Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBUTTE CO. PLANNING DEPT. 75-84 6regulating land developmrint. The pritntiry ajoinerlL in the ncheme should be the general plain :-,ince 3 that is the wol by which' tile policy or Lhe 4 community as a whole is set. In f6rmulaLling the 5 'plant California law requires that the local 6 government address itself: to 6any issues, 7 includin'g lant . 'Ijuse, C� circulation, conservaLion,:,and housing. In addition, the general, plan ja containany other element which the local government sees fit to include, such as transit, 11 recreation, and capital improvement elements. ,The 12 law ,.also .allows local governments to formulateand 13. adopt specific plans which are detailed 14 development plans for particular areas within 15 their respect ale jurisdictions The forma a, L -f , b n 16 of sut,h general and 'sp-cifid plans inv6 Is 17 -tuOies by',,professional planters, consultation is with public,,Oand pti'vato entities, public; hearings 19 0 y the planning commission, and and rec' mMondation b 20 form6l adoption by,A,,he governing body, 21"tlen,et''al and, specific plans are noL in 22 hem8alve8 �,hfbr ceable ordinances or regulations themselves 231 Of tholoc-al government. The local government '�4 regUlatind laid development by mearis of Zoning, 25 subd i, is i on and other rlihances, ts o g IL C;, -A 11 Y 26 these devices should be Used in tho.,".Ii' paeticul6r�,�. 97 I to c6rrout thO- bl�icy- %!A'rt OF tALItOAN" 113 IRtY 8-711 jl 4. t1 I I 1, in thei general and specific plans. Howevor, prior 2 to the enactment of A,'ssembly Hill 1301, there was , 3 no requirement that the r.eg!.,latory ordirl,m:e,s be 4 consistent with local planning. Theretore, !I the b general plan remained only an idealistic ntatement 6 of policy which might or might not be- carried out 7,r' I - and was often adopted merely to comply with state - f QCT i'. and federal laws. The real. decisions w,yre made in 9 a sometimes arbitrary manner of case-by-case 10, amendment s' zoning ordinances and by the approval 11 of individual zoning variances and subdi.v,,ion map 12 applications.`i 13, "in its 1971 session, the., California 14 Legislature massed Assembly Bill 1301, a bill 1511which was part of .aC package formulated by a 'select 1G Assembly subcommittee to curb the abuses of the 17 Subdivision Map Act in rural areas One of. its 18 I provisions regUirez' that all zoning ordin,. ;,ices of 19 a local government be,consistent with its general: 20 or specific plan." 5 pac.L.a. at pp. 63-59 21 footnotes omitted+ I . 22 "Although the plan -consistency requirement 231 limits the discretion, of lobal governments in the"" 24 regulation of subdivisions by prohibiting them , 25 from approving subdivisions which violate their, 26 gene al plans, this is a beneficial -,provision in 27 that it forces local gove rnments to develop ddUR r 0APr.4 PSYmq: to CALWUjkHIA 'r BtC 113 rate otY � J i a a I workable community plans and adhere to tfiom, i .' 2 `Add,itionally, the, requirement prohibit: local 3 governmer,ts from arbitrarily approving 4, subdi'I cions which violate basic rjrinc plies and 5 policies dopted for thee -'public at large" it 6 could also limit cor,ru`ption on the part or local " 7 planning commissions and legislative bodies by ' \ S requiring ` them to adhere to a general plan which q y tJh �t 9 was formula L ped and adopted prior to the subs ::ssion to of any individual subdivision application." Id. ll -3 at p, 69. 12 .;The correspondence attached as Exhibit A to this 15 memorandum sets forth respondent's request for an extension 14 of time pursuant to Government Code section 05302.2. The 15 extension which was granted expired on September 20, 1575. J 16_ Respondent has failed to request- an additional extension or 17> complete its general plan during the past year. Thin v t , w f 16 failure to Comply with state l.aw clearly demonstrates 1.9 respondent's total lack of understanding concerning the 20 importance of the general plan requi ements and warrants, the ly eS1 relief requested by the People. Such relief will ensure u2. prom''` compliance by respondent and avoid further violations i, I IM of state law. y 24 [, 6. 'The Consistency Requirement i As the above pacific Law Journal note indicates, i :86 the Gegxsla;>ure was specifically awal e of the fa_ilurst� of 27 cities and counties to comply � l with the state planning g 1aos COUI r OAPP1 a,rre ar ��uwe�H�x I ' Tb 113' 1"tV 0.721 61 45F n ♦_ !.1( .� )«�R i) I It S , req uiri.ng the urns! oE, general plans. The let,i ,�i(,,:f..�Vr rl IF',I spluLion was to reclu.:re,,adoption of mandator°, plan: r 3 �.. F,' a elate certain except in the case of extretg,�,''hard,ship. 4 In addition, the Legislature specifically requii,,.ted 't hat -. 5 jint with major land use decisions be, made in a mannee rr3h � 6 the general plan. The entire focus of land use lanning was I 7 I, tied to the condition precedent of the adoption'?tif a it 8 camplete and adequate general plan. h 9 The following sections of the GovernMO.,ti!k. Code 10 clearly show the legislative ,scheme which ties Gill major , 11 land use decisions to the genet-, -ii plan: 12 Section 65860: 13 "(a) County or city zoning ordinances-, .ah ��ll be 14 consistent with the general plan of the coui,.uy or city 15 by January 1., 1574. A zoning ordinance shy;' ",>''be 1.6 consistent with a city or county general pla, "Only 'if 1.7 "'(;i) The city or county has officially,,adopted 18 such a plan, and 19 " { 11) The various land uses au thor i'ti't ,by Ahe 20 p b with the objew ;ties, ordinance are coin atibl� 21 o1_icies, general lend � ries at��? roar ""i 8 p � P � `� �p, � ae c if �i ed 22 in such a plan. j. ;• 2 24 Section 66973.5t i 25 ,',"No local agency shall approve a map unl6'ss ls.