HomeMy WebLinkAbout047-740-009The recommendation of County staff is indicated below. It is only a recommendation and has not yet been considered ` v�
by the Planning Commission. Copies of the Staff Report are available at the Planning Division Office
A. ZCA 03-01— continued open from January 23, 2003
Butte County Board of Supervisors, Item determined to be categorically exempt
from environmental review), Zoning Code Amendment to amend Section 24 of the
Butte County Code (Zoning Ordinance) by adding a requirement of a Use Permit for
the conversion or abandonment of any existing use to a fishery, wildlife preserve, or
other conservation purpose, County -wide. (CS) (ZCA 03-01)
B. VAR 03-01— continued open from January 9, 2003
Stephen J. Schuster, (Item deteined to be categorically exempt from
environmental review), Variance to a, w building coverage on a parcel to be 24%.
The North Chico Specific Plan allows a maximum building coverage of 15% of the
lot area. The property is zoned SR -1 (Suburban Residential 1 acre parcels) and is
located on the north side of Lindbergh Circle, approximately 1,100 feet north of
Guntren Road, Chico area. APN 047-740-009 (SB)
C. UP 03-06 - staff recommends approval
California Water Service Company, proposed Negative Declaration with
mitigation measures regarding environmental impacts and Use Permit to install a
500,000 gallon, 57 -foot diameter, 25 -foot tall water storage tank at an existing water
pumping/storage facility. The proposed tank would have the same dimensions as the
existing tank, and would be situated approximately 27 feet northeast of the existing tank.
The existing tank is painted an off-white color, and the proposed tank would be the same
color. Approximately half of the area that the tank would be located on is already level,
with the other half needing to be graded level. The property is zoned "U" (Unclassified)
and is located on the north side of Shadybrook Lane, approximately 425 feet north of the
intersection with Canyon Oaks Terrace, at 3252 Shadybrook Lane, California Park area,
Chico. APN 011-030-064 (SB)
VIII. GENERAL BUSINESS This section of the agenda is to be utilized by the Planning Commission and
Director of Development Services on items of interest, general discussion, or items for which staff has been directed to
do research and bring back to the Commission. Items A, B, & C may not always be addressed at every hearing, but will
always be listed as part of the agenda.
A. Directors' Report
B. General Plan/Zoning Ordinance Update
C. Legislative Case Law update
D. Planning Commission Concerns
IX. COMMUNICATIONS: Communications received and referred. (Copies of all communications are
available in the Planning Division Office.)
■ BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ■ AGENDA ■ FEBRUARY 13, 2003, ■ PAGE 2 ■
110
INTER -DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF BUTTE COUNTY COUNSEL
TO: Airport Land Use Commission
FROM: Robert W. MacKenzie, Chief Deputy County Counsel
SUBJECT: Recent Changes to Proposed Chapter 24 Amendment Requiring
Permits for Conversion or Restoration for Conservation
Purposes
DATE: Feb 14, 2003
Introduction
The above proposed ordinance has been prepared pursuant to directions given by the Board of
Supervisors to the County Counsel. The proposed ordinance was initially submitted to your
Commission for your consideration at your meeting of December 12, 2002.
The proposed ordinance amends the zoning ordinance to require a use permit for the conversion of
existing land uses, or the restoration of the habitat thereon, for conservation purposes. The title of
the ordinance has been changed to "Ordinance Requiring Use Permit For Conversion, Enhancement
or Restoration of Land for Conservation Purposes."
On January 23, we informed your Commission that staff from the Department of Development
Services Department and the County Counsel's Office had met with concerned citizens to discuss
their concerns and that we would revise the ordinance to address those concerns, as well as to reflect
evidence which was presented to your Commission. We have amended the ordinance, both inserting
new sections into it and revising other sections. All of the changes which have been made since your
last meeting are reflected through the use of underlining and strikeouts. Section 1 of the ordinance
has been essentially redrafted. Sections 3, 4 and 7 are new to the ordinance. Sections 2, 5 and 6
have been amended through both the deletion of specified language and the addition of new
language.
