Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPEy PROJECT SUMMARY S HE E T Log No. Butte County Board of Supervisors applicant . ADDRESS: 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 PRONE: .Jo�� Lr�a�aS representative 93-21 File go. Various property owner ADDRESS: PRaJECT DESCIi=PTzoNs_ Canyon Park Estates II - to rescind the Specific Plan on property zoned - "U" located east of Highway 32 at Humboldt Road intersec_tioi Identified .as AP, 63-30.17, 154,'156, 157, 158, and 11-04-4 and 23. _ identified as AP to 5 miles NE of ' CHLC_0__— GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Grazing & Open, Ag. Resi. PRE -APP FEE PAIDI $ RECEIPT NUMBER: APPLICATION ACCEPTEDI FINAL APP. PAID: $ RECEIPT NUMBERS REZONING PETITION SIGNATURES CHECKED PERCENTAGE: MAILING LIST PREPARED MAIL -OUT NOTICES WRITTEN NOTICES HAILED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPARED PUBLICATION NOTICE WRIrM ' NUMBER: DISPLAY AD PREPARED. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION 0 P G B R DATE OF PUBLICATION: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED ,/� B eCr 7) ENVIRONMENTAL DEIERMINATIONt Categorical Exemption 7 FILED: Negative Declaration FILED: Mitigated Negative Declaration FILED: Environmental Impact Report CERTIFIED: Othert STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBERt APPLICANT/REPRESE71TATIVE NOTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PLANNING COIIJISSI6H HEM'1NG(s): O ' 4�2 ^ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' HEARING(s): S — -� /D '• els & RESOLUTION NU74BE.R (CPAs) / ADOPTED: ORDIN,INCE�U!BE..R ADOPTED: 3. Everett Johnston - abandonment of a five foot light and air public utility easement lying within the northeast 1/4 of Section 28, T19N R4E, also being a portion of Lot 60 of Carriage Manor, identified as AP 036-780-060, Oroville - action requested - ADOPT RESOLUTION 93-81 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1993 AT 10:00 A.M. BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - June 22, 1993 8. Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan - in early 1982, the Board of Supervisors, adopted Resolution No. 82-63 designating Canyon Park Estates II ,as a Specific Plan. A rezone and tentative subdivision map were also approved, and based upon the outcome of subsequent litigation, were rescinded. As a result of negotiations between the County, property owners and litigants, County Counsel and Planning staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies - action requested - INITIATE ACTION TO RESCIND THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN AND DIRECT STAFF TO SET THIS ITEM FOR HEARINGS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - May 11, 1993 Butte County Board of Supervisors -(Item not subject to environmental review) Canyon Park Estates II - application to rescind a Specific Plan on property zoned "U" (Unclassified) located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified as AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. (File 93-21) (TL) Staff said the specific plan was approved in 1982. Staff said the subdivision was approved for this property and subsequently went to court and was defeated. The specific plan should have also been eliminated and was inadvertently omitted. Staff said this is a cleanup action as a result of the law suit. • The hearing was opened to the public. There was no one present wishing to speak on this issue. 3 The hearing was closed. It was moved by Commissioner Lambert, seconded by Chairman Lynch, and unanimously carried as follows: A. , Find that the requested action is !not considered a project under CEQA; and B. Adopt Resolution 93-7 recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a •-: -- Resolution rescinding the Canyon Park Estates 11 Specific Plan on AP 06.5-300- 017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023 (Board of Supervisors). • W _� BUTTE -COUNTY -PI:ANNI•NG' COMMISSION�M-INUTES - August 12', 1993 W� Ll PROJECT NAME SCH # AP # FILE # 30 Day Review Period Ends SCH Review - Period. Ends OUT -GOING ACTIVITY Date Action I I I PROJECT NAME SCH # AP # FILE # 30 Day Review Period Ends SCH Review Period Ends CORRESPONDENCE/ COMENTS RECEIVED Date Agency/Person /v^n/ J A I 93-361 Public Hearing - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Canyon-Park'Estates II -.consideration of an -application to 'rescind a Specific- Plan (item not %subject to environmental _ review)', on property zoned."U" (unclassified),, located east of Highway �32 ' at Humoldt Road intersection, •AP 063-300-017, 1541,156, 157, 158 and 001-040-004 and 023, five miles east of�Chico. -(390) MOTION: I MOVE"TO FIND'.THATTHE REQUESTED ACTION IS NOT"'CONSIDERED A PROJECT UNDER.THE PROVISIONS .�... OF, CEQA, AND ADOPT RESOLUTION 93-144 RESCINDING THE CANYON PARR ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN ON AP 063-300-017' 154, 156, 1570, 158 AND 011-040-004,,-023. SM VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) BUTTE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES - September 28, 1993 ��I��JC� � G��fT - / f i ,�G���/Sl%����o/l/ .3-/U 6 �� �, � . t 2! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MR 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ZONING PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24-29. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, under and pursuant to Chapter 24-29 of the Butte County Code of said County, DO ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as a "U" (Unclassified) District, and such area shall be subject to the restrictions and restricted uses and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-195. Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real propety situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE All those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., lying Easterly of the Chico and Humboldt Road and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 22, 2.61 chains East of the quarter corner common to Sections 22 and 27; running thence along the Southerly line of the lands heretofore conveyed to Lydia E. W. Baker, North 570 25' East, 1.54 chains North 450 10' East, 2.12 chains; North 25 ° East 2.12 chains; thence leaving the line of said Baker Lands, and running North 48 ° 45' East 204.44 chains to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 13. Excepting therefrom all those portions of Sections 15, 22 and 23 lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 620 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 ° 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 ° 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 ° 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 ° 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 ° 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 ° 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 ° 00' East, 265.3 feet; North 66 ° 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 ° 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing on said road North 26 ° 30' East, 753.8 feet to the true point of beginning for the line herein described; thence from said true point of beginning leaving said road, South 48 ° 11' East, 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline and the end of said line. Also excepting therefrom the following described property: A portion of Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 620 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 ° 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 ° 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 ° 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 ° 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 ° 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 ° 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 ° 00' East, 265.3 feet; North 66 ° 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32o 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing up said road, North 26 ° 30' East, 753.8 feet to a point; thence continuing Northeasterly along the center of said road a distance of 60.0 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel herein described; thence from said true point of beginning running Southwesterly along the center of said Chico and Humboldt Road, a distance of 60.0 feet to a point; thence leaving said road South 48 ° 11' East, a distance of 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline; thence along the last mentioned line North 48 ° 45' East, 2700.0 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Section 14; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the true point of beginning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PARCEL TWO The South half of the South half of Section 11 and the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12 and all that portion of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, lying Easterly of the State Highway, all in Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M. Excepting therefrom described parcels I and II all that property located within 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32. SECTION 2. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of Butte State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as a S -H (Scenic Highway) District, and such area shall be subject to the restrictions and restricted uses and regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-156. Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: That portion of the following described property located within 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32: PARCEL ONE All those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., lying Easterly of the Chico and Humboldt Road and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 22, 2.61 chains East of the quarter corner common to Sections 22 and 27; running thence along the Southerly line of the lands heretofore conveyed to Lydia E. W. Baker, North 570 25' East, 1.54 chains North 45 ° 10' East, 2.12 chains; North 25 ° East 2.12 chains; thence leaving the line of said Baker Lands, and running North 48 ° 45' East 204.44 chains to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Excepting therefrom all those portions of Sections 15, 22 and 23 lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 620 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 ° 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 ° 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 ° 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 ° 30' East; 467.9 feet; North 56 ° 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 ° 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 ° 00' East, 265.3 feet; North 66 ° 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 ° 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing on said road North 26 ° 30' East, 753.8 feet to the true point of beginning for the line herein described; thence from said true point of beginning leaving said road, South 48 ° 11' East, 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline and the end of said line. Also excepting therefrom the following described property: A portion of Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M. more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 620 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 ° 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 ° 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 ° 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 ° 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 ° 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 ° 00' East, 265.3 feet; North 66 ° 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 ° 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing up said road, North 26 ° 30" East, 753.8 feet to a point; thence continuing Northeasterly along the center of said road a distance of 60.0 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel herein described; thence from said true point of beginning running Southwesterly along the center of said Chico and Humboldt Road a distance of 60.0 feet to a point; thence leaving said road South 48 ° 11' East, a distance of 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline; thence along the last mentioned line North 48 ° 45' East, 2700.0 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Section 14; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the true point of beginning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 • PARCEL TWO 11 The South half of the South half of Section 11 and the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12 and all that portion of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, lying Easterly of the State Highway, all in Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in the Paradise Post, a . newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, on the day of 71991 , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: JANE DOLAN, CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board Ll P.O. Box 3276 Chico, Ca. 95927 Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel County of Butte 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, Ca. 95965-3380 • JON LUVAA.S (916)343-4934 ATTORNEY AT LAW August 26, 1991 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte Butte County Superior Court #92207 Compliance with Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Mr. McCabe: Thank you for providing me with copies of the U Zone texts. I have carefully considered your letter of August 22, 1991, as well as our related telephone conversation, and have reviewed the options with my clients. This is to apprise you of the results. We must object to exempting this property in any way from the generally applicable provisions of the U Zone. It seems that our concerns are also shared by the County's Planning Director, Bettye Kircher. Specifically, we object to creating a special category of U zoning applicable only to this property. That would be a poor planning practice, would smack of preferential treatment, and could incur serious objections from others similarly situated. Moreover, we believe that creating a special zoning category would require full rezoning proceedings, an amended ordinance, and environmental review, which is not at all what the Court has ordered. The U Zone was amended from a five to a twenty acre minimum because the'five acre provision was not good planning. This is especially true for the subject property because of its sensitive and fragile location. We cannot accept a stipulation that the owner will apply for a rezoning as a condition of any later subdivision, for this would raise enforceability and other problems, especially against any subsequent owners without notice. We must insist that the property be treated strictly as if no rezoning had occurred: that the previous A zoning (amended to U zoning, twenty acre minimum) be reinstated. We respectfully request that the Return on the Writ be filed forthwith. Sincerely, John Luvaas cc: Carole White, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro f/Bettye Kircher, Planning Director. • VIN80311VO `31111080 .LIVIRI dd30 ONINNIVII '00 16616 e35 mins • j� OUTTF 0 0 0 0 o , o C caunt'� SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL OFF&E OF COUNTY C0*1SEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 August 22, 1991 John L. Luvaas, Attorney at Law 525 Wall St.-P.O. Box 3276 Chico, CA 95927 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Mandamus Dear Mr. Luvaas: NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY P. EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL County of Butte, et al., Peremptory Writ of 'This letter is to follow-up on our recent. conversation regarding the subject case. As I mentioned to you, I have discussed with Carole White the possibility of her client's property reverting to the U Zone but with a five acre provision therein rather than the current twenty acre provision. I told her that I was willing to consider this and to discuss it with Planning Director. Bettye Kircher and with you. The Planning Director, with some reservations, expressed a willingness to consider this, provided the property owner enters into a stipulation to file for re -zoning if he subdivides -the property in question. She has some reservations whether or not five acre parcels are desirable from a land use planning stand point on the property in question and whether or not it is proper to have two separate U Zoning Classifications, one of which applies only to the subject property and the other of which applies to all other properties Zoned U. I understand that you also have reservations about this proposal. However, you expressed a willingness to review the actual ordinances which created and then amended the U Zoning Classification. You also indicated you would be discussing the matter with your client. I am enclosing copies of Ordinance 2488 enacted September 17, 1985 and Ordinance 2574 enacted January 6, 1987. Ordinance No. 2488 created the U Zoning Classification and Ordinance 2574 amended it by renumbering some of the subsections and changing the provisions in Section 24-195(F)(b) pertaining to control on land divisions. -1- The firstRersion of Subsection (F)(IR provides as follows: "(F)(b) Limited control on land divisions: Any land division shall be limited to five (5) acres minimum parcels unless rezoned to a zone complying with the General Plan designation." The amended version of Subsection (F)(b) provides as follows: "(F)(b) Control on land divisions: Any proposed land division of 20 acres or less must first apply for and obtain specific zoning consistent with the General Plan or applicable area or specific plan." (The U Zoning Classification was further amended by Ordinance No. 2794 adopted November 21, 1989. However, this amendment primarily related to the keeping of animals and not to the issue in question. I am enclosing excerpts from Ordinance 2794 for your information which relate to these amendments.) The rezoning complained of in the litigation, namely the rezoning to FR -1, by Ordinance No. 2544 enacted August 5, 1986, occurred after Ordinance. No. 2488 was enacted but before Ordinance 2574 was enacted. I would appreciate hearing from you regarding this matter when you have had an opportunity to review the ordinances and discuss them with your client. