Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Gen Plan 2030 update - 12-13-11
Page 1 of 1 From: VANCOURT/I~ISER [vancourt7027@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:07 PM To: Wahl, Larry; Connelly, Bill; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Subject: rezoning for house concerts Dear Butte County Supervisors, Please do not rezone to allow for house concerts. There are commercial venues for concerts. Residential areas are not the appropriate place. Sincerely, J.Heiser Chico (_ U~ ~~S ~~~ ~ o~ S~~~SpRS ~° ~ 2U11 ~~~ ~ ORpV11.1-~~ ~A~'IF~RNIA ~~ ~~ ~--~t ~, ~~~ ~~ ,. , Questions In reference to Draft General Plan Sec. 24-171 D. 1 Minor use permit for House Concerts Dear Mr. Spellings: I have a number of questions regarding the above-referenced section which I'm hoping you can answer for me. To begin with I have a question about ambiguous wording in the copy of the "House Concert" section that was forwarded to me by Maureen Kirk. Certain relevant situations are not fully defined or discussed. The copy I received states that a "House Concert" is "for 51-75 guests maximum, seven to twelve times maximum per year." There is nothing said about events with 75 guests ONCE per year, up to six times per year. These events don't fall under the sections' definition of "Private Gathering" which requires 50 or less guests. As presently written, 1-6 larger events would appear to fall outside of the House Concert definition, and thus not require a permit. Is this consistent with the apparent need to regulate larger gatherings? 1 would also Iike to know how the "seven or more" clause is supposed to work for smaller events Does the seventh "Private Gathering" at the same residence in a year become a "House Concert" and require a permit just for that event, or, if seven events are planned in a year for the same residence, must they all be permitted? The wording as it now stands is not clear on this. Besides these ambiguity in the language, there is nothing written that deals with how the permitting and enforcement process would work. Who would monitor a permitted event _ to make sure there were no more than 75 guests? Who would be checking to see if a "private gathering" actually had 53 guests instead of the 50 person limit now proposed? Who is supposed to monitor to see if a specific residence has more than the allowed six smaller or twelve larger events per year and thus is out of compliance with this regulation? In addition, if there were a complaint about size, there would be no way to tell after the fact how many guests had actually attended. Even if the residence owners were required to provide a record of ticket sales or attendees, there is no way to actually verify attendance. Also, in the event of a violation, what penalties would apply in order to discourage scofflaws? And finally, what will be the cost to the County of the permitting, monitoring and enforcement required by this section? I submit that the whole permitting, monitoring and enforcement process will be cumbersome and costly to the county and doesn't really accomplish anything. There have been house concerts with paying guests in Chico for years without any problems. To my knowledge, the only time Butte County has had a problem with house concerts was when Dave and Kerry Eldridge were forced to shut down their venue, the Birdhouse, for being out of compliance with zoning regulations. I see no reason to promulgate potentially time-consuming and costly regulations where there has been no problem. What the "House Concert" section as currently written will do is allow the Birdhouse to have events with less than 50 people without getting shut down again for being out of compliance with zoning regulations. Dave and Kerry Eldridge stated publically in the Chico News and Review of Nov. 10, 2011, that they plan to have events of 5~~t$~C4P~RU}SOR9 ~yOV 2 ~ 24~~ ~~ ~ ~ : - less six times per year. As it now stands, It would also appear that they could have a number of larger, 75 person events without having to go through the permitting process. In any event, with the proposed language, even if they advertise and sell tickets, ie. engage in a business, they would be immune from any action by zoning enforcement so long as they have less than 51 guests and call it a "Private Gathering". I submit that the main reason the Eldridges have been promoting this section for inclusion in the Draft General Plan is that it would allow them to resume engaging in an activity which has already been found to be out of compliance with County zoning regulations and been shut down. Therefore, for the above reasons- that the proposed section is costly and unenforceable, and because it allows loopholes which circumvent existing zoning enforcement, I am asking that the section on House Concerts be deleted from the Draft General Plan. This will ensure that zoning regulations which forbid the Birdhouse to operate on Blackberry Road will remain in place in order to protect the quality of life and the safety of all residents and guests on Blackberry Road, or similar rural mountain areas of Butte County. Thank you far your attention, Sincerely, Dale Thomas 14611 Blackberry Rd. Forest Ranch, CA 95942 {send mail to P4 box 9191 Chico, 95927) Page 1. o~ ]. From: BCCA [info@benycreekca.org] Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 8:20 PM To: councilCu 106x.com; Connelly, Bill; Breedon, Dan; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Subject: 2nd try saved as Word doc :Berry Creek Heavy Equipment StorageOrdinance Attachments: BCCA heavy equip letter on ]etterhead,doc; Heavy Equip Public Comments.doc; Yuba Cty RESTRICTIONS_ON_COMMERCIAL_VEHICLE_PARKING_AND,~STORAGE-] .pdf My apologies. The previous email's attachments were saved in Pages on my Mac. This version is saved as a word do Dear Supervisors, The Berry Creek Community Association, representing the community of Berry Creek, respectfully submits suggestions for the Final passage of the Heavy Machinery Equipment Storage Ordinance. Attached please find our suggestions, the Yuba County Heavy Equipment Storage ordinance and community input we received via email. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Berry Greek Community Association Executive Council: Loren Gill, Aori Hamill, Skip Gross, Bonnie Vincent, Nanci Glassgow SnfoCBcrr~r~r~e kC;,. orcr cc: Dan Breedon ~~5 ~~5 oo~~oQ~ ,gyp\~ eA~ O~ ~,~ `~oR~~P ~ LSE o~~ oR°~ Berry Creek Community Association PO Box 81 Berry Creek CA 959~b www.BerryCreekCA.orq November 28, 2Q 1 t To: Butte County Planning Commission, Butte County Board of Supervisors Re: Heavy Equipment Storage Ordinance Background: As part of the Butte County General Plan, the county is developing new zoning ordinances. One of the topics that caught our attention is Heavy Machinery Equipment Storage. Currently, the storage of heavy machinery for commercial use is not permitted in rural areas. As the Planning Commission drafted the new ordinances, the ordinance went from not permitted, to allowing it in rural residential areas "by right", without restrictions. We took that to mean that there would be no guidelines or recourse for neighbors who discover that noise, dust and road degradation are a problem on their privately maintained roads. The BCCA stated our opposition to the draft as written to the Planning Commission. We have since met with residents and resident business owners to fine tune what we do want to see in the Zoning Ordinance. We feel that we have incorporated the needs of business owners who need to make a living with guidelines that will protect the rural nature of Berry Creek. We respectfully submit to the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: The Berry Creek Community Association has researched and reviewed heavy equipment storage ordinances in other counties. We aa~ a~ s~~s~sa~s / ~ ~• e~ov 2 g 20~~ ~' ~~ ~ p~oUll.LE, ~A~-1FORNIA t have not been able #o find any o#her county that allows heavy equipment storage by right in any zone other than Industrial. We reviewed the Yuba County ordinance titled Chapter 9.27 Restrictions on Commercial Vehicle Parking and Storage. The Yuba County ordinance lists permitted uses with listed restrictions and exceptions to the ordinance. We would like to see a Heavy Equipment Ordinance that is loosely based on the Yuba County model. Residents do not support permit fees on heavy equipment storage. However we do want to see specific restrictions written into the ordinance that will give neighboring property owners recourse if there are problems caused by heavy equipment storage. Suggestions: Commercial {for hire} heavy equipment storage is allowed by right on parcels in rural zones (Timber Mountain, Timber Production, Rura[ Residential, Foothill Residential and Agriculture) if the following conditions apply: The parcel has direct le al access to count maintained roads. Equipment is owned by the ownerlresident of the property. * No maintenance in regard to the heavy equipment is permitted on the property. The equipment shall be parked or stored entirely on private property; parking or storage of the equipment in the public right-of- way, front yard setback or front of the house shall not be permitted. Hours of Operation: 7 AM to 9 PM. The equipment shall not be parked or stored within any required setback, nor shall any equipment be parked or stored closer than 50 feet from any dwelling on the property or the adjacent property. Visual Screening andlor fencing is required. Heavy equipment storage and transport shall be subject to any applicable noise ordinance. Code complaints need to be supported by a majority of effected neighboring residents. Heavy equipment storage may be allowed on private roads with direct access to county maintained roads only if the entire road is owned by one entity and the road is not shared by other properties. `Heavy equipment storage may be allowed on parcels on shared privately maintained roads if the equipment is used primarily for property maintenance on-site, property maintenance on adjacent properties or community improvement projects. Residential property maintenance equipment should be defined and allowed on rural properties. For example: garden tractor, riding lawn mower, chipper, wood splitter, snow blower and leaf blower. Thank you, Berry Creek Community Association Executive Council: Loren Gill, Dori Hamill, Skip Gross, Bonnie Vincent, Nanci Glassgow TITLE IX. - VEHICLE TRAFFEC ROADS CHAPTER 921 - RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCfAL VEHIGLE PARKING AND STORAGE CHAPTER 9.21 -RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE [46] wet State Law reference-- Stopping, s#anding and parking, Vehicle Code §22500 et seq. 9.21.D1D. -Purpose and intent. 921.D12. - Territorial a ficabili 9.21.020. -Definitions. 921.03D. -Private ra e 9.21.040. -Commercial vehicle arkin on ublic wa s. 9.21.045. -Commercial vehicles over s ecifled wei ht arkin ar standin on residential streets. 9.21.046. -Commercial vehicles over s ecifled len th or hei ht arkin or standin on residential street. 9.21.050. -Parkin or stora a oftruck-tractors on certain lots. 9.21.051. -Commercial vehicle arkin and stora a in Commercial and Industrial zones includin areas zoned Rural Commercial "RC." 9.21.053. -Commercial vehicle arkin and stora e in AE and AJRR zones. 9.21.055. -Commercial vehicle arkin and stora a in a ricultural or timber harvestin . 9.21.057. -Commercial vehicle arkin and stora a in s orts and entertainment zones. 9.21.059. -Commercial vehicle arkin and stora a in flood fain zones. 921.060. - Exce tions to Cho ter. 921.070. -Penalties. 9.21.080. -Enforcement. 9.?1,090. - Severability. 9.21.010.- Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the requirements for parking and storage of commercial vehicles established by this Chapter is to ensure that parking and storage areas on private property are compatible with the surrounding land uses, to preserve peace and good order, to promote the aesthetic beauty of the community and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the County of Yuba. {Prior Code, § 9.21.010; Qrd. No. 1442) 9.27.012.- Territorial applicability. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply generally to all property throughout the unincorporated area of the County of Yuba wherein any of the conditions hereinafter specified are found to be in existence. (Prior Code, § 9.21.012; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.020.