Discussion
On January 23, 2003, evidence was presented to your Commission, both in writing and orally, which
indicates that within the last ten years, the number of acres of permanently designated natural habitat
within the County have dramatically increased. Further, The Board has been informed that various
federal and California State agencies and other entities presently have plans to continue to increase
the amount of land permanently designated as natural habitat within the County.
Other evidence presented to your Commission indicates that the potential for environmental impacts
9 generated by some such properties goes far beyond those which interfere with agricultural
production, such as the spread of. exotic vegetation, larger -than -normal crop predation, property
damage and a diminution in the ability to control pests through accepted agricultural practices.
Other potential impacts to neighboring properties may include uncontrolled spread of fires and the
spread of serious diseases by competent disease -carrying vectors, including but not limited to
mosquitoes.
In many cases, when property is transferred to a government agency or a private entity, association or
person engaged in or facilitating conversions for conservation purposes, or a conservation easement
or similar deed restriction which limits the use of property to those uses consistent with such a
conversion is recorded, the income-producing potential of such property is lost or diminished. If the
income-producing potential of such property is lost or diminished, the ability and/or willingness of
the owners of such property to pay the costs of future impacts may also diminish. Thus, the burden
of funding future impact mitigation would likely shift to taxpayers unless such funding is considered
and provided for in connection with the transfer of the property and/or the recordation of the
easement or restriction..
Finally, testimony at your .last meeting on January 23rd indicated that entities engaged in or
facilitating land conversions for conservation purposes offer property owners financial incentives to
convert land for conservation purposes. A concern was expressed that the amount which is adequate
to fund future impact mitigation should be considered simultaneously with such offers, not at a later
date.
In view of the above, our office has drafted a more detailed statement of legislative findings and
intent in Section 1 of the proposed ordinance, setting forth the above concerns and how the proposed
ordinance will address them.
While the proposed ordinance has been under consideration by your Commission, County Counsel
and Development Services staff have met with concerned members of the public to discuss their
concerns. Several different concerns have been articulated during meetings and our office has also
drafted amendments to the ordinance to address these concerns.
Concerns have expressed by members of the public that regulation of land uses by the California
Reclamation Board and the County, pursuant to the Flood Hazard Prevention and Special Levee
Permit Zone II provisions of Chapter 26 would overlap with the regulations proposed in the Chapter
24 ordinance and create a "double permit process." Our office has inserted a new provision into the
ordinance (Section 4) which exempts those who comply with Reclamation Board or County Chapter
26 permit conditions from readdressing the impacts those conditions eliminate or mitigate in the
Chapter 24 permit process.
Concerns have been expressed by members of the public that it is not necessary to impose a use
permit requirement on every conversion proposed, because land uses resulting from some
conversions would not impose significant environmental impacts on neighboring properties. The
current draft of the ordinance responds to this concern in (new) Section 3 by setting forth an initial
review process for evaluating the scope and severity.of impacts which are reasonably foreseeable to
result from a proposed conversion of an existing use to a habitat use.
The initial review process would incorporate impact severity criteria, which would be utilized in the
development of an objective impact scoring system. Each individual proposed conversion project
would be placed into one of three categories, pursuant to its "score". Depending on which of the
2
three categories the proposed conversion project is placed into, the proposed conversion project
would be subject to the administrative permit, the minor use permit or the use permit procedure.
Members of the public have requested that County staff narrow the scope of the ordinance, so that it
does not regulate certain landowners, for example, farmers who periodically fallow a portion of their
land or landowners who simply wish to allow all or a portion of their land to go back to nature,
without the intent to convert such property from an existing use to a conservation use and absent
action taken to enhance or restore habitat thereon. Our office has narrowed the scope of the
ordinance by removing the "abandonment of an existing use" as an event which triggers the permit
requirement in Sections 2, 5 and 6 of the ordinance. Further, (new) Section 7 of the ordinance,
which defines "Conversion for Conservation Purposes" specifically exempts fallowing, enhancement
or conservation of land for agricultural purposes.