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL NHM/slt (luvaas2.ltr) cc: Carole White, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro Bettye Kircher, Planning Director Enclosure -2- ANIMAL MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE An ordinance adding Sections 24-35.1 through 24-35.3 pertaining to Animal Maintenance Requirements to Chapter 24, entitled "zoning," of the Butte County Code and Amending the A, A -R, AR -MH, A -SR, FR, MR, SR, TM and U Zoning Regulations in Chapter 24 to incorporate said requirements. Y TABLE OF CONTENTS page Section 24-35.1 1 Animal Maintenance; Purpose and Intent Section 24-35.2 1 Animal Maintenance Requirements Section 24-35.3 3 Health and Safety Agricultural Zones 4 Agricultural -Residential Zones 9 Agricultural -Residential -Mobile Zones 11 Agricultural -Suburban -Residential Zones 14 Foothill -Recreational Zones 14 Mountain or Recreation Subdivision -Residential Zone 26 Suburban -Residential Zones 27 Timber -Mountain Zones 30 Unclassified Zones 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 • • ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 24-35.1 THROUGH 24-35.3 PERTAINING TO ANIMAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS TO CHAPTER 24, ENTITLED "ZONING", OF THE BUTTE COUNTY CODE AND AMENDING THE A, A -R, AR -MH, A -SR, FR, MR, SR, TM AND U ZONING REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 24 TO INCORPORATE SAID REQUIREMENTS THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 24-35.1 is hereby added to the Butte County Code to read as follows: SECTION 24-35.1 Animal Maintenance; Purpose and Intent. It is the intent of the following animal maintenance regulations (Sections 24-35.2 through 24-35.3, inclusive) to allow persons to keep and maintain livestock at their private residences in a manner which will be consistent with the provisions of Article IV, Section 4-21 of this Code (Animals at Large Prohibited) and which will protect the health, safety and welfare of nearby residents. If any person within the County maintains an animal in violation of these regulations, he or she shall be subject to nuisance abatement procedures and/or zoning violation procedures of the County of Butte. Section 2: Section 24-35.2 is hereby added to the Butte County Code to read as follows: SECTION 24-35.2 Animal Maintenance Requirements. (A) Area Requirements. On all parcels of property which are five (5) acres or larger and are within zoning districts that allow livestock there shall be no area requirements for animals. However, on all parcels of property which are less than five (5) acres in size and are within zoning districts that allow livestock, the following area, allotted -1- 1 2 3 4 exclusively to each type of animal, shall be required for each animal kept on the premises: (1) Equine, Bovine and Swine Area Requirements. For each equine, bovine or swine over one (1) year of age, ten thousand (10,000) square feet; provided, however, that if there is a residential use established on the parcel, eight thousand one hundred twenty five (8125) square feet shall be required for such residential use and ten thousand (10,000) additional square feet shall be required for each such animal. (2) Sheep and'Goat Area Requirements: For each sheep or goat over one (1) year of age, three thousand (3,000) square feet; provided, however, that if there is a residential use established on the parcel, eight thousand one hundred twenty-five (8125) square feet shall be required for such residential use and three thousand (3,000) additional square feet shall be required for each such animal. (3) Area Requirement for Each Animal. The square foot requirements of subsections (1) and (2) above are for each animal. When two or more animals are located on the same parcel, the sum of the required square footage per animal shall be required. (4) Exotic Animal Requirements. Exotic animals, including, but not limited to, llamas and camels, shall be regulated under Subsection (1) above. (5) Educational Project Exemption. Temporary educational projects, including, but not -2- 1 limited to, FFA, 4-H and school projects, conducted by =' students through the 12th grade and under the direct 3 supervision of a qualified, responsible adult advisor or 4 instructor, shall be exempt from the requirements of 5 subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) above. However, no 6 more than a total of four (4) equine, bovine, swine, 7 sheep, goats and exotic animals over one year of age 8 shall be kept pursuant to this subsection (5). 9 (B) Use Permits Required for More Intense or Commercial Uses. 10 On all parcels of property within Zoning Districts that allow 11 livestock and are less than five (5) acres, a conditional use 12 permit shall be required for: 13 (1) The keeping of such animals (horses, cattle, swine, 14 sheep, and goats) at greater densities than allowed 15 pursuant to subsections (1) and ( 2 ) above. 16 (2) The keeping of such animals, poultry and rabbits, 17 for the purpose of sale of said animals or their 18 products on a continuing basis. 19 (3) Feed yards and hog farms. 20 (4) Boarding or riding stables. 21 Section 3: Section 24-35.3 is hereby added to the Butte County 22 Code to read as follows: 23 SECTION 24-35.3 Health and Safety. 24 Animals shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and in 25 a manner that does not become a public nuisance. Upon witnessing 26 any violation of this Section, Butte County Code Enforcement 27 Officers shall coordinate with the appropriate responsible 28 agency. -3- 1 2 3 ii 5 6 7 8 9 • • study areas. (7) Display and sale of products of agricultural uses and home arts and crafts produced on the premises. (8) Accessory uses, improvements and structures customary and pertinent to permitted uses, except as limited in Subsection (B) below, including guesthouses, barns, sheds, shops, garages and storage areas. Section 45: Subsection (B) of Section 24-195 of the Butte County Code, entitled U (Unclassified) Zone, is hereby amended to read 10 as follows: 11 (B) permitted Uses: The following are the principal 12 permitted uses in the U Zone: 13 (1), One single-family dwelling per parcel and accessory 14 buildings. 15 (2) Agricultural uses, including the keeping of animals, t 16 subject to the Animal Maintenance requirements of Sections 24- 17 35.1 through 24-35.3, inclusive, of this Code. 18 Section 46: Severability. If any part of this ordinance 19 hall be held void;by a court of competent jurisdiction,such part 20 hall be deemed severable, and the invalidity thereof shall not 21 affect the remaining parts of this ordinance. 29 ip ection 47: This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to 23 e in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after 24the date of it passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) 25 days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once 26 with the names of :the members of the Board of Supervisors voting 27 or and against pit in the Oroville Mercury , a newspaper 28 ublished in the County of Butte, State of California. , -39- 1 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1� PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this 21st day of November , 1989, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors McInturf, Vercruse, McLaughlin and Chairman Fulton NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Dolan NOT VOTING: None LEN ULTON, Chairman But a County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: William H. Randolph Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of th Board By L , j 0-.Af -2,- -40- I 2 3I 4I1 5 6,I 7 R 9 10 11 12 13 14 '' 15 16. 17 18' 19 20 21 29- 23 24 25 26 27 23 Ordinance No. AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING, REVOKING AND REPEALING SECTIONS 2 AND 3 OF BUTTE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2544, PERTAINING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION - The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as follows, pursuant to the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued on January 2, 1991, by the Butte County Superior Court in Case No. 92207 entitled BUTTE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, ET AL.: SECTION 1. SECTION 2 of Butte County Ordinance 2544, relating to the zoning of an area described as Lots 1 through 106 as shown on the tentative subdivision map for "Canyon Park Estates II", subdivision as an FR -1 district, is hereby rescinded, revoked and repealed. SECTION 2. Section 24-111.5 FR -1 (Foothill Recreational Zone.) of the Butte County Code shall remain in effect as written in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2544 and subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 2749, enacted 5-23-89; Ordinance No. 2768, enacted 7-18-89; and Ordinance No. 2794, enacted 11-21-89. SECTION 3. Section 3 of Butte County Ordinance 2544, relating to the zoning of lots A, B, C and D as shown on the tentative subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" subdivision as an R -C (Resource Conservation) district, is hereby rescended, revoked and repealed. SECTION 4. The zoning classification applicable to the hereinafter described property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby recognized as having reverted to U (Unclassified), and said property shall be subject to the restrictions and regulations of such zone as specified in Butte County Code Section 24-195. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2(1 21 22 23 2�9 25 26 27 28 Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated area of Butte County, Chico, and is more particularly described as follows: PARCEL ONE All those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., lying Easterly of the Chico and Humboldt Road and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 22, 2.61 chains East of the quarter corner common to Sections 22 and 27; running thence along the Southerly line of the lands heretofore conveyed to Lydia E. W. Baker, North 57 degrees 25' East, 1.54 chains North 45 degrees 10' East, 2.12 chains; North 25 degrees East 2.12 chains; thence leaving the lines of said Baker Lands, and running North 48 degrees 45' East 204.44 chains to.the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 13. Excepting therefrom all those portions of Sections 15, 22 and 23 lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 62 degrees 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 degrees 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 degrees 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 degrees 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 degrees 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 degrees 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 degrees 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 degrees 00'East, 265.3 feet; North 66 degrees 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 degrees 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the'North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing on said road North 26 degrees 30' East, 753.8 feet to the true point of beginning for the line herein described; thence from said true point of beginning leaving said road, South 48 degrees 11' East, 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline and the end of said line. Also excepting therefrom the following described property: -1)- 2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 `_'7 28 A portion of Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 62 degrees 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 degrees 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 degrees 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 degrees 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 degrees 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 degrees 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 degrees 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 degrees 00' East, 265.3 feet; North 66 degrees 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 degrees 08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing up said road, North 26 degrees 30' East, 753.8 feet to a point; thence continuing Northeasterly along the center of said road a distance of 60.0 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel herein described; thence from said true point of beginning running Southwesterly along the center of said Chico and Humboldt Road, a distance of 60.0 feet to a point; thence leaving said road South 48 degrees 11' East, a distance of 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline; thence along the last mentioned line North 48 degrees 45' East, 2700.0 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Section 14; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the true point of beginning. PARCEL TWO The South half of the South half of Section 11 and the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 12 and all that portion of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 10, lying Easterly of the State Highway, all in Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M. Excepting therefrom described parcels I and II all that property located within 350 feet. of the centerline of State Highway 32. SECTION 5. The zoning regulations applicable to the hereina 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 `'7 28 described property situate in the County of Butte, State of California, is hereby recognized as having reverted to SH (Scenic) Highway) and said property shall be subject to the resitrictions and) regulations of such zone as specified in Butte County Code Section 24-1 1 .156. Said property so zoned is located in the unincorporated area of Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real proeprty situate in the County of Butte, State of California, described as follows: That portion of the following described property located within 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32: PARCEL ONE All those portions of Sections 13, 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., lying Easterly of the Chico and Humboldt Road and Northerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the South line of said Section 22, 2.61 chains East of the quarter corner common to Sections 22 and 27; running thence along the Southerly line of the lands heretofore conveyed to Lydia E. W. Baker, North 57 degrees 25' East, 1.54 chains North 45 degrees 10' East, 2.12 chains; North 25 degrees East 2.12 chains; thence leaving the lines of said Baker Lands, and running North 48 degrees 45' East 204.44 chains to the Northeast corner of the Southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 13. Excepting therefrom all those portions of Sections 15, 22 and 23 lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the center of the Chico and Humboldt Road and on the West line of said Section 22, a distance of 2413 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section, and running thence up the center of said road, North 62 degrees 00' East, 316.1 feet; North 80 degrees 45' East, 536.6 feet; North 51 degrees 30' East, 490.4 feet; North 45 degrees -A- 2 4 9 1(1 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 25 26 27 28 00' East 606.2 feet; North 30 degrees 30' East, 467.9 feet; North 56 degrees 45' East, 610.5 feet; North 60 degrees 30' East, 673.2 feet; North 59 degrees 00'East, 265.3 feet; North 66 degrees 45' East, 223.7 feet; North 32 degrees'08' East, 256.7 feet to a point on the North line of said Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing on said road North 26 degrees 30' East, 753.8 feet to the true point of beginning for the line herein described; thence from said true point of beginning leaving said road, South 48 degrees 11' East, 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline and the end of said line. Also excepting therefrom the following described property: A portion of Sections 14, 15, 22 and 23, Township 22 North, Range 2 East, M.D.B. & M., more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point Chico and Humboldt Roi of said Section 22, South of the Northwest and running thence up North 62 degrees 00' 80 degrees 45' East, degrees 30' East, 490, 00' East 606.2 feet; East, 467.9 feet; Nox 610.5 feet; North 60 feet; North 59 degreE North 66 degrees 45' 32 degrees 08' East, the North line of sai in the center of the A and on the West line distance of 2413 feet corner of said Section, the center of said road, East, 316.1 feet; North 536.6 feet; North 51 4 feet; North 45 degrees North 30 degrees 30' th 56 degrees 45' East, legrees 30' East, 673.2 s 00' East, 265.3 feet; East, 223.7 feet; North ;56.7 feet to a point on I Section 22, a distance of 1719.3 feet West of the Northeast corner thereof; thence continuing up said road, North 26 degrees 30' East, 753.8 feet to a point; thence continuing Northeasterly along the center of said road a distance of 60.0 feet to the true point of beginning for the parcel herein described; thence from said true point of beginning running Southwesterly along the center of said Chico and Humboldt Road, a distance of 60.0 feet to a point; thence leaving said road South 48 degrees ill East, a distance of 3814.5 feet to a point on the Northerly line of the lands of Stephen Meline; thence along the last mentioned line North 48 degrees 45' East, 2700.0 feet, more or less, to the South line of said Section 14; thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the true -a- I point of beginning. 2 PARCEL TWO 3 The South half of the South half of Section 11 and the Southwest quarter of the Southwest 4 quarter of Section 12 and all that portion of the South half of the, Southeast quarter of 5 Section 10, lying Easterly of the State Highway, all 'in Township 22 North, Range 2 6 East, M.D.B. & M. 7 8 SECTION 6. Severability. If any part of this ordinance shall be held 9 void by a court of competent jurisdiction, such part shall be deemed 10 severable, and the invalidity thereof shall not affect the remaining 11 parts of this ordinance. 12 SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in 13 full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date 14 of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after 15 its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of 16 the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in 17 the a newspaper published in the County of 18 Butte, State of California. 