- Definitions. The following definitions shall govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Chapter: {1) Commercial vehicle means a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this Yuba County, California, Code of Ordinances Page 1 of S TITLE IX. -VEHICLE TRAFFIC ROADS CHAPTER 9.21 - RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE Code used or maintained far the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the weight specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle. (Vehicle Code § 350{a)) {2) Park or parking means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or nat, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaging in loading or unloading merchandise and passengers. {Vehicle Code § 463) {3} Residential area means contiguous properties where the majoritylpredominant use of the land is residential or the properties are improved with single-family dwelling units or multi-housing units. (4) Stop or stopping means the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official traffic control device or signal (Vehicle Code § 5$7). (5) Standing means a vehicle, whether occupied or not, which has stopped and remains motionless, still or stationary. (6) Store or storage means the keeping of a vehicle on private property (including vessels, trailers, and recreational vehicles) that is not in regular and frequent use and is being kept or reserved for future use. (Prior Code, § 9.21.020; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.030.- Private property. No person shall park or store a commercial vehicle on private property within the County of Yuba. {Prior Code, § 9.21.030; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.040.- Commercial vehicle parking vn public ways. No person shall cause, allow or permit any vehicle of more than two-ton capacity, which is registered in that person's name or which is operated or controlled by that person to be parked on any public street, thoroughfare, sidewalk or other public way far more than five consecutive hours, except: {1) When loading or unloading property and time in addition to such five-hour period is necessary to complete such work; (2} When such vehicle is parked in connection with and in the aid of the performance of a service to or on the property in the block in which such vehicle is parked, and time in addition to such fve-hour period is necessary to complete such service. (Prior Code, ~ 9.21.040; Ord. No. 1442} 9.2[.045.- Commercial vehicles aver specified weight parking or standing on residential streets. The parking or standing of commercial vehicles on streets in residential areas, including self-propelled vehicles with or without trailers, having a manufacturer's gross weight rating of 90,000 pounds or more, and all commercial trailers, is prohibited. Yuba County, California, Code of Ordinances Page 2 of 6 TITLE IX. -VEHICLE TRAFFIC ROADS CHAPTER 9.21 -RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE {Prior Code, § 9.21.045; Ord. No. 1442) 9.29.046.- Commercial vehicles over specified length or height parking or standing on residential street. No person who awns ar has possession, custody or control of any commercial vehicle measuring more than 20 feet in length or over eight feet in height shall park or leave standing such vehicle upon any street in a residential district or abutting any property or area within a residential district between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. (Prior Code, § 9.21.046; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21 A50.- Parking or storage of truck-tractors on certain lots. The parking or storing of the maximum of one commercial vehicle accessory to a commercial use on a lot in the R-1, R-2, R-3, REE or ARIR districts or any residential portion of a plan area or PUD is subject to the fallowing requirements: (1) The truck is owned by the ownerlresident of the property. (2) No maintenance in regard to the truck tractor is permitted on the property. (3) The truck- tractor shall be parked or stored entirely on private property; parking or storage of the commercial vehicle in the public right-of-way, front yard setback or front of the house shall not be permitted. (4) The trailer portion of the truck-tractor shall not be parked on the property. (5) The truck-tractor shall not enter the property after 10:00 p.m. and shall not leave the property before 7:00 a.m. (6) The truck-tractor shall not be parked or stored within any required setback as set forth in Title 12 of the County of Yuba Ordinance Code, nor shall any truck-tractor be parked or stored closer than 50 feet from any dwelling on the property or the adjacent property. (7) Screening of the truck-tractor is required. (Prior Code, § 9.21.050; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.051.- Commercial vehicle parking and storage in Commercial and industrial zones, including areas zoned Rural Commercial "RC." Parking andlor storage of commercial vehicles is allowed in commercial and industrial zones. Where adjacent to residential areas, vehicles need to 6e stored a minimum of 50 feet from the property line that is shared with the residential use. The area adjacent to the residential area shall be screened with a minimum of a six-foot masonry wall and evergreen trees planted 30 feet on center. Evergreen shrubs that reach a minimum of 15 feet in height at maturity may be substituted ar used in conjunction with the evergreen trees. (Prior Code, § 9.21.051; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.053.- Commercial vehicle parking and storage in AE and AIRR zones. ' Parking and storage of commercial vehicles may be allowed by a Conditional Use Permit {CUP) in Yuba Gounty, California, Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 6 TITLE lX. -VEHICLE TRAFFIC ROADS CHAPTER 9.21 _ RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE areas zoned AE or AIRR and in public facilities zones with afive-acre minimum parcel size. Vehicles need to be stored a minimum of 50 feet from the property line and shall be screened from the adjacent property with a combination of evergreen trees or shrubs that reach a minimum of 15 feet in height at maturity. (Prior Code, § 9.21.053; Ord. No. 1442} 9.21.055.- Commercia! vehicle parking and storage in agricultural or timber harvesting. Commercial vehicle parking and storage for onsite agricultural or timber harvesting vehicles is allowed in areas zoned AE and TPZ when associated with an active agricultural or timber harvesting operation. (Prior Cade, § 9.21.055; Ord. Na. 9442} 9.21.057.- Commercial vehicle parking and storage in sports and entertainment zones. Commercial vehicle parking and storage may be permitted with a conditional use permit in sports and entertainment zones. (Prior Code, § 9.21.057; Ord. No. 9442} 9.21.059.- Commercial vehicle parking and storage in flood plain zones. Commercial vehicle parking and storage is prohibited in all "A" classification flood plain zones. (Prior Code, § 9.21.059; Ord. No. 1442) 9.29.060.