Finally, (new) Section 7 of the ordinance now sets forth objective indicators that a conversion of land
for conservation purposes is contemplated or has occurred, which include pending, proposed or
completed transfers of ownership of property to a government agency or a private entity, association
or person engaged in facilitating conversion for conservation purposes and/or pending, proposed or
completed recordations of conservation easements or similar deed restrictions which limit the use of
a parcel or parcels to those uses which are consistent with such a conversion. It is the above events
which eliminate or diminish a property's income-producing potential, thereby creating a reasonable
probability that the property owner's ability or willingness to fund the cost of future environmental
impacts emanating from the property may also diminish.
Adoption of the Proposed Ordinance would be Consistent with the General Plan.
As we previously informed you and explained in a memorandum included in the agenda packet for
your Commission's December 12, 2002 meeting, adoption of the proposed ordinance would be
consistent with provisions of the County's General Plan. Since that time however, the ordinance has
been amended to address a wider variety of environmental impacts, based on evidence presented to
your Commission that the potential for impacts generated by properties converted for conservation
purposes goes far beyond those which interfere with agricultural production and may include such
impacts as the uncontrolled spread of fires and the spread of serious diseases by competent disease -
carrying vectors, including but not limited to mosquitoes. Such amendments include the addition of
the word "enhancement" to the definition of "Conversion for Conservation Purposes" in Section 7
and the initial review process in Section 3 for evaluating the scope and severity of impacts which are
reasonably foreseeable.to.result from a proposed conversion of an existing use to a habitat use.
Section 1.1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is entitled "General Welfare." Policy 1.1a
of that section provides that: "[The County should] Provide for the Health, safety and well-being of
the County's present and future residents." The word "enhancement" has been added to the
definition of "Conversion for Conservation Purposes" in Section 7 of the ordinance specifically to
address environmental impacts such as an increased risk of the spread of serious diseases by
competent disease -carrying vectors, including but not limited to mosquitoes.
Your Commission was informed by representatives of the Butte County Mosquito Abatement
District at your January 23, 2003 meeting that such an increased risk to County residents has resulted
directly from the fairly recently begun practice of enhancement of wetland preserves through
periodic summer flooding within the County. The addition of the word "enhancement" to definition
of "Conversion for Conservation Purposes" in Section 7 the ordinance is consistent with Policy 1.1a
above, as it is intended to protect the health, safety and well-being of County residents by requiring
3
those whom propose to enhance wetland habitat within the County to obtain a permit prior to doing
SO.
Section 1.6 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan is entitled "Intergovernmental
Coordination." Policy 1.6a of that section provides that: "[The County should] Attempt to
coordinate government plans and programs so that they are mutually supportive." New Section 3 of
the ordinance provides, in pertinent part:
The Planning Manager shall develop an initial review process for evaluating .the
scope and severity of environmental impacts which are reasonably foreseeable to
result from a proposed Conversion for Conservation Purposes. As part of the initial
review process, the Planning Manager shall consult with other. agencies and County
departments as necessary, to develop impact severity criteria, which will be utilized
in the development of an objective impact scoring system.
Section 3 would require that the Planning Manager coordinate efforts to evaluate environmental
impacts which are reasonably foreseeable to result from a proposed conversion for conservation
purposes with other agencies and County departments as necessary. This requirement furthers Policy
1.6a, as it contemplates a multi -agency and. department review team which would be required to
evaluate and address the potential for environmental impacts such as, for example, the potential for
the uncontrolled spread of wildfires from properties converted for conservation purposes to
neighboring properties. Such a coordinated team review process would further the "coordination"
and "mutually supportive" mandates of Policy 1.6a.
None of the amendments made to the ordinance since our last staff report to you on December 4,
2002 have changed our opinion that adoption of the ordinance would be consistent with the General
Plan for the reasons articulated in that last report. In fact, changes made to the ordinance since your
last meeting support additional reasons to conclude that adoption of the ordinance would be
consistent with the General Plan.
Conclusion
The proposed ordinance has been amended to address evidence presented to you and concerns
expressed by members of the public. As we previously informed you and explained in a
memorandum included in the agenda packet for your Commission's December 12, 2002 meeting,
adoption of the proposed ordinance would be consistent with significant provisions of the County's
General Plan. Our opinion in this regard has not changed. Further, adoption of the above described
ordinance would still be exempt from CEQA review pursuant to a categorical exemption as set forth
in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15308, for the reasons set forth in our last report to you.
