 1:590 ,Tdyb n rib
ad
Chick, Ca. 95926 V Ohico, Cai 9592;
_'a�t�e Co.>Ffatn�n� tiwr.
MAY 12 188
�avilb, iitvrr,►
a
C111Ca CITY ,M-ST.SIDD FART?.FRS SSLVFI+ ('7) RT 2 BOX l�
, CIIICQ, CALIFOPaT11 95.926
J. 11GREF-BA-D
I• . 1'•10 HEAD
R. 'RICCI
M. ST)2%!780r7 (Oak Pare;, Rosa Avenue, Santa Clara Ave.
J. GR & River Road)
IR. G TRE
R. 1.;0F,UL _
J. IAiORL•",I^ NAD
Buife Co. RanriingCoigrQa
It" .February 19, 92 i B t
Orov lle, California
Mrs. Bettye blain
Director of Planning
7 Co1.1n,t y Center Drive
OroVille, CA 95i- ftr
rtt z ^lrw input 13hico Area General ?lar (`'green l,,nd"
Pea.: :firs Dlair c
1',-4i'', 8 t116 feelihq of OL"r trroup, aricl others, that the Environ--
rnontal. xr11),Ict I,&Poi.{t shoul6 focus on he cli),-eotl on giVdn in the
adopted Lancs use dement of 1979, bncler: Tt1�80URCPS ?i�11�1�GFII�"�rT
on pace 30, Policy Statement :b. 'ZinicIl states
b• "retch iii an agricttltMral 'designation on The Land -08e
Availabilityhea]4elartgoiny natal condt�.ons and
crater
Nap areas
wol.l suitedto orcIlard and -
iel l crul) us'e', While considoi; inn X -Or non -arr ictul.tural
use areas whore t?rban cncroachrtent 11,1s made lnrO668 in-
to a�rictt'l ttlral areas and 1" here past Official actions
have nlanno- cl areas :nor ,level.oprticnt'
This laelaclr stawar,ler c eaa recognizocl �ast �sf icitt] actiofYs'!
rte Ono aftrnc rc cr, , - o , whiOh ticp�:
o e.-ent
9U"', t•ias t ��x�rYato� i'or I.ccla'�tm �Jcns�•L..,,�,c_t�n.,i.ril, ('L5 -3q
,...�
��cr acro et1 the CbI;<'I�"�i* GIi?'III:�.i, PLAN ire �, ��� This
same-c�a utas rlasi,r�ato,cl for 1ieiitrtaeni~V _lcvicntiil .arid
l,bvt bens;�t k Re:�ic'eritial on. the r�c�o�ai:e;�l. Gi�i��;�'ua PS�a'�li iii 1971.
w«.-a.W„�n _,
I e not l y atioptecl C nx RA . Pit Yq Of 1970 still
u 1Utqthea 4 t r p°teclitltt CaGaii
I rzeo,- e.i_rlocllax.�tier
a l, and
Low Donsi
that this clearly 'Past of-ic
3aj.-lanne1 tX]w�Jrl7
tid, the 'utilit)�
cCSt*'pz:aliess htw` o wo
t
r ,
f
Since a area was zOneasAR in identi1960,eand THE'
GE1;EAALJ PLAIT
h ancl. no cha�.ges
designated t13s area for xc., �''`
came wii:11 TIJE rEj-4E91%L I?LA7.7 adopted in 7. 71, the County has he
couraged development for so many years, it contrary to the -
i to now consider re -designating this.
present Land Use
�E_enen� .L, y ser designation
area to anything'bu but a Residea L.ial use . An lc s
would be conside�.ed downzoing
�7e feel that TME El7V'IR017MENTAL IMPACT I�I PORT should not only
s tself, to t'xhat
has happened to this area, in relation
adds eSi
to eras t�.ng c�ecrelopmen t outer 21 years, but that the ecoriomic
irtpar-t on property ovmers who have lived with the plans that.
have been adopted for the area, and that this -must be recognized
arid addressed' also .