- Exceptions to Chapter. This Chapter shall not apply under the fallowing conditions: (9) When such commercial vehicle is making pickups and deliveries of goods, wares or merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the residential street. {2} When such vehicle is parked in connection with and in aid ofi the performance of a service to or on a property within the residential area. (3) When such vehicle is engaged in the construction, installation, repair or maintenance of a publicly or privately owned utility fiacility located within the residential area. (4) When the area contains property used for commercial or industrial purposes and such vehicle is parked on the property. {5} When such vehicle is a pickup truck or mounted camper used in daily commuting. (6) When such vehicle is engaged in the delivering of materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any buildings or structures, for which a building permit has been obtained. {7} When such vehicle is a bus that is engaged in stopping, standing or parking for the purpose of loading and unloading passengers. (8} In areas containing developed property zoned AE, when that property is less than 40 acres Yuba County, California, Code of Ordinances Page ~ of 6 TITLE IX. _ VEHICLE TRAFFIC ROADS CHAPTER 9.21 -RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE but the lesser acreage is the current site of a viable agricultural operation. (9) When the commercial vehicle is any privately, municipally or publicly owned vehicle engaged in work authorized by County permit or County contrac#. (Prior Code, § 9.29.060; Ord. No. 1442) 9.21.070.- Penalties. {a} it is unlawful far any person to permit commercial vehicle parking or storage on private property in violation of this Chapter. (b} Except as hereinafter provided, whenever any provision of this Chapter provides that any act is prohibited or made or declared to be unlawful or a misdemeanor or an infraction, or requires the doing of any act, or declares the failure to do any act unlawful or a misdemeanor or an infraction, the violation of such provision may be charged as an infraction punishable by imposition of the following fines: (1} Upon a frst conviction a fine not to exceed $100.00. (2) Upon a conviction of violating any provision of this Chapter, and the offense occurred within one year of a separate violation of the same provision of this Chapter which resulted in a conviction, a fine of $244.40. Far purposes of this Subsection, a bail forfeiture or a plea of nolo contenders shall be deemed a conviction. The prior conviction shall be alleged on the citation or complaint and either admitted or proven. (3) Upon a conviction of violating any provision of this Chapter and the offense occurred within one year of two or more separate violations of the same provision of this Chapter which resulted in convictions, a fine not to exceed $500.00. Far purposes of this Subsection, a bail forfeiture or a plea of nolo contenders shall be deemed a conviction. The prior convictions shall be alleged on the citation or complaint and either admitted ar proven. (c} Separate Offense. Each hour or part thereof that a person violates or continues to violate any such provision of this Code constitutes a separate offense and may be charged and punished separately without awaiting conviction of any prior violation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a second citation shall not be issued until the alleged violator has been provided aten-day period within which to correct the alleged violation unless the violation creates an immediate threat to the public health or safety. (d) Misdemeanors. Any violation of any provision of this Chapter occurring within one year of three or more separate violations of the same provision of this Code which results in convictions may be charged as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not mare than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment in a County Jail for not more than six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this Subsection, a bail forfeiture or a plea of nolo contenders shall be deemed a conviction. The prior convictions shall be alleged on the citation or complaint and either admitted or proven at trial. (Prior Code, § 9.21.070; Ord. No. 1442) State law reference- Penalties for ordinance violations, Government Code § 25132, Penal Code § 19, Vehicle Code § 42001. Yuba County, California, Code of Ordinances Page 5 of 6 TITLE IX. -VEHICLE TRAFFIC ROADS CHAPTER 9.21 - RESTRICTIONS ON COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE 9.27.080.- Enforcement. The Director of the Community Development and Services Agency, or his ar her designee, the Yuba County Sheriff and the Califomia Highway Patrol andlor any peace Officer within the State of California shall have the duty of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter, and such officials are empowered to issue citations for violations. (Prior Code, § 9.21.080; Ord. No. 1442} 9.21,090.- Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, provision or portion of this Chapter, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid ar unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or provisions of this Chapter, or their applicabifty to distinguishable situations or circumstances. In enacting this Chapter, it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors to validly regulate to the full measure of its legal authority in the public interest, and to that end, the Board of Supervisors declares that it would have adopted this Chapter and each section, Subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, provision, ar portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof might be declared invalid or unconstitutional in whale or in part, as applied to any particular situation or circumstances, and to this end the provisions of this Chapter are intended to be severable. State law reference- Similar provisions, Government Code § 23. Yuba County, California, Cade of Ordinances Page 6 of 6 12-4-11 Billie Kanter-Monfort RE House Concerts Erom: Kanter, Billie (Retired) [BKanter@csuchico.edu~ Sent: Sunday, December 44, 201.1 5:10 PM To: Connelly, Bill; wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Subject: RE: House Concerts Dear Supervisors: it is my understanding you will be taking action on House Cancerts at your meeting this Tuesday. I am unable to