+►e' 85 r legislative Jody shall find' that the propr3sed , '27 subdivision, together with the provisions �;.rlx, its coUh7 MbpLh SrNtr b e ti.W r f) MH"x 5Sb tl� imry h9lr , , �� o 'oar ry / k,�� s.� 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 1l 12. 13 14'I 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 213 25 28 27 I COutt'1' 0004 btfork br dhLO160N1A 5113 113 3F1kV tlit bYF design and improvement, is conaisLent wi,l.h the tjenera ` O'�an required by ,A t%cle 5 (commorlcing with S`Ucti6n 65300) of Chapter 3 of Uivlaion l of this :.i`;1 or any specific plan adoptee }�ttrs;uant to)1+��r ti; )Mmencing with Section 65450) of Ch,.;b'taY cion of this till; . "A pr.)d,,A,iwied subc)ivisior, shall be consistent with a general !i kali or a specific plan ony\y if the local l agency has officially adopted sdch a plan and the proposed sub4vision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in suoh a pl,an." Section 66474: 11A legislative body of acity or county shall deny approval of a Lnal or tentative map if it makes any of the following findings: 11(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. i1(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable `I"general rand specific plans kesp6�det7t does not have a Glen6r6l plan, ca'"",wining the req ;,Lr.:,d ele►ndnL-s set forth in dovernmeh"t Code section l 65802. The failure to adopt a complete and adequate plan';; completely subverts the purposes o sections 550 Ob 66178.50 and 56474 of Chi' f overnment Code which were; !Io.-:;lgned to 8, 1. , r � f 2r 3 12 1P 4 5 4 1 G �l w 7 Ji 8 ( 9 10` 11 12 12 1P force chties 1 ".-to Butte to make land use def riions based on com lett and adequnte general a`- p p,. 'ns , . In the absence off!an order of this Court-, respondent will continue to make land use' decisions in the ,--,absence of h.he general plan required by staU,, la'j,,. All zoning ordinances and all parcel and subdivioionImap aroval.s would d be.�subjedt to challenge and ohould be set aside. it is a clear abuse of espondent's discretion to a attempt to make m for land use deri.sions in the absence of a;,'I ,` an adopted complete and adequal?e general plan. C. Findings and.Internal Consistency t� The Peo �,,a,believe that it is unnecessary for this Court in order td- grant the requested relies:- to go beyond respondent's failure to adopt, the required gene-r'al plan elements... Ilhe" factual and legal questions raised concerning the methods utilized by respondent in adopting finding's, ICII.s failure to adopt findings a6di essing all elements of respondent's purported plan, and the internal inconsi.stotcies of that plan are i�,�Sues this Court will only have to reach if it'' concludes 'Ithat%re8pohdent'r, general plan can be accepted as a plan, when four man, 6a,t0ry elements are missing. The PoFple submit tl'is Court may noL accept respohdent's plan without seriously undercutt'i.rig the entire '24 ^I t. undation for propee lari.d use, decisions 5, The sivbl,ect or- consistency anal findings', has been 86 addressed in three opinions by the Attorney renes al.:- 56 i e2;7 c'�ps.Cal.Atty .Gen. 404 (1973); 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21 � s� 3sYn'tW.nKC�LlydpklA ,�� _ ,. II .. stn 11 Jnr. < 9. Fish It Z%N �4 lI force chties 1 ".-to Butte to make land use def riions based on com lett and adequnte general a`- p p,. 'ns , . In the absence off!an order of this Court-, respondent will continue to make land use' decisions in the ,--,absence of h.he general plan required by staU,, la'j,,. All zoning ordinances and all parcel and subdivioionImap aroval.s would d be.�subjedt to challenge and ohould be set aside. it is a clear abuse of espondent's discretion to a attempt to make m for land use deri.sions in the absence of a;,'I ,` an adopted complete and adequal?e general plan. C. Findings and.Internal Consistency t� The Peo �,,a,believe that it is unnecessary for this Court in order td- grant the requested relies:- to go beyond respondent's failure to adopt, the required gene-r'al plan elements... Ilhe" factual and legal questions raised concerning the methods utilized by respondent in adopting finding's, ICII.s failure to adopt findings a6di essing all elements of respondent's purported plan, and the internal inconsi.stotcies of that plan are i�,�Sues this Court will only have to reach if it'' concludes 'Ithat%re8pohdent'r, general plan can be accepted as a plan, when four man, 6a,t0ry elements are missing. The PoFple submit tl'is Court may noL accept respohdent's plan without seriously undercutt'i.rig the entire '24 ^I t. undation for propee lari.d use, decisions 5, The sivbl,ect or- consistency anal findings', has been 86 addressed in three opinions by the Attorney renes al.:- 56 i e2;7 c'�ps.Cal.Atty .Gen. 404 (1973); 58 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 21 � s� 3sYn'tW.nKC�LlydpklA ,�� _ ,. II .. stn 11 Jnr. < 9. Fish (1975`),, and 59 Ops.Cal.Atty,G,en. l29 (1`976) Far. purposes 2 of this litigation we would call the Court's 44tentlon to 3 the analysis requiring 'respondent's Findings Lo address consistency with each of the general plan elements., 59 5Ops.Ca,l.Atty.Gen. at p. 1.32, 58 Ops.Cat-.-_.,tty.