Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-27C ZONING ORDINANCE 14 OF 14mtect Ly R, s� `ir #Signja�i"to. ure iactiows related the issue. z Although not directly sriying y so, Lunardini hinted that the Frarn lAconflict of interest issue was included in the amended peti tions in ore order,,•. Wilson said,' tio'1 do case the city takes the ; But Wilson added that his r water board to court over the i staff just received the petition ,� Bolero restrictions. s last week and he has not had an :i� ,, r Appeals of these kinds of deci- oPPortunity to fully investigat.o sions must be confined to' the 1 whether the issue over Nielsen'tt j issues addressed before the lobbying should be taken up by �� :`:, ', board. It would be doubtful that the state water board. xy t $n ` a court would ,allow the conflict erg The city of ssm'amento taxi of interest issue to be entered as fail , petitioned the state water s `! evidence unless tho matter was board to get tougher with rice � � prerviiously addressed by the growers, who drain their, ~, bbooaa flooded fields into canals and "� { , 4'rk "Socnething may come up tributaries leading to the Sacra..J that we don't know about now: mento River. It may be two months or three The drained water contairs'` .' month:' from uow; ' Lunardini i herbitide residues that the ci,y r explained. contends cause taste and odor 'What we're saying is if you problc,r'ys in its .drinking' watar; Sacramento also fears thatjl (the, board members) are con- � earned about this, then you drinking the herbioide-taint(A shoulNielson d ' look at it. We're not water eventually could have. t, cumulative healthf imm PaCto'kTh would havemmandated growers It re., to make does not ar►ticit a cause i ' to keep written reports of thea But any ma-unajor ini citytofrom the Sacramento any major revelations even River. Bolero use. in�'e water board conducts its The state water board re- Heffren said the big issue on �mestigation. "I'm not happy ferred the petition to its suh- herbicides for the 1M growi"g this occurred, but my feeling is agency for the Sacramento Val- season is whether the state it will not result in anything ley area. water board will further cut the si�nif''cant ," he said. Eventually, after several arriounts of Bolero for non-ex- Eventually, 'line city of Sacramento does t ,meetings, and re-institute th Central Valley empt acreage not, argue that Nielsen has a Region of 'the state Water Qusi- the waste discharge requi:'e+ right to support the industry, to Control onithe her mThe rc'ty wants the. water But it is ,opposed W Jobb , Y p p°�' � what it sees as a qua si-ltul%ia bicidex Bolero, Basagran and board to enforce the goal in the agency outside the public i Ordram. 1975 bash plan, which calla for forum, Dinudinj said, The restrbetlons center around a maximum cumulative herbl= - ,i " rind. The belief is ide and pesticide residue level sa Water oth ce soma legal Wilson the hold pe that if grov/ers hold the water itt of 0,8 parts per billion in the pleaity" over whether the board their fields. !hs Basagrank, > 1 erbi 8.1cramento River. and cidedleveLs have id"beentested- of the central region is judicial. cider, t Wilson said 'ere is no spe- Ordram will b cific statute covering the issue them more than twice that, On the but court cases have leaned last year, Iviay 28, the toward the . concept that the Growers using Basagran can- worst day pesticide and herb[- water board is at least quasi= not release the water until Sept combined 1 at the earliest. The water tide residues were tested at 16.6 judicial. must also be held a iriinimum 80 ppb. "A member of our adndis- n days. 1? Irrigation SyoWm, 1'<tt'hv ter Recover j Deffnitl—on A facility to cailect, siore, send transport ir[!ngtion tail water for reuso in a isnot irrigation distribution system", 5copa This standard applies to the planning and funs tionil dosign. of Irrigation tailwater recovery sysw terns, including pickup ditches, sumps, pits, 'and pipelines. it does not apply to detailed design crk terra or construction specitfcallons for individual. structures or components of the recovery systern, prir os . To conserve farm irelga►fon water sun fp fes..anri �,iltrAt;uu+ityby collecting trio Viatot that_run ,aft file iirxl l ac fcr reUjn-on;;ihe,fatm. '+ Conditfonp where, praclfcri iapplies 'railv,alrr rerr,►vory systems art) uuitabia for use on ;,lrapinq hands.' that are crirvad b/ a property do, sii�rv�.d tendIhMalred' surfaco irrigation systrem to t3crlitsalr; the ooriser labor oso of soil and wafer rrlource>, They are also tuilable for uw in areas vrf,cro r�ocoverable Irrigation tunoff 'flows or can be anticipated under the mann ernent practices usod ter 0epeclud to be u:,ed, bostnn ar aria Collection laollitlet;. rw ilitio for the collection of irrir;."ir,n tailwalrr arra an. infalraf part of Irrigation X ystrwns, rmlaco and subsurface (?At ), Irngiiier►;�}Mian,TaHv�a:�r ltrc�s�,y.t-f�' Stamp or pit. A sunap or pit is twoc(rrl in ,lour ili,- Cullueted Inilwater until it i, 1`1sdir,16111i4,11 i.ri 'rye• farm lrrirgntion system. The deCired cantroI (if wxoi tit the point where the tailytator is rmumori In tho Irrigation system shall be calasiderecf iii t1r�linnim ing Ilse s►zo of the sump. Small surops wilh frequently cycling prrriiiiirttl plants may be used whero the taihwalor th"ulI'll Into an irrigation regulitioti raservf fr m l obo pipeline w;fth the flow controlled by a float v;ilw However, if ilio Irrigalion distribution syMvtrl (Ir not Include facilities 'for regulatinri ftt)r,ltl.itirirr flows, tallwatot sumps shall be tondo ionic+ rimirrll to provide the regulation needed to pptmit rlli+-io►it use of the water. Sumps must be eciuipped with inlets de.cignoll to protect the side slopes .Ind the collection In0filiwi from erosion. A dike or ditch shall be pro%*fod it necessary to limit the entrance of surfar o wtit+•r ir,' the designed inlet. Sediment -traps shrill tai; in- stalled it needed, Sumps or pits shall be designed and co., ylititIlml according to Ppplicable SCS:statidards and spotih.. cations, Return facllilie% All taitwater ri�co,or ry :ydtr me require facilities of sortie kind to convey tlin lvilo- i ter from the storage sump to the point of rpr-alt, Into ilia farm Irrigation system. The.;rr fa,Flilictp� art i, consist of a pump and pipelinetorel'uln tile-wri!tI to the upper and of the field, or they tatty cacti i l r t' a gravity outlet having