Action Recommended
The following actions are recommended regarding the subject ordinance: 1. Find that the proposed
ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. 2. Find that adoption of the proposed ordinance is
exempt from CEQA pursuant to a categorical exemption as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section
15308. 3. Recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.
I hope this memorandum has been informative and helpful. Please call or email me if you have
concerns, questions or wish to discuss this matter further.
rd
{
r
cc: Paul McIntosh
Yvonne Christopher
Marion Reeves
Note: Sent under the previous memo to Planning Commission dated 2/5/02
GAROMplanning commissionlwpd
CITYorCHICO
INC.1872
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
PLAP41YING
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 3420
Chico, CA 95927
(530) 895-4851
FAX (530) 895-4726 January 31, 2003
ATSS 459-4851
Butte County Airport Land Use -Commission
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Re: 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Dear Commissioners:
As I discussed in my recent update concerning Chico's efforts to conform its General Plan and
zoning to the 2000 Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), we are now at a point at
which we need to resolve any remaining issues in order to complete this process. You will recall
that the City has expressed strong reservations about the potential loss of significant housing in
connection with the ALUCP's B(1) compatibility zoning of the properties north of Eaton Road
(owned by Greg Webb). This is a particularly crucial issue in view of Chico's future housing
allocation as recently approved by the Butte County Association of Governments. Where these
properties could potentially provide 550 to 920 needed residential units consistent with its
current General Plan designation, the B(1) compatibility zone would limit them to a total of 11.
A further complication is that State law prohibits the downzoning of properties, that can
accommodate residential development where there is no corresponding upzoning of other
properties.
I would appreciate it if you would schedule a discussion of this matter on your February agenda.
Maps showing several conceptual alternatives are attached for your consideration, and I hope we
can explore whether your Commission can support any alternative development of the property
other than the current B(1) compatibility zone would allow. I hasten to add that the owner of the
property is not necessarily in agreement with any of these alternatives.
I will bring larger, maps to the meeting to assist in our discussion. Combinations of zoning other
than those I have attached are certainly possible; if it appears that any of these or any other
alternatives could be supported by your Commission, I can then prepare a more detailed map for
your further review. Thank you for your consideration of this request.-
Respectfully,
equest:
Respectfully,
Kim Seidler
Planning Director
g�� Made From Recycled Paper
Letter to ALUC
January 31, 2003
Page 2
Attachments: 1. Alternative #1: Community Commercial (CC) and residential (R1 and R3)
zoning
2. Alternative #2: Commercial Commercial (CC) and residential zoning (R3)
+ • with open space
3. Alternative #3: Office Residential (OR), neighborhood commercial (Cl), and
residential (RI and R3) zoning
4. Alternative #4: Light industrial (NII.,) and industrial park (MP) zoning
5. Alternative #5: Residential zoning (R1 and R3) with open space near creek
6. Alternative #6: Residential (RI and R3) zoning with central linear open space
(no obstructions)
7. Current zoning
cc: CM, ACM, AM, CDD
Greg Webb
R
� z
Zvi
a'[..
z
7
app.
a� r:
Zvi
'.�
Y•}r i:,�'t Y ..
�Sd {^t R. • ! 1'x .
,ti _
F .. y,{_tet
.-�
a '
r ar! .ra rk�a .v �1e{..-ryY^`'g '_�r_:.7 +. .a �s c,\.y
� ,I .'r`�-y`se,
-
+
1� i'q '��rµ•
a
Ly i�' -, i_
_'�} •. p. ,.� kt n
.fix ;
1.�u 4 -
I
� t �_ N� ..
1 •� ,�
ixo
'
��-Y k-
z.
.
�
.- � moi'
�
-y
CD
S,
r5•
��.j t y
r. N! _ 4Fr " -3;t va
Oji i .
'..
k
�'�} i LLQ S •$
4 ` �• s +�° � �-
"
r
-
, - -
?