(7t�t1. at p. 25, 6 Respondent's findings address only consistency of the 7 Bartram rezoning with the County's land use element. Syjch A 8 finding fails to sat:.sfy__-,,fhe legislative intent that general 9 plans be consistent integrated statements of'policy to which 10 major land use decisions would be compal-ed. See Government 11 t"ode sections 65300, 6530M, 65860, 6, 473.5, and 66474., ;r 12 The People agree with the Uty of Chico that the 15 Bartram rezoning is inconbi.tent w;,'th those elements of respondent's plan which have beep adopted. Respondentia_ has y �.. +.,. y, . y - - - � doing totally failed to .address these ir�c.onszstenc.es and b 1.6 so subverted the entire purpose of the general plan,, and the 1n' � 17 consistex.y requirement. in-view of respondent's failure to 18 adopt the mandatory elements a remand for additional 19 << findings would serve no useful. purpose. As previously 26� 6tated, the general plan must be complete before any legally adequate findings could be made 22zz ?la�lCby 94 The people bel.iev,e that the most important i question for this court 9 �- rt t� corisidcr is the appropriate 26! remedy in thi5j action. The City-/poi Chico has only sbugh t,ta 1-71' enjoin further approvals involving the 13artraM k-o7oning 'GOURT0Af' n WrAlK oT,CA41►d'nN1A \; , 5Yb 113 1N6v b•701 !1Q ► 1 1 'pending preparation by respondent or a COInpl Le and adequate general plan. The People have, sought a br'oadar relIet which 3 we believe is legally required and is a practical necessity. 4 First, as we have discussed abovq,;, the general 5 plan �s a necessary condition precedent to'{ the valid 6 adoption of zoning ordinance and subdivision and tract: map w 7a.pprovals.' Second, limited county :planning staffs cannot ':, 3` 8 expected to revise andi amend, a general p]il-an and prepare an,, 5 e vironme.ntal impact report at the same time as they ;process 10 request,,; for zoning changes and map approvals. 11 This issue normally arises in litigation when "12 local government recognizes its responsibilities and enacts -~ 13 a "freeze" while it completes its planning In the instant 14 case the state has mandated respondent to plan. .it has 15 ,failed . J coo so. This Court is being requested to grant a 16 remedy to the People which has been judicially approvcyd in 17 other planning contexts. The California Supreme Court in 18 theleading case of Miller v. Board of _Public works, 195 19' Cal. 477 (IJ2 ), set forth the following which is more true day 'than it Was in 195: 20 to �91 "it is a matter of common knowledge that a 22 zoning,plan OEs the extent contemplated in the y � ' 231 natant- case cannot be made in a day, Wherefore, r+�' ! � lrtay take judicial notice of the fart that it 24 ` `1 25' will take much Lime to work out the de�,lils of 26, such a plan and that obviously it would be r 27= destructive of the plan, if during the period of COURT PAPtR �I 1S?FTt dk CAW115KNIA I 5atl 113 f h tY i♦.7k1 t Yui -,!MfV1V.tAlw:�iw..v w4T. ..+W.ti? .v ... •a e:.. q,x:u.,. . .-.. w.. a. ... i a " �� H x 1. I its incubation, p7 r t.i.rseeking to evade I;frr_i 2 I 6perat•ion thereof; I;JIou].d be permitted Lo tinter 3 upon a course of coiystruction which might progress 4: s -o far as to defeat in whole or in part the 5 ultimate execution of the plan." Miller, ,;u_pra at 6 p 496. 711 In Hunter. v. Adams, 1130 Cal.App.2d 51.1 (1960), a 8 city 'council's passage of a resolution to freeze building 9 permits in the area of a proposed urban renewal area was 10 challenged4 in rejecting ,the developer's attack the court. 11 explained the basic need for interim controls pending final 12 adoption of a plan such as"respondent's general plan. 13 "it is difficult'jfor us to conceive how an ii p , 1.4 intelligent integrated l.an can be formulated if 151 while it,,',s under study and planning, the area is 16 in a constant state of flux with new building 17 construction and improvements and the resvlf,ng 18 change in property values and appraisals. rt`�� 19 seems to us that the intelligent approach i.5 -that r 20 adopted by the council in the form of the , 21 resolution adopted here. its object was to keep 22 the s I Latus quo for a little over one year. Such 23 an objective is a reasonable one in view of the 24' legitimate objects of the over—all program. The �S 25 good -faith of the council in carrying out the � 26 program ha`s not b'#r:n challenged." IU_gter v, 27 Adams, supra, 1d0 Cal .App, 2d at 520+ CbUhYPAfa OATt: Cr CAL]/Ohf+lA stn 113 %Okv 4.7ki r i The cases are also clear ,in rejecting t16ve1opers' y 2 claims of economic hardship during the planning process. 3 The following discussion rrom Metro Realty v. CounL•y of 01 4 Dorado, 222 Cal.App.26 508, 517,-18 (.1963), is 5 representative; 6 "At the ,present t-ime we consider only the 7 temporary consequential hardship which plaintiff 8 kill suffer by this stop -gap ordinance, whish 9 holds only Y� In.t -and--�un-used "lan-ds--in•-status quo ' f 10 for the very brief lire ofrw_tha,s„�rd.�nance. , No l.1' evidence in this case points to any loss impelling .r r e 12 us t hold that the ,;Limits of the police power 13 have been exceeded. 14 it is well settled that within those NI 15 limits some uncompensated hardships,must be borne 10 ,hy individuals as the. price of Living in a modern - 17 enlightened and progressive community. Except for 18 the payment of this inconsadera,ble price of 19% tempof,'ary inconvenience and even hardship, `a far '.. 20 greaten toll would be exacted not only from the 21 public generally, but particularly'from the class 22 to which plaintiff bolongsr the land developer, in 23 the delays, Hindrances and perhaps prevention of 24 construction of,,,,all public betterment projects," 25 The People submit that the harm, hardship, and 26; uncertainty caused by allowing respondent to continue malting 27 major land Use decisions without an adequate general plan c6 RiPAPO KTa rle bk eAlito"N111 Sib 113 IhtV.6.731 r ' .. 1aWw+.Ib+eL++ra.�.4r.wws.+W�w.rtr.+Wa.r.+st+.+w:✓r+:n+w•�bw".+. o..iY.rsww.+a...+.+•��.:.r+�' yi�4..u..