No Plan has ever been adontec? for this area that calked fox
the area remaining in agricultural use.,
t"ie reiterate here the points of fact related to THE
EINVI 101111 IEITtAT, 11,1PFtACT BIPORT, concernin Our properties 'Pest of
Chico.
(1) Ile do not have the peace and freedom to farm and till
Our ground, i z a mannor, Without hazard, jeapardy,
and dancer i Especially from the danger of using tie . Ary
poison sprays , and poison insecticides and wee!ekillcanGt c'hildra in a �;
near a heavily popul aced area whore many young people
ren ;,sass by and1-hrouc1h, to get to school incl town.
(2) Ile have the hazza d, jeopardy and danger it f'arminq of
operatinq heavy and moviniq farm equipment (tractorsharvesters,
5ha.ter8 1tiowora sl�raye� s, loaders, �trucl,s and 't.ra�.lers In
and aro trad tlze�s ;t�111 p4 reels , Burro :ncihcl by the improved County
roads, that are also hodvily traveled by pa-ivate vel icles,
pcc,Cstrians, and joa ers
(3) To farm in that aroa, Nja have the haZZar6j jeopardy, and
dan5or of the many Other coni,,ogtiohces of f tuning Mich 1. as.6
(a) Heavy blowing dust that emifts acroos the thoro gh:�ares.
This has ' boon the cause of a fow hoar. colli8i=s cif car;,
bicycles, and peaestrians alroadyf and the polluting dunk
,q -1d smolco d,apo'5ited in housos , and yards has lahc�
boan
Z1ncl Offfen8ivc to ":he' -"any 8 rr.otlncling home=
�ta.5cf � t � r � � ` - ` Y far these
Mllnors sand wo have :coon .�everej r cri'tiaed
cirCurnstarice
Cb) Tire i�tal,M, and accompanyilla' fire Opar)*s that blow across
the roads OV41)r the ,qui roundiftq houses, and yards.
tC) ThG e.tOpositinq and jectirttilatioll o:` mt1d, wa ter; L111d icO
on the ''throushov« i,, 't✓be rima. Mid and Cli w
o1:t t 'i ',Ont t°rh �
�r rt7Tt Mae "i z c-'*; rs trod .S, r'�x1G. 3 1I I:r ,
that:. *,1st lit vnyocl transvOr-Sinq -t bo roac,s. !later aria a.ce
-2-
comes from the use of sprinl:lers, Ljsed for irrigation and frost
yems that spri.nhle on the roads, and
control, by sp inl:lizig sys
flood. the ;edges of the roads. ThLs condition males the thorough
fare hazzardous because of standing crater along and over the
reads, that ices-up' When the temperature is around freezing.
(d) The ha:zzara and jeopardy of pest control, when our
:)ro1pertie8 are surrounded by a heavily populated area and act'-
�acent to a Chico Tublic school _ and t7z . ziglz density we ling
in dormitories of Chico State T3r_iyersi.ty, also adjacent to our
propertie,s .
Fest cantrol and 1,i]1in; of rodents is attempted by the
use of palsonov-s chemicals, poisonous sm07:e bombs, strychnine,
and traps
in our par ticu1ar area- because of the surrai:inding heavy
pqn* in a,rticLi ar h'ichilc3�ren ��al}cz i or
ition uncreds. of
xa d-
itt b17 and ti�rours'11 the fields or orchards to the school a farmer
troul;d_ be but _ in Cr eat co'oard to use any of these commonly used
nrac rices in an at -emot to era a cote west and ro;c.cnta
(e) The hazzarc", Jeopardy and clanger to children around the �+
area e.:,posed to elec t5: ocution by the presence of pLtmp house me �e s
and fuseo�:es . Th'even aclulta , don't alt+rays 'stay
e Children, and
oiZ the roads, but often.run and play through the fields and
orchards.