,;
�
1 Al
i'" 1 •1-
.a
� 4 .i _ �.�,
..�i, �
•
� � ` � •r.
x+1,1 a
, : iy �
• �
,}
,
`lit 4
- ", } .. � � �,,
c
_
r: `.A
.. .� -'
-=
rt
Nr�i r�4 - � 4 a
_ a•.
'i.
.,� K 1'
�
,T
95
�Y r � �h _JI
r
4 1 1
• �
N
r
.fir
� ,�
��
w -ti( °s5
�
•- i
�, � -iia
��.. -
l . .. + • �` 5�
` .
,r
'� r
k
1
{rte 'Yi ' -
`-a- -
•
-
- i
..
"; � '�
-�
,. .,
�
�
'
r
f
�
14
y
La
X
i
l � 1
y �
\ V ESR M Y
CSE 1p
I
CV2
T
YJ.
LO
�#
O
O
� rte'
t
C)l
Y5
l � 1
y �
\ V ESR M Y
CSE 1p
•
� rte'
t
u
l � 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
27
28
Ordinance No.
ORDINANCE REQUIRING USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OR
RESTORATION OF LAND FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES
he Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte ordains as follows:
ection 1. e Legislative Findings and Intent:
i
The Board of Supervisors finds that th
otential' for environmental impacts caused by the conversion o
existing land uses for conservation purposes may include but ar
of limited to the uncontrolled spread of fires, the spread o
serious diseases by competent disease -carrying vectors, includin
out not limited to mosquitoes, and the spread of exotic plan
ecies, predation of crops by wildlife, property damage and
iminution in the ability to control pests through acce to
agricultural practices. Such impacts have the potential to har
eo le, property and the environment within the unincor orated are
f the County. Mitigation of such impacts over the long term ar
likely to evolve into a significant financial burden for Count
government and taxpayers. Within the last ten years, the number o
acres of permanently designated natural habitat within the Count
lave dramatically increased. Further, it is apparent that variou
ederal and California State agencies and other entities resentl
ave plans to continue to increase the amount of land permanentl
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
w 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lesignat ed as natural habitat within the County.
In many cases, when property is transferred to a government agenc
Dr a private entity, association or person engaged in o
acilitating conversions for conservation purposes, or
conservation easement or similar deed restriction which limits th
se of property to those uses consistent with such a conversion i
ecorded, the income-producing potential of such property is los
r diminished. If the income-producing potential of such propert
s lost or diminished, the ability and/or willingness of the owner
f such property to pay the costs of future impacts may diminish
hus, the burden of funding future impact mitigation would likel
hift to taxpayers unless such funding is considered and providec
or in connection with the transfer of the property and/or th
recordation of the easement or restriction. Public or rivat
entities engaged in or facilitating land conversions fo
conservation purposes offer property owners financial incentives t
onvert land for conservation purposes and impact mitigatio
unding should be considered in connection with such offers.
t is the board's intent to ensure that future impact mitigation b
unded by the owners of the properties from which such im act
manate, rather than County taxpayers. A regulatory process whic
valuates foreseeable future impacts will facilitate informe
choices by propertyowners or potential property owners proposinc
and conversions for conservation Purposes and will ensure adequat
County oversight. In addition, a regulatory process which require
Ihose proposing conversions for conservation purposes to ensur
ver the long term that ade uate funds will be available t
2
' 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
28
F•
liminate or mitigate foreseeable future impacts such as those se
orth above is necessary to protect the health, safety and genera
elfare of the residents of the County. The purpose of thi
rdinance is to provide such a regulatory process..
Section 2. Section 24-291, entitled "Conversion ei• �eejft�rat=i-en fo
-onservation Purposes" added to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", o
:he Butte County Code. Section 24-291 is added to the Butte Count
-ode to read as follows:
"Section' 24-291: Conversion e3• r-ester-atien for
Conservation Purposes. A use permit shall be required in
all zones for the—oenvereien e£ any -existing use of
=-crx=rd, ei' ceTest6ra-ti-en- ef the habitat czzcrcvr€e�
f ishei-ies and wildlife ei ether Conservation
Purposes, ,
p1-ant=ing-er remeval—e -A buffer shall be
required to protect existing agricultural uses on
adjacent land and to ensure that normal, necessary farm
operations- may continue thereon. The buffer shall
normally be 300 feet between the'use established pursuant
to the use permit and the agricultural use, but it may be
adjusted to address unusual circumstances or features on
the land, such as topographic features, substantial tree
stands, water courses, or similarly defined features.