�.s...u..... ...., ., Amy ., .. .. • l l tar exceed any adverse impact of the regoesL d relief. 2 Until respondent adopts a complete and adequaLo general. plan � 3 no one in Butte County can rely on zoning and roap approvals. CONCLUSION 5 >:or the reasons set forth above, i11c. People of the j 6' State of California request this Court to issue a 1 �^ 7 preliminary injunction preventing the County OIC butte from 8- enacting any zoning ordinances and from approving any tract 9 or subd=vision maps' until such time as the County has 10 prepared and adopted an adequate and complete c,eneral plan 11 in full compliance with state law. SEP 1976 12 DATED; 13 rtes pect,fully submitted, 14 EV'ELLR J. YOUNGER, Attorricy General of the State of Cal Votnia , 15 LARRY C. KING, Deputy Attorney General '16 17 ; 1'8 LAR ° f -C., KING �, Attorneys for Intervenor.'' - , '19 n 21 22 2 26 {S • i M I_; wbUnrPAFCn II �7Art oor t#5Tb ilkhtV.xfi 14 111 •v) .. �1+•.w .;, '' •r,.:.. September ib j 1975. t11"•r� �4,'?'��•����`i�ii`I�"a+ , rtti,riy •.r4 f1�� . r,.�,, �•��rr r w.•l.. ..,. h" • r• Larry Lawson `9I1 �.4='1.,� �;•"., Planning Director ;�i •'�' County of Butte 7 County, Center Ariv;a piaa gip, ;: oi'ovi 11e , CA Dear Mr. Lawson: ' -f'11 • Completionof General Plan Blements The California Council on Intergovernmental Relations„ „;•IA of rttdeadlineion or granted fonh ,s , I %'Safey Seismic 3 Elements + ants to September 2q ' 197a . • •Gc©nic 113.g}away � � , � .}, elements cle must receive a. formal irtclication that thPsa ' • ` ", *•-.,. This off ue havc been adopted in accordance with the • , work progran► you submitted to us, A letter from your office Certifying adoption of the required elements, , . ' indicating the date of adoption and adoption resolution number wild serve this }purpose. Although not mandatory, y� ,•► ��•.� `, adopted elCment.. t7:+�"1 ; •. we would appreciate a copy of each a p f, x,,SJ;:'„ , our files. ' 14ts` " 1 u�•� . .r+• 1•:'�SV i 11.1• 41t"r1i 4-44 If you have any questions or if we can be o;f any further assistance please do not hesitate' to contact your areat, ,i •.y,Ill, xspresentative, Laurance Mintier, at (916) 3226312,,,{,14.• ; ,°�+.•r,` .1. • • . , ' Y Y r ' 1l11—V ''W they; y, Y 11ard11 ng, Chief ', ;'"' �'': Adm'inistratioal and Communi.tyt ,:,' '!' Assistance ` 54�` 7 ;w JY rTi •,,,�5 .►it�'ai 1� f• '+I M•` ,1 ' Y,lii" �1. ' •Ir 4 1 a .� F �. ,ten 1 ., � jar •;,yl � •M ` `` r 40'V +.: y17�1 i pig. 1 y Jt, 04 ;ylr' t. ,.tV _ .rl t' ,• i k.1 '+'� ' e YLtt S! i .f'�,?j,•.,. hj� ��- 3� r r • cy ! i`. , a' =.i August 23, 1974 Mr. Larry Lawson �I ,. planning Director : • + �.', , a, a •: a, County of Butte 7 CountylCeeter Drive ��Y Qroroi�.Ict� Ca]aifornia 9:5965 -:. i a{s vt Re: Approval of General. Plan Element Time Extension Itaqueat ;1 Dear Mr. Lawson: . ,gra pl@eiaed Ca inform qou that at its meetingon August 22, 1974, the Rdlationp unanimously approved r y Celt fo rnia Counci 1 on xntergovernraental the County'69 B.uttors r�eq►eat for ti exieasions for the completion of the Noise, Safety, Scenic Highway, and Seismic Safety Elements of is has the General Platt. TIW,required completion date for ti;ese eldtxeYt a 20, 1974,, to September 20s, 1975, '1 r 11 been extended from Sept ibier i. if you have any questions or if we, can be of any further assistance, (916) 445=1114. ., plQxaa do not hesitate to ,contact rue at r liar a 1 sincerely y'ourst, - •'✓ _ i 1 4 �It +9+� i► , } r t ,. Gregory 14. Harding • �•• .. ars Community Assistance Officer ' for PlAnging and Management �qa w 1 1 l 44 la," it r I ANALYSIS AN'D I L;(tl'Ctf:,,l)��'1'tRw'+ FOR (;T"*,'.RAL 111'1t:'0' 'l1i11__I�'I1;A'Sli)�;S Ill'Ctttf�;`" ,. c,1;*,'.RAL. PLAN CIR ACTION DATE:ubulle 21 1974 1 •.� JURISDIMON: County of Btitte ��' 1 C0:1TACT PERS014 ii.ng (916) 534-46Ol ,, 1.arr I,awcon Di.rct.tor ot: llani � � ''ICAT1D; o 1;LEMitiITt;s) REQUESTED TO BF. 1'E\T_1"�`'DtsD TO DATE(s) T.P.D i, ; Noise - Scptomber 20, 1.975 Scenic 11-fgliways - 5optember'20, 1975 Sa;Fety - September 20, 1975 Seismic Safety .. Srl mliber 20, 197 k s occurred requiring reassignment '"hl dt:�,7: C i'or, an extended C. A disaster has period: ANALYSIS: r� The basis for ittli 4"t County's rcgt►est for n time e.` 'Rnsirii is that a -,reassign" } m_nt of 'pLinning sttrfhns dcLiola letip ''�lieclul � for the 1lur inning pi. ., problemsUiiti t Q he delay linve inzltided, Work clem�.nts, The, � on zoniiig proposals i=niti.at+:ld to eliminate zoning Ynconsistcnci.os, prepatot oil of1ie Lte ion al Tro1i •' ortptitin Plan, and preLim3nar wort. ;,1 �. on the developmdnt of f acts in tn� Labe O�rovalle i atei shed. � it is felt that', basad ori 7n �inaL�� as of Clic .tbo'vry problems and the ptio osod time schedule the request: is realistic. (.A` y RECOi`w1C1NDM j-('� t t, " It is recomtnettdcd that the cob>plet oii dates for ttiG four 'mandated e16�nestts be r` extended to Senteinber 20, 1975, j ; �,��L.ICA�rON Cort�t.