( � The fact. that .this__,-.area: is -so urbari't lt_ aayi olris the CitV
_
ar,:3 ;fear �ihclaity 'l�cTe17' ilia. Itis frectleritly transgressed,
t
Carl�ac e 18 often dumped along the roads , and ill the
orchards. sTroes znck . rri.rration pipe: are run-over and l�ral.el ;
elle gro�.ln
c1 s rutted b tresl assing autos cuttincl the nany eor
hers, and jl u', driVin5 through the `�w'» clds.; ai I L'he craps are
stolen
( �) cola tinct to the ac�optaee LAITI J tf8r, rILir811 T, the sail iri this
ares is -.,,oasecZ, xns tie have sta4 ed and pointed out before,
over-_VOfte a:` O7 jr parcels y.a` e Cal: root funglIs and other diseases
t;2ea'� rjaj:,o q:h.e Vround j,ln7rodtcti`V`e.
10 acing a'.so to 'III, T���11 V8r, r8T r 1MT',V, and to the ecanor�ic
aspects of this land; It is a xact that a11;: o �he:se parce� s„
this .. area wider l0 acres and under 5 acres : m �c� are a . r t-
cit, ''sura , v uz�oze s ttct�.ve aft'
tl�o .and is . ecc�nam3.caj, > un�Eeasa�ble
to faa.r Lva �t151e a��.cu� tLt,al 1 a1�Yr-"'T a gists ct `hc use
�«•-
iii
Ox cl crops r and open land and graF,iftg
1,an(I for 20 176ars Would be Wl)l1:>tt:
t7e have, continually Pointed out +
and more recently The Butte Cottrlt J �3eardeo;l5uning Ccamnission,
heavy urban growth in our a-rea,; pc.rvisors the -
The Environmental TmPact Repot shoul,�j recognize and report
that this area is already highly urkaaili2eti,
subdivided about 50 ,e, That the area, was
subdivisions have been �approvedal %do into ldeveloped ess than lonaale sots,
That
and hunc�,reds of lion►eot*rncrs their 1 ides of us
stove$ into the area. famil6s, an'1 children have
.n more recent years, four
have been approved
and covelopgd to the west of us, ranclta
u)aclivisioia (j:�est o us, Glown oat park Avenue) Put about 38 houses
on a 10 acrearcr.,l Adjacent t
T�' cz acen � to Rosodale School and the :ity
lirtii;s, (on our east and adjoining us) another to ,�icre roee has
been cut in halve and that � s p' -
gx ounc .�ubc vided so that l more houses
could b; built on 5 acres. t -'est of Lis another jai, conem
non-px-otcluctive 10 acre
act e Marcel was cttt in half and ona of the 5
pieces cliv ded aclain into 4 lots
Subaivl Sion, roads were in 50
t � � �
put ,v' a�'S a o , They have been
m4in•�a,anec? by the County and are an r,�oot;l cbtZci, pion.
an e";cellent tra fic fioCy' tc fi;lae Cit 7 They afford
been continua to upgraded in recent ycars�� ,thoaIjstaallata.orares naof
traZ is s 7 (hs and Pedestrian t+rarn ng si ns.
can Rose jjv ' I!Ue: ' The, tr- r � � T Gere OV6 s to'r signs
-t l Oa: �t a�-M eq--a.jp 1. C
rams is dar.laginq to the roae a cls as G ananr: these t-hordugh
rta;:c� .' note expensive for Cotant y r�cxoy�s, it also
r1airjtena.nG.e
Chico School v�istem found i L- A ,
school, y•, ce,�sary to build Rosodal.o
In otzx a� ea in 1 n52 because of 1708tWa,rd i�oM ltion and
'e::�an s i on .-
PlOcoMaiminc, the wes t-erl nocc
G,Xi \� � P r'l%T, and 1'lxe y s and in Conformance with TIM
Servicesmr�rG" fullyei«to.n+�c det�ci� eservint cc:s t
ttl�� CaiCo t1'`�3.l�.ties
hrcattgl•tout Our area.