a .ditch or pipollne to cowv / the water to a lower section of the farts itilUnlir,,rr system. The capacity of {olufn lasiliflos ,heli bre tar-Iri, mined by an analysis of oxpnc"led eurieAl r stir., fit,, proposed sump storage capacity, „arid IhP ntilmi paled use to be made of the tallwator. If the return flow is used as an indr ri(sridoilt r►r,- aallon stfewn rather main 15 a uIJPpler►ir'nt to lila primary lertgrillon vmtter +;ripply, Ihn rens ni tr—+ roust be tidaquald for llja Mothorls of vmipr idol li cation employed. Pipelines, lined of unlim.1d ditthos, and (,broil :I%,; :plants used in return lacihtioG shall torr and constructed a,crrrdinr to applirt►blr+ Mandatd and spocitication a hitiaia iinr! speciticatiois Plana anal st)rrCilfCnllnns lot iriirl;itrr,ir airily, err o rnoovofy !,yslernl shall tin In .krhvIntirj standard and shall dp,- ichbu Iho tryrtijm,nu w,. i, r criplying tills ptasttr o los 'Ichtova It°; Itilriided POGO, Scs"Ortuorr 1 01 i UPPER RIDGE COORDINATING COUNCIL "Protecting the Good Life on the Magalia to Louelock Ridge" Bugle Co. Nnntng Com,. JAN 2 0 1987 orolAdle, C.oforrt4 January 16, 1967 Butte County Department or Planning, 7 County Center Drive Orovillo, CA 95965 Attention: Bettye Kircher Bettye; Confirming our telephone conversation of Jan, 15, I have summarized the items that should be given consideration in the establishment of a revised building code. 1. Many mobile homes now in use in the upper ridge area were purchased prior to the . , �ablishment of the National Mobile Homs Construction and 'Safety Standard Act of 1974. i Most of therm do not meet al I of the, provisions of these standards. Provisions in the revised' code shou'Id permit these older mobile homes to be moved from one location to another without diffi wutly, frequently, on owner decides to trade in ms present mobile home for a larger and more modern unit. I (the older mobile cannot be relocated in the area, such a mobile would have no turn -in value. 2 in our discussion, i mentioned (he concern of many residents that the current 5 -star - mobile pari; rating of the Sierra del Uro subdivision would be- lost if conventional housing were perrrritted in the current area zones AW11H'. In discussing this with the major Insurer in th!s area, I was advised that this was not a probrerrt All e'f Sierras del Oro and Paradise pines Pronerty Is currently inured at the same rete. We would oppreciateyour assistance In this hatter. H11a1, 0. hshI ey Zoning committee, co-nairrrmo upor fridgeCaordtrta�tro Oounclt ct t,en Fultort Fran Main W. Outler LEt{ PULTON, ihoirman ' °a°�� t3UA�°+h� F{ith DistrictNA • C1 k ,„....'�� 5kEl. A. tIc#NTURF p°4p'�'.�i3+S First District w �Ot'.•` %0�0 JANE DOLAN B OA R O OF SUPERVISORS sacorid District HILDA WHEELER L� l•i ADMINISTRATION CENTER Third Motto ••y�.►•• „ ' ^"� 25 COUN.I? CENTCR DR. - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 15965 D McLAUCNLIN Fourth District +u+r+•+r TELEPHONE! 016) 574,4224' January 21, x.087 Mr, Harvey Wa.11ac County Council 25 County Center TI -rive _ oroviile, California 95965 Dear Harvey I have received Inquiries regarding, hoW to regul4ILtl tr�!(yi vendors in the Chico Urban Area, The city of Chico has adopted an ordinance; for regulating food vendors. Please bee the enclosed information. I would ].ilwfa to explore the pos.sibilit>y of adopting county ord nancru I;ha.t �vould not only regulate food, but ether product: as well. An e: =Pie of the cOnflict that is Occurring is local-larivi Who is being, ancroathed upon say 6treet ven-�_ dors, and being inidersold Since the city hart no mochanlsra for 'businetn-s' licon-es what alternatives might be available for this 'kInI rpt" rery ,ulation? Thank you for your consideration' Sincerely, Kahl n Vurve,,vu—stW District 3 KV. em Eno. I CC: ,Mr. f3obeyeva. B�kpressions Plorist 169 Cohasset Road Chico, California 9$9 6 August :1 '81 ' STATE OF CALIFORNIA �.f Governor's Office OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH Editor: William W. Abbott, 1 cr Tenth Street Legal Ccuynsel Sacramento, CA 95814 Local Government Unit LAND USE LMGATION NEWSLETTER SUMMARY: OF RECENT' LITIGATIONktr `4001,, ,, FEDERAL COURT CASES 4011111% Billboards •_ia, Inc. v. City of San' Diego, United States Su rQ US U..aL. 4925. p -me Court, July 21 1981 49 The Case: In March 1912, the City of San str►•sting commercial advertisinI Diego enacted an ordinance restricting the g, the City erection of billboards. The ordinance wds could restrict permitted commercial adopted 'oto eliminate' hazards to speech to onsite locations only, and that pedes- such an ordinance directly advanced the trians and motorists brought trot ting sign displays about by dis- ;; i� safety and aesthetic purposes of the ordi- and to preserve and improve thea ,; Hance. - _ P`.... appearance the CNfif, � plurality It had the effect of prohibiting offsite However, the lural. felt that the ordi" commer�icl displays and permitting onsite Hance was unconstitutional on the grounds commercial displays n commerc`ra) and of the First and Fourteenth Amendments industrial zones. Exceptions for certai t In that it "restricted noncommercial speech owed es of Businesses noncommercial Invol speech c n ,outdoor in areas where commercial speech was allowed. The City ,failed to "show that advertising flied suit, to overturn the or- allowing noncommercial billboards where dinance: cammercial billboards were permitted. superior court held thetic, Slnny snore dangerous or less aes The Holding- The slate - would bed � ce Glowed pocd- p ce the ord�nan the drdinance invalid on the , grounds that ment of certain types of noncommercial It was outside the perrnissable scope of` signs In the commercol and industrial the police power and on abridgement of zones. the City would have t'o allow other ommercial messages in those zones, irst Amendment rights: The Court of nonci � i Appeal affirmed on the first ground and Tplurality s the lural e,.ifldally did not rule on did not rule on the. second. The California the efteiwt of tun ordinance which would Supreme Court reversed os to both drgu- totally ban outdoor advertising: 49 mdhts. in a divided opinon, the United U.S.LA 45250 4932 fn: 20. States Supreme Court invalidated the or- dinanc ej` The two concurring justices used a dif- ferent appr"oach,Lreading the ordinance ds The p,lurolity op ,00n applied a four-part a bah on with limited exceptlons -_ test to