19 20 21 99 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1(1 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 99 23 24 25 26 `_'7 28 • • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, on the day of , 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By (2544.ord) ' r OFF * --'E OF COUNTY CO0'TvSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 evrr�. O ., 0 o NEIL H. MCCABE ° ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 0010 SUSAN MINASIAN DAVID M. MCCLAIN COUNTY COUNSEL August 8, 1991 CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY R EINHORN Carole White, Attorney at Law CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO 225 Bush St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Ms. White: As I indicated to you in our conversation on August 1, 1991; I have re -drafted the proposed ordinance to deal with the zoning issues in the manner set forth in my'letter to you dated July 29, 1991. A copy of the re -drafted ordinance is enclosed for your review and comment. We will await the results of your discussion with your client before proceeding to submit this matter to the Board of Supervisors. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel BNeil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/slt (carol.ltr) cc: John Luvaas, Esq. Bettye Kircher, Planning 0 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 OUTt f O ..y O O O o NEIL H. MCCABE °COUN�y ° ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL July 29, 1991 SUSAN MINASIAN DAVID M. MCCLAIN COUNTY COUNSEL CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY P. EINHORN Carole V. White y Attorne at Law CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO 225 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Re: Butte Environmental Council v County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Ms. White: Thank you for your telephone call last week regarding this matter. At this time I propose that those sections of the ordinance zoning portions of the property in question FR and RC be revoked and repealed and that the property revert to the U and SH zoning classifications. Copies of the U and SH Zoning regulations are enclosed for your information. The Planning Director has also suggested that when we submit this matter to the Board of Supervisors for action in compliance with the writ that we also request the Board of Supervisors to initiate proceedings to repeal the specific plan which is applicable to the property. We await the results of your discussion on these matters with your client before proceeding. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel By Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/rea (white.ltr) Enclosures cc: John Luvaas, Esq. Bettye Kircher, Planning Director P.O. Box'3276 Chico, Ca. 95927 Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel County of Butte 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, Ca. 95965-3380 JON LUVAAS (916)343-4934 ATTORNEY AT LAW July 24, 1991 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte Butte County Superior Court #k92207 Compliance with Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Neil: I have reviewed your analysis and suggestions of July 18, 1991 and wish to respond favorably. The proposed ordinance and the resolution you have drafted will fully comply with the intent of the writ, without creating unintended consequences or broadening the scope of the writ unnecessarily. We would not want to undermine the County's zoning and planning for the area beyond this specific project. Therefore, with the full concurrence of the Petitioners, you may proceed with presenting your drafts to the Board for their approval. With regard to the outdated specific plan, I agree that it is appropriate to clarify the potentially confusing problem. No one should be encouraged to believe that the specific plan grants any rights or that the Board will approve such a dense development at this site. The plan clearly is not. consistent with zoning and land use in the area, especially now that the "U" zone has a 20 -acre minimum. At the time of specific plan approval, the applicants argued that it was an improvement over the unrestricted, 1 -acre minimum U ordinance then in effect. That is no longer the case. There are other problems with the specific plan (of which planning staff is also aware); and we ask that you call them to the Board's attention as compelling reasons`to set it aside now: 1. At the time of specific plan approval, the public and the Board were less concerned with environmental problems than now; so very few mitigation measures were included in the plan. The vague administrative findings reflect that the previous Board did not look carefully at the problems posed by the plan. Of course, those findings were a primary reason why the Court struck down the zoning and the subdivision map. The specific plan findings were virtually identical to those found legally inadequate by the Court. Y 2. The specific plan was even less carefully considered than the zoning and subdivision map because the public was not yet alert to the problems, did not call them to the Board's attention, and was unprepared to challenge the proposal in court, as it did successfully with all other phases of the project. 3. The specific plan is also inconsistent with a number of General Plan policies, which were not really considered until later, policies such as: -- avoiding premature, overly remote urban -scale developments, with all their attendant costs and County responsibilities; -- conserving open space and natural resources; -- abating fire, landslide, and other natural hazards; -- protecting our few most scenic highways, as Highway 32; -- conserving wildlife and its habitat; etc. The General Plan andother county policies also have been tightened in a number of ways in the 10 years since specific plan approval. The specific plan is simply out of pace with the times. 4. The passage of time has also increased the Board's concerns about: -- the inability to service such large, remote developments, and the County cost of doing so; -- the problems of downstream water and groundwater contamination from heavy development; -- the_ difficulty of providing adequate fire protection in such extreme wildfire areas (as demonstrated by the disastrous fire that swept the area several years later); -- the pressure from the state to minimize air pollution from projects which create excessive auto traffic; -- the problems of disappearing wildlife and fishery habitat in critical areas such as this one (and pressure from the state and the public to treat the problem seriously); -- and other unknown problems that this specific plan would create, since it would be the county's largest remote urban development The Butte Environmental Council and affiliated public interest groups do not believe that the County any longer intends to allow such massive developments without more careful consideration than was given to this specific plan. Therefore, on behalf of these public interests, we request that the specific plan be rescinded at the earliest possible time, on the Board's own motion. If anyone seriously proposes to try to build a project in the area in the future, they can begin the process anew, with adequate, modern environmental review and all due caution in planning for its consequences for Butte County. Thank you and thanks to the Board for moving to comply with the writ and for beginning to remedy this problem. Very truly yours, 4/nLuvaas P.O. Box 3276 Chico, Ca. 95927 Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel County of Butte 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, Ca. 95965-3380 3ON LUVAAS (916)343-4934 ATTORNEY AT LAW July 24, 1991 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte Butte County Superior Court #92207 r Compliance with Peremptory Writ of MandamR'�'eCountyCcunsei Dear Neil: JUL 29 1991 I have reviewed your analysis and suggest ioiW041&, egi yniJ8, 1991 and wish to respond favorably. The proposed ordinance and the resolution you have drafted will fully comply with the intent of the writ, without creating unintended. consequences or broadening the scope of the writ unnecessarily. We would not want to undermine the County's zoning and planning for the area beyond this specific project. Therefore, with the full concurrence of the Petitioners, you may proceed with presenting your drafts to the Board for their approval. With regard to the outdated specific plan, I agree that it is appropriate to clarify the potentially confusing problem. No one should be encouraged to believe that the specific plan grants any rights or that the Board will approve such a dense development at this site. The plan clearly is not consistent with zoning and land use in the area, especially now that the "U" zone has a 20 -acre minimum. 'At the time of specific plan approval, the applicants argued that it was an improvement over the unrestricted, 1 -acre minimum U ordinance then in effect. That is no longer the case. There are other problems with the specific plan (of which planning staff is also aware); and we ask that you call them to the Board's attention as compelling reasons to set it aside now: 1. At the time of specific plan approval, the public and the Board were less concerned with environmental problems than now; so very few mitigation measures were included in the plan. The vague administrative findings reflect that the previous Board did not look carefully at the problems posed by the plan. Of course, those findings were a primary reason why the Court struck down the zoning and the subdivision map. The specific plan findings were virtually identical to those found legally inadequate by the Court. 2. The specific plan was even less carefully considered than the zoning and subdivision map because the. public was not yet alert to the problems, did not call them to the Board's attention, and was unprepared to challenge the proposal in court, as it did successfully with all other phases of the project. 3. The specific plan is also inconsistent with a number of General Plan policies, which were not really considered until later, policies such as: -- avoiding premature, overly remote urban -scale developments, with all their attendant costs and County responsibilities; -- conserving open space and natural resources; -- abating fire, landslide, and other natural hazards; -- protecting our few most scenic highways, as Highway 32; -- conserving wildlife and its habitat; etc. The General Plan and other county policies also have been tightened in a number of ways in the 10 years since specific plan approval. The specific plan is simply out of pace with the times. 4. The passage of time has also increased the Board's concerns about: -- the inability to service such large, remote developments, and the County cost of doing so; -- the problems of downstream water and groundwater contamination from heavy development; -- the difficulty of providing adequate fire protection in such extreme wildfire areas (as demonstrated by the disastrous fire that swept the area several years later); -- the pressure from the state to minimize air pollution from projects which create excessive auto traffic; -- the problems of disappearing wildlife and fishery habitat in critical areas such as this one (and pressure from the state and the public to treat the problem seriously); -- and other unknown problems that this specific plan would create, since it would be the county's largest remote urban development. The Butte Environmental Council and affiliated public interest groups do not believe that the County any longer intends to allow such massive developments without more careful consideration than was given to this specific plan. Therefore, on behalf of these public interests, we request that the specific plan be rescinded at the earliest possible time, on the Board's own motion. If anyone seriously proposes to try to build a project in the area in the future, they can begin the process anew, with adequate, modern environmental review and all due caution in planning for its consequences for Butte County. Thank you and thanks to the Board for moving to comply with the writ and for beginning to remedy this problem. Very t my yours, Jon Luvaas OFFIW- OF COUNTY COIASEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROViLLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 0llTtE. e n e o e o a NEIL H. MCCABE ° e ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL 01510 SUSAN MINASIAN DAVID M. McCLAIN COUNTY COUNSEL CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL July 18, 1991 GREGORY R EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Jon Luvaas Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3276 Chico, California 95927 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Jon: Thank you for your the need to take action of the writ of mandamus letter of July 11, 1991 reminding us of to formally comply with the requirements issued in the subject case. We have drafted the enclosed ordinance and resolution which we propose submitting to the Board of Supervisors for action in order to comply with the writ. However, in preparing the drafts we have become aware of certain questions which we feel should be considered first. These questions are discussed below. The stipulated judgment and the peremptory writ refer to vacation of Butte County Ordinance No. 2544, apparently in its entirety. However, said ordinance contains several separate and distinct sections. Section. 1 of the ordinance enacted the provisions of the FR -1 zone which are applicable to properties subsequently zoned FR -1. Section 2 of the ordinance applied the FR -1 regulations to portions of the property involved in the instant litigation. Subsequently enacted ordinances have applied the provisions of the FR -1 zoning regulations to other properties in the County and have made other amendments to the FR -1 zoning regulations. Accordingly, it is our view that, in order to both comply with the requirements of the judgment and writ and to avoid causing havoc for other unrelated property owners, we should leave Section 1 of the ordinance intact and simply repeal Section 2. We have taken this approach in the enclosed draft. The repeal of the FR -1 zoning regulations as to the property in question raises the issue of what the zoning regulations then applicable to the property will be. Presumably, the zoning would revert to that which was in effect immediately prior to the rezone to FR -1, namely, the U and SH zoning regulations. Rather than leave any doubt on this question, our proposal is to Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 2 specifically rezone the property U and SH, and our draft takes this approach. As of 1986, the U zone specified a five (5) acre minimum parcel size. Subsequently, a "blanket" change was made, increasing the minimum parcel size within all U zones to twenty (20) acres. Our position is that "reverting" to the U zone now will result in the imposition of the twenty (20) acre minimum parcel size. You will note that the legal description referred to in our proposed draft is based on the description of the property contained in Ordinance No. 2544, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. This description refers to certain lots on the tentative subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" Subdivision filed in the office of the Butte County Planning Department on June 10, 1986. It is our understanding that this subdivision map was never finalized and recorded. There is therefore some question regarding the propriety of referring to it for purposes of a'legal description. However, we have no other description readily available. It is our understanding that the RC (resource conservation) zone will remain in place at this time as to certain portions of the property, as imposed by Section 3 of Ordinance 2544. It is also our understanding that there is a specific plan applicable to the property in question which has not been repealed or superseded. The specific plan contemplated zoning following the configuration of the proposed subdivision. The existence and configuration of the resulting U,. SH and RC zones, and the remaining Specific Plan may not make any sense from a zoning and land use point of view, now that the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision is defunct. In view of the above, it appears that, while we can comply with the judgment and writ, we will be leaving certain other matters unresolved. It will obviously be necessary for anyone seeking to develop this property in the future to seek rezoning in a configuration and zoning classification which makes sense. It will most likely also be necessary to amend the specific plan or adopt a new specific plan. Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 3 We would appreciate it if you and Mr. VanBuskirk would review and comment on these matters at your earliest convienence. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel BY Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/slt (luvaas.ltr) cc: Ronald E. VanBuskirck, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro .Bettye Kircher, Planning Director John Mendonsa, Assistant Director of Public Works (Land Development Section) Tom Reid, Environmental Health Department Enclosure I Ordinance No. 2 AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING, REVOKING AND REPEALING SECTION 2 3 OF BUTTE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2544, PERTAINING TO THE ZONING OF 4 PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION. 5 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as 6 follows, pursuant to the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued on January 7 2,.1991, by the Butte County Superior Court in Case No. 92207 entitled 8 BUTTE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, ET AL.: 9 SECTION 1. SECTION 2 of Butte County Ordinance 2544, relating to the 10 zoning of an area described as "Canyon Park Estates II", is hereby 11 rescinded, revoked and repealed. 12 SECTION 2. Section 24-111.5 (FR -1, Foothill Recreational Zone.) of 13 the Butte County Code shall remain in effect as written in Section 1 14 of Ordinance No. 2544 and subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 2749, 15 enacted 5-23-89; Ordinance No. 2768, enacted 7-18-89; and Ordinance 16 No. 2794, enacted 11-21-89. 17 SECTION 3. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 18 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as U 19 (Unclassified) and shall be subject to the restrictions and ,)o regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-195. 21 Said area so zoned is located in the unincorporated area of Butte 29- County, Chico, and is more particularly described as follows: 3 Lots 1 through 106 as shown on the tentative 24 subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" subdivision filed in the office of Butte 25 County Planning Department, June 10, 1986, except that portion thereof which is within 26 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32. 27 SECTION 4. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 28 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as SH l .9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99. 23 24 25 26 `_'7 28 (Scenic Highway) and shall be subject to the restrictions ands regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-156. Said area so zoned is located in the unincorporated area of Butte County, Chico, and is more particularly described as follows: All that poortion of Lots 1 through 106 as shown on the tentative subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" subdivision filed in the office of the Butte County Planning Department, June 10, 1986, which is within 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32. SECTION_5. Severability. If any part of this ordinance shall be held void by a court of competent jurisdiction, such part shall be deemed severable, and the invalidity thereof shall not affect the remaining parts of this ordinance. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15 ) days after its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in the , a newspaper published in the County of Butte, State of California. PASSED AND ADOPTED -by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, State of California, on the day of , 1991, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 1 ATTEST: WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative 3 Officer and Clerk of the Board 4 By 5 6 (2544.ord) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 `)0 21 22 23 24 25 26 `'7 28 Resolution A RESOLUTION TO. RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 86-104, AND TO RESCIND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, a "Stipulated Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" was entered into by the parties in the action entitled Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al., Case No. 92207, and filed January 2, 1991 (see Attachment A); and WHEREAS, the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104. (see Attachment B) NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby rescinds and revokes its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 previously adopted August 5, 1986 and repeals said Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors rescinds and revokes its approval of that certain Agreement dated August 5, 1986, attached to Resolution No. 86-104, and pertaining to the conditional zoning of the property described therein as the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this day of the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: ATTEST: WILLIAM RANDOLPH Chief Administrative Officer -and Clerk of the Board By , 19 , by JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors i h- Uj W pCD Q7 .Zv � J ,y G O V� � O CO f:. 0 ":aS a .P:,E R V I S 0UNTY. OF "BUTTE...STATE :OF CALIF Resolution -No. 82-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 6S3SO,.et. seq., public hearings -were held before the Butte County Board of Supervisors on a proposed Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing the act, has been met, and the hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various County, local, and State agencies; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates, NOW,'THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte in regular session assembled on April 13, 1982 makes the following findings on the matter: 1. That the Specific Plan is consistent with and will implement the general plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as designated with the proposed conditions, will mitigate the concerns enumerat-ed in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as open space. -4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a County xxice Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. 5:. 'T -,h -,e Specific Plan .with the conditions for circulation,.. -:access,, water, and .sewer services provided will ;i.;mp:fi'ement the general plan and each of its elements ,a-nd provide for the _public s.a°fety. BY IT FURTHER RESOIXED that al 1 adverse cnvi ronment"11 impacts have been mitigated by the Spcci.fi.c Ilan, BE IT I l.11l'fIII R RI SO'L,VFD that the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the California Envi.ronmcntal Quality Act and the Butte. County Resolution implementing CEOA, rev.icwed'and considered the Draft 1:1 R, in its eval.ua.ti.on of the proposed Specific Plan and cert i f ed the EI l: as ;in ;accurate and o jcct:i vc stat.emcnt that comp1 .1.cs with the Cali forra.i;i l::nvironmentaI Outility Act. NOW, I'llliRl lORl B1: l'I' RI:SOI..V.C:I) that the Butte County Hoard of Supervisors at :its rcgul ar mect.ing fac.l d on Apr:i 1 1 .), 1982 approved the Spec i. f:i.c. Plan of ,.lohn 1). 1)ra.kc/I1oward f som, for Canyon Park Estatcs. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervi.sors of the County of Butte by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES : ..Supervisors Dolan and ..Fulton ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None 7,1 f1l: /A1N'1-T-TLEff, Chairman 1Vu tc County Board -of Supervi sors ATTL-:ST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clcrk-Recorder and Ex -officio Clcrk of the Board of Sy-Vervi sors ' 1 By �� j BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30' EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45' EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID ROAD NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID ROAD, SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST, 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE. �J 5� EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 14, 15, 22 AND 23, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE fr n 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: V BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30' EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45' EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING UP SAID ROAD, NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST A DISTANCE OF 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE; THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE NORTH 48 DEG. 45' EAST, 2700.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ..r THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 11 AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, LYING EASTERLY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. v�sc� �f3�D ?AoP,5;92 i Y L -P> c�T�D (i✓! Tii IN -3�5© jr-T flp- TC -!F %w (-f)v& ®l;= 57-iA725� 11/G - Y 3 Z, ALL THAT CERTAI REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIF, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL I• ,O � ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 13, 14, 15,, 22 AND 23, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M., LYING EASTERLY OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: 111 BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, 2.61 CHAINS EAST OF THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 22 AND 27; l� RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO LYDIA E. W. BAKER, NORTH 57 DEG. 25' EAST, 1.54 CHAINS NORTH 45 DEG. 10' EAST, 2.12 CHAINS; NORTH 25 DEG. EAST 2.12 CHAINS; THENCE LEAVING THE LINE OF SAID BAKER LANDS, AND NRUNNING NORTH 48 DEG. 45' EAST 204.44 CHAINS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID _\ SECTION 13. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 15, 22 AND 23 LYING SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30' EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45' EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID ROAD NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID ROAD, SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST, 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE. �J 5� EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 14, 15, 22 AND 23, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE fr n 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: V BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30' EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45' EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING UP SAID ROAD, NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST A DISTANCE OF 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE; THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE NORTH 48 DEG. 45' EAST, 2700.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ..r THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 11 AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, LYING EASTERLY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. v�sc� �f3�D ?AoP,5;92 i Y L -P> c�T�D (i✓! Tii IN -3�5© jr-T flp- TC -!F %w (-f)v& ®l;= 57-iA725� 11/G - Y 3 Z, N j"�f�o P �2Ty GOC 7`F�D w17WIIr 3SO F7 - o r= TrY -ALLTHAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN` -THE COUNTY OF BUTTE=; `STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 13, 14, 15,. 22 AND 23, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.H. & M., LYING EASTERLY OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND NORTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, 2.61 CHAINS EAST OF THE QUARTER CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 22 AND 27; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS HERETOFORE CONVEYED TO LYDIA E. W. BAKER, NORTH 57 DEG. 25' EAST, 1.54 CHAINS NORTH 45 DEG. 10' EAST, 2.12 CHAINS; NORTH 25 DEG. EAST 2.12 CHAINS; THENCE LEAVING THE LINE OF SAID BAKER LANDS, AND RUNNING NORTH 48 DEG. 45' EAST 204.44 CHAINS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST.QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL THOSE PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 15, 22 AND 23 LYING SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30, EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45' EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING ON SAID ROAD NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE LINE HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING LEAVING SAID ROAD, SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST, 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE AND THE END OF SAID LINE. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 14, 15, 22 AND 23, TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER OF THE CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD AND ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 2413 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION, AND RUNNING THENCE UP THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD, NORTH 62 DEG. 00' EAST, 316.1 FEET; NORTH 80 DEG. 45' EAST, 536.6 FEET; NORTH 51 DEG. 30' EAST, 490.4 FEET; NORTH 45 DEG. 00' EAST 606.2 FEET; NORTH 30 DEG. 30' EAST, 467.9 FEET; NORTH 56 DEG. 45' EAST, 610.5 FEET; NORTH 60 DEG. 30' EAST, 673.2 FEET; NORTH 59 DEG. 00' EAST, 265.3 FEET; NORTH 66 DEG. 45, EAST, 223.7 FEET; NORTH 32 DEG. 08' EAST, 256.7 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 22, A DISTANCE OF 1719.3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE CONTINUING UP SAID ROAD, NORTH 26 DEG. 30' EAST, 753.8 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING FOR THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE FROM SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING RUNNING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID CHICO AND HUMBOLDT ROAD A DISTANCE OF 60.0 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD SOUTH 48 DEG. 11' EAST A DISTANCE OF 3814.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS OF STEPHEN MELINE; THENCE ALONG THE LAST MENTIONED LINE NORTH 48 DEG. 45' EAST, 2700.0 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 14; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PC a7L THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 11 AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12 AND ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 10, LYING EASTERLY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST, M.D.B. & M. r Resolution No. 93-144 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING RESCINDING RESOLUTION 82-63 FOR THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors, a public entity has petitioned the Butte County Board of Supervisors, through an appropriate application, to rescind a previously approved Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the said Specific Plan -is integrally related to the Peremptory Writ of Mandamus issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 that commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 and vacate the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map for Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, the proposal has been reviewed by the Butte County Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the proposal to rescind the Specific Plan at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has determined that the .requested action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Butte County Board of Supervisors does hereby rescind Resolution 82-63 and the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan adopted thereby. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County 'Board of Supervisors on this 28th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Meyer, Dolan, McLaughlin, Thomas and Chair Houx NOES: None ABSENT: None NOT VOTING: None j V MARY ANNE HOUX, CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blackloc , Chief Administrative Officer and Cler of the Board By: • L� CA ,butte co, DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 MEMORANDUM FAX: (916) 538-7785 TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services Thomas Last, Senior Planner REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION: Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item not subject to CEQA) To rescind a Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates II on property zoned "U" (Unclassified) located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified as AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. Staff recommends the Board concur with the Planning Commission and approve the cancellation of the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the subject property. A Rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map were subsequently approved. The County was then sued and spent approximately 5 years in court. The County lost the suit and was required to rescind the. rezone and subdivision. The Specific Plan was inadvertently left out of the litigation. Therefore, in order to fully comply with past litigation, it is necessary to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available since the courts have taken all the County's files. The Board of Supervisors, on May 11, 1993, directed staff to initiate proceedings to rescind the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As a result of negotiation between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and Planning Staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies. Section 65453(b) of the Government Code Requires that Specific Plans be repealed in the same manner as it is amended. Therefore, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution to rescind the Specific Plan.. Since this action does not have a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately it is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Find that the requested action is not considered a project under the provisions of CEQA; and B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution rescinding the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan on AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023. /ti rte{) �r"'I�`�./i::'>., � �.f,'y."•.. -_--... LAND OF NATURAL W EALTH AND BEAUTY °F �4 DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES "•%`•� ^;a +.; 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: 1916) 538-7601 MEMORANDUM FAX: (916) 538-7785 TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services Thomas Last, Senior Planner 1 REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION: Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item not subject to CEQA) To rescind a Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates II on property zoned "U" (Unclassified) located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified!as AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. Staff recommends the Board concur with the Planning Commission and approve the cancellation of the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the subject property. A Rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map were subsequently approved. The County was then sued and spent approximately 5 years in court. The County lost the suit and was required to rescind the rezone and subdivision. The Specific Plan was inadvertently left out of the litigation.. Therefore, in order to fully comply with past litigation, it is necessary to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available since the courts have taken all the County's files. The Board of Supervisors, on May 11, 1993, directed staff to'initiate proceedings to rescind the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As a result of negotiation between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and Planning Staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies. Section 65453(b) of the Government Code Requires that Specific Plans be repealed in the same manner as it is amended. Therefore, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a 1 '1 Resolution recommending that !the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution to rescind the Specific Plan.. Since this action does not have a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately it is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Find that the requested action is not considered a project under the provisions of CEQA; and B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution rescinding tIhe Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan on AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023. /ti • • Resolution RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE APPROVING RESCINDING RESOLUTION 82-63 FOR THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN. WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors, a public entity has petitioned the Butte County Board of Supervisors, throughan appropriate application, to rescind a previously approved Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the said Specific Plan -is integrally related to the Peremptory Writ of Mandamus issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 that commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 and vacate the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map for Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, the proposal has been reviewed by the Butte County. Planning Commission and a public hearing held pursuant to law, at which time all interested persons were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has held hearings on the proposal to rescind the Specific Plan at which all interested parties were heard; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors has determined that the requested action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Butte County Board of Supervisors does hereby rescind Resolution 82-63 and the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan adopted thereby. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on this 28th day of September, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: MARY ANNE HOUX, CHAIRMAN Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: John S. Blacklock, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By: -4,II 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 RESOLUTION 93-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESCIND RESOLUTION 82-63 FOR THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors, a public entity has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission, through an appropriate application, to rescind a previously approved Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the said Specific Plan is integrally related to the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 that commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 and vacate the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map for Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has determined that the requested action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Butte County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Butte County Board of Supervisors rescind Resolution 82-63 and the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan adopted thereby. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Planning Commission on the 12th of August , 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Lambert, Sessions, Ferguson and Chairman Lynch NOES: No one 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 91'i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ABSENT: Commissioner Nelson ABSTAINED: No one R BERT LYNC CHAIRMAN Butte County Planning Commission ATTEST: Paula Leasure, Assistant Director of Planning U9.3 INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Department of Development Services TO: Supervisor Gordon Thomas FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: CANYON PARK ESTATES SPECIFIC PLAN . DATE: August 4, 1993 Pursuant to. your memo dated July 28, 1993, regarding the Busstail Community Service District and the above property, we have provided to you the following response. The above-mentioned Specific Plan was part of a County approved General Plan Amendment and Rezone that.was brought to litigation. The County eventually lost the suit and was required to rescind the Rezone and General Plan Amendment. The Specific Plan was inadvertently left out. So this present action is just clean up work on the project. The proposed action to rescind the Specific Plan will have no impact on the Busstail District operations. Tom Last, Senior Planner, has called Mr. Mike Fender of the Busstail Community Services District.to discuss the situation. t BF:jc cc: Tom Last, Senior Planner 3100 �l gQ4-s�� R 0 GORDON THOMAS SUPERVISOR, FIFTH D18TRir,,T 14166 SKYWAY - MAGALIA, CALIFORNIA 95954 TELEPHONE; (916) 872-6304 PAGER: (916) 896.8982 FAX: (916) 672-039 01annlav p�partrrNnt JUL 2 81993 Oroville, callfomla Inter --Departmental Memorandum TO: Bill Farrel FROM: Gordon 'Phomas DATE: July 28, 1993 RE: AP 063-300-1542 1569 157, 158. Dear Bill: Received this concern from Mr. Mike Fender of the Busstail Community Service District (894-3918). These properties are part of Carryon Park Estates and are also in the Busstail District. He would like to know how this project will affect the district. Would you please respond to this office at your convenience. cc. file IAe)wAtz.r-> 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 0 RESOLUTION 93-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESCIND RESOLUTION 82-63 FOR THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the Butte County Board of Supervisors, a public entity has petitioned the Butte County Planning Commission, through an appropriate application, to rescind a previously approved Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the said Specific Plan is integrally related to the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 that commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 and vacate the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map for Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, the Butte County Planning Commission has determined that the requested action is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Butte County Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the Butte County Board of Supervisors rescind Resolution 82-63 and the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan adopted thereby. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Planning Commission on the of 1993, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: • ROBERT LYNCH, CHAIRMAN Butte County Planning Commission Paula Leasure, Assistant Director of Planning Lm • FILE NO.: 93-21 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 17, 1993 APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: AP NO.: SIZE: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 1 • Butte County Board of Supervisors Various To rescind a Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates II AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011- 040-004 and 023. Approximately 1,200 acres. East of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, 5 miles east of Chico. "U" (Unclassified) Zoned FR -1/R -C Aug. 5, 1986 by Ord. 2544; Ord. 2544 was revoked and repealed in, order to comply with a court order. The zoning reverted back to the "U" zoning in 1992. "U" and A-160 Vacant and some scattered single-family residences. Grazing and Open Lands, Ag. Residential Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. and Butte County Code Sections 24-23.80 and 24- 26, 27, 28. U BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 17, 1993 BACKGROUND: • On April 13, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the subject property. A Rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map were subsequently approved. The County was then sued and spent approximately 5 years in court. The County lost the suit and was required to rescind the rezone and subdivision. The Specific Plan was inadvertently left out of the litigation. Therefore, in order to fully comply with past litigation, it is necessary to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available since the courts have taken all the County's files. The Board of Supervisors, on May 11, 1993, directed staff to initiate proceedings to rescind the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As a result of negotiation between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and Planning Staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies. Section 65453(b) of the Government Code Requires that Specific Plans be repealed in the same manner as it is amended. Therefore, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution to rescind the Specific Plan. Since this action does not have a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately it is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Find that the requested action is not considered a project under the provisions of CEQA; and B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution rescinding the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan on AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023. TL:lr Attachments to Commission and Cities: Exhibit Map Jan 15, 1992 memo from County Counsel May 4, 1993 memo to Board of Supervisors Resolutin 82-63. 2 Butte County PlanningDepartment CANYON PARK ESTATES Specific Plan Area BUTTE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM Y O O S I J S W N 0 *''\ Vii: '` \\�y�\�k�\.\\`+`• �\\tom • r Humb0 o° 0°� o 0 1 a No R 69 L. 9163 3CJ(i .1;1215 111!11'1 �STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 9163 300 057 000 STATUS: ACTIVE,', HARRIS MICHAEL A'& JANET 1601 THE ESPLANADE #4B CHICO CA 95926 L: 063 300 156 000. STATUS: ACTIVE: SOMERVILLE JAMES M'SS P 0 BOX 1772 PLEASANTON CA 94566 L: 063 290 9111 000' STATUS. ACTIVE• U S A 9191000 L: 9163 290 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE DRAKE JOHN D ETAL-TC P 0 BOX 1448 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 290 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE BAIN ROBERT M & WINIFRED A TRS 1426 DOWNING AVE ' CHICO CA 95926— L: 5926 L: 9111 040 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE MELINE STEPHEN IV ETAL RABO FRED 10045 MIDWAY DURHAM ..CA 95938 L: 9163 310 026 '100.. STATUS: ACTIVE . NEIBERT.'LIVING: TRUST C/O RIVER CITY.FINANCIAL P O BOX 1160 . FOLSOM CA' 95763 L: 063 310 028. 11300 STATUS : ACTIVE: BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND CO P 0 BOX 3040 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE- ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 a CHICO CA 95927 LQ163 300 9117 000 STATUS: ACTIVE- ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 154 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ; ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 156 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS P 0 BOX 1772 PLEASANTON CA 94566 L: 063 300 157 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS P 0 BOX 1772 PLEASANTON CA 94566 _ L: 063 300 158 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: O i l 040 004 000 � STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 621 CHICO CA 95927 L: 9111 040 023 e000 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE RAWLIN HELEN MAXINE REV LIVING TR ETAL RAWLIN HELEN MAXINE TRUSTEE P 0 BOX 8914 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL -J P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L : 063 31414 1425 14(414 ACTIVE •STATUS: ISOM HOWARD W ETALL L. .v_163 300 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE' ISOM HOWARD W ETAL F' 0 BOX 821 h' CHICO CA 95927"' F 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 3910 057 000 STATUS: ACT I VE- HARRIS MICHAEL A & JANET a"" L: 063 391V7 154 0010 STATUS: ACTIVE , ISOM HOWARD W ETAL 1601 THE ESPLANADE #4B " CHICO CA 95926 k` F 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 3541[1 156 000' STATUS: ACTIVE: " SOMERVILLE_ JAMES M SS L: 063 300 156 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS F' O BOX 1772. PLEASANTON CA•94566: P 0 BOX 1772 PLEASANTON CA 94566 L: 063 290 Oil 000 STATUS: ACTIVE U S A L: 063 300 157 000 STATUS: ACTIVE SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS 00000 P 0 BOX 1772 PLEASANTON CA 94566 L: 063 290 017- ' 17-' 600 STATUS : ' ACTIVE:. " DRAKE JOHN D ETAL TC L: 063 300 158 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 1448 CHICO CA 95927 P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 290 020 000 STATUS: ACTIVE= __. _ ___---.— _._�.-----•_—_^. " BAIN ROBERT M & WINIFRED A TRS L: 011 040 004 000 STATUS: ACTIVE •ISOM HOWARD W ETAL 1426 DOWNING AVE. CHICO CA 95926 ` P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: Oil A0 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE - MELINE STEPHEN IV ETAL L: 011 040 023 000 STATUS: ACTIVE RABO FRED ISOM HOWARD W ETAL 11%1045 MIDWAY DURHAM CA 95938 '` P 0 BOX 821 - CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 310 P126 0094 .'STATUS: 'ACTIVE . NEIBERT LIVING TRUST'. `' L: 063 300 008 000 STATUS: ACTIVE C/O RIVER CITY FINANCIAL RAWLIN HELEN MAXINE REV LIVING TR ETAI- P 0 BOX 1160 RAWLIN HELEN MAXINE TRUSTEE FOLSOM CA 95763 -` P 0 BOX 8914 i CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 310 028 00y1 STATUS: ACTIVE. `^ BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND CO L: 063 300 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL =� P 0 BOX 30140 4 CHICO CA .95927 '' P 0 BOX 821 CHICO CA 95927 L: 063 300 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE., ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P O BOX 821' CHICO CA 95927 f --Z.-6-3 Kesolulioti A RESOLUTION TO• RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 86-104, AND TO RESCIND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION OF •ZONING OF PROPERTY.KNOWN AS CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION WHEREAS,. a "Stipulated Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" was entered into by the parties in the action entitled Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al., Case No. 92207, and filed January 2, 1991 and WHEREAS, the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104. (see Attachment B) NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby rescinds and revokes its approval of Resolution No.*. 86-104 previously adopted August 5, 1986 and repeals said.Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors rescinds and revokes its approval of that certain Agreement dated August 5, 1986, attached to Resolution No. 86-104, and pertaining to the conditional zoning of the property described therein as the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this the -following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: day of , 19 by JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: WILLIAM RANDOLPH Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By Arcplot: statistics o poly Enter statistical expressions. Statistics: sum area Statistics: end Record FREQUENCY SUM -AREA 1 7 52866268.000 • Type END or blank line to end. ! &7/� k-, •`'Ki` V COUNTY OF BUTTE - AGENDA TTE?* J" a TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM= Development Services DATE 5/3/93 SUBJECT: Board Agenda 5/11/93 - Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan SUMMARY OF REQUEST - ACTION REQUESTED-. It is recommended that the Board adopt a motion to initiate action to rescind the Specific Plan and direct staff to set this item for hearings before the Planning Commission for recommendation with the eventual action to be made by the Board. Additional information attached: Yes No Describe Memo Previous Board action: Date bfinute Order summary of Action:. Funding sources Current year cost Budgeted Yes No Annualized cost If also planned for next year Will proposal required additional personnel? Yes No State No. _ Permanent Temporary Otber Will proposal require a budget transfer? Yes No It yes, read the following. 1. Complete worksheet on back 2. Deadline is one business day prior to normal agenda deadline Administrative Office Approval 4/5 Vote required Majority vote required TO: FROM: .........:.... ,butte C LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 FAX: (916) 538-7785 MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors Director of Development Services SUBJECT: Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan DATE: May 4, 1993 In early 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved Resolution 82-63 thereby designating the above project as a Specific Plan. A rezone and a Tentative Subdivision Map was also approved on the property. The Board was subsequently sued. After several years in court, the County lost and had to rescind the rezone and tentative map. The Specific Plan was not included in the litigation as it was inadvertently left out. Therefore, it is necessary, as part of past litigation and as a follow up on previous actions, to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available on the Specific Plan since the courts have taken all the files. As a result of negotiations between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and Planning staff has agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the general plan or zoning goals and policies. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board adopt a. motion to initiate action to rescind the Specific Plan and direct staff to set this item for hearings before the Planning Commission for recommendation with the eventual action to be made by the Board. TL/1r c:\wp50\boardlts\canyon.sp '--''--— � �~~ �- � / &{44� - / �o^4 Resolution No. ou-as A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE,RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF ' A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 653SO / the provisions of Government Code wxans�S, nvrsvoo� �o .c pr i � e kpl8 before the � JohnSection 6S3SO, et. seq., public Butte County Board of Supervisors on a!p�,... pec :Es.idtes; an u uruxo/nv"a^" ^~.~ Canyon_ ^ WHEREAS, all the procedures of;We' California Envir n al Quality Act and the Butte County Resolutib -implementing the'act': has been met, and the hereinafter listed,imatter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presen |� County, local, and State agencies; and.. ' _ ' �I � Report �Tovidcd an WHEREAS, the Draft %nviruumeo�^l� wyuc ^ k adequate analysis for the Specific Plan -for Canyon Park Estates, NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of ' Supervisors of the County of Butte in reVd�lvr session assembled on ' x�riI 13, 1982 mstos the fullovin8 findings on the matter: ' l. That the Specific Plan is' consistent with and will implement the general plun;�.. Z. The Specific. Plan, as--designatedd with the proposed conditions, will � miti&xttbvconcero, onvrmrutod in the Environmental impact Report. }. The Specific Plan has left 'significant area in open space to he maintained as open space. 