>�7.L. �TNCtti,t1 t,Clt:� _ + Y 65 ,_ WORK PROGRM11. TIMI, SCHEDULE; ' tt 1k suit 'ou '),AWD OF".NATUPAL Wr-ALTH AND BAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 1\ LAWRENCC J. LAWSON DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVIULE, rALIFORNIA 59 - 66` Telephone: 534-46b1 July 19, 1974 Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street Room 222 Sacramento, California 95814 Attn: Preg Harding CommuniQ Asgistance" Officer 4, Dr=at Sir t The County of Butte hereby reqiaep,A the Council on Intergovern- mental Relations to extend to Sr,,,�`tember 20, 1975, the deadline .for our adoption of the Noise, Scenic Highways, Seismic, and Safety elements into the Butte County General plan. This letter describes progress on thO new e,Lcnentst their present status, reasons for delay, and a future woi k `program and time-table, The application package also incl,tidos a justification based On C-1.9, criteria and a tesolution from the Butte County Board of The preparation. of the four nequired ele�,fti6htg has been e r assigned to, a Planner I in -�hej Butte (,Iounty Planning Dopattment, Under his �'Irection a half ti e_interl, gathered relevatitprinted • materials 1(b the winter of 197� 74. Two other #uaent8 0�qahited materials for the Noise and Scenic Highway .0_101"'�nts in the spring of 1974. Full-time staff has not been able t6 devote more than ,two hours per week to this assignment. Information on geologic ','ha2ard8 has recently been. developed f'or the Seismic and Safety .tlomtnts by qualified personnel at California State University, Chico. The Planning Department had/ hot had ' sufficient staff time to devote to the preparation of nets Genetal Plan elements. Staff expectations concerning brth available and required staff time have proved unrealistic as some planning activities have-been expanded and others initiated. For many months in thb futurok' Mtt-tg OeOULAhLY ON 144P PJAST 10utl tHUh80A 0/ of of Planning and Research, Page 2 ff nttnt -Grog Harding AUl.y i9, 1974 Planning Department; staff wil l. be working ctn zoning proposals initiated to eliminate inconsistencies betweiRn zoning and General. Plan designations. Until additional staff personr- are hired, land division investigations will also continue to divert considerable staff --time. Advanced planning activities also requiring Planning staff participation in the,' ast year have been: Regional Plans ,,� for Transportation Recreation and Solid Waste; u1,0date ,and expa`n- " sion of Housing Rl_ement; General Plans for Chico and Gridley; and L.A.P.C. Spheic.s of Influence. With 'a HUD grant:y staff has also begun a comprehensive study of development impac�ss in the'Lake Oroville"'watershed. No more than four hours o staff time per week will be available until September. it is anticipated that G to 15 hours per week of student --class assistance will be available When classes re- sume at C.S.U..C. No space .-is presen,cly available for additional staff, but building 'crinstruction is underway , and expanded quar- tets p tars should fie ready by November, 1:979, At'that time," or shortly thereafter, new staff persons may free as' much as 20 hours per week for the preparatior`i of General Plan elements. The time -table JA an optimistic Sthe6,,4'e based on Planning Department estimates o. available and time required for element preparation. q �. " 5incerelyy LAC�'R NCR W,. ON DIRtC`l'OR OF PLANNING 1� ,I i LdL/BG/md t ri i. ♦ f. Iii I: \\ f I k` I Aw . ;r , BOARD OF ttt Sol.,t),TJO_N REQUEST U;G C a:. R - 8,,X,Urm.q TO m or n1 ADLINE IOR N%Vl' GL'�1I 127�L PJ�i!,1V LLSPILL�1',!` 1 tilll.)AEAS, California Government+ Co,!jti` 65302.2, r11 equires the 2 County Lo prepare and adopt the Seismic Safety ,Llmilent, the a Noise Element; the Safety Element,_ and the Scenic Highway Element 4 into tltc' Butte County General V1,11-11 and to WHEREAS, said Code sets a deadline date for adoption, o£ e said elements but allows the State Coulicil on xnLurgoVernmental 7 Relations to extend the adoption elate for a reasonable period of 8 time; and. I, 17HERrl71S, the Council on intergovernmental Re. lations has xQ developed' p '' criteria to review applications' f`or extension and will w ' ire jconsid�+r�nc extension requests at .its August M et n5; and 1:2wHE1213AS, the Butte County Planning Department has not had l sufficient staff to ptepare said lerlent.s for Board consider- -time 14ation; a,nd 1.5 t^,�IIEREAS, said elements twill not be adopted before .the 16 summer of 3,975; l `7 NOW, T tR.EFOVL� , RE IT AtSOLVEb, that the BV Yte County 18 Board of Supervisors hereby` requests the Calif orna Council ,on 15 Intergovernmental: Relations to extend the deadline frit the adop- 20 inion of the nety General: 1�'.Ian elements from ���rtember 70, 1974 91 to Septomber 20i 1975: e w2 3E L'1` rt31ZT1t,s1t 'it�.SUL` EMI LhaL Lhe_, IBuLWA CULMLY t3oa):il of- 23 Supervisors approved the submissioh of the attached application 24 package to the California Council on IhtergoVernMenRelations 2' for their consideration. 2 Pt�SSkfll AND ADOPTED by the #waled Ok Supervisors of the I Z. i County of l3utl:c c)f. i:11% SLatG of Ca 1.i Cornia, L11!,; 300 dray o. July r 1974, by the following vote: 3 AY 138. Sunarvlwo i Cameron Gilman Ladd "[' and (,iairman Hadigar NOES: None 3 NOT VOTING= Nona i 7 ACF TWDIGtI�[, Irma g Board t Supervisor's 11 AMST.c Clark A. Nelson,. Cou,j),ty Clerk i 12 X3 I Cleric ter' Deputy l 1.7 x � t P, 3. 23 2 �r i �, 1 SC11l,��C71'al ICOR I)r.�VLLOI)Mt N'i' OF GEtCRAL PLAN . Y Noise and Scen1C highways Seismic and Safety Analyze State Guidelines & Legal Requir'irents I16,12/173 7/174 Determine Necessary Activities & Information 1/'74 7/'74 Obtain Available Printed information 2 & 3/'74 8/74 Request Technical Assistance & Original Data 4 & 5/174 9/'74 Prepare Maps; :4arts ' Visual'Displays ll 6 & 7/174 10/074< Write First: Draf�) 8/' 74 11/174 � .� Distribute Dr�-f.c `� To Stag " - For Review � 9/174 12/174 fr Refer To Env "onmental Revie is Committee For Evaluation 18/174 3/175 Write second Draft 11/1 74 2/175 Distribute Draft Widely For Comment 12/'74 3/175 Respond Appropriately To Comments 12/174 3/175 Write Final Draft 1/175 4%175 Prepare E.I.R. To Satisfaction Of E.R.C. 2/175 5/'75 File Notice of Completion 3/175 6/'`75\ Distribute Final Draft & t.IiR4 For Comment 3/175 6/175 Present Both To Commission At Public P3caring 4/175 7/'75 p Res o`nd Appropriately To Comments On 51 Vit, R. 4/175 7/'75 , Accept`& Certify E:I.R, - Planning Commission 4/75 7/'75 Respond Appropriately To Comments Oh Element 5/175 8/'75 Approve Element - Planning Commission 5/'76 -8/015 , Of su eiv sors Present ,,,Iemeftt To Boardp 6/75 9/175 Adopt t lemon - 8oard 0f Supervisor ' 6/'75 5/' 75 REQUEST FOR �' C t f t.