determine whether the police pow noncarrimeecial speech, much os the Court - er in this case could legitimately regulate had In Schad v, Borough of Mt. Ephraimt commercial speech, in upholdhing 'the 49 U S,L,W, 459�disc_ussed in the July ordinance, the Court stated that traffic 1981 blewsletter), :The jusflce� concluded` safety and appearance of the City were that the City had failed to put forth substantlal governmental goals justifyng evidence that billboards would impair such on ordinance, It ruled that in re. safety In San biego, Also with respect x Timber Zonirx� continued The Holding: The triol court ruled against and that the property owner intend to use the property for timber harvesting- The the plaintiff on the constitutional issues, and for the plaintiff on the issue of tim- Court rejected that interpretation, saying berland cicssi f ication. The County and Oast that 'under the Forest Taxntion Reform Act, it was sufficient that i`he land was the State of California appealed the issue and the Court of -;Appeal reversed. suitable for timber proauctfon, not in ac- Clinton argued that to fall within the tual production, :and that landowner's in= statute, the property must have timber tent was not necessary. Infrastructure Fees - Carlton Sc rItee Coro. v. 'Padre Dom Municipal Water District, California Court of Appecl, 120 Cal. App. 3d 14, June 2, 1981 , The Case: PlaintiffP was a residential level- The flailerg: The trial court and Court of App eal both upheld the fees. The. Court o er in an area where water and sewer service wase provided by the defendant of Appeal interpreted the 'Nater Code as district. The district. 'formed under the Law 1911) allowing the District to promulgate a fee prepayment requirement. Further, the Municipal Water' District of had adopted a fee schedule applicable to Court determined that the procedures - Improvement District A, which included the plaintiff's land. The schedule provided which provided for service allocation where demand exceeded available supply fort among other things, prepayment of 'notification and for application deferral fee were rea= There was substantial evidence hookup fees' at the time of of the intent to' serve, an application sortable. in the record in the form of system cost deferral fee in lieu of the developer pro- studies and comparative fee structures to eeding of, the t.rne of notification, and engineering and Inspection fees. The de- support the reasonableness of the costs charged to the applicants. Finally, the veloper filed suit to invalidate the various fee provisions as either not authorized by plaintiff failed to corry his burden in introducingevidence to show that the fees the Nater Code or as unreasonable in charged for engineering and inspection amounti work were unreasonable- First Amendment Ebel V. City oCda�rdAenrGr denied App; 399, March 1, Ik 1981iforPetit onrfor 1T; as mode 4 iep . , reheaainyl The Case: Plaintiff operated an adult book- would be granted, and a denial of equdl, store in a commercially zoned area in the protection. Cufooden rdinanceve4 The requiring City an lly such, The h-biding-. The trial court held for the Passed businesses to secure conditional use per- for such activities, regardless of Io- City ruling that the ordinance was a reasonable exerpcpse of the police power. snits cation► Thr ordinance provided that the The Court of Appeal reversed, rullnq that the purpose of the permit was to .insure -neighs borhood compatibility and to incorporate for First Amend nest purpos'ess start- dards locked the required special degree special considerations for noise; smoke, via ration; odors; hazard; or public of precision, grid that the ordinance did not guarantee issuance of a permit, even fumes need. The plolntiff had never received a and when if the applicant mO all the conditions: Sinop the ordinance Wds unconstitutional nor filed for such permit, threatened'by the City with crimindl pro- on its face, the plaintiff was not barred from seeking judicial review with exhaust-. secutlon for violation of the ordinance} sought injunctiveara� declaratory g dmin`i remedies and that i tan against the City, g g nt stanf strative ctian would'be an a proprIa. remedy injui p , dards; lack of cOtcinty that permits where such an ordinance existed. 3 August -1981 ." STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office Editor: Williarn W. Abbotfi OFFICE OF PLANNING. AND RESEARCH Legal Counsel 1400 Tenth Street Local Government Unit Sacramento, CA 95814 LAND USE LMGATION NEWSLETTER SUMMARY OR R ECi�UT LITIGATION �k 0141/10, FEDEfAL COURT CASES •�,,t Billboards Metromedia,..lnc, v. Clty of San OleUnited States Supreme Court, July 2, 1981, 49 U.S.L. W. 4925. The Case, In March 1972,the City of San striding commercial advertising; the City Diego enacted an ordinance restricting the could restrict permitted commercial erection of 'billboards. The ordinance was speech to onsite locations only, and that adopted "to plirninate hazards to 'pedes- such an ordinance directly advanced the rians and motorists brought about by dis- safety and aesthetic purposesof the ordi= tracting sign displays" and "to preserve nance• and improve the appearance of the -Ci - tyiif he City:'►It had the effect of prohibiting offsite If However, the pluraiii-/ felt that the ordl- commercial displays and permitting onsite nonce was unconstitutional on the grounds commercial _ displays in commercial and of the First and 'Fourteenth Amendments in it noncommercial speech industrial zones._ Exceptions for certain es of nonccmmerclal speech were of- > that restricted in areas where ^ommercial speech was tin outdoor lowed. Businesses involved. o the allowed, The City failed to show that allowing noncommercial billboards where advertising filed suit to Overiturn or- commercial billboards were permitted dinance4 would be any more dangerous or less oes- The i -lulling: ,The state superior court held' the that thetics Since the ordinance allowed place- menu of certain, types of noncommercial the ordinance invalid on grounds it was outside the p-Prrnissable scope of signs in the commercial and industrial the police power and an abridgement of zones, the 'City would have to allow other in First Amendment rights. The Court of first and noncommercial messages those zones. The plurality specifically did not rule on Appeal affirmed on the ground did hot rule on the second. The California' the `effect