attend as z have a standing commitment on Tuesdays at that time. However, s would like to inform your body that z have attended about a half dozen concerts at the Bird House. The attendees come because they enjoy acoustic (not electrified) music and enjoy hearing it in a lovely venue that it intimate for the audience and the performers, we arrive around 6:30-7 PM for potluck dinners, hear the first half of the performance, break for dessert, and resume listening for the second half. The audience are middle aged persons and older. we drive carefully and cautiously as we don't live on that road and are not familiar with its traffic pattern, wi dlife habitat, and it is dark. To drive other than slowly would be stupid. I have found motorists who drive less cautiously in this type of situation, are often time more familiar with the road--it is their road. z believe audiences at the Bird House realize we are on a fairly private road and drive and act accordingly--politely. Kerry and Dave are acoustic music lovers and extremely pleasant hosts. There is a jar as one enters the hallway on the way to the music room, for attendees to deposit their $20. This is not monitored. If the take is short, the Eldridges made up the difference. They do not operate the Bird House in order to make lots of money; they do it far the love of music. They do not schedule events year round though to have a concert in that venue during the warmer part of spring or pre-fall would be fabulously beautiful. They are respectful of their neighbors in their scheduling--they don't want the road torn up any more than them. I hope you rule in favor of the Bird House. It is a marvelous asset for those who love acoustic music, good food, small audiences, and don't mind being within 20 feet of the performers. It is a truly unique and enjoyable experience. Thank you, Billie Kanter-Monfort 227 w 3rd Ave Chico, CA 95925 bkanterCcsuchico.edu 80AR;D OFSt1P~~+~$4RS o~o~rtt~, c~~r~oRrv~,a ~~~~ ~ Page 1 t Page 1 of 2 From: Carol Tilstra Nash [tilstranash@gmail.com~ Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 10:23 PM To: Kirk, Maureen; Yamaguchi, Kim; Wahl, Larry; Connelly, Bill; BOS District 4 Cc: Snellings, Tim; Breedon, Dan; DSGeneralPlan Subject: General Plan 2030 and zoning for Butte Valley ao~DOrstsp~RV~soRs Dear Butte County Supervisors, ®~,~ ~ 5 ~~1~ We are writing to request that you, as the Board of Superviso~;~'~0~~~~0R~~~` the recommendations of the Planning Commission that "there be no changes to the zoning in Butte Valley." Specifically, we are concerned that minimum parcel sizes not be reduced. The overriding reason for our concern is protecting water resources for existing and future residents in Butte Valley. This concern has several components. First, while we understand that verification of adequate water supply is a requirement for each, individual development project, we also know that this incremental approach to determining water adequacy will not indicate a problem in advance. By the time these piecemeal studies reveal that additional wells can't reasonably supply water, there will already be existing wells going dry for current residents. Before the county considers changing Butte Valley zoning to allow for smaller parcel sizes, and thus increasing the potential number of eventual wells needed, a comprehensive study of the hydrology, recharge rate and overall status of our aquifer must be done. Secondly, living on property that is immediately adjacent to Butte College, we are very interested in the condition of the College's wells, and are not comforted by the fact that three of those wells have been dropping annually for the last several years. Thirdly, we have personally observed the devastating effects of deteriorating ground water on property values and the finances of homeowners. immediate family members living in Oregon have experienced this situation. Overuse of the water resources feeding their well has resulted in an incursion of 1t water. Their water is now too saline to drink or to 1~gate ~~.nts, and w111 corrode plumbing f xtures within ~~~ ~. ~ Page 2 of 2 six months of installation, The property's value has obviously been reduced to nearly nothing. They have had to install an external water tank and supplemental water supply lines to two locations in their home. And each month they must pay for potable water to be trucked in and pumped to their external tank. Needless to say, knowing that beneath our fresh water table there is a saline aquifer, we are very careful observers of any decisions related to water resources in our area. In recognition of these concerns, we formally request that this email letter be added to the official files for the Butte County General Plan 2030. We are encouraged that the Butte County Planning Commission has recommended that minimum parcel sizes not be reduced in our area. Again, we strongly urge you to accept and follow that recommendation in the adopted General Plan. Sincerely, Kevin and Carol Nash 3532 Cory Canyon Road Butte Valley, CA 95965 Page 1 of 1 From: Gary Baugh [baughgary@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:42 PM To: Kirk, Maureen Cc: Wahl, Larry; Connelly, Bill; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Subject: CHANGES TO A BUTTE COUNTY ORDINANCE Section 24-171: Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors, I have attended numerous concerts at the Bird House in Forest Ranch. each tizx~.e has been a gathering of responsible adults behaving in a reasonable manner. I remember the gatherings happening in late fall and winter so there was no excess dust resulting form the use of roads. It seems to be a place that is away from other houses it that area. I remember that the music stopped pretty early and after that the evening winded down pretty quick. The only admission from what I recall is that of a donation jar that was un-monitored. Some of the people that have played there are musicians of national consequence and it was a pleasure to see them in such an intimate setting. I consider the birdhouse one of those special places that helps contribute to the reputation and character of this area. I urge you to consider the American tradition of free assembly by supporting The Bird House. I thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Gary Baugh Chico Arts Commissioner Gary Baugh Visual Artist/Designer baughgary@yahoo. com 530-518-6980 ~o~n o~ su~l=~v~so~s DES ~ 5 2011 OROVILI.