Agricultural uses may be permitted in the buffer area.•
The buffer, shall be located totally on the land subject
to the use permit."
3
1
2
3
ection 3. Section 24-292, entitled "Initial' Review Process
iered Permit System for Conversions for Conservation Purposes'
4 Ldded to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", of the Butte County Code
5 lection 24-292 is added to the Butte County Code to read
6 IEollows:
7 Section 24-292. Initial review process - tiered permit
8 system for Conversions for Conservation Purposes
9 [he Planning Manager shall develop an initial review process
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for evaluating the scope and severity of impacts
which are reasonably foreseeable to result from a
proposed Conversion for Conservation Purposes. As
part of the initial review process, the Planning
Manager shall consult with other agencies and County
departments as necessary, to develop impact severity
criteria, which will be utilized in the development
of an objective impact scoring system. When a use
permit is applied for pursuant to section 24-291,
24-90(c)(8), or 24-220(b)(7), the Planning Manager
shall employ the objective impact scoring system to
place each individual proposed conversion project
into one of three categories. Depending upon which
of the three categories the Planning Manager places
the proposed Conversion project into as a result of
the point score received by the proposed project,
the proposed Conversion project may be subject to
the procedure specified in Section 24-40 (b)
4
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
28
(administrative permit procedure), or the procedure
specified in Section 24-41(b) - (e) (minor use
permit procedure), in lieu of the procedure
specified in Sections 24-45 - 24-45.65 (use permit
procedure).
Section 4. Section 24-293, entitled "Exemption for im act
addressed in other specified regulatoryprocesses" added to Chapte
4, entitled "Zoning", of the Butte County Code. Section 24-293 i
I-dded to the Butte County Code to read as follows:
Section 24-293. Exemption for impacts addressed in other
specified regulatory processes.
An aoDlicant for a use hermit for a Conversion for
Conservation Purposes pursuant to Section 24-291,
24-90 (c) (8) , or 24-220 (b) (7) shall not be required
to mitigate impacts already mitigated through permit
conditions imposed pursuant to a regulatory .process
administered by the California Reclamation Board or
a regulatory process administered by the County,
pursuant to the Flood Hazard Prevention and/or the
Special Levee Permit Zone II provisions of Butte
County Code Chapter 26.
Section 5.• Subsection (c), entitled "Uses requiring use permits"
Df Section 24-90, entitled "A-5 through A-160 (Agricultural Zones)
Df Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning", amended by adding subparagrar
(8). Subsection (c) of Section 24-90 of the Butte County Code i
5
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
28
ed by adding subparagraph (8) thereto, to read as follows:
Section 24-90(c). Uses requiring use permits. The followin
uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
(1) Public or quasipublic uses.
(2) Public tasting rooms in conjunction with a winery
provided that such tasting room be considered accessor
to the on-site winery.
(3) Kennels, feed stores; ,public or riding stables, an
academies.
(4) Outdoor commercial recreational facilities on site
not less than five (5) acres.
(5) Wood lots and wood processing plants selling an
processing wood not grown on site. Mining and commercia
excavation requiring a mining permit and reclamation pla
pursuant to chapter 13 of the Butte County Code.
(6) Private airports or air strips that are not accessor
to an agricultural use.
.(7) The segregation of a homesite pursuant to section 24
285, the segregation of an agricultural processing sit
pursuant to section 24-290.
(84isheries and wildlife habitat preserves, ineiiidin
Conversion for Conservation Purposes'. A buffer shall bE
6
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
28
required to protect existing agricultural uses o.
adjacent land and to. ensure that normal, necessary far
operations may continue thereon. The buffer shal
normally be 300 feet between the use established pursuan
to the use permit and the agricultural use, but it ma
be adjusted to address unusual circumstances. or feature
on the land, such as topographic features, substantia
tree stands, water courses, or similarly define
features. Agricultural uses may be permitted in th
buffer area. The buffer shall be located totally on th
land subject to the use permit."