of on ordinance which would 49 Supreme Covet reversed as to both argu- totally ban outdoor advertising. U,S,L.W. 4925; 4932 fn. 20. meats, in a doitided opinion, the United States Supreme Court invalidated the ori The two concurring justices' used - The .dinance: • ferent approachreading the ordinance as The plurality opinion applied afoot -part test to determine whether the pollee pow= a ban on - with limited exceptions noncommercial speech, much' as the Court er in this case could legitimately regulate had in Schad v, l36rouah of Mfi Ephraim, comrriercinl' speech. In uphaldhing the, 49 U,S,L,W. 4597 (discussed in the July 1981 Newsletter): justices concluded ordinance] the Court stated that traffic safety and appeardnce � Y ;The that the City had failed to put forth .ere f ver'nmentalf goals ,justifying substarttlal go evidence City billboards vyoi►Id impair in Soh Diego,_ Also with respect such on ordinance. It ruled that in re-" safety Billboards, continued to.aesthetics, the justices did not see any would be oto diminish one form of com- evidence that billboards would be inconsis- munication, such diminishment would not As tent with oil industrial and commercial be the grounds for invalidation. op- uses, and there was no evidence that the plied to the City oti San Diego, such :an City was pursuing a rational, coordinated arainance should be upheld since the basis effort at addressing other forms of des- of exceptions did not depend upon subject thetic blight. Thus, in their views the matter content, "a First Amendment basis City had failed to establish a record to for disapproving the ordinance. support the regulation. The Chief Justice and Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, who concurred and dis- in their dissent, would have permitted the sented with the plurality, concluded that ordinance as a reasonable exercise of the a cify could 'totally prohibit billboards as police power. b{lithin this power was the a form of communication throughout the ability to prohibit noncommercial, speech , entire city. While the effect of a ban and yet allow onsite commercial` speech. CALIFORNIA COURT CASES First Amendment Okun v. 8uoerior Court, California Supreme Court, 29 Cala 3d 442, June 15, 1981. The Case: Maple Properties; real party in in the campaign to disapprove the project. 'interest, had acquired l0 acres of land in The alleged dameging activity consisted Beverly Hills for, purposes of developing of letters to area newspapers, oral state - condominiums. The property was under menu, and the arguments against the pro- _ a development moratorium, pending a de- ject contained in the sample ballot. termination ofappropriate zoning. The developer ultimaely, ntered into -a Iand The Holdings- The trial court granted _demur_- exchange with the City, for property the City owned' contiguous to the developer. tees on several causes of action, but al - lowed several causes of action to stand. The developer's property was then zoned Affer review, of the 'letters to the area to allow for condominium development, newspapers and the .sample ballot, -the dismissed all A petltlon was circulated to ;place on the Call'f `,11d Supreme Court ballota measure for voter approval or but , of the remaining causes of action, disapproval of the zoning ordirance. The wit' ti, -e justices voting to dismiss that rezoning was disapproved by the voters The developer filed suit, accusing various CCUs# t�ction also. On this last theory' (slat ° , he plaintiff was allowed to pro- itidividuals of libel' and slander expressed cee Timber Zonnci Clinton v, Coun' of Santa Cruz, California Court of Appeal,, 119 Cal. App. 3d 921t - June I, I'm, The Case: The pldintiff twined two contiguous County, the property was sultoble for parcels In Santa Crut County) neither of growing and horvesting timber: Plaintiff which had been used nor were intended filed suit to overturn the zoning ordinance to be used by the plaintiff for growing an the. grounds that the Forest Taxation timber, pursuant to the Forest Taxation' Reform Act and the County's impiemen- Reforrr► Acts the County. zoned 600 parr ' tation ordinance were uridonstitutional, cels; includinq the plaintiff'si, Into d tire= and that his ptopetty contained neither � ber pret&Ve Zone (TPZ). The basis for timber nor was properly dimsifled ns tim- including the plalnti f f!sproperty was on beriancs. 2 the ground thdts as determined by the Timber Zoning, continued The Holding: The trial court ruled,against and that the property owner intend to use the plaintiff on the constitutional issues, the propertyfor timber harvesting. The and for the plaintiff on the issue of tim- Court 'rejected that Interpretation, saying Berland classification. The County and That under ,the Forest Taxation Reform the State of California appealed the last` Act, it was sufficient that the land Wos issue and the Court of Appeal reversedi suitable for timber, production, not in ac- Clinton argued that to fall within the tual production, and that landowner's in- statute, the -property must have timber tent was not necessary, Infrastructure Fees Carlton Santee Coro. v. Padre Darrt Municioai '-Nater District, California Court of Appeal, 120 Cal: App. 3d 14, June 2, '1981. The Casey Plaintiff was a r4�sidential devel- The Holding: The trial court and Court of aper in an area where water' and sewer Appeal both upheld the fees. The Court service was provided by the defendant of Appeal interpreted the Nater Code as district. The district, formed under the'allowing the District to promulgate'°a fee Municipal Water District Law of 1911, prepayment requirement. Further, the had adopted a fee schedule applicable to Court determinedthat the ixocedures Improvement District A which included which provided for service allocation the plaintifPs land. The schedule plrovided where demand exceeded avoiloble 'supply for, among other things, prepayment of and for application deferral fee. were rea-, hookup . There was substantial evidence, ofthe intenttoserve, an application P inthe'record in the form of system cost, deferral fee in lieu' of the developer pro. studies and comparative fee structures to ceeding at the time of notification, and support -he' reasonableness of the costs engineering and inspection fees. The de- charged to the applicants. Finally; the veloper` filed suit to' invalidate the variou plaintiff failed to carry his- burden in - -- fee provisions, as either not authorized by introducing evidence to show that the fees the Nater Code or as unreasonable in charged for engineering and' inspection work were unreasonable. First Amendrhernt Ebel v City of, Garden Grove, Calilfornia Court of Appeal, 120 Cala App. 3d 399; March I B,. 