~, CA1.lFORNIA , i / % . ~ ~~! ;~~~ Page 1 of 3 From: Kerry Eldridge [kerrysspot@yahoo~com~ Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 7:22 PM T©: Kerry Eldridge; Kirk, Maureen; Wahl, Larry Cc: Yamaguchi, Kim; BOS District 4; Connelly, Bill ~ov~~orsu~~~v~soRs Subject: Re: House Concerts in Foothill locations DEI: O ~ 2~1~ Supersvisors, Butte o~ovi~~~, ca~~FO~rv~a County 12-3- 11 I was informed today by Maureen Kirk that my letter below, dated 12-1 M11 will become part of the public record. I did not know that. I thought I was sending you a privafe communication. I am retracting the statement. I have no proof that any illegal activity is occurring in my neighborhood. I am not attempting any legal action against anyone. Making public unsubstantiated accusations against my neighbors may endanger me, my husband and our properly. Thank you, Kerry Eldridge. From: Kerry Eldridge ~kerrysspot@yahoo.com> To: "MKirk@buttecounty.net" ~MKirk@buttecounty.net>; "WWahl@buttecounty.net" ~LWahl@buttecounty. net> Cc: "KYamaguchi@buttecounty.net" ~KYamaguchi@buttecounty.net>; "district4@buttecounty.net" ~district4@buttecounty.net>; "BConnelly@buttecounty.net" ~BConneliy@buttecounty.net> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2011 11:18 PM Subject: House Concerts in Foothill locations To Board of Supervisors, Butte County, 12-1-11 As we approach the date when you will review the general plan including House Concerts, I want to be sure that you are fully informed regarding the origins of complaints about our particular site, The Birdhouse, on Blackberry Road in Forest Ranch. Since House Concerts exist through out the county, yet we have been the first to have problems, what is the difFerence in our area? Many of our neighbors are involved in the cultivation and sale of marijuana, ~n fact, the number of households involved has grown this year. These operations exist on both Crown Point and Blackberry roads. During harvest this year, i counted (with my nose) no less than 5 households obviously involved in cultivation, between the top of Crown Point Road and our home on Blackberry. There are more as you travel further up Crown Point Rd. We're not against marijuana growing, necessarily. But it (illegal growin . of marijuana) does, and has, created a culture of paranoia a~ crec~~re in our neighborhood and throughout the county. ~~ [/~j} ~~ Page 2 of 3 Our neighbors main concern the sa is the safe of our road. The actual danger to a driver using our road is 0 based upon the fact that there has been 0 injury accidents on Crown Point or Blackberry Roads in the last decade. The actual danger to folks due to gun violence brought on by out of control pot growers is real. I recall reading about two shootings this year, related to pot growing, one in Oroville on Sept .9th and. one in Berry Creek on Sept 27th. David and I have each been run ofF the road in separate incidents by a grower from our neighborhood. He has corraled and threatened friends and family with gun violence on numerous occasions. Both our daughter and a neighbor's daughter are terrifed to walk alone in our neighborhood. We informed law enforcement, and were told, our neighbor has a "right" to threaten folks with his gun, but that if he were to run us off the road again, that would be considered assault. We were told we should request a restraining order. We never did. He has also destroyed our property, smashing our signs that show folks how to get to our house. It should be easy to understand why we have not met with our neighbors. Traffic and fire dan er are two more concerns expressed by our neighbors. Because there is traffic created when folks arrive daily during harvest to help process and buy the pot, and because this is occurring during high fire season, it makes our neighbors complaints about The Birdhouse, seem a bit fishy. There is no way our neighbors "don't know" about the pot growing. If you have any growers living near you, you know what I mean. The smells are extreme. That means the whole neighborhood is "OK" with preserving this marijuana culture, legal or not. We feel that this, in combination with general anger (over the road), is the impetus for shutting us down. Even if it's not the reason they complained about us, the sense of injustice to us is huge.To be singled out for regulation by the county, while our neighbors blatantly break the law. David and I have raised this issue (of illegal activity) several times with the planners. We also spoke with Mike Ramsey and Sheriff Smith. We were told by Mr Ramsey, that the county is aware of illegal marijuana growing in our area, but cannot do anything about it. Talk about a nuisance! Finally, we are accused of runnin a business. House Concerts are NOT commercial enterprises, as one neighbor suggests, but many marijuana growing operations are. What we are asking, is that the Supervisors and the folks of Butte county support the wholesome, positive community building that is created when we and other House Concert hosts open our homes to amazing artists and friends. Page 3 of 3 We believe that House Concerts and other creative endeavors like wineries and organic farms can serve as a beacon of culture and civility in our rural areas, allowing county residents to experience and share, briefly in the beauty that is our our county, butte county. What is the alternative? We're just hoping the Supervisors can see through the smoke {pun intended). David and Kerry Eldridge ~; 14629 Blackberry Road Forest Ranch, CA 95942 kerrysspotC>yahoo.com (530) 893-9571 Steven G. Margolin Renee Margolin 3777 Royal Mountain Road Butte Valley, California 95955 December 4, 2091 BY E-MAIL Hon. Steve Lambert, Chairman Hon. Bill Connelly Han. Maureen Kirk Han. Larry Wahl Hon. Kim Yamaguchi BOAR13 Df~ SUPERVISORS DE's [~ 5 20~~ OROVlLLE,'CALIFORN IA Re: Butte County,.General Plan 2030 and Butte Val[ey Re-Zonin Chairman Lambert and Supervisors Connelly, Kirk, Wahl and Yamaguchi: We individually and as trustees of our revocable trust own just under twelve acres of beautiful blue oak savanna west of Clark Road in Butte Valley. In January, 2012, we will celebra#e fifteen years of living on this property. We enjoy incredible wild#lower displays in the spring, the shimmering blue-gray of the oaks in summer, the rebirth of the annual grasses and the emergence of the rain beetles after the first rains of fall, and the bold outlines of the oaks against the hillsides in winter. We choose to live in this place to dwell with the natives of this landscape --acorn woodpeckers, ash-throated flycatchers, western meadowlarks, coyotes, tree frogs, deer, fence lizards, bobcats. Our neighbors and their children and grandchildren have these things, too, and also raise cattle, sheep, goats, mules and horses. All life is dependent on water. The water resources of Butte Valley are fragile, as demonstrated by the difficulties many in the area have experienced with their wells in recent years. The oaks, the wildflowers, the birds and other wildlife, and we, our neighbors and their children and grandchildren, will vanish from this place if overuse of the aquifer turns Butte Valley into a desert. We object to proposed changes in the zoning in Butte Valley in the Butte County General Plan 2030 and request that parcel sizes remain as they are now. The Butte County Planning Commission has recommended no changes. You have no scientific data about our Butte Valley water resources to justify reducing parcel sizes, triggering the drilling of many more wells into the already stressed shallow end of the aquifer. We require that you, our representatives, act in accordance with the law and leave the zoning alone, ra#her than change parcel sizes without studying the hydrology and considering the known and likely environmental impacts. Please include our letter in the official records fior the Butte County General Plan 2030 update Very truly yours, Renee Margolin cc: Mr. Dan Breedon {by a-mail) Mr. Tim Snellings (by a-mail) Mr. John Scott (by a-mail) Ver~'y my yo s, ~ .r }St ven G. Margolin ~~,~ ~ ~~~ Page 1 of 1 From: Lesley Thomason [elisesmommy@gmail.com~ Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 9:14 PM To: BOS District 4; Connelly, Bill; Yamaguchi, Kim; Kirk, Maureen; Wahl, Larry Cc: DSGeneralPlan; Breedon, Dan; Snellings, Tim Subject: Butte Valley Re-zoning We are residents of Butte Valley. It has come to our attention that there is the possibility of re-zoning our area without any regard to the issue of water. I can understand that there may be property owners who would like to subdivide their property, and I am certain there are plenty of prospective residents who would love to build in our beautiful area. However, the wisdom of proceeding with re-zoning without a comprehensive water evaluation by a qualified company is questionable at best. We strongly object to the plan for re-zoning based on the potential impact an the water supply for the area. So far we have a good well, but worry that increased demand may cause us to struggle for water as many of our neighbors already do. Please consider our request to study the issue at greater length before making a potentially disastrous decision. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jason and Lesley Thomason Bob and Deanna McCullough 2728 Pentz Road Oroville, CA 959b5 / ~ ~ ~,~~~~s 5 s~Q~RV~~o~ ~~Qp~ n~ ~®~~ ~~~` - G~~r~~~~a~P Page 1 of 1 From: Laura-Lyn Burch [lauralynburch@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 4:22 PM To: BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim; Kirk, Maureen; Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry Cc: Breedon, Dan; DSGeneralPlan; Snellings, Tim Subject: Objection to Butte Valley Parcel Downsizing Amended Letter Dear Supervisors & General Plan Staff, We are residents ofButte Valley. We object to any potential parcel zoning down sizing in the Butte Valley area. We request that you do not change the parcel zoning for the Butte County General Plan 2030 Update. We live in the transition zone between the foothills and the Tuscan Aquifer. We have had many problems with our water supply (our well is 400 feet deep) over the years and believe that with increased development our water supply would diminish even further. The Butte Valley area parcel size should not be down sized without some type of concrete sustainable water science studies to backup such a drastic reduction in parcel size. We have been residents of Butte County for 35 years and residents of Butte Valley for 20. Please respect the recommendation of the Planning Commission (Oct. 13, 2011} "to not downsize the parcel zoning in Butte Valley" Sincerely, Jim & Laura-Lyn Burch 2772 Pentz Road Oroville, Ca 95965 Amendment: Please include this email letter in the official record for the Sutte County General Plan 2030 Update. ~~~~~+ ^~ ~-oeF~ ~e+_~``,,,.55 .~~. q~ a }~~ Q~41i ii~.~"~ C7'w'~i ~' ~ r''~ ~s, c~v. ass ~(~_~ '~~'y ~~ S`~" ~~~0~~ W' ~ ~ ~O 7~ ~~V FFF VpV1~1.E, C~`IFpRN1A pR Page ~ of 1 From: john Scott [john_lewis_scott@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 201]. 11;46 AM To: Kirk, Maureen; Yamaguchi, Kim; Wahl, Larry; Connelly, Bill; BOS District ~} Ce: Spellings, Tim; Breedon, Dan Subject: 12-13-11 BOS No Zoning Changes in Butte Valley Attachments: 12-13-11 BOS'Save Butte Valley'.pdf Dear Butte County Supervisors, At today's Butte County General Plan 2434 Update December 13, 201.1, I will read and submit the fallow request to 'Not Change the Zoning in Butte Valley'. Very Sincerely, Sohn Scott, Butte Valley resident c. BC Department of Development Services Bcc. Butte Valley Coalition BQARp OF 54lPERVlSOltS DEC 1 3 2D1~ OR4VILLE, CALIFORNIA / ,~ ~c~ Bas, D~.S Butte County Board of Supervisors December 13, 2011 Dear Supervisors, Subject: Butte County General Plan 2030 / Butte Valley Re-zoning On October 13, 2011 the Butte County Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors of Butte County; that the parcel zoning in Butte Valley be left alone and not be changed for the Butte County General Plan 2030. Until there is an understanding of the shallow aquifer and its recharge in Butte Valley, there must not be any Zoning changes in Butte Valley. Water Science in California is the new frontier. It must be understood before permanent aquifer changes impact our way of life. For example: On September 14, 2011, Carl Hauge of the California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California presented a paper on GroundwaterlConjunctive Management to the California Water Commission. In his report on page 14, his bullet chart read: Full aquifers in Sacramento Valley - Export surface water - Irrigate local land with groundwater -called groundwater substitution - Aquifers are emptied - Recharge with future surface water -May affect existing surface water right - Must maintain adequate flow to the Delta Conjunctive Groundwater Management, a.k.a. groundwater substitution is an unknown science that we must not run full speed ahead into until we have the science and protocol to not destroy our aquifers. They just want to pump surface water back into the ground, sounds simple enough. But, critically important issues have not been addressed in the Conjunctive /groundwater substitution protocol to absolutely protect our aquifers from ignorant or accidental contamination, or destruction of our Aquifers. Simple questions with complex answers. What is the ph of Rain Water? Rain ph can vary with each storm and the ph of rain water around the world is very different, as is the soil composition. We would absolutely not want to pump acid rain water into our aquifer from the Great Lakes Area. Low ph water could possibly dissolve and destroy our aquifer. 