+.vlr• GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTEic-rENSIONS � '� f^'!`;�� . )),1 �Kr ,. �, � Y �' � , ll�,r.. •T.. , t t.. "t, sil,°,'n,•ei VIA Fu)UA iv_ on Contao-t 110t6on I'�IUIIt',',hlimitittryy1t{1Zounty of Butte Lawrence J. Lawson (9].6) 5.34-4661 = � Tnd.icq,((� the eZementt•b? which need to be ex-;..rtded and .the amUc )),:L :ed comn•CWgiq,; rr�`p`'�r Yrs; .r �kj ' Noise. . . . .September 20 1975 Seismic. A. "*.Septembe�r,20,'; 1975 : ScenicHighways . Sept=ember 201 1975 Safety . . A.. September 20,,:197 '•'t . 51 ; Jou t%6.iCa.ttan G de►iti.6! and de �t i bete a�atyUcabZe c,A.Uexia , 6oand on..thet,bacht o6 -tlu.b 6oiun, u4e, addi;Uonat pageA ah nece.6.6ahy) • '~+ ;It Nrl ° r. , �� 5 VA -.Y `, }p oblems have pqtt been encountered in obtaining technical assis- r ;1 mance from other agencies. 13. This Jurisdiction prefers to use staff rather than consultants but ,because of space limitations, additional. staff cannot be „added; 9;;r '�. C. The only "disasters' hampering advanced planning activities is the j increase in work load clue to land research and Commission;,initiated''+1ty ♦ air+4l F1•- �' f1� t';{+ rt+'V-4 + rezehings. t,u ,►, f ,. h.4�t'',e,� r� , D. t Our proposers public: review process is "extended" only in,thatji,:t :`,h �k#'�Y r7 e ,represents an improvement over perfunctory procedures of -.,,the past. rE. iitta County is involved in no such programs with other counties olf , + ]'. The t=our new el6ments are being prepared independently of other I ;�"�' pa p t 'fit 'N • comprehensive general.p'1an'�E( ti ° '' element: and are therefore not ax I, o a com r f program �+� Cflt�l•}il•';1,., .^':'•,. n i •r11�,Vrrf t'�1� i� I�it•5�y 1 t °ifs 1k1 SEN ATTAC.t3ED COVER LETTER FOR ADDXTSONAL INFORMATT`ON "'IL �r�°i6++f�+x.('+�t•l•�o'�'{I tl:•h-S •,�J '°t 1 '` Itl , 4I •ft " ti ren , } �y N!� /� it�'� rhe' it�w +et:•, f` �is: rxS1 +.*jet Iy ,Is iij'•ii t r , i t. r,11�4 }• �� Is. 4t+ .fir tY��14'+}t.Ilr+.t, • ° ', f,1.i,Ni>1��(, ti •r •. t ,�"�� ��it� "tY tt,•°tom �'': � Y.. .. , _. , +4.r,� + lY.�n r °+�i �j'Ir r'.rt[ !' it Itt '.t. t, w{, •'° •i,•.}t? ' °,•1, •.F".° ,r,, r'f �r7 k°r i��'p� '+4) :{SK =C.� i. .} 1 + } (.• + 11 S," Y• ,�• , S '{`•. .°, , `. 1 t11''. �`t�,I l��''1 •ii (r, +M'�1 h�.f4 3�•• 1�• k��.t;N.+��:1i4 +i '.} r �' r, h, 1 '. ,� + �;, r : 1 t 1 1 , _ � 1 1 f` � a't �,i,ll+�srr,j, i�� I,tyj�Yr �1 Yr JtZig=AA{4 ! �i.tlajr{its '':? 't....rr•4jii"�r MS't 'd�j�� tY 1:t t.,tk}{'I+i4\ t' 1}.'irr.wr t�Y) t'tu t ,^ oc s �, t , 1 YY 1 . t,r °!. / . 1 e 1 ! 1S'tl tFi J ,Jx s•` N 1�iM�' t 'd 1 ,t 1 ••t . f e. '44t� t lij� ,? �i`. .�kp •} . ;�t • r.{. i� r , +C wZ�ri�C}7. IesolutiOh Trim tre gbtrejnittg body ti•Irrwork. Pro5twiti fir 6ampletioii ofr tha d1wnentt$��tf'Fr,e�.t� t' � t � fnJ .� +►rit• .• 't.rt"...r 1. ._ ..y..,. •.n 1��•,, 1 ,li d•1 S rt�,h(` 1. ' J: 97 PIP #•'t "s Timetable fair ctiinjlletion �•'.:d � { � ,i;'lF• i }. � , t � ,,II 1 ,•j'+� y�t,f�C �'Yi .� PIP1. Is i S ✓'' �11 1 �� 1l ` j 1 1 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND, SCHZJARTZ & ALLEN A Professional Corporation L -:E 2 555'Capitol Mall, Suite 950 3 Sac;tamento, CA 95814 AN 2 et 19763 4. .Telephone: (916) 4'44-3900 o CIAIIX A. t4ELSON, CoWy Chvj 5 Attorneys for Petitioner City 6 of Chicon 1�pu�y 9 () SUPERIOR COURT Or �ALI ORNIA, '(=NTY OF F;UTTE � 10 �t 11 CITY, ..OF CHICO, a ) , 12 mu ` n pa.l corporati�ony 13 Petitioner.' ) No.14 Vs. ) 16 16 rd ') ',�ON 16. COU; jT GF BUTTE, a. ) PE T1 FOR WRIT OF MANDATE political subdivision, ) AND , vJC. NCTIVE RELIEF 17 ) 18 Respondent; } 1 20 P0tit onet petitions this Court for a Whit or- 14Ad tte ;. 21 directed to Respondent County of Butte, and' by tii3ls verified 22 28, petition alletles: 2425 I. t, Petitioner City is now and at dil times ment-toned herein was 76 ?_7 a charter city in the County of Butte created and existing undot 28 a Freeholders' charter adopted and amended pursuant to the prov� -. ,.) 2�J sibris off. the Cali�onlia Constituti0t`, _ 31 � � 32 ' ;' .p y ' ' and. at Rds ondent Courit� is now all times mentioned herein Page I r Iy ' C3i TICaN N1lL010 :C►f1y4fL b d,LLN N' r 1 ' f r. was a ' aol itica"1 subdivisioi-� of, the State o1 )fornia- Q SUMMARY OF FACTS On Cir, about bout 'du.ne li, 1975, an application was received by i[;the Planning Depar merit of the County of Butte for an amendment of th, ,, county zoning ordinances to rezgne cer Iain property,, ' 9 e hreinak-tter referred to as the_"Bartram property", ,located on the 10 west side of Esplanade between Eaton Road and Shasta avenue, 11 , 12 canti,sting of 244.5 acres i more or Less, from the A-2 (General), _ 13 District to the R-4 (Maximum Density Dwellings Rest'Icte'd Serviee) 14 Residential District,= the C-1. (Light Commercial) District,;, and 15 - 16 ,the S-1 (Minimum--Density, Suburban Residential.) District. 