Section 6. Subsection (b), entitled "Uses requiring a use permit"
Df Section 24-220, entitled "R -C (Resource Conservation) Zone"
mended by adding subparagraph (7) thereto. Subsection (b) o
Section 24-220 of the Butte County Code is amended to read a
ollows:
"Section 24-220 (b). Uses requiring.a use permit.
(1) Preserves for nonnative wildlife species.
(2) Establishment of rest stops, vista points, an
bicycle, pedestrian and equestrian trails, not includin
commercial sales and services.
(3) Exploration and reconstruction of historical an
archaeological sites and structures.
(4) Permanent improvements needed for the protection o
land and resources from fire, erosion, floods, slides
'quakes, insects, diseases and pollution.
(5) Stations to monitor air_ quality, water quality an
7
I seismic activities.
2 (6) Mining and quarrying. This permit does not excludE
3 any other permits as required by other regulator
4 agencies or from review by said agencies.
5 (7) The-eego=ersien of any existing lase of thland, ei
6 the—riteratien ef the habitat thereen, €eifisheries-
7
isner=s7 wildlife preserves er- ether —e rvatien purpeses, —b�,
8 abandening the eiEisting use, grading,
9 e Conversion for Conservation Purposes. I
10 buffer shall be required to protect existing agricultural
11 uses on adjacent land and to ensure that normal,
12 necessary farm operations may continue thereon. ThE
13 buffer shall normally -be 300 feet between the USE
14 established pursuant to the use permit and the
15 agricultural use, but it may be adjusted to address
16 unusual circumstances or features on the land, such a:
17 topographic features, substantial tree stands, wate7
18 courses, or similarly defined features. Agricultural
19 uses may be permitted in the buffer area. The buffet
20 shall be located totally on the land subject to the USE
21 permit."
22
23 ection 7. Section 24-305.098.1, entitled "Conversion fol
24 onservation Purposes", is added to Chapter 24, entitled "Zoning",
25 If the Butte County Code. New definition section 24-305.098.1 i;
26 dded to the Butte County code to read as follows:
27 "Section 24-305.098.1. Conversion for Conservation Purposes.
28
8
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
28
(a). The conversion of any existing use of the
land, or the enhancement and/or restoration of
native habitat thereon, for plant, fisheries,
wildlife and/or habitat preserves, or for other
conservation purposes. Such conversion includes,
but is not limited to related activities such as
flooding, grading, planting, and/or the removal of
vegetation, but does not include the fallowing,
enhancement or conservation of land for agricultural
purposes. . (b). Actions including, but not
limited to the following are objective indicators
that a Conversion for Conservation Purposes is
contemplated or has occurred:
1. A pend
)osed or completed recordation of. a
conservation easement or similar deed
restriction or agreement which limits the use
of a parcel or parcels to those uses which are
consistent with such a Conversion.
2. A pendi
ed or completed transfer of
ownership of property to a government entity or
agency or a private entity, association or
person engaged in and/or facilitating
Conversion for Conservation Purposes.
6ction 8. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or t
9
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
28
pplication thereof to any person or circumstances is for an
eason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction
uch provision shall be deemed severable, and the invalidit
hereof shall not - affect the remaining provisions or -othe
pplications of the Ordinance which can be given effect without th
nvalid provision or application thereof..
ection 9. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance shal
ake effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage. Th
lerk of the Board of Supervisors is authorized and directed t
ublish this ordinance before the expiration of fifteen (15) day
fter its passage. This Ordinance shall be published once, wit
he names of the members of the Board of Supervisors voting for an
gainst it, in the a newspaper o
eneral circulation published in the County of Butte, State o
alifornia.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the Count
f Butte, State of California,. on the day o
2002, by the following vote:
ES:
OES:
BSENT:
OT VOTING:
TTEST:
AUL McINTOSH, Chief
dministrative Officer
nd Clerk of the Board
R.J. Beeler, Chair of the
Butte County Board of Supervisors
10
1
2 :\ORDINANC\CON VERSIONuse3.wpd
3 '
4
5
6
7
8
,= 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
}
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
n
27
3
28
s
r
11