In 1971in acatarCiaare with V'1151" i .
this -a'': e
area for Sr vice �,
a�' �d`�, �T ill.
I 1a►at..s� �.�u�„t�lcr��eGl
nd CalifCa,l ifornia t'�ator Cor"""bany ".1110 'the
Public 8a vides follm'-:od suit.
our ttil� anr� other pm.bl i.c f ao itlitios into t�areu�la our area nt and
1. pa' .V: The entire area abd '
��cy nd :ts sea.;vicod with
y •`he ::tcI) - i on b _ �;2?ei` w
arid o[antintt r ie�ts _� � 5 �+ctiS �y 'ii constant
.. r The ast I'-V'neu ttl8w orvi'CGa t:iSe eiitiro
bcydnd, (',Iolr>" Oak Pat), Avenue tca Rancttaorb fir 70� ,� area and
the t,sy rloml Santa ('l�tra �' Vot)t�c. � PrOproj tai Al
o the ;�rrl;�ca�ty otwners alores itour�a� a� ca,pabl,e a, servicin
g all
e: ;�encl do�aa 1�\ t*er oacl to �,a ��r S1ai�cuei Tile gas ,roes sista
ate, `e yi tatoly Ile eet:» , and down Liborty lane
44 .=
Como
exfonsion of the City of Chico Sewer Line. The sewer lines
co
'tie to oLz easterly, border at the City limits and the main trunk
14-e comes Out- River Roam past us to the sewer farm. There is
another mann trunk line all along Rose Avenue to River Road. The
City oy Chico is presently designing yet another main line to the
east of 'Rose Avenue )long the Y.&T property line.
The extension of " Uornia t`gatl� Company w,.1r�r lines, we1 is
and pumps. Provision ;. - water has peen made by the Water
Company to our eastern : .operty Line, and west of our properties,
on Rose Avenue. Recognj-zinq, :the westerly needs and in conformance
With THZ C-EN "RAL PLAIT, and The Land Use R1:oment Report The Chico
Watet con, pany has also extended their services by the addition; of _
two Well and PUMP stations in our area. One of these stations is
at our southeast corner and the other more recently installed . ori
Rose Avenue west of tis. At' I the Rose Avenue installation they
have developed a neta 9001 well and installed a booster pump to
br.,tter serve the area. The. Water Company prest:ntl�? serves a portion
off' Rose Avenue and Ranchi',Fta Subdivision west on OaJ� Par]: Avenue.
Cable: TV is the most recent service provided to the area.
The adopted Land Use E'lemerit of 1'979, Page 30 paragraph 7.
Orderly .die_ vell2j t Clearly directs'and sets t1le policy as in
subparagraph_c._to' 'IRncour^ge 6evelopnent in and around existing
corUtinities With public facilities.,,
By definition properties
inl The i�sp�z��mo More related'
Land Use Element
e V
Chico Area, aur . 1e o e � 11
Page 2, paragraph C,5,. Linder '�Liesignated 'Urban Are �n d
Yve more mae t the criteria of the 8'uppl,oznent:al. Text VOr L<s zd
'Gee Moment Chico Area,, in regards to a f5reGri line' , Whe-rein
it states on paejo 3, numbor 1.11. criteria for 88tablishing the
location of the Green Line, SUb-parag aph 2j, that: "TI-o; Orem
Ville shall be establ ishea to follow »hysical, bottndarios such as
stroot5, rooda, railroad line, creo)cw, and urban use zones. oft
t'3�.�9 t.ii.l nom, Creon Lane Go
The planning Col;tI'lia."�s�.f�i'1's i.ecom�ien�*o '' conforms
• airy told around our p�:operty- On page 4, sub-Para, raph
z, t,aa' tenx w al ,so "direfts : �i r�I1e Cr�;,;y Shall y. y y'(u y j y
.�n �)� 41�, a�to /y[ aim, Ll
cot5s� dOrati on the presence of �iciesi gna°�:oct ur�yan zxr as �'
as cl,618tribbd
alaova .