1 of 2 What is the ph of our ancient Tuscan Aquifers at all levels? What is the ph of our surface water flows? They do in fact vary... How will surface water interact with our ancient Tuscan Aquifer? Implementing Conjunctive Water programs needs answers before they are used. Conjunctive Water management utilization would have a significant impact on the unknown shallow Foothill Aquifers. Probably like pulling the plug in the bathtub. Also, the blanket statement that our Aquifer is not subject to Subsidence is disingenuous at best, and requires and extensive analysis and explanation. Our Aquifer, the Tuscan Aquifer covers at least five counties in Northern California and a simple hand wave of `subsidence is not a problem' won't do. Subsidence from Over Drafting Aquifers around the world has permentantly destroyed imany aquifers, including the aquifer under much of the San Joaquin Valley, which can never be recharged. There axe already significant groundwater problems in Butte Valley. Please respect the Planning Commission and do not change the Zoning in Butte Valley. There is "no Sustainable Water Science backing any changes in Butte Valley Zoning plan. Down sizing our zoning could destroy the hopes and dreams of everyone that makes Butte Valley their home. Water Resources must drive development Please listen to the Planning Commission and do not change the parcel sizes in Butte Valley that are represented by Supervisors BiII Connelly and Kim Yamaguchi. John Scott 4370 Tao Way Butte Valley, CA c. Butte Valley Coalition ps. Please include my comments and letter in the Official Record of the Butte County General Plan 2030 update. 2 of 2 ill' Page 1 of 2 From: MICHAEL MCGINNIS [michaeldmcginnis@sbcglobai.netj Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:59 PM To; g-marvin@comcast.net; Snellings, Tim; Breedon, Dan; Kirk, Maureen; Yamaguchi, Kim; Wahl, Larry; Connelly, Bill; BOS District 4 Cc: john_lewis_scott@msn.com; crystal.durham@gmail.com; amanda.b.freeman@gmail.com; rangerdave@mynvw.com; harrimanlawl@sbcglobal.net; g-marvin@comcast.net; mstemen@csuchico.edu; carolynshort@mac.com; Maggi Barry; Marybcc Muchowshi; Julia Murphy; MathContr@aol.com; john_lewis Scott@msn.com; laur3290@sbcglobal.net; booksontape@rocketmail.com; lwalker@csuchico.edu; karmaboyer@sbcglobal.net; janmh2@sbcglobal.net; annettecare@sbeglobal.net; julianzener@comcast.net; tonynick66@yahoo.com; Peter-dudley@juno.com; joanne639b79@sbeglobal.net; ramboturney@aol.com; safritsch@comcast.net; tsainta@hotmail.com; sjsears@sbcglobal.net; daviddryfly@comcast.net; plydon294S@aol.com; jonluv@gmail.com; rglofaso@hotmail.com; Filaree@aol.com; hirschbein@sbegiobal.net; celesterdh@mynvw.com; theldachico@yahoo.com; bettyv5@juno.com; ajmendoza@prodigy.net Subject: Re: 12-13-11 BOS No Zoning Changes in Butte Valley Hi John, Can you forward a copy of the letter to the Board. I have a few friends that I have talked to lately that live in Butte Valley tha# are unaware of the Zoning Changes. I informed them I would keep them in the loop. Thank you in advance for forwarding me your letter. Michael McGinnis, Executive Director (530) 891-5865, ext. 102 Arc of Butte County ~ www.ArcButte.org Helping Individuals with Developmental Disabilities and their Families since 1953 ARC Store -Redefining Secondhand Shopping ~ www.theArcStore.orc~ ARC Pavilion -Affordable Elegance ~ www.ArcPavilion.org From: "g-marvin@comcast.net" <g-marvin@comcast.net> To: tsnellings@buttecounty.net; dbreedon@buttecounty.net; mkirk@buttecounty.net; kamaguchi@buttecounty.net; lwahl@buttecounty.net; bconnelly@buttecounty.net; district4@buttecounty. net Cc. john_lewis_scott@msn.com; crystal.durham@gmail.com; amanda.b.freeman@gmail.com; rangerdave@mynvw.com; harrimanlawl@sbcg[obal.net; g-marvin@comcast.net; michae[dmcginnis@sbcglobal.net; mstemen@csuchico.edu; carolynshort@mac.com; Maggi Barry <maggib@becprotects.org>; Marybec Muchowshi <marym@becprotects.org>; Julia Murphy <juliamurphy247@gmail.com>; MathContr@aol.com; john_lewis~,scott@msn.com; laur3290@sbcglobal.net; booksontape@rocketmail.com; lwalker@csuchico.edu; karmaboyer@sbcglobal janmh2@sbcglobaLnet; annettecare@sbcglobal.net; julianzener@comc et; ~~ ~, ~QS, 1~ n~ Page 2 of 2 tonynick66@yahoo.com; Peter-dudley@juno.com; jaanne639679@sbcglobal.net; ramboturney@aol.cam; safritsch@comcast.net; tsainta@hotmail.com; sjsears@sbcglobal.net; daviddryfly@comcast.net; plydon2948@aol.com; jonluv@gmail.com; rglofaso@hotmail.com; 1=ilaree@aal.com; hirschbein@sbcglobal.net; celesterdh@mynvw.com; theldachico@yahoo.com; bettyv5@juno.com; ajmendoza@prodigy.net Sent: Tue, December 13, 2011. 12:34:39 PM Subject: Re: 12-13-11 BOS No Zoning Changes in Butte Valley Dear Members of the Butte County Board of Supervisors: Please know that I fully support the call for no zoning changes in Butte Valley as enunciated in the attached letter from John Scott. We need to know much more about the aquifer, recharge, and more, before we plan for more population growth, i.e., housing, in Butte Valley. Please take our request very seriously. Sincerely, Grace M. Marvin Conservation Chair, Sierra Club-Yaio Group From: "John Scott" <john_lewis_scott@msn.com~ To: mkirk@buttecounty.net, kyamaguchi@buttecounty.net, Iwahl@buttecounty.net, bconnelly@buttecounty.net, district4@buttecounty.net Cc: tsnellings@buttecounty.net, dbreedon@buttecounty.net Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1.1:45:55 AM Subject; 12-13-11 BOS No Zoning Changes in Butte Valley Dear Butte County Supervisors, At today's Butte County General Plan 2030 Update December 13, 2011, I wi[I read and submit the follow request to 'Not Change the Zoning in Butte Valley'. Very Sincerely, John Scott, Butte Valley resident c. BC Department of Development Services Bcc. Butte Valley Coalition