17 The Environmental Review Committee of the County, acting 10 ,: ' pursuant to, Resolution No. 75-57 determined that an Environmental 19 _ 20 Impact Rep0rt (h&reinafter "EIR") would he required, as provided, 21 by the California Envirczimental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinaff:er 22 e1 "), Pub lic,Resou.rces Code Sections 21060" , et seq.by the CEQA 23,, 24 State Gflidelines, California Administrative Code, . Title 74, 25 Sections 15006, et secl., and by the cauh,;ty guidelines, Resolution, 26 '<. No. 75�-57. A draft RIR wasp re pared and a NoUc'e o--� Complbt p • ion 27 28 was filed on Novomber 17, 1975. Hearings on the r1raft EIR and 29 the application for rezoning were conducted by the Planning ^( 11 30 Y j J Commis pion oft Jahuar" b, 1.976, Januar 2�5, ' ..:. �,�. y 1976 unci F�brua.r .S1 321.976. • ro , The F;:IR oras a pp' ti.ed by the Planning Cons_+ rmi� on <lAs ' Final -' I. Page 2 Petition McbdNOUGN.HOLLANb, SCNWAgti�r& ALLEN .1 ��• 'A ►kbYi54iQNA4't8kidgA511�N -.. lf Frit on Vebruary 5, 1976, and on said date the Planning Commission 2 denied the application, finding that the proL)sed rezoning 3 "violates the intent of the General Plan of Butte County, the 4 rprroposed General Plan for the City ,,of Chico and does' not respect ,the integrity of tale City of Chico. " r, 7 Hearings on a eal,, of the lP,l.clnning`1 Commission action 8 g pp _ on were 9 conducted by the Uoard of Supervisors on March 23, 19U, and 10 April 27, 1.976. on the latter Gate, the Board of Supervisors and approved r� B 121' �" e�Lonng of the Bartrsim property granted the appeal 13 from the A-2 District to 't he R-4, C-1, and 8--1 6Astricts. A 14 Notice of Determination as 'required by CFQ'A was filed by Respond- 1' 5 r 10 ent on May 28, 1.976. 10 ��I Petitioner; City is required by law to prepare and adopt a 20 ,,� compreh`Esive, 1onq-term general plan for. the physical. develop- <, 21 ment of \,he"City and such °'land outside its boundaries which' in 22 its judg,lent bears relation to its planning. The, Bartram rezoning 2 24 ands= -development pursuar+t thereto iii close proxi.zt,lty, to -the City 2 + g a itizens, , > 26 will have a s� nf� cart kimpact on Petitioner and is o l i and on Impl.ementati.on o �., its r) Ger.era1 Plan. 27 1 28 `rXR89 \Q1,AUSIR Or ACTION 29 Y Government Code Sections' r 3t7 �o�3U0 �.����, �5�01 reqaire each county 31 ;tt , to adopt a, comprehensive, l.on.�',-torm generhI p1.an, containing Page 3 � pe.tition � ti lfe66NOUCN, HOLLANp, SCHWAAY2 h AI,I,eN 1pbi�SSipiyktCCiiddlyl0l. Y r „ U :off c, ti, in Section C�,ra3tf2, Section 65300.5 specx ied elements as set � illative intent: ''ghat the general 2 sets forth a • of log �; statement s thereof c.mpriso an integratet3, 3 "Plan and elements and parts a alb consistent and compatible statement: of policies for o 5 intern Y .> 6, the adopting agencies." ;> 8 ordinances to .�' Government Code Section 658 50 ` rewires z oning 3 ,t In order to he consistent, 10 al plan. .r,� be consistent with the g such a ever must have adopted 11 a thp. cc'.nty l` -the st-attA,e provides that ( the ord nb 1:2 .zed by 13 plana, and • j,,p) that the various Land `uses author' Y 1'' anc:e are' comz,atible with ,,hE objectives, p olicies, general land- 14 larL. The zoning ordinance ro rams speai ed 'itz the p uses and p g general. 16 • "' '.red element, of the` g 17 it�ls�,.be conw consistent zth;I�rar,h requ- plan Vil. ert is I. icon - 20 Respondent of the Bartram,.pxop Y 21 : The rtazoni.izg by fr Geineray Plan i.n' violation, o�• 22 sxstent with the _Butte County 5 23 24 Government 'Code Seation 65860 for the f ollotai,ig reasons, . 25 ali.a e rwr�era7, plain as 26 not ated a 3. tlesponcle�t has `�,iap in that 27 definedIn�overrimen� Cade Section 653021 28 _ �;espondent has riot adopted a seismi 29 c aiet� element, 11 sC4nc hi:ghwa�s1 elemer�t� e;� �st'f�ty 30 nr�ise' element , 31 said section, and a'r� eaei�= element at; requ11 hY 32 page �- petition y _y NeooNaUG►i, HOLLAND, SCHWArjQ &ALLEN btListW �1tlNfR4� A to ti. --___-_-�sion, of time here-tofo(jre granted piArsuant to Ooverment Code section 65302.2 bad expired pri.or5 2. The ordinances rezoning the BartraM ptbpbrbyare inconsistent with the "ol-'ectiv'es, po!'Igenera lanO'.` uses and proqr"amsil specified in the -adopted poI,^tioft8 of the General' Plan, in tha,t10inter ali,13 ope�n space elemelt"it of the qeheral plan;(b), The ordinances are inco,16 pbxiciOs and recommendations of the General plallfor prese,rvation of agricultural landso and the"prevention of urban sprawl,21 the Policies and provis'ions of the Ger;'eraj Planfor of the Oeyierai Plan with the24J CitY of C--; icO'8 Gei.jeral P' laft.2.5 ",i�d�)pted port'Olis of the 8titte County26(�eneral', Plan ate not iriterjaally consistemt as2728 aovernm6nt Code 8ection 65300.5..29 4 imPlemOntation'Of the ordinances r6zorii rig the3031 tartram PtOPerty Would linhilbit, obstruct and82 preclude- implementation of the polio" w 1 r 1rail., Plan for in the Gent r preservation Of prime agri- 3 cultural Lands,• presexvatori of urban s.r C awl, and 4 =' coordination of Count \ Y plan pola.ca.os with those ofthe cities wi -hin. the County, G �- 7 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Vill The Final EIR on the Bartram rezoning pro'ect - 4. does no,. � 11 , c°mpiY with •lM requirements of CE11 'the State Guidelines, 17 or the Count of Bu., tte Environmental. Review Guidelines 13 14 and is,.iX ade- mate to ,,, provide the decision'-makii-i 9 bacly wits sufficient 15 inform- ation to evaluate the environmental significance 16 of the prod eci in that.,i 17 1� It fails to include a tt general desrr''i.ption 19 oc" the project's teahnir, s' economic and e nviron-- 2d 21 mental charar,iteri.st,icsr` doiysidering., the �rincipal 22 en irleerin t s 5 opo�al5 and supporting public service 23 facilitates as a required by Section 15141(c) of the 24 State Guideli.nei,. 25 26 2. It fails to, inch 'dei ra description of the. eh- 27 Vitonment in the vicinity of the project from both 25 A local and regional perspective, with spoojtic 29 s0 , ('reference to related projec ts, both public and 31 pr- vatei both existent and Planned, and to con_ Sider the ci=ulative impact of sorbj roacts p , ,1 Rage G Petition DOUGH, HOLLANO. ����;Aare a ALiCN 1 �1 'tSY,t)4Nl tcSNhgNziiON ` ... 