Our preccnt aesi5natioh of A--10 docs not conform with TIM WW
T 5 PLAN of Octobor 1570 which is in ezr-ect now, Ayl U i4s
r "i cultural z6ni,itig, 1-7e Ot �14ot in an a r I.Cul.tural Zone tixa t:he
Ia::esent • 1 1 tTG ; 11A111 The ; ) lemontni, To:;tF Vor Lancs else 81ovi,eilt.
Chico Area. tioarly 6jrecth M110 Or paragraph Vlil. _ Cg1y31:sTLn?c,
-- „ e, ;
''TI�e Chico A oa Land Us- Plan establishes Land use: designations
which depict desirable future land use patterns. State law to
-
quires consistencr between General Plan policies, and the estab-
lished zoning. In order to encourage an orderly transition from
the existing zoning to zoning which is consistent with the adjust -
e6 General Plan, Dutte County Government shall undertake to re-
zone the rands in the vicinity of the Green Line so that these
Jines are consistent with ti:,:� Chico Area Land Use Plan."
Since this area is designated for residential use, and there
were no changes in THE GENERAL 'PLAW adopted in 1971, again we
would consider it contrary to the present Land Use Element to to
designate this area to anything but a Presidential. use, We ;Mould
consider --any other use dmrn-zoning!
An Environmental Tnpact Report should recognize that a. 'buffer
set -3 aclr, �' would be highly controversial anc3 possibly illegal.
tie also bo l i.ove a ' bu�fer set-bac)G' is 'unreasonable, unwieldy,
and unnecessary, and would be unjust to the party �s) so pena;l-
ized. tie bel iex'ta it would be very difficult and costly to ad.-
minister and rectulate, and would leave all parties and the County
open to ;zany law suits
µ. y properties - ] right
Ott proper�.a,es atu o�.n �.2'IL Cat r Limx'�s. Out. nand comes
up �.o the Chico Citi Lim�.t�. Our ra c-taes ad `axn Rtaseclale
Grammer School, and Craig 1-1611.0 (Chico State university dorm
it.ot' os) and other high density d1lell ing, lA ' blaffOr' up to -the
density of Craig Irall< would be sametlzing to consider and
a.i�^ult'L
Tie don't believe the coalition's plan to !hold the coiarlty
harmless', is real otic, and that it ivotil.dn ► t stop any law suits t'
'IhoS:e is a`!rearly a _ g`reon line', or 'cyreen belt' crest oi: tis.
Tie 1 e;' ��..c' e the; to �:1ove 'this 'line, or `I belt' from a, jJosition
,rest o�. us" over, us to the east of tis, and put us olt the,
arras lLtursl side, is unjust.
We also conaider a � greel-i Lino' o' oto be torisx�cci t- c to conform
with a Ganoral Plan, and cot-sequettl.y wtongi.
1in,o' woro tri' be marl-od wo want to bm >aa - t� oast o;r the
'Line a5 Wo h0,, c ryhe prop ,;ty of 1,e� s, so petitioftotl in oLtr
oriqi1114 petition fliarch `fir 1981.
we bol ova 'tho nutte Coti11'ty Pla,nninq Com.,,t8sion's recomennation,
a or the location o,;�- a I Vroon lino' , is tho X,asult o:C a more
comprohonsivo stt,.dj►, aril it would, bo a more ;dust Line considbrinq
;lyc� piroporty ricjhts of the people ajld their ptoportios along,thi.
,
7777
Inter Depra�Orandu
TO,
Board of Supervisors
�A,0M:
Planning Department '
subIttcT:
Clearinghouse Review and Scheduling of Draft n_IR :for.