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a County ' Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. S. The Specific Plan with the conditions fnrcircvlution. � and sewer services provided will access, wu��r. u ' cm ] onts implement the general plan and each of its c and provide for the public safety. ' ` B1:. 11' FUR'ITIHIt RESOLVED that all adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated by the Specific Plan, Ill: IT FUR'I'11ER IZIiSOI.VFI) that the l;o:n-d of Supervisors, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing CFQA, reviewed and considered the Draft lilit, in its evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan and certified the Ellt as an accurate and gbiective Statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, 'I`11FIZ FORE, RE .1'i' RESUVEI) that the Butto 'County Board of Supervisors at. .its regular mc.et.ing:he) d on Apr.iI 13, 1982 approved the Specific Ilam of .John Il. Di-ake/Iloward Isom, `:for Canyon j! Park Estates. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of'. Butte by the fol.l.owi.ng vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSENT: None ABSTA1NFID: None -(`tea i rnuin e,111A hIIC1:L1.. Bu.7tc County Board of Supervisors A'F'fl:iST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clcrl -Recorder and T -.X- officio Clerk of the Board of S40.1 -11i Sors By � J • � e_AUAn►!� • �7O• r+ s! t. 19O,H `bFr -SUPER �� p n ,. - n�� R't 1TrE.:ST.ATE.•OF;:CALIFORNIA'; Resolution No. 82-63 A`RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING GOVERNMENTADOPTION CODEOF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to ps of Government HEREAS Code W , the P S' Section 65350, et. seq. , public hearingas,;4were, held, before{ the Butte County Board of .Supervisors on a,, Butte Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Parkl�Estates; and WHEREAS, all the pr c. -educes ofId, hey California Environmlental' l�Il 1�au I I Quality Act and the Butte County on implementing has been met, and the hereinafter listed;; matter was discussed fully. a with testimony and documentation presented: by the public, and various I. • County, local and State agencies; and' WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental,"'Imp,act Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan -;,for Canyon Park Estates,. NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of, Supervisors of the County of Butte iniregular session assembled on l 13, 1982. mal:cs the following findings on the matter: 1. That the Specific Plan iscQnsistent with and will implement the general plan.-- 2.- The Specific Plan, as'delsignated with the proposed conditions, will ,mitigate.,the concerns enumerated in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as open space. 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a Count Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. ihe',conditions for..circulation, S. The Specific Plan with access, water, and sewer services provided will. '. implement the general plan and each of its elements and provide for the public safety., BI 11' FURTHER RESOLVED that all.- adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated by the Specific Plan, BE IT FUWFHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors; pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County.Reso.luti.on implementing CEQA, reviewed and considercd.the...'. Draft 171R, i.n i-ts evalua.ti-on of the proposed Specific Plan and ccrt-ifi.c-1 thc.ElR as an accurate and.obj;ect'ivc statement that compl.i.cs with the California linvi ronmcntal Qual l ty: .pct 4. NOW, ' HEREFORE, BE 1.1' RESOLVED, tliat. the Butte County Boar.( of Supervisors at. :its. regalar mcetin9,1held on April 15), approved the Specific Plan of .John D.;,Dra.ke/I1o1Va1-d Isom F6 r Ci nvon Park I:statcs. ADOPTED by the Board Of Supervl.sors of 1 Co un of. Bu . e by the following vote: C AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSENT: None ABSTAI.NI:D: None III. A h'Ff E1,I~ C zrmran 13Ut0 County; Board of Supervi sors i ATTI.iST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clbrk- Rccordcr and Fx-officio- Clerk of.. the Board,•of Sgfl;crvi cors ByG V. • INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Ron McElroy, Public Works FROM: Tom Reid, Environmental Health SUBJECT: CSA 84, Canyon Park Estates DATE: October 7, 1992 Ron, I discussed CSA 84 with Bettye Kircher. The original subdivision and rezone approval was challenged in court and the challenge was essentially upheld. Bettye indicates that it is appropriate to approach the Board to set aside the associated specific plan. It is appropriate to also dissolve CSA 84. Recommend a combined agenda item with Planning to dissolve CSA 84 and to set aside the specific plan. TR/mlf cc: Bettye Kircher Planning Department 0 C T i 4 1992 Oroville, California Inter -Departmental Memorandum, TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Director SUBJECT: Repeal of Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates DATE: May 6, 1992 At its regular meeting held on April 13, 1982 the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom for Canyon Park Estates. The action was taken on Resolution Number 82-63 which was adopted in accordance with Section 65350 of the California Government Code. The question has been raised as to how to repeal the adoption of the Specific Plan. Section 65453 (b) states, "A Specific Plan may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended." Section 65454 (a) states, "A specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body." Section 65352 states, 'Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: a. Any city, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district which may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. b. The local agency formation commission. C. Any federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. Each agency has 45 days to comment on the proposal." Section 65353 requires that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the proposed repeal of the Specific Plan and report their action to the Board of Supervisors. Public notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. Section 65355 required that the legislative body i.e. the Board of Supervisors hold at least one public hearing to repeal the Specific Plan and that public notice be given pursuant to Section 65090. It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors initiate the repeal process for the Specific Plan and refer the matter to the Planning Commission top start the hearing process. JH: re. 1" 4" - SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL OF01 OF COUNTY C(* - 'EL . COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (91S) 538-7120 January 15, 1992 Carol V. White, Esq. PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO P.O. Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120 Jon L. Luvaas, Esq. P.O. Box 3276 Chico, CA 95926 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY R EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Enclosed please find a copy of the Return to Peremptory Writ of Mandamus which we filed today, thereby, concluding this matter with the court. It is our understanding that no existing subdivision maps or pending map applications exist pertaining to the property. You should further be aware that they.Planning-Directorwwill:commence action-before-the.Boardwof Supe visors'Tto rescirid�the,-spec fic.Yplan applicable, to, ,this` property: Should you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Neil H. McCabe Assistant Cotinty Counsel enclosure OFFT!7TE OF COUNTY COTSEL COUP* JF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE. CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 eOUTTF e • �olui A SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL Carole V. White, Esq. Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro P.O. Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120 John L. Luvaas, Esq. P.O. Box 3276 Chico, CA 95926 NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN . CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY R EINHORN December 20, 19 91 CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al.; Case No. 92207 Dear Ms. White and Mr. Luvaas: It is my understanding that we have reached agreement pertaining to the action necessary to comply with the writ of mandamus in the subject case. We have now also received verification from Ms. White that the property description contained in the previous draft of the ordinance is accurate. Accordingly, I have prepared the enclosed agenda request form for submittal to the Board of Supervisors. I anticipate this matter being placed on the Board's agenda for January 7, 1992. Please feel free to call if you have any questions.regarding this matter. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel By Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/slt (white.ltr) ClWrM OF BUTTE - AGE x ITEMS TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: County Counsel DATE: 12/23/91 SUBJECT. Action to comply with Judgement and Writ in Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al.; Case No. 92207 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: A "Stipulated Judgement Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" in the subject action was filed on January 2,.1991, and a peremptory writ of mandamus was issued by the Court pursuant thereto on January 2, 1991. It is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to take the actions requested below to comply with the terms of the Writ. These actions will result in the Foothill Recreation and Resource Conservation Zoning being rescinded, revoked and repealed and the zoning reverting to U (unclassified). Action Requested: 1. Adopt Ordinance, Rescinding, Revoking and Repealing Sections 2 and 3 of Butte County Ordinance No. 2544, Pertaining to the Zoning of Property Known as the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision. 2. Adopt Resolution to Rescind Resolution No. 86-104, and to rescind approval of agreement relating to reclassification of zoning of property known as Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision. Additional information attached: Q YES ❑ NO Describe Proposed ordinance and re -solution Previous Board action: Date Minute Order Summary of Action: Funding sources Current year cost Annual cost Budgeted ❑ YES ❑ NO Will proposal require additional personnel? ❑ YES ❑ NO. IF YES. STATE NUMBER PERMANENT TEMPORARY OTHER— CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION: ❑ APPROVE ❑ APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS COMMENTS (IF ANY) 4/5 Vote required_ Majority vote required 00 NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE — FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY Board action: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied Referred to Ordinance Na Continued to Resolution No. Report to Board on Minute Order Na Second reading Contract Other MN: Mo / 2nd AYES NOES ABS NV eOUTTE.• e 0 o e • e 0 0 SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 July 29, 1991 Carole V. White, Attorney at Law PILLSBURY, MADISON & SUTRO 225 Bush Street San Francisco, CA 94104 NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY R EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Re: Butte Environmental Council v County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Ms. White: Thank you for your telephone call last week regarding this matter. At this time I propose that those sections of the ordinance zoning portions of the property in question FR and RC be revoked and repealed and that the property revert to the U and SH zoning classifications. Copies of the U and SH Zoning regulations are enclosed for your information. fi The-Planning-Director-has-also-suggested=that=when-we~-subm- t� this �matter�-to, the_Board= of Supervisors -_fob -_actions in_c7c. fiance .� ith-.-the=writ -that==we-also~.request--'the Board ,of .Supervisor' to •initiate' -proceedings, _to repeal- -the:r.specif .`c .,plan", whi�ch�s applicable to 4the�-.property. _ _ We await the results of your discussion on these matters with your client before proceeding. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel Y o Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/rea (white.ltr) Enclosures cc: John Luvaas, Esq. Bettye Kircher, Planning Director P.O. Box 3276 Chico, Ca. 95927 'Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel County of Butte 25 County Center Dr. Oroville, Ca. 95965-3380 • JON LUVAAS (916)343-4934 ATTORNEY AT LAST July 24, 1991 Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte Butte County Superior Court #92207 Compliance with Peremptory Writ of Mandami _IeCOUntyCeUnsei Dear Neil: JUL 29 199] I have reviewed your analysis and suggestio&OAA , ggkyniJ8, 1991 and wish to respond favorably. The proposed ordinance and the resolution you have drafted will fully comply with the intent of the writ, without creating unintended consequences or broadening the scope of the writ unnecessarily. We would not want to undermine the County's zoning and planning for the area beyond this specific project. Therefore, with the full concurrence of the Petitioners, you may proceed with -presenting your drafts to the Board for their approval. -With regard _to_t,he outdated specific plan;, I agree that it is --- -- -- appropriate to clarify the potentially confusing problem. No one should be encouraged to believe that the specific plan grants any rights or that the Board will approve such a dense development at this site. The plan clearly is not consistent with zoning and land use in the area, especially now that the "U" zone has a 20 -acre minimum. At the time of specific plan approval, the applicants argued that it was an improvement over the unrestricted, 1 -acre minimum U ordinance then in effect. That is no longer the case. There are other problems with the specific plan (of which planning staff is also aware); and we ask that you call them to the Board's attention as compelling reasons to set it aside now: 1. At the time of specific plan approval, the public and the Board were less concerned with environmental problems than now; so very few mitigation measures were included in the plan. The vague administrative findings reflect that the previous Board did not look carefully at the problems posed by the plan. Of course, those findings were a primary reason why the Court struck down the zoning and the subdivision map. The specific plan findings were virtually identical to those found legally inadequate by the Court. 2. The specific plan was even less carefully considered than the zoning and subdivision map because the public was not yet alert to the problems, did not call them to the Board's attention, and was unprepared to challenge the proposal in court, as it did successfully with all other phases of the project. 3. The specific plan is also inconsistent with a number of General Plan policies, which were not really considered until later, policies such as: -- avoiding premature, overly remote urban -scale developments, with all their attendant costs and County responsibilities; -- conserving open space and natural resources; -- abating fire, landslide, and other natural hazards; -- protecting our few most scenic highways, as Highway 32; -- conserving wildlife and its habitat; etc. The General Plan and. other county policies also have been tightened in a number of ways in the 10 years since specific plan approval. The specific plan is simply out of pace with the times. 4. The passage of time has also increased the Board's concerns about: -- the inability to service such large, remote developments, and the County cost of doing so; -- the problems of downstream water and groundwater contamination from heavy development; -- the difficulty of providing adequate fire protection in such extreme wildfire areas (as demonstrated by the disastrous fire that swept the area several years later); -- the pressure from the state to minimize air pollution from projects which create excessive auto traffic; -- the problems of disappearing wildlife and fishery habitat in critical areas such as this one (and pressure from the state and the public to treat the problem seriously); -- and other unknown problems that this specific plan would create, since it would be the county's largest remote urban development. The Butte Environmental Council and affiliated public interest groups do not believe that the County any longer intends to allow such massive developments without more careful consideration than was given to this specific plan. Therefore, on behalf of these public interests, we request that -the specific plan -be rescinded ata t -he earliest Possible time, on the Board's own motion. If anyone seriously proposes to try to build a project in the area in the future, they can begin the process anew, with adequate, modern environmental review and all due caution in planning for its consequences for Butte County. Thank you and thanks to the Board for moving to comply with the writ and for beginning to remedy this problem. Very t ul y yours, c� Jon Luvaas OFO-e- OF COUNTY C(*-4SEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE / OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 • e e SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL Jon Luvaas Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3276 Chico, California July 18, 1991 95927 NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY P. EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Jon: Thank you for your the need to take action of the writ of mandamus letter of July 11, 1991 reminding us of to formally comply with the requirements issued in the subject case. We have drafted the enclosed ordinance and resolution which we propose submitting to the Board of Supervisors for action in order to comply with the writ. However, in preparing the drafts we have become aware of certain questions which we feel should be considered first. These questions are discussed below. The stipulated judgment and the peremptory writ refer to vacation of Butte County Ordinance No. 2544, apparently in its entirety. However, said ordinance contains several separate and distinct sections. Section 1 of the ordinance enacted the provisions of the FR -1 zone which are applicable to properties subsequently zoned FR -1. Section 2 of the ordinance applied the FR -1 regulations to portions of the property involved in the instant litigation.