15181, as modified, April 14; 1981: Petition for rehearing denied. The Cate- Plaintiff -operated an adult book.- would be granted, and a denial of equal store in d commercially zoned areci in the protection. City of Garden Crave. The ClIty' had passed an ordinance requiring ail such The Holding:i The trial court held for, the busrhe sses to 'secure conditional use er-" City, ruling at the o rdinan Was a Y Y ml for such activities regardless of to- reasonable exercise of the police wet. . a provided that, the. cation., The ordinanc pr h The Court -of Appeal reversed :rutin that p p , 9 purpose of the permit was to insure neigh- for First Amendment purposes, the stance boyhood compatibility and to incorporate dards lacked the required special degree special considerations for noise, smoke;- of precision, and that the ordinance did furrmes, vibration, odors, hazc► dp or public no# godrantee issuance of permit, even need. The plaintiff had never reco.tved if the 3policatit met all the conditionsi nay filed for" such a perrnit, and when Since the or'din�ance was unconstitutional threatened by the City with crithinal pro- on its face, the,-!dIntlff was ,not barbed secution for violation of the ordindnce frorn seeking judidiar with exhaust.i sought injunctive and declaratory relief ing administrative rerrie:lies, and that on against the City, arguing insufficient stan- inunction would be an :bOrOrlate remedy dat~dsj lack of certainty that permits �,v�ere such an tird'indrice existed. 3," CALIFORNIA COURT CASES, continued Inverse Condemnation Washinaton Water and Licht C'omnanv v; East Yolo Community Services District, California �ourt of Court Appeal, 12 Col. App. 3d 38$ J r',e i 5 1118 The Case: The plaintiff was a privately-; The Holding: While the Court of Appeal owned utility responsible for providing initiallyreversed the dismissal based on water service. A community services Agins as to certain causes of action, the district vies formed July 2, 1976, for the Court said that Aains did not bar inverse purpose of acquiring the utility company. condemnation suits for unreasonable pre- The California Legislature effective condemnation actions. However, by reci- June 25, 1978, passed legislation restrict- son of specific statutes governing utilities ing Washington frOrn major system ex- and the Public' Utilities Commission, the pons on fora period of time to allow for plaintiff had to pursue its remedy with district acquisition. The plaintiff filed the Public Utilities Commission. The suit alleging inverse condemnation and un- other causes of action in inverse condem- reasonable precondemnation activities., nation against the State and the District _ T h� tridl court-granted the defendant's were also dismissed by the Court of-Ap- -- demurrer to all counts on the basis -that ;teal. Since the State was not engaged the California Supreme Court's decision in condemnation activity, it could not be in Aains v. City of Tiburon foreclosed liable for unreasonable preconclemnation claims for money damages in inverse con:- activity. The "District was also not liable demnation. in inverse condemnation for actions taken prior to its formation. First Amendment Sussii v. City of Son Mateo; California Court of Appeal, 120 Cal. App. 3d 1, May 14, 19181, The Case• the Ci of San Mateo adopted The Haldin The trio City p g-. i court and the Court an ordinance prohibiting sign posting on of Appeal ruled against the plaintiff. The public property. p � sins � nce op,er by Cithathcertain�fel cti no at dt to restrict estriict the exercise of First had been ,'rllegally posted, and that upon Amendment freedoms; s:jch restriction failure to remove the signs within` a specl- was justified in the face of the substantial - fled time; period, the; City would do so. governmental interests at stake; protec- The signs were not removed and the condi- tion of public, property, malntenance or date filed actions for injunctive and de- public confidence in government neutra- cleratory relief after the City began re- lity, protection of the public froFn peopo- moving signs, arguing the ordinance via- ganda, administrative burden, preservation fated his First Amendment, tights6 of public signs and line of sight, and . aesthetic considerations: OTHER COURT ACTIVITY Pubic Trust The Supreme Court granted hedring in City as.. Las Angeles v. Venice _peninsula Properties l 17 Cal: App: 3d 335 Cases Declded Too Late For PUblicdfion In This; Issue United States Supreme Court Civil Rights: City, of Newoort v. Fact Concerts: lhd A California Court of Appeal Brown Act: Power! v, Santa Clara Unified School District 4 CEOA Evans v: San Diecto OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Subdivision Map .Act Contiguous parcels held by the some owner ernment rode Section 6499.20-1/2 are fol - "merge" for purposes of the Subdivision lowed, or (3) the general requirements of Map Act if (1) a local ordinance hasbeen Government Code Sections x6426w6428 adopted pursuant to Government Code for subdividing (eesubdividing) property are Section 66424.2 and the parcels come satisfied under Government Code. Section within the minimum size and development 86499.20-3/4. criteria specified in the statute, (2) the No 81-406 , "reversion to acreage" provisions of Gov- July 3, 1,981 LOCAL GOV ERNMEN'"r PLANNING NEWS Solar Access: "it's the. Law!" Better- Laws, Bettca• Plans? . In '97 pages, this new mcnual from the The State Planning Law Task Force will Ins- itute of Governmentol Affairs `` at meet again in August to examine a second " UC Davis covers the legal and practical working draft of a revised state planning aspects of two state laws on solar access. low. Based on the work of this year's Author Robert Thayer explains the Cali- Conference and the earlier efforts of fornia Solar Rights Act of 1978 and the county planning directors, the second draft California Solar Shade Control Act of emphasizes increased flexibility for local " 1978..Charts, diagrams, tables; and mode in tiatives and the theme of deregulation. ordinances match Thayer's text and biblio- OP's Larry Mintier can supply details graphy to provide a use1�ulr