Chico Area. Land Use 'Flan
DATE:
May 4_, 19812
The revised Draft EIR for the Chico Area Land Use Plan was
distributed by the Planning Department on April 12, 1082 with
the appropriate public notice: Because the draft was previously
suit to the State Clearinghouse, the department asked for and
received a.30 day. review. According to the C.l.earinghouse, the
30 day review period will expire on May 14th and no comments
have thus far been received. Additionally, the Planning ''
Department has received no written comments since making it
available in April:
Your continued hearing, scheauloJ f.�r May Sth may be used to
solicit comments on the environmental docume t at your dis-
cretion, HOWOVer, to meet the'legal requirements, the untinu-<
ation of the hearing after May 13th is advisable. Once ttihe
heE.tring is closed, the Planning Department will prepare the ,
(anal Ell! permitting the toard to m.ake its decision on the
ptoject.
Civ: l pct
r
The Chico Area Land Use Plan An Amcndmolit to
the- I3ut,tc; County Cencral Plait
SCH # 010091".-31
1
Planning 180-72
Dcscr:i Lt,i on
The Project consists Of a revi sioxt of the Chico Arca. Land Use
Plan, th,-it portioll of the Butte County Land Use Blement Iv}ri.ch;
establishes land use clesignati.ons for thy: Chico area. tiyhon
adopted as an amendment to the Land U$-o "i,.ement, the, revi, c.(
Chico Aro,a Land Uso plan will ropl;ar'n thru existing Chico JTO'a
Larnd Use Plan, achieve intern .l consistency with the Genci,,•a.1:
Plan including Lanc1 Use El omcn.t text and serve as a basis for
a cons.�stont zoning pursuant to law (Govern)Rent Code Section 65860) .
The clesigttations° being constdc•rcd inel ido Circharcl cancl Fiehcl
Crop, Agricultural kesi.dontial, 1,01T DOcIlsi`ty 'Residential, Modiuttt
Don5.i,ty Posidontlal, INgh 1Ja11s1ty RCSi:rlciltlal, ,Commercin1
s '
11)dustrictl; Public and (lrazi,n;g and 01)011 Land, In addition, rtti
orban g i-.th boundary, known as the Gx•cctil.!Ile, i. ,s pi°oposccY :for
illcopol'atioit into tilt. Lzand Use 1a:I.emon as 'a st.rppICIR IA 015 appendix,
tinct is to be applied along the i�rost r'jl port.'On of- the axra T1ie
Greonl:i ne Is intended to serve as a more specitic delineation
of the boundari.os. betwocn the agTJCultural uses and urban 'uses,,
both cxxst;i.t g and in the futu7'c. The purpose of the Greonlino
is to cla i tc the ltostcT l,y limits of i`utureurb.,an c7ovol o- pillent'.;
prosorvo a.gra.c.ul turall y, product tivo' soi:l,s, retain the aural.
CIIATactOT of arOVS, 1-r0Lind 1:110 Llrb . cOMMullity dna ro-diroc,t ttrbttr
groz`wt1,A to the poorer soils ill the eastern portion of the cojllmunity,
I'diere the City, of Chico i z 0111'arg-Ing its sf: tv,Lge- collection sy-8tent-
Locad ort
The p ulloct i:s loca.ted in ollid ail°ound tho Chico aroia, Butte County:
f J eel
+j Counk
LAND Of NATURAL WEALTH ND BEAUTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95°35
PHONES 534=4601
April 1.3, 1982
IL ,,
An AlitCll,cl.mont to tho Butte Coll nty
Caner 1. Man
The r>11ov+"
e0joct has boo1111-11.sodl a ndl the doctl lc1 nt
ro111'intoc
To 4xtrc:l t1 any winO`oossIllry Costst l e tiro not c4� stirlbilt:ing -
this �lacullro-At to Private agollc los" Copies of tho above-
itiontio11eC1 >°fi se [ cl �� � ot1 +�i.�•e, ��c�a�.t��> 'Iii ,Ct regio, t tyx.c
nvaa.;l.able for 1>>.rblic veviM4 at the PI,GIi15l„ing DePar`tlTwil1�t
at 7 County Cotitex, Dr7.ve, Orovi lee the Ilat , county
Library �at�amehog. Cllico Stato Un7xors�i.t r, c111,d IlUtto C01io9
15 rary,.