�'Subsequently enacted ordinances have applied the provisions of the FR -1 zoning regulations to other properties in the County and have made other amendments to the FR -1 zoning regulations. Accordingly, it is our view that, in order to both comply with the requirements of the judgment and writ and to avoid causing havoc for other unrelated property owners, we should leave Section 1 of the ordinance intact and simply repeal Section 2. We have taken this approach in the enclosed draft. The repeal of the FR -1 zoning regulations as to the property in question raises the issue of what the zoning regulations then applicable to the property will be. Presumably, the zoning would revert to that which was in effect immediately prior to the rezone to FR -1, namely, the U and SH zoning regulations. Rather than leave any doubt on this question, our proposal is to Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 2 specifically rezone the property U and SH, and our draft takes this approach. As of 1986, the U zone specified a five (5) acre minimum parcel size. Subsequently, a "blanket" change was made, increasing the minimum parcel size within all U zones to twenty (20) acres. Our position is that "reverting" to the U zone now will result in the imposition of the twenty (20) acre minimum parcel size. You will note that the legal description referred to in our proposed draft is based on the description of the property contained in Ordinance No. 2544, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. This description refers to certain lots on the tentative subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" Subdivision filed in the office of the Butte County Planning Department on June 10, 1986. It is our understanding that this subdivision map was never finalized and recorded. There is therefore some question regarding the propriety of referring to it for purposes of a legal description. However, we have no other description readily available. It is our understanding that the RC (resource conservation) zone will remain in place at this time as to certain portions of the property, as imposed by Section 3 of Ordinance 2544. It is also our understanding that there s"`a "specific plan applicable to the property in question which has not been repealed _or superseded:, The specific plan contemplated zoning following the configuration of the proposed subdivision. The existence and configuration of the resulting U, SH and RC zones, and the remaining Specific Plan may not make any sense from a zoning and land use point of view, now that the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision is defunct. In view of the above, it appears that, while we can comply with the judgment and writ, we will be leaving certain other matters unresolved. It will obviously be necessary for anyone seeking to develop this property in the future to seek rezoning in a configuration and zoning classification which makes sense. It will most likely also be necessary to amend the specific plan or adopt a new specific plan. Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 3 We would appreciate it if you and Mr. VanBuskirk would review and comment on these matters at your earliest convienence. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel By Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/slt (luvaas.ltr) cc: Ronald E. VanBuskirck, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Bettye Kircher, Planning Director John Mendonsa, Assistant Director of Public Works (Land Development Section) Tom Reid, Environmental Health Department Enclosure INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tom Last FROM: B. Kircher SUBJECT: Specific Plan/Canyon Park Res 82-63 DATE: April 6, 1993 A Specific Plan for Canyon Park was approved by the Board of Supervisors with Resolution 82-63, as well as a rezone and subdivision map. The Board was sued, spent approximately 5 years in court, lost the suit, and was required to rescind the subdivision and zoning approval. The litigation did not include the Specific Plan approval, which I believe was an oversight on the part of the litigants, but all the same the Specific Plan remains. The Specific Plan should be rescinded as it,*' no longer is representative of the zoning or the polices in the General Plan. This issue has been discussed many times with Neil McCabe and he agrees that the recision of the Specific Plan should occur. The process for recision is the same as establishing a Specific Plan, with hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Attached is a copy of Res 82-63. Dave is a reliable source for information on the particulars of this issue as well as Neil. Please review the Resolution and discuss it with me, Dave and Neil. You will find that there is little information available due to the fact that the administrative record went to the Superior Court and the Appellate Court. There is some information in Stu's subdivision file but not much. Good research project !!!!!! Another source of information could be Attorney, Mediator, John Luvaas, he filed the suit against the County, his offices are in Chico and he might be willing to provide you with some of the record. cc: Wm. Farrel Neil McCabe Stu Edell L-iST AQP ,ISLA-M Li wr.srco rr yo,(jNwoA - - - - L. to N- Ca� ��crc�+ ��Me comes- - 9.7- - - �.on ems tf.\\-X. v . ✓ - - - - -- - 105? • —USA - - --_ – -- �02p_ _� N �z . ✓ I -C3 I � -pyo -- + ^--- - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - --- -- -- -- -. - -- - - i00(o A�16L113rc S . `� .t �J L: 063 300 017'000 STATUSc ACTIVE I SOM HOWARD W ETAL L' 063 290 017 000 STATUS: ACTIVE P s BOX 821 DRAk,:E JOHN n ETAL TC CN I CO CA 95927 L; 063 300 025 000 STATUS: ACTIVE P U BOX 144e CH ICO CA 95927 DOE MILL VINEYARDS PETERSEN PALL W ,319 B MAIN STREET L: 063 29t%; 020 000STATUS . ACTIVE CH I CO CA 95925 BA I N ROBERT M & td I N I FRED A TRS 1426 DOWNING AVE_ L; 063 300 i%ft%fP v_st% o STATUS; ACTIVE CH I CO CA 95926 WESTCOTT YOLANDA SILVA L; O i 1 040 006 000 0 STATUS < ACTIVE 572 RIO LINDO AVE STE 107 MELINE STEPHEN IV ETAL CHICO CA 95926 RABO FRED, 10045 MIDWAY L; 063 300 057 000 STATUS! ACTIVE DURHAM CA 95938 HARRIS MICHAEL A & JANET L 063 310 026 00 0' ' STATUS : ACTIVE 1601 THE ESPLANADE #4B NEIBERT LIVING TRUST CH.ICO CA 95926 C/O RIVER CITY FINANCIAL P 0 LOX. 1160 L; 063 300 156 000 STATUS: ACTIVE FOLSOM CA 95763 SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS 0-063 063 310 02B t%st% o STATUS: ACTIVE P 0 BOX 1772 BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND CO PLEASANTON CA 94566 P 0 BOX 3040 L: 062 290 O i i 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CH I CO CA 95927 II 3 A n Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING THE -ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65350, et. sea., public hearings were held before the 3 Butte County Board of Supervisors on a proposed Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Park Estates; and, WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing the act, has been met, and the hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various County, local,'and State agencies;:and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates, NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of'the County of Butte in regular session assembled on Apri.1.13, 1982 makes the following findings on the.matter: 1. That the Specific Plan is consistent with and will t implement the general plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as designated with t`he proposed conditions, will mitigate the concerns enumerated in the Environmental Impact'.Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as -open space. 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of•a County ` Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. 5. The Specific Plan with the conditions for circulation, access, water, and sewer services provided will implement the general plan and each of its elements and provide for the public safety. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all adverse environmental impacts have been mitigated by the Specil'ic Plan, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors, Pursuant to the California. Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing CEQA, reviewed and considered. the Draft EIR, in its evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan and certified the EIR as an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW, I[TIEREFORE, BE -IT RESOLVED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting held on April 1.3, 1.982 approved the Specific Plan of John D. Drake/Howard Isom, for Canyon Park Estates. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of: Butte by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSENT: done ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk -Recorder and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of ASe . visors B y --- visors • 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65350, et. seq., public hearings were held before the Butte County Board of Supervisors on a proposed Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing the act, has been met, and the hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various County, local, and State agencies; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates, NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte in regular session assembled on Apri.l 13, 1982 makes the following findings on the matter: 1. That the Specific Plan is consistent with and will implement the general plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as designated with the proposed conditions, will mitigate the concerns enumerated in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as open space..• 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a County Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. 5. The Specific Plan with the conditions for circulation, access, water, and sewer services provided will implement the general plan and each of its elements and provide for the public safety. Bl.i L'I' FUIZTIIi:IZ IZIiSUL,V1iD t.haL al I. a.(Ivcrse env.i.ronmcnta.l. impacts have been mitigated by the Speci.I-ic Plan, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVFD that the Board of Supervisors, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Reso.luti.on implementing CEQA, revi.ewed. and considered the Draft EIR, in its evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan and certified the FIR as an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental. Qual.i.ty Act. NOW fIIEHFORF, BE .11' RESOLVED D that the Butte County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting held on April 1.3, 1.982 approved the Specific Plan of- John 1). Drake/Iloward. Isom, for Canyon Park Estates. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSENT: None A B STA I N E D:- None WIIE.t I,T:t', Cii airinan e County Board of Supc ry i so rs ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk -Recorder and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of S ervi.sors By --- • C7 Resolution A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65350, et. seq., public hearings were held before the Butte County Board of Supervisors on a proposed Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing the act, has been met, and the hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various County, local, and State agencies; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates, NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte in regular session assembled on Apri.l 13, 1982 makes the following findings on the matter: 1. That the Specific Plan is consistent with and will implement the general plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as designated with the proposed conditions, will mitigate the concerns enumerated in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as open space. 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a County Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. S. The Specific Plan with the conditions for circulation, access, water, and sewer services provided will implement the general plan and each of its elements and provide for the public safety. 1.31.: IT I'URTI ll:R IZIES01,VI:D t.IiaL al I ,Id VCI-SC cIIVi.rOIIHICIIt,II impacts have been mi.tigatcd by the Specific flan, BE IT FURTHER RESOL,VFiD that the Board of Supervisors, pursuant to the California. Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing CE(,)A, reviewed. and considered the Draft ETR, in its evaluation of the proposed Specific flan and certified the EIR as an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental. Quality Act. NOW, Ii -HEREFORE, BE • TT RESOLVED that the BUt.te County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting held on April 1.3, 1.982 approved the Specific Plan of- John 1). Drake/Iloward Isom, :for Canyon Park Estates. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of. Butte by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOES: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton A B S I. N'r : None ABSTAINED: None A 3WII1J'1.,1--.R, Uliatrman e County Board of Supervisors ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk -Recorder and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of S e.rvisors 13Y --- 1 jrni'.,;f'1�','): pFfq"".i:�"r�;r�?:�'1�",:n�,�!r;.t 1•" r'r- •.f;",1 �i�; l}; r:,. ;{t�",.r: .,lyrl:.f:'Y'�i:r'i�,7; 1•.r �,�;cyw'f!'`P �r' .r: .. ,gtrr',,. �f, 1rYt COUNTYqd`.:BUTTE STATE"OF. CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 82-63 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 65350 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65350, et. seq., public hearings were held before the Butte County Board of Supervisors on a proposed Specific Plan for John D. Drake/Howard Isom, Canyon Park Estates; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing the act, has been met, and the hereinafter listed matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various County, local, and State agencies; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report provided an adequate analysis for the Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates, NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte in regular session assembled on April 13, 1982 makes the following findings on the matter: 1. That the Specific Plan is consistent wiih and will implement the general plan. 2. The Specific Plan, as designated with the proposed conditions, will mitigate the concerns enumerated in the Environmental Impact Report. 3. The Specific Plan has left significant area in open space to be maintained as open space. 4. The Specific Plan provides for formation of a County Service Area for sanitary sewer maintenance. 5. The Specific Plan with the conditions for circulation, access, water, and sewer services provided will implement the general plan and each of its elements and provide for the public safety. 131: 11' FUIZTIII:IZ IU:SOI.,VIJ) LI►aL a.1 .1 a(IV el'se env. i.ronmcnLal impacts have been mitigated by the Specific Plan, BE IT PURTnER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Butte County Resolution implementing CEQA, reviewed and cons:idcred the Draft E1R, in its evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan and certified the FIR as an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW 1'I-II:IZEPORE, RE • 1T IZESOI.,VED that the Butte County Board of Supervisors at its regular meeting held on April 1.3, 1.982 approved the Specific Plan of John 1). Drake/Iloward Isom, :for Canyon Park Estates. ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of butte by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Moseley, Saraceni and Chairman Wheeler NOL:S: Supervisors Dolan and Fulton ABSI.NT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: CLARK A. NELSON, County Clerk -Recorder and Ex -officio Clerk of- the Board of S e.rvi.sors A 13Y --- I. visors � Y , eSuTTF• • • e e • e o e �ount'� SUSAN MINASIAN COUNTY COUNSEL OFFOE OF COUNTY COOSEL COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CENTER�,DRIVE ./ OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3380 / (916) 538-7621 / FAX (916) 538-7120 Jon Luvaas Attorney at Law P.O. Box 3276 Chico, California July.18, 1991 95927 NEIL H. MCCABE ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL DAVID M. MCCLAIN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL GREGORY R EINHORN CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL Re: Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al. Case No. 92207; Compliance With Peremptory Writ of Mandamus Dear Jon: - Thank you for your letter of July 11, 199.1 reminding us of the need to take action'to formally comply with the requirements of the writ of mandamus issued in the subject case. We have drafted the enclosed ordinance and resolution which we propose submitting to the Board of Supervisors for action in order to comply with the writ. However, in preparing the drafts we have become aware of certain questions which we feel should be considered first. These questions are discussed below. The stipulated judgment and the peremptory writ refer to vacation of Butte County Ordinance No. 2544, apparently in its entirety. However, said ordinance contains several separate and distinct sections. Section 1 of the ordinance enacted the provisions of the FR -1 zone which are applicable to properties subsequently zoned FR -1. Section 2 of the ordinance applied the FR -1 regulations to portions of the property involved in the instant litigation. Subsequently enacted ordinances have applied the provisions of the FR -1 zoning regulations to other properties in the County and have made other amendments to the FR -1 zoning regulations. Accordingly, it is our view that, in order to both comply with the requirements of the judgment and writ and to avoid causing havoc for other unrelated property owners, we should leave Section 1 of the ordinance intact and simply repeal Section 2. We have taken this approach in the enclosed draft. The repeal of the FR -1 zoning regulations as to the property in question raises the issue of what the zoning regulations then applicable to the property will be. Presumably, the zoning would revert to that which was in effect immediately prior to the rezone to FR -1, namely, the U and SH zoning regulations. Rather than leave any doubt on this question, our proposal is to i • • Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 2 specifically rezone the property U and SH, and our draft takes this approach. As of 1986, the U zone specified a five (5) acre minimum parcel size. Subsequently, a "blanket" change was made, increasing the minimum parcel size within all U zones to twenty (20) acres. Our position is that "reverting" to the U zone now will result in the imposition of the twenty (20) acre minimum parcel size. You will note that the legal description referred to in our proposed draft is based on the description of the property contained in Ordinance No. 2544, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. This description refers to certain lots on the tentative subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" Subdivision filed in the office of the Butte County Planning Department on June 10, 1986. It is our understanding that this subdivision map was never finalized and recorded. There is therefore some question regarding the propriety of referring to it for purposes of a legal description. However, we have no other description readily available. It is our understanding that the RC (resource conservation) zone will remain in place at this time as to certain portions of the property, as imposed by Section 3 of Ordinance 2544. It is also our understanding that there is a specific plan applicable to the property in question. which has not been repealed or superseded. The specific plan contemplated zoning following the configuration of the proposed subdivision. The existence and configuration of the resulting U, SH and RC zones, and the remaining Specific Plan may not make any sense from a zoning and land use point of view, now that the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision is defunct. In view of the above, it appears that, while we can comply with the judgment and writ, we will be leaving certain other matters unresolved. It will obviously be necessary for anyone seeking to develop this property in the future to seek rezoning in a configuration and zoning classification which makes sense. It will most likely also be necessary to amend the specific plan or adopt a new specific plan. Jon Luvaas July 18, 1991 Page 3 We would appreciate it if you and Mr. VanBuskirk would review and comment on these matters at your earliest convienence. Very truly yours, SUSAN MINASIAN Butte County Counsel BY Neil H. McCabe Assistant County Counsel NHM/slt (luvaas.ltr) cc: Ronald E. VanBuskirck, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro Bettye Kircher, Planning Director john Mendonsa, Assistant Director of Public Works (Land Development Section) Tom Reid, Environmental Health Department Enclosure 1 Ordinance No. 2 AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING, REVOKING AND REPEALING SECTION 2 3 OF BUTTE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2544, PERTAINING TO THE ZONING OF 4 PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION. 5 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as: 6 follows, pursuant to the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued on January- 2, 1991, by the Butte County Superior Court in Case No. 92207 entitled. 8 BUTTE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, ET AL.: 9 SECTION 1. SECTION 2 of Butte County Ordinance 2544, relating to the 10 zoning of an area described as "Canyon Park Estates II", is hereby - 11 rescinded, revoked and repealed. 12 SECTION 2. Section 24-111.5 (FR -1, Foothill Recreational Zone.) of 13 the Butte County Code shall remain in effect as written in Section 1 14 of Ordinance No. 2544 and subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 2749, 15 enacted 5-23-89; Ordinance No. 2768, enacted 7-18-89; and Ordinance 16 No. 2794, enacted 11-21-89. 1SECTION 3. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 18 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as U 19 (Unclassified) and shall be subject to the restrictions and 20 regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-195. 21 Said area so zoned is located in the unincorporated area of Butte 22 County, Chico, and is more particularly described as follows: `?3 Lots 1 through 106 as shown on the tentative 24 subdivision map for the "Canyon Park Estates II" subdivision filed in the office of Butte 25 County Planning Department, June 10, 1986, except that portion thereof which is within 26 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32. 27 SECTION 4. The hereinafter described area situate in the County of 28 Butte, State of California, shall be and it is hereby zoned as Sr I i I (Scenic Highway) and shall be subject to the restrictions and, 9 regulations pursuant to Butte County Code Section 24-156. 3 Said area so zoned is located in the unincorporated area of Butte! 4 County, Chico, and is more particularly described as follows: i 5 All that poortion of Lots 1 through 106 as shown on the tentative subdivision map for the 6 "Canyon Park Estates II" subdivision filed in i the office of the Butte County. Planning 7 Department, June 10, 1986, which is within 350 feet of the centerline of State Highway 32. 8 9 SECTION 5. Severability. If any part of this ordinance shall be held! 10 void by a court of competent jurisdiction, such part shall be deemed' 11 severable, and the invalidity thereof shall not affect the remaining, 12 Parts of this ordinance. 13 SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be and it is hereby declared to be in 14 full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after the date. 15 of its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after 15 its passage, this Ordinance shall be published once with the names of 17 the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for and against it in 18 the a newspaper published in the County of 19 Butte, State of California. 20 PASSED AND ADOPTED. by the Board of Supervisors of the County of 21 Butte, State of California, on the day of 22 1991, by the following vote: 23 AYES: 24 NOES: 25 ABSENT: 28 NOT VOTING: 27 JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 `_'7 28 C] ATTEST: WILLIAM H. RANDOLPH, Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By (2544.ord) • � �j1r �� i � r� �?� ,,,W'.ip i -k .� �,i ..:�:; r""•i.; r .;> . .. �.�) .': •..:�.' ..::, �,. ,.:�� + -v.,y i� y� �r1 �+ �,q_ r ..:*1; .;+' ?if y COUNTY. OF `BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA .. ,. ffft Resolution No. 91- A RESOLUTION TO. RESCIND RESOLUTION NO. 86-104, AND TO RESCIND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT RELATING TO RECLASSIFICATION OF ZONING OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS CANYON PARK ESTATES II SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, a "Stipulated Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus" was entered into by the parties in the action entitled Butte Environmental Council v. County of Butte, et al., Case No. 92207, and filed January 2, 1991 (see Attachment A); and WHEREAS,,the PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS issued by the Butte Superior Court in Case No. 92207 commands the Butte County Board of Supervisors to rescind and revoke its approval of Resolution No. 86-104. (see Attachment B) NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte hereby rescinds and revokes its approval of Resolution No. 86-104 previously adopted August 5, 1986 and repeals said Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors rescinds and revokes its approval of that certain Agreement dated August 5, 1986, attached to Resolution No. 86-104, and pertaining to the conditional zoning of the property described therein as the Canyon Park Estates II Subdivision. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Butte County Board of Supervisors this the following, vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: NOT VOTING: ATTEST: day of WILLIAM RANDOLPH Chief Administrative Officer and Clerk of the Board By , 19 , by JANE DOLAN, Chair of the Butte County Board of Supervisors 0 6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 88- 103 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF BUTTE VACATING APPROVAL OF THE CANYON PARK ESTATES TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP WHEREAS, on June .3, 1988, the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Butte issued and entered a Supplemental Writ of Mandate and Supplemental Judgment in Friends of the Foothills v. County of Butte, Case No. 80050, which Supplemental Writ and Judgment are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, said Supplemental Writ and Judgment direct the County of Butte and the Butte County Board of Supervisors to set aside approval of the Canyon Park Estates Tentative Subdivision Map (also known as Quail Canyon Park Estates Tentative Subdivision Map), previously approved on December 21, 1982, on the grounds set forth in the said Supplemental Judgment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, as directed by the Superior Court of the State of California,. hereby vacates approval of the Canyon Park Estates Tentative Subdivision Map (also known as Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision Map), previously approved on December 21, 1982. PASSED, APPROVED AND ti1-)vr1r"J Uy Ll=��- Supervisors, County of Butte, State of California, this 28th day. of June, 1988, by the following votes: AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Fulton, McLaughlin and Chairman Mclnturf NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Vercruse ABSTAINED: None iigSKEL �A.McINTURF, Chai n, Butte County Board of S ervisors ATTEST: Chief AdministrKtive Officer and Clerk of the Board BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, August 12, 1993, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Canyon Park Estates II - application to rescind..a Specific Plan on property zoned "U" (Unclassified), located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified as AP 063-300- 017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. (TL) (File 93-21) The above mentioned application, map and Negative Declaration are on file and available for .public viewing .at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PAULA S. LEASURE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, July 8, 1993. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given by the Butte County Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, August 12, 1993, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the following item at the following time: ITEM NOT SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 9:00 a.m. - Butte County Board of Supervisors - Canyon Park Estates II - application to rescind a Specific Plan on property zoned "U" (Unclassified), located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified as AP 063-300- 017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. (TL) (File 93-21) The above mentioned application, map and Negative Declaration are on file and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. If you challenge the above applications in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PAULA S. LEASURE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, July 8, 1993. 1j FILE NO.: 93-21 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 17, 1993 APPLICANT: OWNER: REQUEST: AP NO.. SIZE: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: ZONING HISTORY: SURROUNDING ZONING: SURROUNDING LAND USE: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: 1 Butte County Board of Supervisors Various To rescind a Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates II AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011- 040-004 and 023. Approximately 1,200 acres. East of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, 5 miles east of Chico. "U" (Unclassified) Zoned FR -1/R -C Aug. 5, 1986 by Ord. 2544; Ord. 2544 was revoked and repealed in order to comply with a court order. The zoning reverted back to the "U" zoning in 1992. "U" and A-160 Vacant and some scattered single-family residences. Grazing and Open Lands, Ag. Residential Government Code Section 65450 et. seq. and Butte County Code Sections 24-23.80 and 24- 26, 27, 28. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS - June 17, 1993 BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the subject property: A Rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map were subsequently approved. The County was then sued and spent approximately 5 years in court. The County lost the suit and was required to rescind the rezone and subdivision. The Specific Plan was .inadvertently left out of the litigation. Therefore, in order to fully comply with past litigation, it is necessary to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available since the courts have taken all the County's files. The Board of Supervisors, on May 11, 1993, directed staff to initiate proceedings to rescind the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As a result of negotiation between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and Planning Staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies. Section 65453(b) of the Government Code Requires that Specific Plans be repealed in the same manner as it is amended. Therefore, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution to rescind the Specific Plan. Since this action does not have a 'potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately it is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Find that the requested action is not considered a project under the provisions of CEQA; and B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution rescinding the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan on AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023. TL:lr Attachments to Commission and Cities: Exhibit Map Jan 15, 1992 memo from County Counsel May 4, 1993 memo to Board of Supervisors Resolutin 82-63. 2 Butte County Planning Department CANYON PARK ESTATES Specific Plan Area BUTTE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM 'U Y 44 O O o� �o 4 ahs h�'�\\� �h��h�';v;; ';Q;.x •.;�\4\ �?�':*': ��p\i\ 1, *hti•�� \ \, v; \hti?, ,+:>�;; •'.»•:::;:::'•�+.,h's�. ;>.:;.;,:: �\h\h��: 's Humbo\4\ o� �o 0 10 0 d No R ffatte, Count DIRECTOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE: (916) 538-7601 MEMORANDUM FAX: (916) 538-7785 TO: Butte County Board of Supervisors FROM: Bill Farrel, Director of Development Services Thomas Last, Senior Planner REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION: Butte County Board of Supervisors - (Item not subject to CEQA) To rescind a Specific Plan for Canyon Park Estates II on property zoned "U" (Unclassified) located east of Highway 32, at Humboldt Road intersection, identified as AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158, and 011-040-004 and 023, 5 miles east of Chico. Staff recommends the Board concur with the Planning Commission and approve the cancellation of the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On April 13, 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved a Specific Plan and certified an Environmental Impact Report for the subject property. A Rezone and Tentative Subdivision Map were subsequently approved. The County was then sued and spent approximately 5 years in court. The County lost the suit and was required to rescind the rezone and subdivision. The Specific Plan was inadvertently left out of the litigation. Therefore, in order to fully comply with past litigation, it is necessary to rescind the Specific Plan. Virtually no background information is available since the courts have taken all the County's files. The Board of Supervisors, on May 11, 1993, directed staff to initiate proceedings to rescind the Specific Plan. ANALYSIS: As a result of negotiation between the County, the property owners and the litigants, County Counsel and' Planning Staff have agreed that the Specific Plan needs to be rescinded since it is no longer representative of the General Plan or zoning goals and policies. Section 65453(b) of the Government, Code Requires that Specific Plans be repealed in the same manner as it is amended. Therefore, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and adopted a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution to rescind the Specific Plan.. Since this action does not have a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately it is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS• A. Find that the requested action is not considered a project under the provisions of CEQA; and B. Adopt a Resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt a Resolution rescinding the Canyon Park Estates II Specific Plan on AP 063-300-017, 154, 156, 157, 158 and 011-040-004, 023. /ti • • L: 063 300 017 5300 STATUS: ACTIVE ISOM HOWARD W ETAL P 0 BOX 821 L; 063 290 017 1300 STATUS: ACTIVE CH I CO 1' CA 95927 DRAKE .JOHN D ETAL TC L; 063 3500 025 000 STATUS: ACTIVE P 0 BOX 144+3 DOE MILL VINEYARDS CHICO CA 95927 PETERSEN PAUL W .319 B MAIN STREET L: 063 290 ORO 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO CA 95925 BAIN ROBERT M s: WINIFRED A TRS 1426 DOWNING AVE_ L; 06.3 300 00e 000 STATUS: ACTIVE i=HICO CA 95926 WESTCOTT YOLANDA SILVA L; O i i 040 006 000 STATUS: ACTIVE 572 RIO LINDO AVE STE 107 MELINE STEPHEN IV ETAL CHICO CA 95926 RABO FRED 1004.5 MIDWAY _: 063 300 057 000 STATUS; ACTIVE DURHAM CA 95938 HARRIS MICHAEL A a JANET L: 063 3Q 026 000 STATUS: ACTIVE 1601 THE ESPLANADE #48 NEIBERT LIVING TRUST CHICO CA 95926 C/O RIVER CITY FINANCIAL P 0 BOX 1160 L: 063 300 156 5100 STATUS: ACTIVE FOLSOM CA 95763 SOMERVILLE JAMES M SS L; 063 310 028 5300 STATUS: ACTIVE P O BOX 1772 BIDWELL HEIGHTS LAND CO PLEASANTON CA 94566 P 0 BOX 3040 L; 063 290 5311 000 STATUS: ACTIVE CHICO CA 95927 U S A 7-7-- 3 3 COUNTY OF BUTTE OFFICE OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE o� o�ov'4 j U.S.POSTAGE JUL-1193 ;e' ' 0.24a. Planning Department d� C A 5828744 t�ifiF'•i :��•�IL�..E f•ta . �S�f�l i�?—c�1--53� l:y �.��...,-. J U L 0 6 9993 L a 063 310 02 BIDWELL HEIGH t EsOX 3,140 CHICO 092. 000 STATUS: ACT I Vf E