tool for local (916/445-1114). planners. Copies of Solos Access: "it's the Law!" are available for $5.00 checks Kids and Commerce payable to "Regents of the University of Cal'ifornia'n) from: Institute of Govern- According to the magazine Shopping C'en- . �, California,i mental Affcirs, Univeosity of s To added successfultwo major developers have day-care facilities to - Davis CA 95616. ' their shopping centers. Homart Develop - Back PAAC? ment Company (Sears Roebuck's develop - Ment arm) created a 4,000 -square -foot Lack of a quorum postponed the Planning day-care center to cttract customers to ' y ' ce Council's (PARC) Advisor and Assis�an its 660,000 -square -foot mall in suburban July meeting until August 14 in Sacra'- Mlhneapolis, Minnesota. Homart i's giving mento. PAAC is the advisory group the day-cryr�a center, which is run by an created by the Legislature to assist OPR. outside organization, arent breck. At the August meting, PAAC will award Ernest IN, Hahn Inc. has successfully opera HUD 11701" grants to nonmetropolitan into ated a day-care facility •-; regular child care and a short-term service for shoppers councils of government and look Reagan Federalism, Joyce bel Pero staffs - at its University town Centre in San PAAC and she has more information Diego for more than two years, along with (916/445-1 1 14) museums, community rooms, a clinic, and on ice skating rink. Day core is seldom Efficient Management offered at shopping centers because own- ers do not want to relinquish the space; Instead of hiring an expensive consultant, but both 'Homart and Hahn are considering the Scan Jose Management Task Force re- similar facilities for other centers. The fled on 9,000 hours donated by area private key to a successful day-care fjcillty, they firms to study and .recommend more ;ef- say, is having outsi&ncce, s from the ficent city practiaes. Led by major Indus- parking lot and keeping longer hours than triol firms in the area? the Task Force those of the mall, some other shopping looked at development permits, custodial centers Which tried 'to operate day-care seirvices, vehicle maintenance, engineering centers failed because they were restrict - services, and personnel topics. Dan Win-: ed to Mall operating hours which limited terhaiter is the Task Force_ executive di= them to babysitting functions. (Shopping � rector+ Copies of the final report (even p� � Centers Todd Aril 1981 International P � this was not printed at city exp mte) are S�� �. ounciI of hopping Centers, 665 Fifth ovallable by calling 408/9168,4000. Avenue, New York, New York 10022) 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNiNGGl`NEWS'y' continued' CEGA Guideline Amendments Liquor. Law, and Land.Use The Res onproposedwill contls to two Agency the hearings City and county officials can use their zoning powers to regulate problems caused State Guidelines, on August 18 in by off -sale beer and wine stores, according Sacramento and August 20 in Los Angeles, to a new advisory memo prepared by OPR. The proposed amendments cover 16 items Two .1.980 laws restrict the ability of the designed to conform with 19380 legislation State Department of Alcoholic Beverage and recent court decisions.The proposed Control to regulate off -premise sales, but turn amendments also clarify technical require- neighborhoodresidents can still to merits. These amendments are not the local officials if markets and convenience comprehensive overhaul of the Guidei_ines. stores cause problems. Copies of "Who's that was started earlier this year. Norm Minding the Store?" are available from Hill of the Resources Agency can supply OPR's Local Government Unit by calling details on the hearinas and the proposed 5016/445-1114 or 916/322-6312. _ amendments (910/445-5656). Conflict ict of interest Of Course! The Fair Political Practices Commission University of California Extension is (FPPC) has issued an extensive advice offering a dozen short courses on land letter to Humboldt County regarding po- use, CEOA, and development topics this be in tential conflicts of interest by planning_ commissioners voting on the County's Lo- fall. The courses will �.:ffered Berkeley, Anaheim, Santa Rosh, and other cal Coastal Program. While the letter locations. Subdivisions, signsp erosion only applies to specific individuals and control, planning commissioners, and facts in question, it illustrates how FPPC career management are among the topics. requirements may apply to planning mat: Instructors include experienced profes- tern in general. A copy of the letter sionals such as OPR's Ron Bass who will dated April 23,,'l 981, to Ms. Barnes, Office teach the CEOA coursei l=or information of the County Counsels Humboldt County and a copy of the course announcements, racy be obtained by writinrr the FPPC at call UCExtension's Warren Jones at P.O. Box ' 807, S4cramento, California 415%642_1061. Southern Californians can 95804 or calling 916/M-5901, call the UC Irvine campus' for the same information at 714/833-6412. Coming and. Going Max Wa,S Rlaht OPI has hired Nathan Gardels to direct ''Knowledge is power," sold Max Weber Its new Pension Investment Unit, created by the 1981-82 state budget, Gardels was and most planning directors agree. OPR formerly the special consultant to the sends this monthlii newsletter free -of- Governor's Public investmen7_Task Force, g y and county planning char e to the 485 cit a he can be reached at 916/32 37$4. Mike directors and 58 county ` counsels, but somehow the word doesnIt always get out Eaton OPR's former Senior Energy Advisor, Lias left to become the Assistant to staff members. Some planning direc- Secretary for Energy at the Resources tors cleculate the newsletter; some post Agency, Mike will ;be involved in policy it on a bulletin board; tome photocopy and implementation, his number is sections far key I staffers. But others ap- ;new 9I6/322�5228. parently hoard OPRis newsletter for them- selves. Wd b6pe planning directors will share their knowledge; those who do make their staffs more powerful. L Inter -Departmental Memorandum 'POs Clerk of Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning SUBJECT; Zoning Ordinance, File 86-27 DATE;. October 2, 1987 Please set the hearing for the balance of the Zoning This would coincide with Ordinance for the continued October 27, 1987 at 10.00 a.m. Public hearing on a portion of the -subject ordinance. Butte County Board