Tllol'o Is a elllargc o-17 $7.00 ror the F, T iRo Ir yoV;I lVOUlrl
w r o
-a est 'Pt:ootlt�ra
I 1 '1 .i i1 n
Ic o to ,copy ,r C` the � a ? . It � a. t _ . Y 1
vocollit 'bthis OFT -160 Ot $7:Oti, „
S ould yoo havo ant ,, gtlest oas r pl.oitse Mitt, .et 013:,4F eiopar tm-llt,
Oitaelle Woods,
5on;l_or Ptntlner
CA, t 1. kt
Paci is i c G-- z & Electric
'
Calif. "Gi; ter Ser viCe Co . w
Cala State Univ. C11 100
550 -S& f;m Avenue
340 Salem Street
Physical Scierice�DQpt.
Chico, Ca. 95926
Chico, Ca. 95926
Chicc, Ca. 95929
•
n
Agricultural Science cer:.
Kaci -±c Telep°-.one Co.
Rt. h, Box '75 (KazrriiY� ; Avg
Cal- State Univ. Cb r'O ' t
25 -Mai.n Street
Chico, Ca. 95926
c/o R. Davis
Chico, California 95926
Research Center for Busi-.
peas & Economics
Chico, Ca. 95929`
Butte Co. liosquto Abate .l
Cb-ico UMified School. Dist. 5117 Larkin Road
-
1163 E. 7th Street
Oroville, CA 95-965
Chico , Ca.. 95926
John 'Luvaas
Chico 2000
P. 0. Box 3509
s
Patrick Porgans
Chico,, CA 95927
Alta Cal Audubon Society
1' , Post Office Box 173'1
,�j .�
P. 0. Bob: 3671 (Ximberl.y)
Chico, Ca. 95927 �
Chico, California
95927
1Caten Veracruz
'
Rt. 5, Box 21
Richard Sl.avich
Chico, CA 95926
Butte Co. Sierra Club
t. y�,q /'� r �]
Bu't'te Col.l.vge
c/o A riculture Det
tl Doserary circle
PE. 1, Bo:�c lS3A
i,
C't 1001 Ca. 9592E
�, Orovillop CA 95965
Will Bishop
1570 floolter Oak Avenue
. St;ate Jnr r C...; ,..
UAV.,
Chico, C1 95926'
�
Eco -Analysts
8S
P . 0 . Box l.�1
Ohico Ca. 59
� . J
•.u�-y y�
�lncl�'eSv tT; C�L71.:ier�.tx6r
G.�.,co Ga„ 95921
-
n
RtY 3; tox 22Z ti�
i
0A. State l.biv. , Ckdico
o, CA 95926; ,
Biol.o�,y Dept. M. Aathon;�
Chico, Ga. 959 9
. w
gal. 'Nativo Plant SocJ.ety
c/o J': Jokers r
�',x
Rt., 4 Box 501B,
'Cal
CF►ico CA 95926
Y
M ,
.e Sate �ni�r. Chi
,. �.
t
' raphy bepartmeut '
GenS
°Chico, Ca. 95929
►°.
AA
Dari Nelson
330 ft'll. StVe'e
Chaco CA 9596
awti
t t�•"�;t
Y `"' ',s�
•�
•
•a ..
a ,,.�,.� �� ✓.'� �
"1
1
� ,
Yt