0 as required by Section 15141° of the St -01,0 Guide - 2 lines. 3., It fails to di ;cuss the direct rand indirect 5 impacts v:c the F.eojec;t ;;gin the environment: With G considers ,ion or b6th eche short-term and �:ong-t 1 5effects; fails to describe why the project is 9 ',,,being proposed notwithstanding unavoidable adverse 10 impacts; fails to discuss mitigating measures 11 12 proposed to reduce the adverse impacts of thef 13 project as proposed• fails to dis cuss energy, r' ,, 14 15 dis t conservation �tteasures, fails to adequately � 16 cuss alternatives to -the projoct, including the 17 alternative of "no project "` all required by 15 Section 15:143' of tete State Guidelines. 1J 20 4. It fails totally to discuss the growth indi- g p p1.oject f i&e., the 21 cati.n impact of the � � ways in 22 s,O which the proposed project cook' foster economic 23 24 or population growth, either directly or a'.ndirectIlr� \ 25 and the impact on existing community service 26 27 facilities, as required by Section 15143(q of ,j 20 the State Guidelines, ��4W 1XI 30 31 The i''inal 819 is inadequate in that it fails to meet the 32 requirements of the Otate Guidelines that `said ,report must contain !:'age 7 -- Petition McbOWUGH, HOLLANb, 8bHWAnY2 6 ALUN A ONCIFiM16NAL WprOO I the response: of the County as. the ;lead agency to the significant environmental, points raised in the review ;md consultation pro - 3 4 cess; that the response of khe. County` shall, particularly describe ' S the dxs osit" n f `' '.f ` `'11 ` L, ht enyxronment7l issues raised; that .. I 6 the major issues raised be, addressed in detail giving `ieasons why 7 8 specific comments and suggestions were not accepted, and stating 9 factors 6f 6ver.,r ding importt.n6e warranting an override of the 10 snA' gesti.ons as regUired by Sections 15027(b), 15085(e), and 1 15146(b) of the Staa•,e Guidelines. 13 X. 14 ))The determination by the Board of Supervisors that thb 15' 15 project will not have a si.gnif'icant effect: on the environment and ,17 that an EZR was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CC -QA, 18 19 coxistitUt:ed a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that said deter - 28 minations are not, supportod by substantial evidence in light of 21the whole record. 22 T81kb CAUSE OP ACTXON 23 24 X1. • 25 Adoption of �('rdinances rezoning the Bartram property bon - 26 stituted a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that no lawfully 27 28 adequate ESQ, had been prepared and considered prior thereto, as 29 Mandated 1 y law'. 80 Xxx. 31 , 2 Adoption of ordinances rezoning the Bartram property consti- page 8 Petition MCOONOUGH, HOLLAND, SCHWAnQ & ALt EN O moxit km' COAPbAAYioii i 1 t�.ated a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that: adequate findings ,1 2 to support such action were not made,r-and moro•,'particularly: 4 1, The purported finding that the rezoning is 5 consistent with the land use element for the Butte Cl;; unty General Plan is''in'sufficient to meet-- 8,/J the requirements of Government Code Section 65860; the ETR formerly adopted by the County states that 10 11 .. the rezoning as inconsistent with the County General 1.2 ?'lan, the open -space e ement of the 'County General. 13 Plan, and the City of Chico General Plan, no conga - 14 dxctor evidence y appears in the record. 15 �. \, 16 2. The purported findings contained in revised 17,. minutes of,\the April 271 1976 hearing by the Board 10',I ,Qf Supervisors; and the amendment of said minutes 15' 20 'on May Ilk 19760 to include the statement of the 21 Count�t Counsel., are not findings made by thri Board 22 I of supervisors but rather comments of the County 23 2d ,; Courti;`el, are not supported by the evidence; and• ar' 25 in5uff t c�enl to constitute findings sufficient to 25 apprise the court of the basis and mode of analysis 27 20 of the Board's action. 19 XIII, 30 Adoption of ordinances rezoning the Bartram property const- X31 s 32 tuted a prejudicial abuse of discretion in that no findings or Page 5 Petition MMNOUGN, HOLLAND, S HWApt7 h ALLCN l4 NPDi,'¢iipNll iCYlabOa kP16NI .. i� 1 j�'atements of overriding concern, were made by the Board of Super - 2 visors to support its. action as being in. the ,best interest of the 3 4 public heaLLft, safety and welfare, notwil hst Lnding evidence set for ch in the County' s ozm Elxx't that 6 ri 3 "The major environmental impact would be the 7 opening a of this land to �-ial develop- ment. P 9' p poteii� ment. The consequences of any development un this property could be; � 10 l« The loss of pride agricultural soils and I ll0'f,cros of orchards and 60 acres of row crop l /'�.� h _. •,+.v,- � - �.., .- �r+' Ir 1� Q,• >J`����f,. 1.� t��',�v :� s �[t'�..C�iii�.i.ei��� 1 '�.`� �. 13 ur nor.. along the Esplanade from the %=.L developed a�pa of Shasta. ,nd, L3SSen Avenues:. 14 t 1 0 3. Increased traffic generation, -, Lo and (rain the project area, -- 1 17 4: Degradation of air, noise and W4t-+,r qual.it� could occur with the area developed) ,,.a -_the 18 potentrials, ellowed under the rezone proposyris 19 , Non-compliancen 5. eplans 20' and Butte county s Genera.Land.Ctheo 21 County's Open Space dement of the General "an« lel . 22 �! 23 24 1 " (f) pny Irreversible rnvironmerital Chas (,is 25 �,,Whidh Would Be Inv'oye [ in the Proposed ,fiction Should It Be Implemented: 26 2 1. loss of prime agriculture 'soils. 78 , LWtacres of orchard and 0 2J af row;lcrl1`� 30 3i txpansion of tll1 Chico urban complex 1 north of 8hasia , uo and along the Western side of the ei. 32 kltbONOUGH. HOLLAND, SMYAAYZ R ALLEN' A ►no/t9i�l1NA� tbFMOwxF�H�. Page 10 - petition, t t l7