of Sdoervisors - proposed Negative Declaration to the Butte Cade regarding environmental impact an d Amendment ,County , Chanter 24 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance involving the following subjects: ARTICLE 3 Definitions 4 Agricultural Zone: i5 Commercial Forestry Zone -; 6 Timber 'reserve Zone Residentiwl Zone 9 Suburban Residential Zone 10 Rural Residential Zone 12 Commercial Zone 11 Scenic Ri hway Zone g 15 lridustrial Zone 17 Foothill Residential Zone 18, Timber Mountain Zaire 21 Open B'pgce Zone 22 Planned Unit Development Zone 23 Resource. Conservation Zone APTtCLr- 4G STREAMS1'DE` aETBAr1! Sr -C 2.4-46.01 f't1RFOSC AND 7N1'FNi t i s twi`�ry purpose,f the strearrrs i de setbacks standards to provide' protec t i cin to County waterways, stre, ms, creeks, and rivers from r4nc:row�r<°.hrnen l of buildings and structures along thr, i r banks. S#,rearn' i r, e �s,etbacks w i l 1 serve to protect and preserve riparian �egeti; i on EG 24--46.0:' APPLlEABiL' Ty Ti~ e pr=ov i s l (Prr t Of this section sl')all apply i n add i t i an to any otlrer srk.�'�acM a estab1 i shed in tah i s code ,spry 24--46.OS DL J51- t,'MEN°T STANDARDS r f 1 3 All pr l merry structures including res i dent i al dwel 1� h? shat l be setback a rni n i mum of twenty --five ( 25) feet form the top of bank of streams as defined in 24"46.04 t ) A1l P►"`imany structures inciudirIg residnetial dwellings stead be <et back a minimum of fifty (50) feet from the top of bank of k,he Sacramento and Feather Rivers.. r ) Wit h i n m streams i de setbacks no primary structure , main r huilciingr pot -king- spaces, parking access, pavement, swimming poolfence or accessory building with an aggregate floor aroa exceeding 500 squer°e feet, shall be constructed. r3 Irl i tl-r i n a strearrrs i cir= setbadk , .. there shall be no comtnerc i a1 agriculture: Sl -C 4-46.04 DFt INLTIONS ( 1) ror purposes Of this sect 1 tin , top of bank shall mean the uppet~ e l evat; i cin of 1 anti, hov i ng a slope not -exceeding ten percent (10%), which conflnes to their, channel waters flawinJ in a water course in their normal course of winter flow, t 2 5 For purposesf ,iii s+��t.l pan ;sltreem steal 1 'be dei" it►ed a_ a 1�odv of water that flows of least periodically or l rater to i ttnn+� l y lahro ugh a bed or channel hav l ng banks and su{�portrs fish or other aoutt i s l l f r:: Tin It i nc l odes ► at+ar �r�ut,ses hra�r 1 rir,�` sur face or" subsur f"�ace f 1 ow that sl,ifiports or i�jY has supported riparian VO-SetaMb i or, . C F i sh and ObrTie Code purposes of this stream as in 1 n+z l udc�-, creeks. arrd rivers: Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO: Planning COMAii.ssion FROM: Staff suBJEM Zoning Amendment Article 45 Sti.eam Side Setbacks DATE: Decem'.aer 30, 1957 Tile Planning CommistSiun considered a draft stream side setback at their meeting of November 12, 1987 and requested a map showing where the setbacks would apply. Such a map has been prepared for illustrative hazard purposes only. Adaption of stream side setbacks are being recommended fora n mber of different purposes. 1. Preserve riparian habitat, 2. Protect water quality= Limit bank destabilization. Vii. Limit eyposure of persons and property to flood hazardous, 5. Ease of implementation and administration. A Yloodway combining zone has been included in the draft zoning' ordinance now before the toard. Adoption of stream side setbacks is a different approach to resolving the same types of problems and conflicts with development in f;loodplains; A principle benefit of using stream sidesetbacks rather than flood-Wa')r toning is in its implementation, Stream side setbacks would be standards which all it or issuartca of a building permit, Adoption of stream side development must meet, Whether that development is a parcel ma' u setbacksecould be dont~ Count wide with environmental document and y and g no futthar action would be needed to implement hearing, Once codified, stream side sotbacks: Floodway zoning on the other hand would require specific 'hearings for each area, findings under CtQA; and the writ:ig of lengthy legal desetiptions: Adoption'of stream side setbacks will be a quicker way to achieve the: same objective desired by the floodway zorting. It should be noted that stream side setbacks will have their greatest impact on the smaller channels and Creeks in the County, and .levied creeks, Along Feather 'Ricer end the Sacramento 'River) the primary io�mt�l.eatsWwould arrd��.gxiculturalthe i,Coperation ngainst bank Clearing) voget t n g ons. The County has in plate thten different floodplain regulations for the Sa"Amento river; Feait«lier River, and all other f loodways in the County which Control the issuance of building permits: 4 •Sl.tt�tiar:'e wtrrrartrr�'"�'ti r�Q• A ill x ^ xm .» r• -W 'a o jaw (a' . i i• M+w„R ?S � lf�� : ", ; f j,£!•1 +� a ' �� ,p.(Y � a� • ". 4,r� " � is .. �✓: •.k� jyyr yet a ti„444,ty \ (v �En w • ... W ' ” .+ F - /�., •r. �+ '+'� `� {IGf�:GC �7Yt7C✓s.. ani ,. •m Vr . wy.• + ��\� ' i �'` `�O" {j �+ � .14 .r' 0 , i� i i'• r r r' t iww?r, + SIS �, ��r..� �� w'' M�,}}1*" y'1 't'� t '�p. rl.'•� +' • ,r�i�.� XI r • •� 1. E r� �'�r 'fir 4�` *Cj. „v G ~i.d ""v.r s ^ ; ' •'ti. + l ,�1Xy✓,• ",yyywF,(„#tY�.'YS"wFIY 4'f,• ` ,f�. •` + J� 2-1 - �y',,, 'e 'mss r vtr .w '• L f "fp \ �` • •'l\<I/ _. fJ ' +' �I""•w, '. 1 `yam iii j ", •)1;,,'1 ' t \ i�S r" a✓yN o �,!`',�•, F .yam M1Q�"' �� .^.,"-' .. I i •L rri�• s�v ✓l ',r � " w,N�•,tir,� •T "� v r _. d . .. - ,�.� ,. ti• a "' I ^�. .,//�',���' '�'f �'p��'� `ytp : S4� !`'� .; �.�c � i�� ,J - t; y� :� ✓" a r i "� ,n ax ,.! •'� •� ..�,...°� a va' y0 /���/aVyE,,, ,r"�rI �,IF e`,�'�t ,J,rl ` J'+� f '� � � r 4 �� &; ' �,. n.Y .,.._ nr�.. ir• UF',I... . .�• ,.'�'I' �`{ �'r ' r+' r.~��� �''ti*,�;/«� t� I • Q /7✓ Cj V ,� M �l swe�n�tsM�,xc YY � ..... .,...•. F + � �I' /[i U! '•r.w. ` � .�� ��tA 4i37 x .+ � 9 jfy}} �,�f�; �•S/ >-r 1 �1:! �yy �t' f fi . ��' �C/ }� �� �`, ji oo A Vrj. le i'• �i � �V+;r/ /^ m�sfi'��' � ww �•.,,,,,�)4 -, ,��+, ya �.Ss �'� �.ra I ,�".-,,, •'� ;rn��,,... �h rj"""fa ��� r�' �`^•. w+'� �����"� r `N,��4'i L'•lr V �I 1•� � A.: �1 { y•�f`��� .., j I�r � � '''. xf ` r {�� e, L F `✓.4 ., 2 r" 1 J .� - WWa�i1.e'�✓ 1e a'a` 1'' j� �• • 1�,,.r r z 71 ,•.e.:.� ^"'"`* aa+< �,��„ �,,� � ;.,/ • �� ��� � per`, � ./''� �1 ,, yr�;!� t �,; 4 y% ;�w�, • w t • Gly a � � • i �rlie .It �. ,+, '\AC, iA•• ' • r =a yr „n,.e_ t�i:tYf 4i 10 rd CR •.—�`�� s ....,e�._.. u•W „_mss.-.� ♦.:.e ' •�� � ii ± www f✓d:w4 a.n w+a� r , . r � f r y`f M f Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO, planning Comtii;lssion FROM: Staff SUBJECT: IZoning Amendment - Article 46 Stream Side Setbacks DATE: December 30, 1957 The Planning Commission considered a draft stream side setback at their meeting 61 November 12, 1987 and requested a map showing where the ppJ� setbacks would Apply. Such a map has been prepared for illustrative hazard purposes only. Adoption of stream side setbacks are being recommended for a number of different purposes, 1, preserve riparian habitat,: 2. protect water quality. 3; Limit bank destabilization. 4, 'Limit exposure of persons and property to flood hazardous. 5. Ease of implementation and admini.sttation. A koodway combining zone has been included in the draft zoning otdinance how before the Board. ,Adoption of stream side setbacks is a different approach to resolving the same types of problems and conflicts With development in floodplains. A 'principle benefit of using stream side setbacks rather than floodway zoning is in its implementation, Stream side setbacks would be: standards which all development must meet, whether that development is a parcel map, use permit, or issuance of a building permit: Adoption of stream side setbacks could be done. County- wide with, environmental document and hearing: Once codified; no further action would be needed to implement stream side setbacksi floodway zoning on the other hand would require specific hearing's for each area, findings under LECA, and the writing Of lengthy same objective desired s Adoption of strSitedby the .floodway 1de setbacks will, be a Zoning. It should be noted that stream side setbacks will have their g greatest impact oh the smaller channels and, creeks in the County) ,and levied creeks, Along FeatherRivet and the„Sacramento River, the primary impact: mould be the restriction; against bank clearing; vegetation clearing, and agricultural operations. The County has in place three different .floodplain regulations for the Sacramento River, Fodthet River,, and all other floodways in the County which control the issuance of building petmits. NT OF` ''i HE " INTERIOR DEPARTNU IE'v) OOICAL SURV&Pto nr,urir 1rNrenSrArr;5f1' 6fli ` $93� y,�,W�w''•\ra e�,y,, �p�{L� �, t � 1, SLµ-. � •it �'.."'x+� �� .:' "`:,F� 1r h �Y {� \"S'�'• '\' U,`'`}1' il'��' •��✓ 'iF '::~" �,, w p� Vii. .eC � .. r: � ,' };c �'�' �r�Y. „� A �'"" •'� `�.t1,,•`��$� M `l:,r \9M ;�a /,, ^' a r,�,• « ,14kr r • ° r'r^r +r?C, ....� ♦ �'� .�F.'i^�1 hsl \ \ \� r' �'' �, �i. �i4,✓�V'/ a , . },.r "S n' p� J4� ., ,• J�" r �� � � � ti. ✓'?'•.>r',y� �� � '�'ti, •f�yt� d ,%/ / %�. ;"+ r •,r?#w �:• « *ice`' z i�%:y \01S�'�y ioo? r0 . •t'1 �O`�, ,�.J{/'".) .. ),. • rel ,,+ ; t� ♦�•„� .Y',+• �+E� i ja'�\"�,,.��f, `U' ,\ . QR l `J'` �� �.// . f ✓' . � v}. fee 14 n x»`A': 4 r,•-`"' •a S/ y V,," �'`. N� ,`�\,"•\y.R�'�r'�� „y � �.. ry., t•. r ''' N `S �` +6."A �.�i' �'iy\� A ti Q�•' ,�« � rY « x top `. iZ '..1 .-.,,;«�_ +\\ `"\1 f�,i vres+Z,i,,•� , \fit s �� i' \./77' /d / 'r4 ' • + i\1© iC �,. a1 .3� j ti , i t� _�• r .. y; «�., •,.fir., $ d 17�J .}J :�^� ¢?� �4 �,/�.. i � ��:r, ;,a .•V. � --� M��/ JL4' d C;AK- WA /ye �. t • i 1 f t �(w\ l 1 t r; � e� y� ' >�i . , f +...�. �.'+�,� •yr�r- •i% ° �r �" ��•"mow, ,�,t,/. , .l +«.,. _ I• d Rf' s';� / j' . High �Fkh ' �� ", J�`•� �' • '✓per �.✓;'�, d '' , a �; /` "i` ✓/ 44lie-4 lie r 1AM1t�ME;N7y+ "• " r ' '�,ghl 16� „ '" � ��`` ,, � ,i,✓,4 Pr • r� !srs ,r f� ` • �W ^j CC C itt �'�i /K 43�g r a' AVE_ •✓�• �+ _ r '.��. •� + g Qx. ale44 r'rnrSalr ♦ ,� ,.rw„r.r►r-"^'er'= � ��i3 .!."r' Feb X21 a��v�r}C�{ Fi. � '>/ �, ''r �/�`'"�� r�iCli$�$� ..• �� ; lr�,, �r ' /r F •". *a�� wl 421 • i 1 1 e• "r,: . v t �+« Aye.✓ r .�,,�\� a•'",� ' ✓/ \:,i •" ' .,� ��r Jr'✓ �ttlt,��P '', �x �. .f �� 1 l�-G��'� l ©�. _ •. ` � j �+ B #� i ¢,r' e,� rf� � � �t� /� ;t,. 1, i �'kc1y�!.�®4 a - � •.it t• n ad �athtlttd •� s e w C rC�1dy a s� • r e CS • +"; Y r + v ,1, rq .' } ...+...:..a eir 1�#lijidC ,w+ � , a:-,�.t„ p...�,...x.,�.i�....�+r.•.,,.».......:» ,e ... ,�...�....., iro..�.r �..h� :."ryary q ril. 'Y,#� •r`rM ,.. ��•3 ,.. �t X ,f y ��k-Y3 Y....y «',.. Yi/_1' 1 i�•T i �Y I � '. 9d 1 r r 999 �,. ��,• ..:.i , yyr...irw � n n - i• �9 ^C �`" �� '� .�x•a ;y to Ck'CII'JCH �\ 1 0/". �"� rr "7x a 4+ `r 1� ♦'' All im 183 1 lo�l1`'k� to At Y t 1 0, 11dl � � � � r• r a. , Lai h�Y r Inter -Departmental Memorandum TO; Jane Dolan Fi20M Plannio SUBJECT: Zoning Ordinance, dile 86-2T ' DATE:; October, 2, 198 - - In- keeping with the Board`s request of September 1, 1987, and your offer, to help schedule this hearing, the following articles are suggested for consideration on October 27, 1987 with any other articles you feel might be covered at that hearing. If you perceive that the Board can move through the first section perhaps more articles can be included (be my guest). We have 'tried to schedule in a manner that Mould separate the more controversial articles. Please call at your convenience. Article 1 - Purpose, -Principles and Standards 2 Establishment and Designation of Zones, Interpretation of Boundaries, and Amendments to the Planning and Zoning w Ln' - 3 .' Def3ri;,tfon—s 32 General Provisions 33 - Sign Regulation _ 34 - Certificate of Conditional Use 36 Guest Houses Vor the next "scheduled meeting (tentatively November 3 1087).- 987):Article Article35 - Livestock Animal Maintenance 37 - dome Occupations 38 cuff -Street Parking - 39 = Adult Entertainment Businesses 40 - Temporary residential Permits 43 - Development Agreement 44 Consttuction of Additional Nelling 'Unit it 3 For the ntzxt, scheduled meeting (tentatively ?Jovember 17, 1987) Article 42" R Mobile Home Park Standards 45 - Residential Nonconforming Use: _Standards S - Residential Zone 9 - Suburban Residential Zone 10 - Rural Residential Zone 17 - Foothill Residential Zone 18 - Timber Mountain Zone For the next scheduled meeting (tentatively November 14j, 1987): Article 4 -, Agricultural Zone 5 - Commercial Forestry Zone 6 - Timber Preserve Zone 12. - Commercial Zone, 13 - Scenic Highway Zone 15 - Industrial Zone For the .next scheduled meeting (tentatively December 1, 1987) Article '21 - Open Space Zone 22 - Planned Unit Development, Zone 23 - Resource Conservation Zone 24 - Public/Quasi-Public Zone 25 - Unclassified Zone 26- Overlay or Combing Zones SA,:Ir